January 31, 2006

Steve Fuller: Designer trouble

Writing about web page http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/profile/story/0,,1698284,00.html

Warwick Sociologist Steve Fuller writes in The Guardian on the emerging debate over Intelligent Design. See also the Podcast: Intelligent Design or Evolution.

Darwinism has had it all its own way for too long, Warwick's controversial sociologist tells ZoŽ Corbyn

For Fuller, religion and science are compatible. He complains that evolutionary theory is being taught as dogma. It needs a "critical foil" and ID satisfies that function as well as anything else.
Historically, he says, it's religion that has motivated people to study science. "We wouldn't have science as we know it today if it weren't for monotheism," he argues, reeling off references to Newton and Mendel and their belief in divine plans. "Dawkins says religion is the root of all evil. Well, even if that were true, it's also the root of all science."

The full article can be read here.

An article also appeared in the Telegraph Saturday 28th January by Stephen C Meyer (one of the architects of the theory) entitled: Intelligent design is not creationism

- 3 comments by 2 or more people Not publicly viewable

  1. Intelligent design is not creationism

    Yes, it is. It's an attempt to wrap creationism in scientific language, and in that regard it is extremely dangerous. It is a non-disprovable hypothesis and is therefore by definition non-scientific.

    Evolution is being taught as dogma because it is a disprovable theory that has not been disproven. All the evidence that we have supports Darwinian evolution, and the ID take on things ("We can't comprehend how this can happen, therefore something more powerful than us must have made it happen") is simply a continuation of the "god of the gaps" argument; God exists because he/she/it fills the gaps that we don't understand by science. The problem is that as the gaps close, God is squeezed out.

    Don't get me wrong here – if somebody chooses to believe in God, that is entirely up to them. But God is by his/her/it's very definition a belief, and the moment an attempt is made to collide beliefs with science, the belief loses. The two are seperate things – different axes so to speak. Science cannot disprove God, and God cannot replace science.

    31 Jan 2006, 16:02

  2. John Dale

    The thing I find slightly dubious about Steve Fuller's position is that he seems to be carefully avoiding saying that he believes in ID himself, only that it could be a "critical foil" and should have a "fair run".

    But if you're concerned about things which are taught as dogma, then why pick on evolution specifically? Why not worry about the way that theories about gravity, or sublimation, or hydraulics, are taught in a completely closed-off way with little or no room for competing theories? My view is that it's disingenuous to assert that it's just the educational process you're concerned about if your one and only area of concern is the teaching of evolution.

    31 Jan 2006, 17:00

  3. If you fancy discussing it in person then come here

    (Am starting the publicity today.)

    01 Feb 2006, 17:31

Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

January 2006

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Dec |  Today  | Feb
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31               

Search this blog


Most recent comments

  • x by x on this entry
  • A tail is made up of 24 vertebrae by Alice Lovett on this entry
  • IS this a trick? by Kevin on this entry
  • Yep – looks amazing. I'm not sure whether the suite has appeared within our educational agreement pr… by Steven Carpenter on this entry
  • What are cats tails made of? Bones? Cartilage? I need a definate answer for a trivia question if any… by chloe on this entry

Blog archive

Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder