The Finch Formerly Known As Gold

23 November 2005

Not Scopes II

This week's Oklahoma Gazette has an actual debate of sorts on "intelligent design", pitting UCO professor (and blogger) Dr Kurt Hochenauer against Rep. Thad Balkman (R-Norman), perhaps the prime mover for the theory in these parts.

I wasn't persuaded in either direction — there's an "It is written" phrase that comes up occasionally on the sidebar which says "Evolution is God's way of issuing upgrades," which is pretty much my position on the subject (and which, you'll note, sidesteps the question of origins) — but Balkman loses (on) points for talking around ID without ever actually using the phrase: it's as though he suspects that particular dog isn't evolved enough to hunt.

"Critical analysis of evolution?" Absolutely. Any scientific principle worth its sodium chloride ought to be subject to critical analysis. On the other hand, "critical analysis" and "Thad Balkman" really don't belong in the same sentence, and God only knows what I'm risking by this heedless juxtaposition.

Still, this comment by Sean Gleeson is probably the most sensible observation I've seen on this subject lately:

I propose to revisit this topic in 100 years, and we'll see what the scientific consensus is then.

A lot can happen in ten decades.

Update, 29 November: J. M. Branum says he's "torn between both perspectives."

Posted at 6:10 PM to Immaterial Witness

But this year, I might revisit Einstein's special theory of relativity, which he published in 1905.

Posted by: Sean Gleeson at 11:52 PM on 23 November 2005

In which case, you have about five weeks.

Posted by: CGHill at 9:12 AM on 24 November 2005

Considering that the face-recognition thingie mentioned in an earlier post seems to think I resemble ol' Albert, I might have an interest in that revisit.

The odds are against my understanding it, but I'll sure be interested.

Posted by: McGehee at 11:23 AM on 24 November 2005

Where is the proof for evolution? it dont exist ecept in the walnut brains of the evolutionists wackos and the bunch of wacky nut cases and there is intellegent design its just taht evolutionists and liberals have no intellegence

Posted by: spurwing plover at 5:06 PM on 24 November 2005

I guess that fossil record that extends back millions of years is just a buncha rocks huh? Show me the fossil record on ID ...

Posted by: Ron at 7:20 PM on 26 November 2005

Mr Plover himself is a fossil, I am inclined to believe, though he offers scant evidence for intelligence in his design.

Posted by: CGHill at 7:27 PM on 26 November 2005