This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is intelligent design science and should it be taught in public schools?
Most definitions of modern science describe a methodology of finding testable explanations of the universe or similar.
I often hear evolution is a theory not a fact. A scientific theory explains the facts and is verifiable or demonstrable. Evolution is one of the most validated theories around.
I propose ID is not science. It is not verifiable and its challenges to evolution. For example the arguments about irreducible complexity have been debunked e.g. a subset of components of the bacterial flagellum are used by some bacteria inject harmful proteins into other cells. There are so many transitional forms scientists argue whether some of them are birds, reptiles or mammals.
To allow ID into science you would need to change the definition of science and drop the testable requirement. This would enable astrology, alchemy and crystal healing alongside astronomy, chemistry and physics.
I also hear the argument why not include all sides of the debate. Scientifically there is no debate. Philosophically, this is akin to suggesting alchemy be taught alongside chemistry, or Greek mythology as history.
I propose it should not. This does not stop parents teaching their kids any religious dogma they choose within the law. But it is not science and religious beliefs have no place being taught in public schools.
Closing Statement from Obey No1kinobe
ID is a form of creationism promoted by the Discovery Institute and supported by many evangelical Christians. The Institute defines it as "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Evolutionary theory is the foundation of modern biology. Whether you want to believe it or not explains the development different species and genetic similarities between species. Essentially gene frequency changes due to natural selection, from less adapted to more adapted. At some stage the divergence of one group may get to the point where they can not interbreed successfully with other related groups or their ancestors ie they become a new species. This is a gradual process, supported by much evidence in the fossil record, DNA and gene analysis.
The key argument for ID is irreducible complexity which proposes the bacterial flagellum, immune system, blood clotting could not have evolved or developed from something similar. They need all the parts to do anything. In all cases it has been proven that these are reducable. They could have evolved.
ID is basically, life is complex, hard to explain, so it must be designed. Read the comments and Í hope you see there is a sound argument that ID has tried to bypass scientific consensus. It is a discredited hypothesis except for those who want to believe. Also, you start to get into mythology when you try and describe and explain the creator for which there is nop verifiable evidence.
While there is no scientific evidence for design, we can not scientifically say the universe isn't. That is a philosophical question. If you value the truth then science can inform faith. We can respect religion except where it is wrong. The universe is not 6,000 years old. Life evolved. We should not make special exceptions to promote falsehoods in schools. Our children deserve better. If our growing understanding makes some beliefs obsolete, so be it
stefan schmidt
6. I am not sure I can say if ID SHOULD be taught in public schools or not. That depends on what exactly is taught, how it is taught, and what is the goal of public schools in the first place. I do think a beneficial conversation for children and communities to have would be "given a definition of ID and using scientific methodology, do you think ID is accurate as an explanation?"
7. I can see, deeper in the thread, you addressed some of what I brought up including your working definition of ID. Sorry for the initial oversight.
stefan schmidt
I hope this hasn't already been addressed farther down the thread, but here are my thoughts on that above, at the moment.
1. I think your proposition that "ID is not science", is valid so far as everyone agrees on terminology. You open with a definition of science as a "methodology of finding testable explanations". You don't seem to define intelligent design explicitly but I am assuming (correct me if I am wrong), that it is an "explanation of the universes origins and more specifically of the beginnings of life as we know it, which posits the presence of a being who is capable of creating as such." So, simply by definition, you have two different things: 1. a methodology of finding explanations (and I would add, testing them) 2. an explanation. Because an explanation is not a methodology, your statement, "ID is not science", is valid.
2. You seem to wander from the above into an argument regarding the validity of ID as an explanation without defining it.
3. Intelligent design is a term with a wide range of definitions which may include ET as a accurate explanation of genetic diversity. Depending on the definitions, ID may include a being that created the driving forces that ET behaves within.
4. I propose you use science(a methodology) to evaluate ID (a possible explanation).
5. Please let me know if you would like my thoughts on applying science to the evaluation of ID and ET as explanatory theories.
Charles LeRoy
Sam Iam
Nicole Small
Obey No1kinobe 50+
George Kong 30+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I personally believe it is abuse of the rights of the child.
But I'm not sure if making it illegal is the right thing. It would be almost impossible to control anyway.
john lee
john lee
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Charles LeRoy
Santa Claus may not be real to adults but the power of myth and story hasn't caused innumerable child defects or psychological disorders to children in disturbingly epic proportions. They grow out of it (some sooner, some later) and appreciate imagination and fairy tales as Jungian playgrounds of sort. I believe Intelligent Design advocates will also or at least I hope so.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Just trying to ensure science gets taught in science. This is a long way from communist or atheist indoctrination.
I doubt they will grow out of it unless they grow out of the core beliefs or something else is invented to try and get their beliefs into schools.
Even though ID has been scientifically debunked, believers still cling to it. In one of the trials the main proponent of irreducible complexity was presented with dozens of peer reviewed scientific papers debunking his claim that the immune system was irreducible and could not have evolved. He told the judge that this was not sufficient evidence for him. He just ignored it. WE see this with radiometric dating etc. It is the dogmatic religious mindset. The bible must be true.
When ID was raised with me initially I didn't have an answer. I was skeptical, but did not have enough information to completely debunk the IR bits. So I went looking to understand it. Now I have a better understanding and it is not a scientifically robust hypothesis.
