Iowa State faculty want the world to know what they think of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory: NOT.
A statement published in the student-run newspaper, the Iowa State Daily, was signed by more than 120 faculty members.
I'm giving them three cheers for the statement, but wish they'd consulted an editor before releasing it. They did pretty good up until Point 3 in paragraph 3. If this statement was meant for the general public, it needs some more work. The scientists have got to learn how to talk to average folks in more understandable language. I do like this line from paragraph 5, which I think should have been featured much, much earlier in the statement:
Whether one believes in a creator or not, views regarding a supernatural creator are, by their very nature, claims of religious faith, and not within the scope or abilities of science.
I think the scientists ought to be talking more about the limits of science - how science just isn't equiped to handle the discussion about a designer in the universe, that science doesn't have the tools needed to take on that debate, and that the needed tools are only available in religious settings. Which, properly, is where such discussions belong. Give praise to religion, cede to it all that it properly should be taking care of. Make note of the fact that the existence of a Designer/Creator has, traditionally, been a subject of faith and not something that has been subjected to proof, whereas everything in science is subjected to tests for proof.
The scientists should then shake their heads regretfully and say that they would not want to be the source of undermining anyone's religious faith by doing something so shallow as attempting to subject the existence of a Designer/Creator to proof in a science classroom. Because faith in existence of a Designer/Creator is something that, most properly, they support students learning about in religion classes.
It's worth a try. Because, after all, it's true.
12:42:13 PM 
|
