Opinions

Unintelligent design

Publication YearIssue Date 

Editor, the Gauntlet,

[Re: "Point: Intelligent Design," Opinions, December 8, 2005]

I'm not a biologist. My true love is mathematics, and I admit there's much about evolutionary theory I don't understand nor am in any position to defend. But the wonderful thing about this "debate" is that nine times out of 10 it doesn't require defending the science behind it--though such defenses do exist and can be provided by people smarter than me--but simply attacking ridiculous logic.

Mike Kelbert's opinions piece imagines a false dichotomy: God or evolution, and that the belief in one must exclude the other. Not only is this a ridiculous, intellectually dishonest claim on its face, but it is demonstrably false. (I'd love to see him argue that the Catholic Church preaches secular humanism.)

He then goes on to claim that secular humanism entails personal unaccountability. So how does he explain existentialism, a humanistic philosophy whose central tenet is man's ultimate personal responsibility? Mike is using buzzwords, and what's worse is that he has no idea what they mean.

Intelligent design deserves an honest debate, but its proponents refuse to put forth honest arguments. They, like Mr. Kelbert, have all the easy answers in the world, but they bring no information to the table. If they lack it they should--to quote Augustine--pick up and read, read, read. The more they do so, the more information they will have but fewer answers. They should realize this isn't a bad thing; it's what intellectual discourse, and the road to scientific discovery, is about.

Tags: 

Section: 

Issue: