Last week I made a speech about evolution and intelligent design (ID) in Toastmaster. The topic is very contraversial, but my speech is strictly limited to inquire whether intelligent design is science. Somehow someone in the audience found it intriguing and decided to feather develope the arguments. He invited people to watch a video supporting ID, then setup a meeting for a round table discussion. Since the whole thing started by my speech, I feel obligated to participate. I missed the video for my classes, so I watched the DVD last night. The video has many cool animation and wild life clips, but it brings out more questions than it can answer. The biggest question is, when and how ID create life? If ID resolve to intervention of super-nature power, can we still call it science? There was many items on the agenda of the discussion, but we spend on the time on the first item arguing on what exactly is science. I am surprise most people doesn’t reject the idea of having a creator. Just like myself, most people take the middle groud accepting theistic evolution, where there exists a creator who use evolution as the mechanism to create life. However, the theistic part of it already falls into the realm of metaphysics. Later, I talk to another friend about this issue. We agree that ID shouldn’t be taught science class. On contrary the science class should teach the limitation of science to shut up the supporters of ID. Assuming science can answer all the questions is simply a wrong in the view of philosophy of science. Forget about evolution or ID, 42 is the real ultimate answer.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"