Poll: Intelligent Design Should be Taught in Science Classes?

[kozak6]

Intelligent design is a very sloppy way of explaining things. It's just not valid.

It's interesting how upset evolution makes some people. It's not like students are forced to sign in their own blood that God does not exist.

 

[Al Norris]

I just don't get it. Science relies upon provable data. Replicable processes. Science does not disprove Faith or religion. Conversely, Religion does not quarrel with science.

Where's the probelm?

At any rate, Science is what is and should be taught in public schools. Else home school or take the kids to a religious school.

To be fair, not only am I religious, I teach adult religious education. I don't teach science (not qualified)!

 

[Lord_Nikon]

Science is studying what we know, ie provable facts and reasonable theories.

I can't find one scientist who claims evolution is hogwash. Not one. Wouldn't it be prudent, then, to classify evolution as a reasonable theory?

I don’t think anybody can honestly say that any explanation for how the earth appeared is “science”, since to the best of my knowledge, there isn’t a person around that actually observed is appearance.

There isn't a single homo sapiens, living or deceased, that has ever seen a dinosaur. Does that mean that palleontology is not science? No. Crime scene investigators usually don't witness the crime. Is that just voodoo? No. We don't have to observe something to know it exists. We can rely on evidence and contextual knowledge.

 

[tyme]

Isn't the same true of Evolution?

No. Evolution can be tested, given enough time and good enough technology.

Science is the subject of making progress understanding the world. Evolutionary theory (including modifications by Dawkins, Margulis, Gould/Eldredge), as incomplete as it is, at least offers something to explore. Mainstream christianity does not, and proponents of Christianity don't make any attempt to devise tests of whether their beliefs are valid. (Doing so would be an affront to God, I suppose.)

If there were something to the idea that only by unconditionally accepting God can you learn the truth, or be happy, or live a proper life, why is it that there are happy, fulfilled, prosperous, respected, honorable, and courageous atheists, muslims, buddhists, and zoroastrians? Why is it that areligious scientists seem just as capable of advancing science (which happens to be useful to engineers) as are religious scientists?

There may even be some truth to the christian science notion that mind can control matter, or to various groups that believe in telekinetics, telepathy, and other things like that. But taking things like that as truth hasn't seemed to help any believers use those powers, assuming they exist.

A non-falsifiable belief system is not necessarily false. It may be the case that a reliance on the scientific method destroys one's ability to learn to use supernatural powers. It may be that any slight bit of doubt is enough to render those powers unattainable.

However, the difficulty is that as intriguing as the possibility of those powers is, there are thousands of hustlers out there waiting to take your money selling you instruction manuals and guides, promising you abilities, powers, eternal life, riches, or whatever. Chances are you will die broke, miserable, and unhappy even if what you're seeking does exist.

Religion is of the same form; even if there is truth in some religion, you never know, and you nevertheless have to follow one church blindly... anything else and you'll ruin the magic. If there is no magic of belief-on-faith, then the religion does not require exclusivity, and it ceases to become a religion and becomes a philosophy instead.

 

[MeekAndMild]

Well, actually the basics of evolution have already been found to be consistant with observations by molecular geneticists.

It amazes me that there are actually two groups of people arguing against teaching evolution. The first group we know about, religous people who lack the faith to accept a God who is above creating things by sleight of hand. The second group is the subset of leftists who argue that in order to accept science one must accept capitalist principles of ordering one's thought.

This second group is creepy; they are relativists who would argue that all theories are not only possible but are actually true in different frames of reference. For them Kilgore Trout's cockroach dung theory is just as valid as anything else if one has the right revolutionary thought process.

 

[CarbineCaleb]

Science does not disprove Faith or religion. Conversely, Religion does not quarrel with science.

+1 on that. Evolution, if a correct model for the historical progression of life forms on earth (and there is a mountain of evidence and consistent logical analysis that indicates it is)... doesn't have anything to do with whether or not God exists. Evolution "merely" tells us how living things adapt their form to environmental factors over time. Evolutionary theory may be used together with the historical fossil and DNA records to understand the biological history of life on earth. It may also be used in the present, for example, to predict how organisms with a short life cycle, such as viruses and bacteria, may adapt themselves in our lifetime to new environmental factors, such as new antiviral and antibiotic drugs, so as to blunt their efficacy (the best new drug projects in these two classes attempt to make such evolutionary leaps for microbes much larger, and so both less probable and requiring more time).

The principal way that Religion and Science come into conflict around Evolution is when a literal interpretation of the Bible is applied as a natural history text - Woman made from the rib of Man, etc... For what it's worth, many scientists believe in God, but very few view the Bible as a science text or use religion to explain the natural world. They are largely two separate, distinct subject areas. Science doesn't study God or questions of morality. Religion doesn't study the natural world.

 

[danco]

Evolution can be tested, given enough time and good enough technology.

You don't really need all that much time...we get new (mutant) strains of influenza every year...

And people who don't completely finish a course of antibiotic treatment don't kill all the bugs and allow the strongest bacteria to survive and thrive. That's "survival of the fittest," not "the Hand of God."

~Dan

 

[tyme]

Evolution, if a correct model for the historical progression of life forms on earth (and there is a mountain of evidence and consistent logical analysis that indicates it is)... doesn't have anything to do with whether or not God exists. Evolution "merely" tells us how living things adapt their form to environmental factors over time.

But when a religion takes a stand and describes the inner workings of the universe, then retreats step by step as scientific investigation turns those proclamations into swiss cheese, it is hard to take seriously anything else the religion says. The moment a religion gets something patently wrong -- and when it can no longer call the evidence a lie -- the leaders are quick to say, "We were wrong, but only because God told it to us wrong... He is testing our faith. It's more important than ever that you believe... or bad things will happen to you."

At that point, the only clear function of a religion, in this world at least, is to provide a retarding force on scientific understanding, not because of moral concerns, but just to be contrary. Scientific breakthroughs historically have advanced past the point of containment before the upper echelons of organized religions even get wind of it. Where was the religious backlash against nuclear physics, or against biological and chemical weapons? In both cases it was too late, and indistinct compared to general moral concerns that did not stem from organized religion.

So if someone wants schools to teach creationism or intelligent design as science, that's immediately suspect as sabotage, non-violent but ideologically similar to Kaczynski's screed and luddite philosophy in general.

Science is not about the "truth". It is about investigating phenomena that we can use to reduce pollution, to treat and cure disease, and perhaps some day to travel among the stars. Unless religion has something more than prayer to offer, we should keep it out of the science classroom.

 

[Twycross]

I can't find one scientist who claims evolution is hogwash. Not one. Wouldn't it be prudent, then, to classify evolution as a reasonable theory?

Here are a few. Also, you are arguing that something is true because a majority believes it.

It's interesting how upset evolution makes some people. It's not like students are forced to sign in their own blood that God does not exist.

But they are forced to write that the universe came into being through random, purposeless, natural forces. I think that writes God out of the picture. Unless God is a random purposeless natural force.

Evolution can be tested, given enough time and good enough technology.

Yup. But I won't be here in another 100 million years to see the test results.

I see a lot of sweeping statements to the effect of "ID just doesn't have any scientific basis." I also see that none of them have any supporting material,or even specifics.

It amazes me that there are actually two groups of people arguing against teaching evolution. The first group we know about, religous people who lack the faith to accept a God who is above creating things by sleight of hand.

Maybe we just believe that God is not deceitful.

Science is not about the "truth". It is about investigating phenomena that we can use to reduce pollution, to treat and cure disease, and perhaps some day to travel among the stars.

So why would evolution fit in your defenition as science? I don't see any application of it in your criteria.

 

[tyme]

I see a lot of sweeping statements to the effect of "ID just doesn't have any scientific basis." I also see that none of them have any supporting material,or even specifics.

I'm not up on what ID proponents are claiming as evidence this week. Please provide some of this claimed evidence, and if it's not patently absurd, I'll be happy to show why it's equivalent either to creationism (if the "evidence" is philosophical) or to evolution.

It amazes me that there are actually two groups of people arguing against teaching evolution. The first group we know about, religous people who lack the faith to accept a God who is above creating things by sleight of hand.

Maybe we just believe that God is not deceitful.

Evolution is deceitful... how?

Science is not about the "truth". It is about investigating phenomena that we can use to reduce pollution, to treat and cure disease, and perhaps some day to travel among the stars.

So why would evolution fit in your defenition as science? I don't see any application of it in your criteria.

Those are examples of what can be done, not an inclusive list of what can be done. Furthermore, I did not define science. And if you can't understand why evolution fits into science, I suggest you go read about both; wikipedia has decent articles for both the scientific method and evolution. Evolutionary theory has hardly been static since Darwin; it's been modified, perhaps most significantly by Lynn Margulis (Sagan's widow) who proposed that various organelles and even some parts of animals' genomes originated as separate organisms.

 

[Twycross]

Quote:
Quote:
It amazes me that there are actually two groups of people arguing against teaching evolution. The first group we know about, religous people who lack the faith to accept a God who is above creating things by sleight of hand.

Maybe we just believe that God is not deceitful.

I'm not sure what/if I was thinking when I posted that. It doesn't make sense even to me. Sorry, its midnight, and I'm flipping between TFL and my homework.

In regards to the claims of ID scientists, you can check out my earlier link, along with this. I am hesitant to post the actual arguments for ID here, for fear of turning this thread into an arguement for or against ID as true or false, and getting it locked.

I realize that your list of scientific applications was not a list of definite criteria. My response was poorly worded. Our difference is that I see ID as a scientific theory, and you do not.

I am just trying to show that ID is in fact scientific, and should be included in school curriculums, along with evolution. That is my point.

 

[Marko Kloos]

My personal opinion is that ID is not science, and any attempt to present it as such is flat-out dishonesty. It is creationism clad into scientific terms, Paley's Watchmaker analogy reworded to appear scientifically-based. As such, it is religion, not science, because it lacks the most basic requirements for scientific credibility. Most biologists have concluded that the proponents of intelligent design display either ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of evolutionary science.

On a personal note, I find it telling that creationists attempt to justify their faith by using a scientific approach. It shows that even they realize that most people give a great deal of credibility to reason, logic, and the scientific method. The problem is that trying to prove faith with the weapons of the "enemy" (science and logic) is self-defeating. The very definition of faith is the belief in something in the absence of proof...you can have proof of your deity, but then you can't have faith. Faith and proof exclude each other.

That said, I am not comfortable with the discussion and the direction in which it is going. it was only tangentially related to L&P issues to begin with, and now it has turned (predictably) into a creationism/ID vs. Evolution debate. As such, it does not foster our overall mission.