Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Challenging Bambenek

Column: Unchallenged assumptions - Opinions

Need more evidence that the Daily Illini isn't worth the trees used to print it? Read John Bambenek's latest column, an argument in favor of "Intelligent Design."

Someone might do Bambenek the favor of explaining the difference between science and religion. Bambenek seems to think that arguing in favor of evolution excludes God from the equation. This is not so. People can find room for both science and religion in their own understanding of the world.

As for the University's role, one fact seems clear. The Theory of Intelligent Design is based on religion, and therefore it has no place in the science labs and lecture halls of this campus. Those wishing to pursue their understanding of this theory should have the opportunity to do so. Guest lectures, library resources, and religious studies courses are all appropriate places for this content. However, if Intelligent Design comes to Loomis Lab, this university's reputation will suffer.

6 Comments:

Anonymous John Bambenek said...

You apparently didn't actually read the column.

You also apparently don't know what ID is.

8:53 AM  
Blogger Don said...

I know a mask for Creationism when I see it.

Personally, I buy into the idea that evolution and God walk hand-in-hand. I just don't think science classes should present that idea. It's philosophy. It's cultural studies. It's religion. It's not, however, science.

9:02 AM  
Blogger Don said...

Oh, PLEASE, John...Explain ID! We've got all day...so take your time.

9:03 AM  
Blogger The Squire said...

John - Don's right, Intelligent Design is pseudoscience. If you want, we can take this over to my blog....

And, just so you know, the only reason why I won't be agitating at the Intelligent Design talk at St. John's is because I have a class on Evolution at the same time.

8:15 PM  
Anonymous John Bambenek said...

You mistake ID for the creationists who wrap themselves in ID. And whether it'd pseudoscience, metaphysics, or something else. The real ID is based on observed principles that may or may not be right.

By calling it pseudoscience without learning about it, you immediately presume it is wrong because it's basically the 6th-day creationists all over. That's simply not true.

But in the end, you'll note in my column that I say as much that ID isn't science based on how most people define it. It's also a nice semantical distraction from the issue at hand.

9:56 PM  
Blogger ArchPundit said...

===The real ID is based on observed principles that may or may not be right.

Identify them then. And while you are at it, identify a hypothese that has been confirmed by ID and is mutually exclusive from evolution. Also tell me what evidence would falsify such a theory.

Whether you are dishonest or stupid is hard to tell. Biological evolution isn't about creation--this is simply nonsense. Evolution is about change in alleles over time. It does not address how the universe formed or life started. It simply addresses how life changed over time in very simply terms.

Making up some sort of new meaning for evolution as you do in your article is exactly why people call ID pseudoscience. If you have to redefine an entire discipline for your argument to make any sense, you are not honestly dealing with scientific inquiry.

But now you insist ID isn't science--well then why is it in competition with a scientific concept in your mind? This is befuddling to say the least.

Evolution doesn't address God so scientists don't make any assumptions about God. Furthermore, assumptions can be tested yet, I have no idea how to test your unscientific concept that is in competition with a scientific theory.

Are you attempting to redefine science to make it possible that something might be right?

6:30 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home