Monday, August 22, 2005

pinions of buddy don: tiz a method, not a bidy of facks

one thang i member frum my skoolin is bein tawt bout the scientifick method. twuz in mr oberts class in seventh grade, witch that wuz called jr hi skool whar i went. they had em a ackcellerated class n i gut in on a counta havin been tawt in oak ridge befor movin n turnt out we wuz way ahead of the place we moved to. innywho, one of the thangs we gut frum that wuz speshul classes in science n math.

the science class wuz one of my faverts. mr obert had im a good way of gittin ye innerested, manely on a counta how he taught that science aint a book of ansers but a way of trine to observ the worl n cum up with valid theories bout how it really wurks. i wuz specktin to larn the thangs science had dun prooved, but furst than i larnt wuz that ye caint git 100% proof of innythang much, witch i dint git the full story on that till i gut into collidge n majurd in flossofy.

innywho, furst thang mr obert dun wuz make us memorize the scientifick method, witch here tiz:
  1. observe sum part of the universe
  2. invent ye a hypothesis to splain whut yer observin or how it wurks
  3. use yer hypothesis to make perdickshuns bout the part of the universe yer observin
  4. test yer perdickshuns by creatin sum kinda eggsperment sos ye kin see ifn ye kin perdick innythang a'usin yer hypothesis
  5. repete steps three n fore till ye gut as close a match twixt yer hypothesis n whut it perdicks
fer eggzample, i dun a spearment on how lite affecks the growth of strang bean plants. i perdickted that ye git yer best strang bean growth ifn ye give yer bean plants bout the same amount of lite they wood git ifn they wuz a'growin out in a field.

to test it, i had one strang bean plant a'growin in a field, one in cumplete darkness n one in a closet with the lite a'burnin all the time. my hypothesis perdickted that the one a'growin in the field wood do best. turnt out that the one a'growin in full lite in the closet looked lack twuz a'gone win, but after a while, it had shot up so fast to whar it couldnt hold its ownself up, much less bear strang beans. the one in the dark dint do moren sprout n then die. the one in the field bore strang beans.

corse, i dint larn nuthin nobidy dint alreddy know, but i did larn how yer scientifick method wurks. i bet ifn i studied them same beans long a nuff, i wood larn to perdick whut wood be jes the rite amount of lite to git the most strang beans. taint lack tiz sumthin new.

so the thang i wonta unnerstand from mr frist n mr bush n all them other folks that thanks thar addin sumthin to science by makin kids study intelligent deesign, as ifn thay wuz sumthin beesides science that kin give ye results.

but heres whut i wonta ast them that supports teachin this stuff. ye wood half to add mitt that by addin it to the science curricula all over the cuntry, yer reducin a matter of faith to a hypothesis. ye dun yer observin of life n cum up with a hypothesis that it gut its cumplexity frum a intelligent deesigner. but now yer to the part whar ye gut to cum up with a eggspearment whar ye kin test yer hypothesis. now eethur god is everwhar all the time a'doin his intelligent deesignin, or god aint, witch i dont speck nobidy bleevin in intelligent deesign to bleeve god has inny part of the universe off limts to god or that god wood be takin brakes. so taint possibull to set up two thangs, one with a intelligent deesigner n tuther without it. so how kin ye test yer hypothesis?

fack is, whut ye dun with this line of argument is reduce yer bleef to a hypothesis that caint be prooved.

whut intelligent deesign really is aint nuthin new. tiz the age-old argument from deesign, witch flossofers calls it the teleologicull argument:
Teleological arguments are arguments from the order in the universe to the existence of God. They are also known as arguments from design (or, to be precise, arguments to design).

The name “the teleological argument” is derived from the Greek word telos, meaning end or purpose. When such arguments speak of the universe being ordered, they mean that it is ordered towards some end or purpose. The suggestion is that it is more plausible to suppose that the universe is so because it was created by an intelligent being in order to accomplish that purpose than it is to suppose that it is this way by chance.
problem is, nobidy has cum up with a way of disproovin this competin hypothesis: in a infinite universe (witch is whut we are in, far as we kin tell) over a infinite amount of time (witch we aint gut no way to disproov this neethur) a'wurkin accordin to the rules of the universe that folks kin discover n deescribe in thar hypotheses, inny result could occur eventually, even human life on earth. in other wurds, ye caint proov that human life on earth is innythang more than dumb luck in a gigantick infinite universe. aint no way to set up no eggspearment to proov otherwise.

ifn ye really wonta go into it, ye mite wunder why the intelligent deesigner that spozedly made humans supernatcherly in jes the form theys in, why dint that intelligent deesigner cum up with a model that dint git sick? that dint die? that dint lie? that dint deny the evidents of the senses as a form of faith that ye had to show ifn ye wonted to be wurthy to live in a eternull paradise (or even jes avoid eternal torment)?

why wood that intelligent deesigner give humans reason that kin figger out the scientifick method n cumpletely change the worl in a few centuries a'usin it ... n then tell them same humans that the evidents of thar senses n reason aint valid, but in sted, the human creashuns of the intelligent deesigner has gut to bleeve anshunt relijus texts that defy whut is observed?

my real questchun is how kin teachin intelligent deesign add innythang to science? oh, n kin we test to see whuther sweat n tears spreads AIDS? mr dr n intelligent design advocate frist mite wonta know the anser.

No comments: