Saturday 17 December 2011

A222 - Exploring Philosophy : TMA 02 Submitted

I got a couple of days extension due to working abroad for the last 2 weeks and only arriving back in the UK on Friday. The TMA was written, but I just needed a couple of hours to tidy up references as the massive course text book was just too heavy to carry abroad, and I couldn't get access to any of the internet audios either.

Anyway, it is done now and just shy of the 2000 words. I could have done with a higher word count but I think I've got it all in. Teleological arguments for existence of God all demolished by theory of evolution, Cosmological arguments themselves demolish the argument for interventionist Gods, but leave room for a deist God.

Also found out that the University where Behe teaches have effectively denounced him as the creationist nutter that he is - check out this link Lehigh University Statement

Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"

The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others. 

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

 

No comments: