I’ve had the pleasure of being friends with the Oregon-based author T. G. Browning for a few years now. He has proposed a very sensible idea to help move on the Intelligent Design\/Evolution debate. Over to T. G.:<\/p>\n
Okay folks, listen up. This is a plea, not a rant. The entire debate
\nabout the Kansas School Board decision has shifted away from the real
\ncore of the debate. I’m asking everyone who reads this to send it on
\nto at least three other people with a note suggesting that the
\nrecipients do the same.<\/p>\nIntelligent Design (ID) adherents keep saying they simply want to
\nteach the debate. It’s time to do just that. But how?
\nThe answer is so simple that no one has actually suggested it until
\nnow; at least, not in the terms Americans are most familiar and
\ncomfortable with.<\/p>\nMoney.<\/p>\n
I propose the following: A cash fund, administered by an impartial
\npanel that represents both sides, with the money to be awarded to
\nanyone who can put together a scientific experiment that has a
\nreproducible result.<\/p>\nThe debate is whether or not ID can function as a scientific theory or
\nnot. The fund would be presented to the first person or organization
\nthat could propose an experiment that passes scientific peer review
\nguidelines and proves \u2013 or disproves \u2013 any prediction of the ID
\ntheory. If ID truly is a scientific theory, then it must make
\npredictions that can be tested. Let’s accept that at face value and
\nlet the chips fall where they may. <\/p>\nIf this sounds familiar, it is. A similar proposal has been in place
\nfor a number of years for any paranormal claim. The magician, James
\nRandi, has offered a cash award for years, to anyone who could
\ndemonstrate under controlled, double blind conditions, any occurrence
\nof telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition or telekinesis. No winners
\nhave come forward to claim the money.<\/p>\nI’ll be upfront here. This is a sucker bet, because ID is not science
\nin any way, shape or form. It makes no predictions that I’m aware of
\nand no ID adherent has ever proposed any experiment, ever. Why?
\nBecause there are no predictions to test.<\/p>\nI’m not rich, unfortunately, and can’t put up a huge cash prize, but I
\nwill go so far as to put up $250 as seed money. I’m forwarding this
\nproposal to the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims
\nof the Paranormal (CSICOP) with a request for others to start putting
\nmoney together. Perhaps someone rich who has demonstrated a concern
\nfor science education in this country will also put up money. [Bill
\nand Melinda Gates come to mind. Over the past decade, the two of them
\nhave shown a great deal of sense and civic concern.] My goal would be
\na cash award of $1,000,000. That’s enough money to make the idea
\nattractive to even the most cynical of ID adherents.<\/p>\nGod knows I could be wrong. Perhaps some very smart, incisive person
\ncan think of an experiment that would actually test Intelligent Design
\nas a scientific theory. I’d be the first to applaud such a test. I
\ndon’t look for any such test in the near future, however, and will
\nmake a non-psychic prediction for you all. None will be put forth.<\/p>\nI strongly doubt that Michael Behe, William Dembski and Jonathan Wells
\n(three big name ID proponents), will back such a proposal because the
\ntruth of the matter is that Behe and his fellow ID advocates know full
\nwell that no such test is possible.<\/p>\nWhy? <\/p>\n
Because ID is not science. <\/p>\n
It’s a simple as that.
\nwww.revisedevilsdictionary.com<\/a> <\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"I’ve had the pleasure of being friends with the Oregon-based author T. G. Browning for a few years now. He has proposed a very sensible idea to help move on the Intelligent Design\/Evolution debate. Over to T. G.: Okay folks, listen up. This is a plea, not a rant. The entire debate about the Kansas … Continue reading Sucker Bet – more on Intelligent Design<\/span>