I just finished watching Eugenie Scott's lecture about intelligent design and the creation/evolution controversy. It was given at the University of Michigan. She says that creationists have the following misconceptions of evolution: 1) If things evolve, then things happen at random or by chance, 2) Amphibians are more closely related to fish than other terapods, and 3) If the theory of evolution is false, then creationism is true.
She says that Intelligent Design is a subset of Creationism because there is a book about intelligent design that is a revision of some books about creationism and the definitions of creationism and intelligent design in those books are similar. My response is that this does not prove that Intelligent Design is a subset of Creationism. This could mean that some creationists are also involved in the Intelligent Design Movement.
She thinks that science should operate according to the principle of methodological materialism. She believes that supernatural explanations should not be allowed in science. She says that science makes no assumptions about whether or not the supernatural exists. She says that it is wrong for scientists to say, “This phenomena has a natural cause and God has nothing to do with it.”
She gives a critique of the intelligent design arguments. Since there could be some unknown natural cause that can explain certain phenomena, then there is no need to use a supernatural explanation when explaining that phenomena. Many of the arguments in favor of intelligent design uses analogies between man-made objects and biological structures. She says that the analogy between man-made objects like machines and biological structures is not good. Man-made objects and biological structures do not come into existence in the same way. They do not develop in the same way. She talks about the intelligent design arguments that have to do with complexity, but she does not talk about the arguments that have to do with the origin of information in certain biological structures like DNA.
How would you respond to her lecture?
Here is a link to the video that has her lecture. It is 1.5 hours long.
[video=youtube;PE3Qvfm8jU0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE3Qvfm8jU0&feature=related[/video]
She says that Intelligent Design is a subset of Creationism because there is a book about intelligent design that is a revision of some books about creationism and the definitions of creationism and intelligent design in those books are similar. My response is that this does not prove that Intelligent Design is a subset of Creationism. This could mean that some creationists are also involved in the Intelligent Design Movement.
She thinks that science should operate according to the principle of methodological materialism. She believes that supernatural explanations should not be allowed in science. She says that science makes no assumptions about whether or not the supernatural exists. She says that it is wrong for scientists to say, “This phenomena has a natural cause and God has nothing to do with it.”
She gives a critique of the intelligent design arguments. Since there could be some unknown natural cause that can explain certain phenomena, then there is no need to use a supernatural explanation when explaining that phenomena. Many of the arguments in favor of intelligent design uses analogies between man-made objects and biological structures. She says that the analogy between man-made objects like machines and biological structures is not good. Man-made objects and biological structures do not come into existence in the same way. They do not develop in the same way. She talks about the intelligent design arguments that have to do with complexity, but she does not talk about the arguments that have to do with the origin of information in certain biological structures like DNA.
How would you respond to her lecture?
Here is a link to the video that has her lecture. It is 1.5 hours long.
[video=youtube;PE3Qvfm8jU0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE3Qvfm8jU0&feature=related[/video]