Friday, August 31, 2007

Good Question

Granville Sewall poses a simple yet telling question to Darwinists:

In any debate on Intelligent Design, there is a question I have long wished to see posed to ID opponents: "If we DID discover some biological feature that was irreducibly complex, to your satisfication and to the satisfaction of all reasonable observers, would that justify the design inference?" (Of course, I believe we have found thousands of such features, but never mind that.)

If the answer is yes, we just haven't found any such thing yet, then all the constantly-repeated philosophical arguments that "ID is not science" immediately fall. If the answer is no, then at least the lay observer will be able to understand what is going on here, that Darwinism is not grounded on empirical evidence but a philosophy.

The "ID is not science" arguments would fall because if the answer is yes then there is a test to which ID can be put and have the theory confirmed. At the same time such a find would falsify the Darwinian view that only physical processes are at work in producing biological structures.

If the Darwinist answers no then he is acknowledging that no amount of evidence would ever count against his theory. If that's the case then the theory is simply not subject to being falsified and is a metaphysical, rather than a scientific, hypothesis.

I'm sure that were this question posed to the critics of ID they'd try to duck it somehow rather than answer it forthrightly. They'd pretty much have to.


Hypocrisy and Senator Craig

Like you, probably, I've heard a number of people criticize Sen. Larry Craig for his homosexual advances in an airport restroom, not on the basis of their homosexual nature or of the sleaziness of soliciting anonymous sex in a public restroom but because, they allege, Craig is a "hypocrite."

The charge of hypocrisy is levelled on the grounds that Craig, though presumably gay or bisexual, is politically opposed to both gay marriage and gays serving in the military.

I guess what I'm having trouble with is figuring out why his opposition to these policies is hypocritical just because he himself is gay. Lots of women oppose having women serve in the military. Does that make them hypocritical? Lots of blacks oppose affirmative action for blacks. Are they hypocrites? Indeed, there are open gays who oppose gay marriage, and no one calls them hypocrites.

Just because someone is gay how does it follow that he's being inconsistent if he opposes a policy that purportedly benefits gays? Lots of people who smoke or drink tell their children it's wrong to do it, and we say that it's good that they try to persuade their children not to follow their example.

Having said this I do think that Craig may qualify as a hypocrite but not for his opposition to either gay marriage or gay soldiers.

A hypocrite is someone who condemns or criticizes others for doing what he himself does. Craig took some public shots at President Clinton back in the 90's for his illicit dalliance with Monica Lewinsky while the Senator was allegedly unfaithful to his own wife with other men. If so, that's hypocritical, but let's have no more of this talk that just because someone is gay they must as a matter of logical necessity favor whatever rights other gays demand.


Of Pit Bulls and Gamecocks

A student of mine raises an interesting question. Is there a significant moral difference between dog-fighting, such as Michael Vick was involved in, and cockfighting which is still legal in some American states? I know dogs are mammals and gamecocks are birds, but is that a significant difference?

Would there have been the same outrage expressed over the Vick episode had he been fighting roosters instead of dogs?

And if cockfighting is just as reprehensible as dog-fighting doesn't it seem at least a little odd that Michael Vick will pay for the rest of his life for dog-fighting while the University of South Carolina glorifies cockfighting by adopting the gamecock as its mascot?

I'm not sure I know the answers to these questions. I'm just asking them.


Battle for the Belts

Bill Roggio provides a helpful update for us on the fighting in the belts around Baghdad in Iraq.