2005 witnessed the long-overdue hollowing out of the Iraqi invasion’s credibility; a new American obsession with the economic might of China; and the astonishing success – unlikely to be halted even by the landmark federal judgment in the Dover case in late December – of creationist fideism masquerading as theory in “intelligent design”. 2006 will surely continue in the same vein, with more car bombs, Asian productivity scare stories and assaults on professors who dare to mock religious “science”.
On the last, let us apply the logic of Hume’s Razor. First: what we call the appearance of design may be a judgment of our own devices. Second: why should the appearance of design offer evidence of a singular designer rather than, say, self-organisation? Third: even if there is a singular designer, why is it a supernatural entity rather than, say, space aliens? Fourth: even if it is a supernatural entity, why is it the God of the Christian scriptures rather than, say, the Greek pantheon? (The philosopher Daniel Dennett offers a simpler version: intelligent design cannot be a scientific theory because nothing changes either way if it is true or if it is false.)
So much for that – though Hume probably won’t play in Kansas. (...)
What does 2006 have in store? (part one)
What does 2006 have in store? (part two)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home