Now, There Is This Competing Theory…

It should of course be captioned, “If math was taught like some people want science to be taught, but thankfully in most cases it isn’t…”

"Moving backwards in time, one thing that seems certain is that we eventually reach something ..."

A Wrinkle in the Expanse
"The only thing that particularly ran counter to this was your description of something "existing ..."

A Wrinkle in the Expanse
"Indeed, the finding out, the exploration, the growth and discovery is what is exciting - ..."

A Wrinkle in the Expanse
"Well, you're throwing in some words that don't really resonate with me: transcendent, self-extant, life-bestowing.And ..."

A Wrinkle in the Expanse

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Kaz

    Too bad that they got the caricature backwards. The theory of evolution tells us that 1 + 1 = 3, whereas ID says 1 + 1 = 2.

    • Although I suspect that it will only lead to us covering ground that we have already been over multiple times, I will say that I do not see how someone who is well-acquainted with the ID materials as well as mainstream biology could invert the analogy as you do. While the truth is that biology is fundamentally different from math, the evidence for evolution adds up, while the proponents of ID are not even doing research, for the most part. You cannot get scientific results without doing research, and so perhaps the best analogy would be that ID claims to have an answer to the equation, even though they have not gone through the steps to solve it, much less solve it differently than others do.

      • Susan Burns

        The Biologos website states that the only organic system that was created rather than evolved was the cellular structure of flagella. Doesn’t that mean that IDers just don’t understand biology?

        • Are you looking at the Biologic Institute web site rather than Biologos? The former is a ID-promoting site, which would emphasize the alleged irreducible complexity of bacterial flagella. The latter I would not expect to do so.

    • Considering that ID claims not to know the identity of the designer, and can’t even agree whether it is God or not, would not 1 + x = 2 be more accurate?

      • Since they also do not do research, the other part of the equation also becomes a variable. And since nothing seems to be incompatible with ID claims, no specific evidence or outcomes correllate with it.

        So I think a closer analogy to ID would be x + y = z.