Intelligent Design: Another Example of Faith-Based "Science"

authordefault
on

The argument of Intelligent Design versus the Theory of Evolution is not exactly analagous to the argument between the climate skeptics and the (real) climate scientists. But the very existence of an ID movement, and the startling degree to which it has gained adherentsย in the U.S., is symptomatic ofย a larger publicย campaign to subvert science for religious or economicย reasons.

This campaign sometimes succeedsย because many people don’t want to invest scarce hours in trying to fullyย understand the competing positions. They don’t want to become climate scientists or evolutionary theorists. They just wantย someoneย to tell them theย truth.

But howย do you weigh truth without seriously considering the evidence? Howย do you judge credibility whenย the intellectual combatants are expert at dressing up their spokesters and their arguments with the trappings of of scientificย โ€œevidenceโ€?

Well, in the case of Intelligent Design, we have the attachedย findings of a Pennsylvania court, which tested the ID โ€œtheoryโ€ and found only religious fundamentalism. It’s not quite breezy reading – which, again, will limit its effectiveness in raising public understanding – but it’s a conclusive and extremely credible assessment of theย arguments.

It would be nice to have a court case weighing the current evidence of climate change against theย increasingly looney counterclaims. In the absence of such a case, the global consensus ofย the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shouldย suffice.

Still, those who would deny the science – especially coal and oil companies that put their own profits ahead of everything else – don’t need to win the argument. They must only convince people that thatย is an argument – that the issue is undecided. That, then, undermines the public support for the policies that we need to address theย problem.

At the end of the day, we must all be skeptical. That doesn’t mean choosing sides with people who call themselves โ€œskeptics.โ€ It means taking the responsibilityย to make a critical decision. If 2,500 of the most prominentย climate scientists in the world say one thing, and half-a-dozen economists and industry-funded hacks say something else, that’s not an argument,ย it’s a farce. It’s just that, in this case, the implications areย particularlyย unfunny.ย 

authordefault
Admin's short bio, lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit. Voluptate maxime officiis sed aliquam! Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit.

Related Posts

on

With a federal election looming, reps from Amazon and TC Energy discuss how a new Pierre Poilievre government could slash bureaucracy โ€˜more quicklyโ€™ than Trump.

With a federal election looming, reps from Amazon and TC Energy discuss how a new Pierre Poilievre government could slash bureaucracy โ€˜more quicklyโ€™ than Trump.
on

During trial, judge refused to let Mannโ€™s lawyers present the jury with corrected data, then ruled that they intentionally lied about that data.

During trial, judge refused to let Mannโ€™s lawyers present the jury with corrected data, then ruled that they intentionally lied about that data.
on

Build Canada and oil baron Adam Waterous appear to be shaping energy policies endorsed by leader Pierre Poilievre.

Build Canada and oil baron Adam Waterous appear to be shaping energy policies endorsed by leader Pierre Poilievre.
on

The broadcaster has asked one of its leading current affairs hosts to stop presenting a show about heat pumps.

The broadcaster has asked one of its leading current affairs hosts to stop presenting a show about heat pumps.