Charles LeRoy
As Tibetan Buddhist (or how about just a Buddhist or even better...just a man in general) and per practice and free will, I do not believe in a Creator designer (as worded). I believe that evolution is reliable, inspiring so much gratitude and appreciation for the world we live in and all its bounty. It's truly unfortunate that many people miss this focal point.
I do think science should be taught just as standalone science in schools unless the class is specifically a scientific-intel design curriculum, which is really delving into the social science or social studies stage. However, I also would like to see Intel Design as another class that would give students an opportunity to challenge both sides of the coin, if you will. Again, science will not suffer and evolution will remain on course if Intel Design advocates pitch their tents on the same academic camp ground.
Schools have gay-lesbian-bisexual-homosexual education awareness, and the preliminary worry by anti-gay or homophobic groups was that such programs would (1) turn entire campuses into gay congregational centers, (2) straight students would be brainwashed into gayness, and (3) ideas as absurd as the school mascot and football team switching to pink uniforms and colors etc... What we generally have found is that gay-awareness does this: raise awareness, promote sensitivity and diminish hate crimes by not condoning violence. If a student chooses a gay option it's either an inherent thing or experimentation; not an awareness program. Therefore, the brainwash argument is invalid. And assuming that pink is strictly a gay color or somehow weakens an athletic program is just a reflection of homophobic hysteria.
As such, I don't think people should be Intel Designerphobic. I'm not. You either disagree or agree. Whatever the case may be, public schools should be open forums for open debate.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I'm not sure legitmising ID by teaching it alongside science, or raising the debate in science classes is the same thing as awareness education about sexuality.
The attack on science, particularly evolution is about undermining science that doesn't agree with a particular type of creationist belief. Have you heard about the stickers and statements undermining evolution. To the evangelicals this is a spiritual war and evolution is a foundation for evil.
I'm all for debate but I'm not naive enough to believe that teaching the controversy in science class is about open mindedness. Its about putting unscientific debunked religiously inspired as an equal legitimate alternative, or maybe a superior one depending on the teacher, to the best scientific theory we have to pretend there is some science behind creationist views. Its teaching a bit of answers in genesis in classrooms. Its teaching disguised religion under the cover of open debate.
Lets debate it. Fine. Lets debate it in professional science. Lets debate it in public. But don''t let religion sneak into science class if it has no scientific merit. That's my view anyway.
I'm not sure school classrooms are the right place for deciding what is science and whether something found to be religious and non scientific should be taught in schools. I probably wouldn't have such an issue if ID was discussed as an example of trying to bypass the scientific consensus process and the fact that it's key claims are debunked, but I guess it would not be taught that way. Maybe it is a good topic for debate in constitutional studies or social studies in regards to the threat and strategies of christian evangelicals to undermine the seperation of church and state.
Anyway, we disagree, but I appreciate the thoughtful comments and debate.
In Aus we don't have official seperation. So more of a worry. Also from outside the US the tea party and evangelicals and dominionists and some politicians are a little scary.
Jeremy Bransford
Anyways, I have worshipped everything I could to find that thing that I was missing. All it took in the end was worshipping a woman who blessed me with two kids that saved my life and filled that empty spot. My cup runneth over!
I don't think the Vatican even support creationism anymore...didn't they open up to the idea of Alien beings? Oh yeah. Yup! It's okay to believe in aliens now, because the Vatican says so. Gosh I hope there are no Catholics in here...what am I saying - they mourn their faith. (Shut Up Kevin Smith and get out of my head with your Dogma!)
Anyways, for those "believers" out there who have to cling to a man's robe to feel connected to God - you're groupies. Don't get offended! Most people are. We are social groupies! And for those of you who think you have a right to shove your ideals down my kids throat, you better watch yourself...intelligent design is something people do, and I designed these kids to be very intelligent. ;)
God Bless ya!
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Catholic and Anglican higher ups accept evolution.
They don't talk about it much.
The Cardinal of Sydney made of fool of himself on TV with Dawkins trying to explain when a spirit might have been injected during the process of evolution.
We don't need a magic spirit to have a human soul and magical life
Sometimes its the people in our life that make a difference.
Maybe nearly always.
I'm going out to fill my cup.
Cheers
Shane Schuller
Like every literature has a term, an appointed time, relative to social intercourse. I think we write our own codes as we go along, and we should hope our unborn generations don't add dogmas and worship to our failures. However I wouldn't be surprised - lol
I often cannot fathom why our societies put so much effort and TRUST into long gone people yet deny those valid enough here and now. It is this conduct that's limiting our societies.
Enjoy the day
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Have a god one.
Jeremy Bransford
I am living proof that a brainwashed sheep can fight the system and the machine and tear down the programming built up against him. It is an endless task. It will last me to the end of my days. But I do attribute my kindness to the teachings of Jesus. I always felt good about him and his deeds. Did read a book called "The Shack" that almost sent me running for church. Excellent book. But that's all these are, are books. Books that men made, and therefore in the context of un-provable subject matter, should be read as fiction and enjoyed and allowed to inspire people.
Shane Schuller
I'm sure it must be an intrinsic battle to make that shift. As for the wisdom of Jesus, I believe he should be, in character, an exemplar to his following. He stood up for human rights and that's all I need as truth from any man who risks his life for society. However it's sad that over the millennia his cause was distorted into what it is today. The same with sages like Martin Luther, Ghandi and the like, they supposed a system of government and tried their utmost to uplift society.
Books are boons for us to reflect upon and hopefully not repeat the failures of past societies, and if we turn them into 'holy' then we fail to reflect.
