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.

  • thumb
    Aug 18 2012: To summarise ID as I understand it:

    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.
    • thumb
      Aug 18 2012: Why should someone be required to demonstrate that something doesn't exist ? The burden of the proof relays on whoever is affirming that something exist. Or can I say now that gremlins are having a huge party all over Bogota and it is your problem to demonstrate that they are not? While you do it (if you can at all-you may perfectly not be able to demonstrate that something so absurd is not true-) is it true?
      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.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.