Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hogweed
if it is impossible to know why should one theory hold sway over another? that is the same narrow-minded behavior that the church tried in order to silence scientific inquiry in the middle ages. it was an ill-conceived strategy then and still is. secular society is now playing the role of inquistor simply because enlightenment rationalism still carries the day in academia. if intelligent design is so stupid, irrational, implausible etc. why not teach it in order to demonstrate the distinction between a well-grounded theory and one that isn't? (irealize you never referred to it as 'stupid' or irrational' i am just making a point)
|
The theory that I think should hold sway is that when things are unknowable they should be declared unknowable. If they are unknowable, how can anyone teach them? Science makes no claims about ultimate origins, only proximate causes. Is it this humility that pisses off religious people so much?
Enlightenment rationalism is long dead in academia except for small backwaters at junior colleges. I think postmodern relativists have a harder time making the case against intelligent design.
I think intelligent design should be taught as a good example of confused reasoning.