[X] My Assistant

[ljk4-1]

Cornell President Rawlings Condemns Intelligent Design

Drawing from sources ranging from Cornell's founders to Voyager
space missions, Interim President Hunter R. Rawlings III condemned
the push to teach intelligent design in public schools Friday. The
attack came during the president's State of...

http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/...4/435c7762cf891


"The desire to understand the world and the desire to reform it are the two great engines of progress." - Bertrand Russell

[deglr6328]

.......Most scientists will say they reject Intelligent Design because it is not supported by facts. It is a good reason. But I am afraid that, in some cases, they reject it because it involves a metaphysical entity. This is not a good reason. I think that, even in science, we are not allowed to reject a-priori such explanations. Simply, until today, there is no physical evidence of any such entities, so that it is still largely speculative to invoke them. A possibility is that we shall NEVER have any physical evidence of the existence of God or other metaphysical/spiritual entities, because these evidences exist, but are not in the domain of physics. In this case physical science will have to admit that it cannot explain everything.

I would like to very strongly, but respectfully disagree on this point. I think it is not only ok and an equally good reason to reject it; but it is in fact necessary to reject things like ID from the realm of scientific inquiry precisely because it involves a metaphysical entity. It is an idea that by definition belongs fully and completely within the supernatural realm. It is an idea whose precepts lie outside of the natural world and therefore cannot be examined and tested by our science.

If you accept the idea that there actually is a supernatural world then yes, it would follow that "science would have to admit that it cannot explain everything". However, I (for instance) remain completely unconvinced that there needs to be any supernatural counterpart to our natural world, and therefore I am apt to think that all of this ID talk is just so much bollocks.



If I might, I would like to revisit ljk4's mention of Carl sagan's thoughts about us and our place in the universe. When I first read his idea that "we are the universe experiencing itself" (can't remember if it was in Cosmos or The Demon Haunted World) it immediately struck me as one of the most intensely beautiful ideas I had ever considered.

At first, it is an idea that sounds rather akin to any other of the many "new agey"-feelgood but ultimately nonsensical and subjective ideas of the fuzzyheaded Deepak Chopra type gurus. But on further examination, it is an idea that reveals itself to be the exact opposite of that sort of thing. Its real. We really are living conscious beings that evolved over millions of years on a planet borne of billions of years of stellar elemental transformation. It's an idea that just gets better and truer the more you learn about how the universe works and how the evolution of life and finally self-aware intelligence fits so perfectly within the universe. It is a thought so deeply mysterious and wonderful that I think it is the closest I have ever come, or ever will come to experiencing a feeling that might be called "spiritual".