Comprehensive coverage

Irrational planning

"Intelligent planning" is the politically correct name of God, and anyone who does not understand this is probably intellectually challenged writes Michael Handelzaltz in "Haaretz"

"Monkey Trial", 1925, Tennessee. The theory of evolution won

the last word

Next week will be Rosh Hashanah XNUMX, and since the years of the Hebrew calendar are counted from the day of the creation of man, on Friday in the first week of the creation of the world, there is no better time than that to deal with the issue of "intelligent planning".

In July 1925, the state of Tennessee put teacher John T. Scopes on trial for teaching the principles of Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory in his class. The defense attorney, in what was called the "monkey trial", Clarence Darrow, exposed the absurdity of "creationism" in a brilliant investigation. Scopes was found guilty of violating the existing law, but was fined only $100. The theory of evolution won, although it was not until 1968 that the US Supreme Court struck down a law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in the state of Arkansas.

On Monday of this week, September 26.9, a trial was opened in the federal court in Pennsylvania dealing with the same issue, but in reverse. Eight families are suing the Dover County Department of Education, claiming that the statement that science teachers are required to read into their students' ears before teaching them the theory of evolution is in violation of the United States Constitution, which maintains the separation of religion and state.

The statement said: "Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it is tested again and again as new information comes to light. A theory is not a fact. There are gaps in the theory that have no proof. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a wide range of distinctions. 'Intelligent design' is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view."

The scientists who support the theory of "intelligent design" - mainly mathematicians and philosophers, not astronomers or experts in the life sciences - do not bear the name of God and do not rely on the Holy Scriptures. Nor do they insist that the world was created 5,766 years ago, in a week of strenuous divine work. They know these arguments are not admissible in American courts. All they claim is that the world is a complex thing and cannot be imagined to have developed without being designed by an intelligent being. "Intelligent design" is the politically correct name of God, and anyone who doesn't understand this is probably mentally challenged.

When George W. Bush was governor of Texas, he supported giving equal status to "creationism" and evolution in the education system. When he was asked at the beginning of August, as president, about the issue of "intelligent planning", he avoided expressing his opinion directly (the combination of "George Bush" and "intelligent planning" is unmistakable) but he stated: "I believe that part of education is to expose people to schools of thought Different thinking... you ask me if people should be exposed to different opinions, and my opinion is yes." The Astronomers' Association of the United States hastened to send the president a letter stating that there is no place for teaching the concept of "intelligent design" in schools, because it is not even considered a "scientific critique" but only a "philosophical statement that there are things in the physical world that are outside the scope of scientific understanding."

Douglas Adams (who is admittedly a follower of the theory of evolution, and it is hoped that this does not disqualify him from testifying) wrote: "God was once the best explanation available to us, and today we have much better explanations. God is no longer an explanation for anything. It has become something that requires in itself an impossible work of advocacy."

The staunch followers of the theory of evolution will be the first to agree that Darwin's theory is not a fact. "Intelligent planning" is also not a fact. It is not even a scientific theory, according to the definition of this statement itself: there is no way to put "intelligent design" to the test. Yesha's rabbis were sure that the disengagement "would not happen". And when what was not could have arisen and was, they could say that it was part of a wonderful "intelligent design", he asked us to investigate it.

The philosopher of science Karl Popper stated in 1919 that the criterion for the scientificity of a theory is the ability to be refuted - or put to the test. And here in the coincidences, most tempting to attribute it to "intelligent planning", Hurricane Katrina happened shortly after President Bush's statements regarding "intelligent planning". And following that came another hurricane, Rita.

Hurricane Katrina, like the tsunami wave in 2004, obviously does not disprove the theory of "intelligent planning", because it is immune to refutations. But like many of the works of man's hands - the crown of creation and the splendor of intelligent planning - they definitely raise the question of whether there really was planning here, and if there was, whether it was intelligent.

The statement that the science teachers are required to read in the ears of their students is apparently merely a compromise proposal: let them live evolution and intelligent design side by side, and the students will choose. In light of reality, I offer the followers of "intelligent planning" a more promising bargaining position: perhaps they are willing to settle for "irrational planning", or even - "the absence of intelligent planning"? Happy New Year.

Courtesy of Walla.

3 תגובות

  1. Yahweh, the King of Yahweh, the King of Yahweh, will reign forever and ever. And more will be added and revealed...let this day come quickly, in our days, Amen.
    God = only a drop of them here that are seen and not seen by all human beings and other created beings that exist that we call demons and spirits, thunder and lightning, clouds and remnants of the universe that we have not touched, there is no end and more will be added and the whole earth will be revealed with one opinion on the holy name Jehovah...

  2. xianghua,

    Why is the question of a theological nature? What is theological character? We are doing science here. So far people here have taken you seriously and politely tried to keep theology out of the discussion.

    You wrote: "Planning theory has nothing to say about the intentions of the planner and the nature of his actions"

    I really don't agree. Just saying there was a planner is not a theory. It is possible to develop several theories that include an intelligent designer and they are very different from each other.

    1. The intelligent planner is God as he is described in the religious books. Unlike my father, I'm sure you don't believe in this theory because a 5-year-old can disprove it while playing on the computer, eating bamba, and explaining to you that snakes can't really talk except in a Walt Disney movie.

    2. An intelligent designer who is an alien who created all the animals or at least a large part of them - then we can discuss if it makes sense and what evidence there is for and against - a fanny experiment, etc. This is what I thought we were doing here. Such a planner may have faults and mistakes that manifest themselves, for example, in Siamese twins, and then we start to think, isn't it more logical that the mistakes are what caused evolution?

    3. An intelligent planner who "threw" the first germ to the earth and from which all animals evolved. If that's what you mean, then you completely believe in evolution and have an alternative theory to the RNA world, which is certainly scientifically acceptable, even if very improbable, but no one will argue with you about that.

    If you want to tell us which of the above theories you believe in or alternatively tell us about a new theory you are welcome. If not, then I don't think you deserve serious treatment. I urge you to end this discussion in a dignified manner. Just... do whatever you want. love you anyway

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.