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