Here's a saying I live by - the pain we carry as a society, is the love we withhold from each other.
Great ruins lie on this planet as evidence of this withholding love from each other. That is the essence I get from our history. I leave out the fancy trimmings.
Peace in wisdom will get us there
Shane Schuller
I think regarding womens rights - there is a huge disparity between Muslims vs Islam. Like if one reads surah Talaq it presents clearly the rights of women which is in favor of women. The rest all falls into the category of dogma.
Dogmas are the greatest 'evil' known to mankind. They are tools of mass Social destruction and painstakingly slower than any nuclear attack. We live in sadly conscious times. Belief systems have nefariously totally enslaved the consciousness/awareness of many. Thus for those aware, it's imperative to enlighten truth, albeit the ridicule and contention one is faced with. So your sage words regarding many concerns and ills of humanity should be met with discernment. :-)
Obey No1kinobe 50+
The koran may have been quite enlightened at the time, but I suggest we have moved past this in this West and relying on a medieval book, no matter how advanced at the time is a handbrake on development.
I guess if people pick the good stuff out of whatever religion or some secular viewpoint we'll all be better off.
I had a bit of spiel there against the yahweh of the bible. But there is just so much good material. I don't know how people can read this and not think badly of this tribal war god. And then we get hell and eternal damnation in the NT.
f there is a god and she loves us, that would be nice. In the meantime I guess it is up to us to figure things out and try improve the human condition, maybe be nice to other species and pass on the planet to our kids in at least as good shape as we got it.
Thanks
Charles LeRoy
Let's not be afraid of ID and ET. Let's argue to not argue but to reason and respect perspectives, viewpoints, and rational conceptual framework. It might certainly take some time before everyone agrees that the world is not flat and even more time before society abandons the need to crucify modern Galileos but in the present time let's throw them both in the mix. If an Iguana wants to believe that it can thrive on the North Pole as a car insurance spokeslizard, and a bulimic Elephant believes it can describe three blind men...then let it be so.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it until my rocketship lifts off from the studio set where they filmed the moon landing.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Thanks for the opinion. Do you believe in a creator designer? Or do you think evolution about as proven and reliable theory as you get.?
I have to disagree. School science is to teach science not to give quackery the respect of being included alongside consensus science.
Are you okay teaching one form of religious explanation as an alternative to science in a US public school.
I suggest it is a dangerous precedent to let public relations and political lobbying decide include whatever religious mumbo jumbo the majority or most motivated want, bypassing the testing and peer review and consensus forming every other piece of science has to go through.
Next they will be teaching Earth and the universe is less than 10,000 years old. There goes geology and cosmology and history. Then the flood. Then you might as well call it an evangelical Christian education.
IF you don't think evangelicals won't hijack education if you give them a chance your more trustworthy of their motives than I am.
Why should an exception be made for ID just because science shows we evolved and this highlights literal creationist faith based beliefs are wrong.
All children get 10-12 years school education. Its should not be diluted or confused by creationism in disguise.
I suggest college philosophy or religious studies might be a better place to discuss it. OR actually via peer reviewed scientific paper if they stopped focusing on the PR and politicing and did some science.
Don't be fooled by teach the controversy.
Shane Schuller
Regarding the messengers messages. It is my observation that religions messengers did not intend disunity, or any soothsayer or sage for that matter. It was the waywardness of people and hierarchies who misled the people instead. I use the appellation messengers because that's all they were - they delivered a message prescribing codes of conducts relative to their societies at the time. But with scrutiny we can read the history shows they were nothing more than modern day activists. The common find is they were accused of treason and sedition and often exiled or 'crucified'. We see that monarchs and rulers were threatened by those who intended to bring knowledge of freedom of some sort. There was no dogma to their 'political' cause, it came long after their deaths. Clearly then religion and dogma was organized by 'whoever' to imbue apathy for some purpose of economic enslavement, and the FACT that none of the religions actually carry out the initial intent - which is bring positive to people rather apathy - they fail their founders. This is where as you point out religion supports slavery, kill homosexuals etc...it the peoples and the hierarchies but not the messenger who brought this about. For instance Islam - in Quran it teaches the rights of all women and does not preach inequality. And that Mohamed freed the first slave - Bilal. If one looks at the writings of Bahaulla, we can see that the Baha'is also don't accordingly follow it. Same with Jesus, Buddha and so forth. It seems it was a one man fight for the rights of people and the rest decided to fight each other due to dogmas.
Evidently religions don't work - never will. A philosophy is different from religion
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I agree some aspects of religious belief may promote good for all.
Certainly not the foundation god for the Abrahamic beliefs, Yahweh in the old testament. HE personally killed hundreds of thousands that are annotated in the bible. This does not include the unspecified killed bu him when destroying cities and the virtual global genocide of the great flood. All men woman and children drowned by their creator except for one family.
Read exodus, numbers, kings, etc etc.
Then there are the millions listed killed on the orders of Yahweh. More genocide. More orders to kill everything living. Much of the OT is about the creator of the universe taking the side of a chosen people . Even Jesus just focused on his fellow Jews. All 12 disciples were Jewish. It was only after he died that Paul got involved. You read about them making it up as they go about whether to allow gentile believers and whether they needed to get circumsized. Bizzaire. The new testament also endorses slavery. Love your neighbor is great. Pity this didn't seem to include slaves. How hard would it have been for the almighty to command someone to write explicity it is not good to own people.
Its not all bad but I think there is problem with the source material. Not just human interpretation and political control etc.
If you think the koran isn't sexist I disagree. Women are to be obedient. Menstruation is a harmful thing. A male has two shares of a women. A woman is worth one-half a man.
Men are in charge of women, because Allah made men to be better than women. Refuse to have sex with women from whom you fear rebellion, and scourge them.
Believing women must lower their gaze and be modest, cover themselves with veils, and not reveal themselves except to their husbands etc.
You can't have sex with married women, unless they are slaves obtained in war.
What a moral exemplar.
The bad is always mixed up with the good if you look to the source material
Daniel Stiefken
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Biology is complex, really complex. That bacterial flagellum is really complex. I don't know how all this happened, it is just so complex, therefore it must be designed. Therefore there must be a designer.
And in the background you already presuppose the answer because god made the universe and adam and eve in 6 days.
Actually you don't just need a designer, you need a builder as well. Maybe they can be one and the same. In which case creator may be a better word.
This is a false dichotomy. Another answer is we don't know. Another is evolution. If you require evidence for every detail of evolution I suspect double standards because scientifically there is no material evidence of a creative intelligent being. No understanding of how it created life as is. It just spoke it and it happened. How is that science.
This argument may also assume complexity is always evidence of design. Snowflakes are complex but not designed. The patterns on sand dunes are incredibly complex but not designed.
Some argue painting are complex and have designers. So are buildings and watches. Therefore everything complex or just the tings that suit are argument must have a designer. Its like men have 2 legs. Women have 2 legs, all women are men. It's stretching a metaphor to far.
In the case of ID the designer is just a metaphor. Inexplicable by any scientific method. As are the processes of this creative design.
God of the gaps stuff. Arguments from ignorance. Special pleading. False dichotomy etc. If any thing ID belongs in philosophy class to be unpacked by first years for all it's fallacies.
The most plausible scenario of ID is probably Aliens seeding life on earth that evolved as per the evidence. Then you need to explain the aliens. No they are eternal having overcome the aging process in a previous big bang. Don't ask how they came about in the earlier big bang. It's a mystery, I know so because it is written down in my comment.
Daniel Stiefken
But even if we have to look for evidence, look att the world objectively:all evidence indicates that there's no creator, designer, god or however you want to call it, but that this is rather a random evolutionary process where there is no justice, fairness or perfection . The strong ones survive and the weak ones dissapear and thats all. Just read tomorrow's newspapers.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
John Moonstroller 30+
We are actively working to create life in the laboratory. One day we will create a living cell after the knowledge to do so is complete. We may design dna and program it to create a cell wall, the medium inside and the particles that power and sustain the cell. We may even program it to divide and reproduce.
If we do it will be done under laboratory conditions where the proper environment and nutrients are always present. To release such a device into the normal earth-like environment it will need some system of propulsion to compete with other life forms. We may have to create a flagellum to help it compete and survive.
What we call evolution could simply be the conditions offered by our planet that enable and force organisms to change to suit varying environmental conditions. If the earth-like conditions did not exist, evolution might not exist.
There are bacteria that have not evolved at all since they obtained a certain form. It may be that their form allows them to survive in the earth-like environment with no need to change. I don't believe that what we call evolution is a force that promotes change. I think it is simply the environment that is responsible. In a more fixed environment, like Mars or Neptune, perhaps, evolutionary processes may not exist. It may be that any life we create and put into those environments may never change, but still survive.
ID -Intelligent Design- may be a process that allows for religious dogma to evolve and catch up with the scientific world or meld with it into a more scientific mind-set. After all, it was Religion that gave rise to Science and not the other way around. It may be that religion is simply locked in a mindset, because of the "old books" and ID is the process that will eliminate that mindset, allowing religion to progress along scientific lines or die away as unpractical.
Evolution is not of itself a force that causes change. It is the environment that promotes the activity.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I also think it likely we will be able to create life one day from non living matter. If it is DNA based it will be subject to natural selection.
I note we are already playing around the distant edges of this when we manipulate DNA. We are modifying life.
I'm not sure if religion gave rise to science. If we go back a step, perhaps it is our curiosity, our competitiveness etc that gave rise to both once our brain had evolved to a suitable point.
John Moonstroller 30+
Science has written off ID as a non-science when I don't see where they actually make that claim. Their claim is that "perhaps" evolution is not pure science and should not be taken as such. I have to give them that argument because evolution is not a pure science, based on infallible scientific premises. It is described in different ways by different scientists. There is no formula for evolution. There is no evolutionary Mathematics that resolves the issue.
Current genetic research is decades, if not longer, behind answering the question concisely.
While I don't believe in God in the normal sense of main stream dogma, I do believe that there are some device-like structures in living organisms that perfectly mimic machinery we use everyday. The flagellum of a bacteria for instance. It looks very much like a mechanical device that is powered by energy and propels the bacterium along its way.
When I see the progress and direction that genetic research is taking mankind, I can only suggest that there will be a day when we will create life in a manner of our choosing in the Laboratory. This would make us creators of a sort. If it is possible for humans to do perhaps it has already been done by other more intelligent beings of the type we may call Gods.
The question comes to mind more often than not. Anyone who dismisses something as religious based; ergo; it's nonsense, misses the point that much of science was created and organized by the religious order that included some very smart priests and priestly scholars. Religion has indeed dictated and created the scientific method we use today.
It is the duty of science to examine all possibilities, instead of creating scientific dogma.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Not all science is physics formulas.
It makes predictions and retrodictions and these are born out. Things like you expect to see a progression from simple to more complex. We see this in the fossil record. It predicts we would see remnants from ancestral forms - like humans have a redundant egg sack in the womb during fetus development. Why would a creator design an egg sack. But this is what we expect if we evolved from reptiles that do lay eggs.
There are also complex genetic calculations and predictions etc etc. But I take your point it is not Newtonian physics. F=ma. But when you get down to it, what is force, what is mass. Now you start to get more descriptive.
I take your point of what if there is supernatural agency. I guess we haven't found a need for it yet. I also note this supernatural agency is incredibly subtle and elusive, no real evidence of its existence or what it is. almost like it didn't exist.
It is natural we compare or use the language of familiar and more easily comprehensible items to describe the more difficult and complex things. But perhaps we need to be careful how we use the metaphors for man made items and biological constructs. Our eyes are effectively camera eyes (there are several different types of eyes actually, we just evolved with the fish/reptilian ones). Usually we can tell the difference between a man made camera and a biological one (wait till nano tech develops).
Why wouldn't we expect some similarities in what has adapted to give functionality that enhances survival and what we build. Birds wings have light bones. We don't build aircraft wings out of lead. While we might add decoration we usually don't add stuff like vestigial limbs in whales, and egg yolk sacks in humans.
I agree science should assess all possibilities on their merits, learn, improve update.
Oliver Ong
Eric Grovum
Ken brown 30+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Ken brown 30+
You're response above is broad in itself,ID proposes an answer brought about by microbiologists that some were religious and some were not at a time in the early 90's,a far cry from today's science which still can't tell us how lefthand amino acids were able to self assemble,not even a Mandelbrot system can bring about such a result,bacterial like structures found in meteorite fragments suggests possible life but it doesn't mean it is,it's like trying to tell me that a galaxy we see today at the extreme limit of our detection is actually there in it's proposed real time co-ordinates.
Rent the movie "The tree of life" with brad pitt,it has to me the most beautiful visual representation of what most believe today how it all got started, for the evolutionists.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
walter crockett
Sophia Grace
This because of the simple fact that it is not a scientific theory.
And just because some people call it a theory, does not make it so.
Religion is taught here, also covering religious beliefs of creation.
But it does not belong in a science lesson.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Christophe Cop 500+
ID is not science.
It can only be thought as an example of bad science and how people can twist their mind in order to fit some assumptions they cannot let go.
If you wish to have some good arguments:
http://fora.tv/2009/10/07/Richard_Dawkins_The_Greatest_Show_on_Earth
I think all these kind of debates boil back to a fundamental misunderstanding of uncertainty.
Uncertainty is quantifiable (any kind of gambler knows this). Something that is likely to be true needs to be treated as such, as everything that is unlikely to be true.
Current evolution theories fit for over 99%, ID is an inconsistent theory and has a worse fit.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
John Moonstroller 30+
As to the idea that religious beliefs should not be taught in school, I disagree. There is plenty of room with all the other nonsense that is being taught, most of it, certainly, not science based. Science need have no fear of being displaced by dogma any more than apples will be mistaken as oranges.
Children and youth are smart. They can determine fact from fiction and woe to those who they believe teach fiction when facts are more appropriate.
Many dogmas are taught in school today.
If science is displaced, by dogma then mankind is doomed. But, unless something very smartly happens soon, we are doomed anyway. All come to the end and must face their mortality. What does it matter to the dead what goes on with the living?
I believe if Intelligent design were given a niche in the school system, it would either flounder or enhance the work of science. Science is not so fragile that it will fall apart under mediocre scrutiny. Intelligent design will have to follow the rules as applies to any body of knowledge it cannot turn schools into prayer rooms.
I say give them a shot and let's see where it goes. It might be great inspiration or very funny entertainment for our children. Kids are smarter than you think. Newton was a kid once. So was Einstein. So was I.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
It may be data mining but it seems progress has slowed when theology has decided what is science - Galileo, Middle East, some states of the US.
ID hasn't convinced the scientific community, and if it does based on scientific merit so be it. I'm not so sure it is benign if it gets into classrooms as legitimate scientific alternative when currently it isn't. It sets a dangerous precedent that any religious inspired nonsense can be taught if you mobilise public and political support.
Also, we have religion instruction classes in public schools in Australia. Generally taught by volunteers from one well resourced Christian organisation. Students of other denominations, faiths or none can opt out but essentially the state becomes a vehicle for religious indoctrination which I disagree with in principle, and believers of one sect get their beliefs reinforced backed by the same authority that teaches maths and science, and minorities are subject to this or essentially ostracised and sometimes ridiculed. It is divisive.
In the US it fails the lemon test i.e. a church going republican judge judge nominated by Santorim and appointed by bush found it to be religious. If you want to give up the separation of church and state that has protected minorities and freedom of and from religion so easy, I guess that is your opinion.
We had a friend from Texas stay with us recently and go to talking about life the universe and everything. When it came up that I was not a Christian, or believer of any sort, she asked where did we come from. She had the most warped view of evolution. Part of this was poor education. I think our kids deserve better in science education. If they want to teach about ID in social studies fine.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
1) Firstly that if examples of irreducible complexity (IC) had not been debunked, we would have a situation where we don't know how this biological constructs came about and some sort of intelligent input would be a possibility or other yet to be determined explanations. Even if you suppose an intelligence helped make the bacterial flagellum etc it is still a leap of faith and counter to other evidence that the rest of it did not evolve. You essentially at best have assisted evolution.
