Lately, the whole argument of
allowing forcing science teachers to teach Intelligent Design in science classes has been all over the news. The proponents of Intelligent Design do not believe in Evolution and Natural selection, instead they claim that life of earth is too complicated to have evolved without the help of some "higher being". Using the rules of philosophy that I learned in my Philosophy 101 class, the argument provided by the supporters of Intelligent Desgin can be written as:
- Premise #1: Life exists on earth.
- Premise #2: Life is too complicated to be explained by Evolution
- Conclusion: Life must be created by some "Higher Being"
This is a logically invalid argument. The premise provides no support for the conclusion whatsoever. Basically, they are pulling the conclusion out of thin air.
I consider myself a scientist (hey, computer science is a science, isn't it?) and I try to keep an open mind about everything. People have every right to question Evolution, but claiming Intelligent Design as science is against everything that science stands for. Evolution is supported by DNA, carbon dating, fossil samples, continental drift etc etc, and on the other hand, Intelligent Design is supported by... well, actually, it is not supported by anything! Sorry, but just because your religious text books says so doesn't hold any weight when it comes to science. Intelligent Design and Creationism is a religious philosophy, NOT a science and should be kept away from our science classes. If they do ever come up with some evidence that negates what Evolution is claiming, I will be more than happy to listen to it with an open mind, but till then, all I ask for them is to take their BS and shove it up their religious ass.