Monday, January 23, 2006

Introductory Paragraph for my research essay...

random news: I was completely taken aback by my art teacher's comments today. Inspired would be the better word.. but it quite flattered me.

Well here it is. The first paragraph. I tried to give a vague idea to the audience as to what will be discussed in the paper. I only hope it was neither too vague nor too in-depth as an introduction. I'm sort of questioning my placement of my thesis statement (bold/italic) but this is why we're turning it in early. Anyone who reads this blog, please leave a message after the beep.

Exploring Intelligent Design– A Secular Alternative?

“The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” Carl Sagan said these words. Something a true scientist like Sagan would not tell you is that science is materialism. He or she would also not tell you that science is a religion, or that science has many interpretations. Only a scientist from the times of the medieval ages would make such erroneous statements. And yet, to this day, around every corner of knowledge that someone looks, there is a person claiming to be a scientist, that tries to hold back the progressive goal of science in favor of the traditional mind-set that has a majority of Americans ideologically entrapped. Such is not science. Science has forever been progressive, and only has ceased when that progress has been suppressed, such as during the medieval ages aforementioned as a specific example. The medieval ages seemed to have seeped into the heads of the modern pious population in particular of the United States. In order to make up for their ignorance, they will try to fill the gaps with anything and everything. In the recent centuries, these gaps of ignorance were replaced by a concept called “Creationism Science” that sought to teach a literal interpretation of the Bible’s Genesis, and apply “science” to it. There was, and still there exists today several flaws with this branch of scientific reasoning, none of which the least addresses the questionable objectivity of the argument. The goal of science is to prove itself, and not to continue to dispel the arguments from half a millennium ago that have all been refuted. Yet they still live on. Over the years, despite constant ridicule, Creationism has resurfaced as a new strain of pseudoscience, called Intelligent Design Theory. Allowed to continue, Intelligent Design will eventually evolve into something that defies all of the principles of science, and will abridge the meaning of Separation of Church and State in this country. There is a difference to be realized between science and ideology. To be science-driven is to objective, and mindful of all the possible variables out there. And many would argue that God could very well be one of those variables. Not only the idea of god, but any possible intelligent force out there which might have created the Earth’s creatures in their present form. The requirement however, of observable scientific data almost always undermines this notion of an intelligent designer, however. So what Intelligent Design (hereinafter “ID”) tries to do is to go a step further, to redefine science from its present sense to fit its own needs. The tactic that ID tries to use is known as the “Wedge Method” which works in a way which the name suggests. ID will wedge itself into society by any means necessary to try to redefine science, and to renew traditional ideas that would hold mankind at a scientific standstill as far as scientific knowledge and progress is concerned. The Wedge Document is the key to unveiling Intelligent Design, as will be the fallacious arguments used by many of the modern proponents of Design Theory. The advocating arguments of course will be the first to go; however, only after a thorough definition of what science is, and what it is not, is finally pushed out of the way once and for all.



1 comment:

Beksuki said...

Extremely well written. All I have to say is, that is a gigantic intro. You are revealing more than just your position, you are already moving to support it. Just an organizational issue, but if it were I writing it, I wouldn't go into so much depth and detail until the body. o.o

I do like the position you take. You are discussing the invalidity of ID as being a true science, without totally dismissing everything it has to say as nonsense... and how science must be objective towards that end.