To take a few instances of IC and say this is proof for all life being created more or less as the "kinds" we see today is very poor logic. Do the supporters of ID agree with this conclusion?
2) Is it okay to teach stuff in public schools that may offend religious beliefs? This is a tough one for me. I guess if we deleted everything from the sciences and humanities that offended all the different religious sensitivities there would be a lot taken out. What a dangerous precedent. If only science or history or literature that everyone agrees with is taught, if anything that is objected to we probably are left with math and PE.
I can appreciate that while I see science as objective as humans can be, others don't. In fact some see organised science almost as an organised religion influenced by the devil.
Where to draw the line on this is a tough one depending on your viewpoint. Any thoughts?
John Moonstroller 30+
ID, In my Opinion, is just a guess at something that could or not be true. Of course, we have no proof of any kind, scientifically or otherwise. So it is simply a guess based entirely on normal or common logic.
I'm impressed with the flagellum studies that show the mechanical functions of the bio-construct that propels bacteria in a fluid medium. I really can't answer how such a device came into being along evolutionary lines. But, then again, no one really knows the interaction of a natural environment and the evolutionary process. They know even less about a creator who could fashion such a process. We can put bacteria under a microscope and see how it works. We can't put a creator under any tool I know of that will induce us to scientifically decide that a creator exists or has influence on how nature develops.
Further along in the comments section, I express my feelings that I have nothing against teaching ID in schools, as long as it follows school rules and the teachers are qualified. There in lies the rub. How do you qualify those teachers? What studies will you use? Where is the science that implies or logically deduces that such an idea is practical?
Obey No1kinobe 50+
love your picture.
John Moonstroller 30+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Professional biologists have shown how subsets of the flagellum exist in biology and have function ie that it is reducible. So it is not something that had to be created. The argument fails.
We all have different limits where our understanding of how things work ends. I see the tree of life, the fossil record, and DNA evidence of common ancestory, the shared physical traits, the imperfect design and evolution makes sense. I don't know anything but religion that would stop a well educated person seeing that humans are mammals that eat other living things, and defecate, and rut, and give birth and breast feed etc.
But ask me how a fertised egg can end up as an adult human, I don't really know. How do our cells and bodies work in detail. What is the stuff of matter. Is it just concentrated energy. What is gravity, how does it work.
But just because my human super smart but limited primate brain does not have all the answers is not an excuse to say god did it.
Creationism and gods live most comfortably in the gaps of our understanding. Where did the universe and humans come from and how? Evolution answers part of the question. Some theists live with this. Others have literal biblical beliefs and can not. IF fact evolution is seen by some as some diabolical evil plot and foundation for a world view that threatens theirs. They are half right.
I agree with your point that saying god did it doesn't answer where god came from or how it did it, which is usually answered by god is eternal and all powerful so he can. How do you know that. I read it in an old book and was taught this in church, and the same book say jesus ressurected, so its true.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Some of the predictions of evolution include a progression of simple to more complex forms. We see that in the fossil record. Also adaptation is not as perfect as design. You expect to see flaws and evidence of ancestry. Like remnant rear legs in whales from when their ancestors were land mammals. Like the hair that grows on human babies in the womb from hairy ape days. Like the unused yolk sack with human babies in the womb from reptilian days. Like the appendix, prostate, sharing an eat/breathe pipe and problems giving birth to human babies optimising brain development versus a pelvis used for walking. Not great design. Entirely inconsistent with evolution.
Why would a creator/designer trick us with this evidence of evolution?
Adrinn Chelton
Yes it is interesting, I think there is more wisdom in this observation than is initially apparent. Adaptation itself may very well be a sign of the greater intelligence that people are speaking to when they infer a "being" in charge of shaping nature. Maybe we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater when we say there can't be an intelligence responsible for evolution. The very nature of genetic procreation seems to mirror the dual nature of everything in our universe. Intelligence also mirrors this, as almost every choice we make can be refined to "either this or that", with knowledge being the limiting factor. The choices we call "intelligent" are the ones that work, for the most part. We are here debating this, so the choices made by our DNA must be somewhat intelligent over a huge span of time.
We tend to think very locally regarding events that require a long time to unfold. And because of our human perspective we unconsciously anthropomorphize everything as well. I hope we find evidence of life on another planet sometime soon, perhaps then we can compare its emergence there and develop some juicy new questions to ask.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
The more I have learnt about biology and the universe in general we seem to have one word, intelligence, that covers a lot of ground.
At one end you have brain based problem solving "intelligence" , that we can IQ test in humans or evaluate in different animals. This intelligence is associated with a more or less consciousness and awareness of the surroundings.
At the other extreme is the more subtle "intelligence" in nature that pattern seeking animals like us can detect in the non conscious entities. A tree is not going to debate plato with you but can respond "intelligently" to the environment.
Actually there is a continuum of consciousness and intelligence I guess. Cells, Plants, basic animals to more complex animals.
I guess the many theists would disagree with a definition of intelligence or intelligence designer as some impersonal, unconscious (in the brain sense), natural force or process.
We really are getting to the edge of straight forward primate brain capability.
For me personally, there could be something deistic, or something not really a being, or just some poorly understood complex natural phenomena. In regards to this phenomena having characteristics of being created in our image in some way, and revealed precisely through a particular religious tradition, I find that possible but virtually absurd.
