[extropy-chat] against ID

[gts]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 05:50:53 -0500, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com>  
wrote:

> As a thinker you are surely capable of evaluating the question  
> yourself.  Whether the majority of extropians or any other group concur  
> is not very relevant to that.  It is not at all obvious why you think it  
> is important that there is a consensus on this.   Which is why I asked.

Obviously I have an opinion, as should be evident by the title of this  
thread and my first post on the subject. I agree with those who oppose ID  
as non-science in that it calls for a redefinition of science to include  
non-natural explanations of natural phenemena, and I agree with those who  
object on similar grounds that ID offers no explanation whatsover as to  
how the supposed Intelligent Designer intervenes in nature to create  
supposedly 'irreducibly complex' structures.  However I have not actually  
read Behe's book, and I see that ID has captured the attention of some  
reasonably intelligent people, (see for example  
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000091.html). Had I  
learned the subject was hotly debated here then I would have moved Behe's  
book up on my must-read list.

Unlike its predecessor Creation Science, ID theory does have at least have  
the patina of real science. It seems to me that ID is a real threat to  
science education.

-gts