TED Conversations

Obey No1kinobe


This conversation is closed.

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

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Aug 16 2012: Obey:
    "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.
    • thumb
      Aug 16 2012: Hi Random. I think parents should have more freedom to teach what they choose in their own home.
      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.
      • Aug 16 2012: HI Obey.
        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.
        • thumb
          Aug 17 2012: Thanks Random. I enjoy reading your perspective.

          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.
      • Aug 16 2012: Obey: You said:
        "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?
        • thumb
          Aug 17 2012: I'm not sure all teaching methods and content is appropriate.
          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.
    • Aug 16 2012: Is it absolutely necessary to define creation as instantaneous? Could we all consider evolution as creation slow motion?

      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?
      • thumb
        Aug 17 2012: I hope there is Mark.
      • Aug 18 2012: The "big"bang" if you will was the highest influx of energy and radiation the universe has ever seen. Einstein revolutionized science with Relativity by changing the way people percieved molecules, Mass accelarated fast enough can be converted into energy, whereas energy slowed down can become mass again. The universe was like an explosion of energy which expanded outward simontaneously in all directions and kept going much like a perpetual shockwave. We know from Newton's law of motion that an object in motion will remain in motion unless another force acts upon it. As the initial release of energy is consolidated to a consistent momentum, remnants of "energy" which was "too slow" to be kept at a certain amplitude of accelaration became MASS as the ENERGY SLOWED. That "mass" is what we know to be the stars, suns, dust, galaxies, nebulas and all other universal debris. The Universe however, is still "in motion" after the initial explosion because there is no force to act against it and so its momentum progresses onward. What does that mean for us? the initial point of origin where the "big bang" occurred is forever getting farther away from our current point or "Location" in the universal plane

        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...
        • thumb
          Aug 18 2012: Thanks Alexa.
          Its amazing to think about it when you go big, small and old.
    • thumb
      Aug 17 2012: Rubbish

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.