Adrinn Chelton
John Moonstroller 30+
Jeff Cable
There are debates on TED as to whether science is faith-based and (by extension) no more deserving of our attention than many religious beliefs and thereby extending the argument to religion being somehow equal to science and therefore as valid as science and requiring to be taught in school as a worthwhile subject on the general curriculum.
Intelligent design is not testable and therefore not subject to falsification. Without the means to test the intelligent design proposition, it will be held out (by vested interests) as an axiom. This would mean our children being required to accept the proposition uncritically and that does not sit on all fours with the notions which underpin education.
Demanding uncritical acceptance is tantamount to coercion and it is wholly unacceptable for educational establishments and proponents of ID to demand this special status for the insertion of intelligent design into the school curriculum.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
While science is a human process and all the failings that implies it is not dogmatic in the way religions are.
John Moonstroller 30+
"
In some countries, religion is taught as fact; the Muslim religion for instance. Perhaps if we allow ID which is not a religion but an argument based in somewhat scientific terms, to be argued in school, we can put an end to the argument or at least prevent it from evolving into a type of religion like Islam.
Jeff Cable
Andrew McDiarmid
"What if patterns best explained as the product of intelligence exist in biological systems? In that case, the intelligence in question would be an unevolved intelligence. For most persons, such an intelligence has religious connotations, suggesting that it as well as its activities cannot properly belong to science. Simply put, intelligent design, when applied to biology, seems to invoke ‘spooky’ forms of causation that have no place in science. Evolutionary informatics eliminates this difficulty associated with intelligent design. By looking to information theory, a well-established branch of the engineering and mathematical sciences, evolutionary informatics shows that patterns we ordinarily ascribe to intelligence, when arising from an evolutionary process, must be referred to sources of information external to that process. Such sources of information may then themselves be the result of other, deeper evolutionary processes. But what enables these evolutionary processes in turn to produce such sources of information? Evolutionary informatics demonstrates a regress of information sources. At no place along the way need there be a violation of ordinary physical causality. And yet, the regress implies a fundamental incompleteness in physical causality's ability to produce the required information. Evolutionary informatics, while falling squarely within the information sciences, thus points to the need for an ultimate information source qua intelligent designer."
Should ID be taught in public schools? Consider this: are students in science class taught to critically think? Or are they spoonfed ideas?
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Is ID versus evolution the best way to teach critical thinking?
Why pick this topic? What are the motives?
Why not start with the basics, and use faith based beliefs for examples. I'm not suggesting that is the best way, just turning it around.
When ID or some other theory is found to better explain what we observe, and it has scientific consensus then it should be taught in science.
ID seems to look for things that are hard to explain and promote a creative intelligence as the cause. I guess they failed with irreducible complexity so moving on to something else. I've heard some arguments information. Maybe they will come up with something better. Good on them.
IC if proven might indicate abrupt creation in some body part and biological functions. It actually does not mean this happened in conjunction with evolution for everything else.
The intelligence argument seems even weaker if your end goal is to show humans were created as are. The outcome is there is a possibility an intelligence helped set up some biological information systems. This does not deny the bulk of evolution. Its almost guided or assisted evolution. If I may paraphrase - some parts of reality are so complex maybe they were created that way.
I'd need more than the quote above to be convinced of the assertion "points to the need for an ultimate information source an intelligent designer"
A single cell is remarkably complex. How did it get that way. Maybe it was created. The operation of a single cell is incredibly complex maybe a supernatural intelligence is driving these cell processes and all other processes in nature and the cosmos we find hard to understand.
Seems like a fancy argument from ignorance.
Why isn't there evidence of an actual gods rather than arguments that they may be responsible for things that are hard to understand for our limited brains?
John Moonstroller 30+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
John Moonstroller 30+
It's been enjoyable conversing with you. See you around with a another question perhaps. If you would like to discuss more on the topic you can email me at my address listed in my profile.
Later....
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Stewart Gault 30+
Random Chance 30+
"Regarding: Shouldn't parents decide what their children are taught?"
"So I suggest no Parents should not have absolute authority to choose what is taught."
But, parents should be free "to teach whatever they wish, want or think is right", right?
Now I am not as smart as the average cell but isn't "creating something in 6 days", actually a form of evolution?
Isn't time necessary for evolution, whereas creation is instantaneous? I thought it was.
Anyway, why isn't all this an "ever-advancing creation?" for every thing is created in some manner and at some point manifests itself in whatever form it is in, and then it evolves, for whatever length of time it evolves over.
Neither science nor religion can or will prove their claims.
But, I am against forcing anyone to be taught religious beliefs, doctrine or dogma against their will, knowledge or against the will of their caretakers, without real proof of religious claims.
So, ultimately, I believe children should be taught the truth as it is known and proven, and religion, unfortunately for them, has no proof. Religion says there is more than the material. Science says there is more than the material.
Personally though, I want an emotional orgasm, not a scientific one.
IF ID Is true, then why isn't it true throughout? Everything? It certainly isn't and the range between what might be intelligent beauty and absolute stupidity is enormous. Too big to accept that it is ID, unless of course the ID are the first two letters of the word, IDiot.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
But children are not property and I don't support Parents having absolute right freedom to treat their children any way they want.
I'm personally against religious or atheist indoctrination of children. We seem to agree? To me it is a form of abuse. Although I'm not at the point where I would outlaw this.
Creation can be either instantaneous or over some period of time I guess. An all powerful god could have rolled all 6 days into an instant if he choose. Just then the story would not be so poetic. An all powerful and all knowing god can do anything it wants any way it wants.
I'm not sure what you mean by science not being able to prove its claims. Do you mean just in regards to long past events. Or because of the limitations of our perception etc. Science claims a rock will accelerate at 9.81 m/s/s with some adjustment for air friction. And this happens repeatably. The reliability of science when applied has resulted in the computer you are using to make this comment.
Not sure what you mean by science says there is more than material. I think science works by testing things. If a supernatural claim can not be tested, there is not much it can offer to science and vice versa. Perhaps reason might come to conclusions about many mutually exclusive supernatural claims. They can't all be right. But they can all be wrong.
I don't find not having a belief in god has reduced my joy in life. Actually feel better in some ways compared to when tried to believe while starting to realise it was all bunk.
Random Chance 30+
I believe science and religion are both wrong. In some way, about something very important. I don't know what that is. To my mind, they are both seeking to prove, explain, reveal or in some way show they are correct about the same issue; namely how this unique-verse came to be and what followed or is following, who we are and the future in some way as well.
What both have failed to do, is to prove that.
My experience with religion and religious people has "proven' to me however, that the main purpose of religion is the total annihilation of the human spirit. And my experience with science is that it's main purpose is the annihilation of the human species.
Other than those two things, I find there to be what I call the three M's in life: mystery, magic and meaning, and science at times acts much like a bleach, taking these all out. Not much to enjoy once they have bleached it. Thus, why I want an emotional orgasm and not a scientific one.
Neither side really seems interested in building a bridge between them, which I have imagined many or most people would like. Humanity would seem to be in great need of a bridge being built. But each side only wants to win the argument outright. That really doesn't work for me.
There is empirical evidence that nothing, is, and that nothing works, and that something truly miraculous (not necessarily in a religious sense), comes from that nothingness. But, I'm running out of characters.
Science is always telling us that the material isn't what it seems or appears to be. And that is true. A steel beam is really electrons flying around one another at incredible speeds. It isn't as dense as we think or observe, and if you hit it with your fist, you don't actually hit it. You hit the field created by the electrons. So in a way, science and religion can find agreement but choose not to.
Certainly God doesn't exist but I am just as certain that certainly something just is. Zero comes before one.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Re the steel beam I guess it has density (mass/volume), but is only solid because our eyes didn't evolve to see things as small as electrons, even if that is biologically possible.
In a way our understanding of the universe is limited by our senses and our brains ability to process and interpret and communicative this, enhanced by the limits of our technology, from the hubble telescope and microscope to the electron microscop, haldron collider and Hubble telescope and all the data collecting and computing power at our disposal.....but still limited by our brains ability to conceptualise and put this into words.
Random Chance 30+
"But children are not property and I don't support Parents having absolute right freedom to treat their children any way they want."
But, I didn't say "treat them any way they want to, but I said teach them what they want to."
So, by this do you mean that you want to force or reprogram people to believe and behave the way you think they should?
Obey No1kinobe 50+
You could teach your kids to do all sorts of nasty stuff.
I'm saying its complex. Give me an example of something parents might do or teach and how they do it and I will give you my view.
Mark Kurtz 20+
Here we are on Earth many multi-millenia from the beginnings of things and we debate the beginning as though we are rather settled in our opinions.
Is there room in the mind of each of us for possibilities?
MK
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Alexa Corbett
The universe expands outward to infinity and is always moving AWAY from its epicenter, which does exist somewhere at some point in "time" (the more the 'Universe' expands, the more time passes), but our existence on earth is constantly getting FURTHER away from the epicenter. why? because the epicenter is a constant that cannot be reached ever because 1. we are traveling too fast to cover the distance necessary; the velocity needed to accelarate to that degree of motion would obliterate your very being. 2. Essentially, you would have to accelarate "Backwards" through space (time) FASTER than the 'universe' was moving "forward" (in all directions) which is faster than the speed of light. our 'existence' is the 'rate of decay' between the origin and infinity...
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Its amazing to think about it when you go big, small and old.
John Moonstroller 30+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
The key argument for ID is irreducible complexity is that some biological mechanisms could not have evolved. If you removed some components they would have no function and be useless. They propose the only explanation for this is abrupt creation by an intelligent creator.
The poster child is the bacterial flagellum. A little biological motor that propels cells. Its a complex little beasty. However, you can remove half the parts and you have the biological device used by some bacteria such as the bubonic plague to inject toxins into other cells. Disproved.
Another was blood clotting. We have found many animals that have simpler clotting mechanisms with components missing and they clot just fine. The theory developed was checked the biological evidence and confirmed. Disproved.
Human immune system. Since this was proposed as something that could not have evolved there have been dozens of peer reviewed papers and even books written showing reducible complexity.
MAybe they have or will come up with more complex bits and pieces that we don't have explanations for. Even if a creator formed the first life, there is still evidence of evolution. Maybe god helped in a few places, but there is still evidence for evolution.
IF the test is for science to have answers for everything or there must be a god, well that's a pretty poor understanding of science and the value it provides even with our partial understanding of the universe. We test medicines on mammals because we are a mammal. We share a common so much physiology.
The development from a fertilised egg to an adult human is amazing. Some think this could not have evolved. In fact how does it work now we have human. I din't understand, god must grow every baby.
Anyway, even though ID has no compelling evidence, it still sticks in the heads of those who want to believe there is a credible scientific alternative or challenge to evolution when there isn't. So they have succeeded in that at least.