TED Conversations

richard moody jr

TEDCRED 10+

This conversation is closed.

Is it reasonable to teach Intelligent Design in physics or statistic classes to seniors in high school?

The purpose of permitting ID to be taught to seniors should be to attempt to find a well-reasoned explanation for intelligent life. What is necessary to permit ID to be discussed “legally”(separating church and state) in the class room is to divorce ID from any religious affiliation e.g. the Bible.

For our universe to originate by chance is about on a par with winning the Power Ball lottery a 1000 times in a row without ever buying a losing ticket! When you factor in all the conditions necessary for intelligent life to exist, it appears the universe is “fine-tuned” to support life e.g. if the force of gravity is off by one part in 10^36 in the range of all forces (the most powerful is the strong force), life does not exist. If the mass of a proton is off a tiny amount only blue giant stars can form; they can't support life.

The scientific explanation for our universe is that there are an infinite number of universes and this one originated by chance. Since we cannot observe, measure or replicate extra universes is this any more reasonable than ID?

Humanity is a pioneer in this universe; after the “Big Bang” 13.8 billion years ago, it takes a first generation star to explode to make heavy elements and a second generation star like our sun to corral those elements to support life on a planet. It takes 3.8 billion years to get from life to intelligent life.

We will be billions of years more evolved than civilizations growing up around third generation stars. By the time our sun becomes a red giant, we can take the moon, Mercury, Mars and Venus (for raw materials) and go into orbit around Jupiter; we will then extract hygrogen from Jupiter for fusion energy that will serve us until the universe ends.

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jun 10 2013: The TED Translator Jimmy Strobl stated, "ID cannot be tested, a central part for obtaining truth." Not so according to Monton. He gives a specific case where, for example, a pulsar could be demonstrated to communicate in Morse Code. Then this communication becomes a discussion of science and the pulsar provides a blueprint to perform a set of experiments that result in test results that appear to be miraculous---I think you know where this is going. The blanket statement that ID cannot be tested is not universally accepted.
    • Jun 11 2013: It doesn't matter. ID will not be teachable science for as long as instead of science those guys dedicate their lives to promoting the idea instead of actually doing science. To get into the science classroom, it has to go through scientific validation. ID at best would be an idea. Even if we forgot that it is mere creationism in disguise, it just has nothing scientific going for it.

      Show me that pulsar and I will start thinking of a pulsar manipulated by some intelligence. That would not tell me that the universe was intelligently designed though. But show me that pulsar. Show me the tools used by a proposed designer of life. Show me the labs. Show me the methods a designer used to build the universe. Show me that a designer could exist outside the universe and have the power to build it with whatever constants the designer wanted it to have. Show me how physics constants can be manipulated by designers. Show me that no natural phenomena could produce a universe such as ours too. Don't rely on fallacious thinking to do any of that. Show me the evidence. Don't just tell me that a designer "is a better explanation." It is not if you can't show evidence for a designer in the first place.

      I repeat, if somebody wants something in science, they better start doing science rather than propose designers because they can't figure out a natural answer out of their scientific illiteracy.
      • thumb
        Jun 11 2013: Just a quick question? What if I could show you everything that you've asked to see. Would you believe that there was an Intelligent Designer that caused the universe to evolve as it has? Or (as I would bet) would you accuse me of some hocus pocus to fool you.
        Why do I think that there is no science here, but... wait for it... you have religion. Not like most religions, but the religion that holds there is no God.
        • Jun 11 2013: If anybody could show us the evidence for everything I am asking for, then ID would already be in the classroom Mike. My opinion would not matter one bit. I add that I am not one to deny reality. If there's evidence, then I am wrong no matter what my preferences could be. But I need evidence,not the current fallacious rhetoric, politics, and science illiteracy shown by the IDers. Rhetoric works well with the uneducated, but it won't work with me.

          What about you? How many times will it take before you understand that the either random or intelligence is a false dichotomy?
    • thumb
      Jun 11 2013: Richard,
      You got to give credit... Jimmy is correct. I D can't be tested. However, neither can the big bang. How did they come to the conclusion that there was. Arithmetic. Advanced maybe, but arithmetic. It went something like this.
      Galaxies, nebula, various and a sundry cosmic matter seem to be moving. Well, they measured the movement, calculated the beginning point and determined about how long it had all been going on. they went on to find that all that material came form about the same place at about the same time, it must have been all together and exploded to give the energy to move all that matter all that way. So, out of that explosion, things combined and other things were formed and and and.... here we are today some 14 billion years later, sentient beings on a small planet, by a nondescript star at the trailing end of a mediocre galaxy...
      The odds of all this coming together is astronomical. But,
      have we the same problem with I D, the universe came into being the same way, using the same arithmetic. But, we add a plan. The odds go way down. Questions of who, what, when, where and why, mystifying
      aren't they.
      • Jun 11 2013: That depends on how you define testing. The supposition is that we presently lack the capacity to test ID, and, therefore, it can never be tested. Do we know what our capabilities to "test" in the future will be? In the future will we be able to exhibit "god-like" powers? We already know how to duplicate the energy of the sun. If we evolve a billion years can you be certain we will never be able to test the origin of the universe?
        • thumb
          Jun 11 2013: I know my scientific illiteracy is showing, but, the question comes to I D or no I D.
          But, if we apply this strict "science" standard to everything, we would have never known that OJ was innocent of killing his wife. There was no science to prove or disprove it. There would have been no trail and therefore no verdict.
          But, that is not what happened, we came to a conclusion based on the most likely scenario with out conclusive scientific proofs. It happens all the time.
          So, in my debating literacy, I leave it to be judged. Is there enough evidence to support consideration that there maybe Intelligent Design in the creation of the universe?
    • thumb
      Jun 11 2013: Too me it appears as if ID sprang out of ideas of miracles as being the transformation of the unknowable into knowable terms. When you try to apply this method to every miracle mentioned in the bible, it fails. So, the method is untrustworthy.
      • Jun 12 2013: An interesting concept---I like to think of Genesis as God the Punisher. Humanity suffers mightily so we must have done something terribly "wrong". Misery begat the concept of God the Punisher.

        What could be worse than disobeying God (Adam) or steering a noble Adam down the wrong path (Eve)?
        • thumb
          Jun 12 2013: Interesting personal inflection Richard. I never took you for the Religions type, though I don't see where anything I said had anything to do with God. My focus is on Creationism, Intelligent Design and Evolution -not in a biblical sense.

          Genesis is OK, but wouldn't focusing on Genesis, a Judo-christian ideology, be an injustice to religion as a whole? Some religions don't have a Genesis story along the same lines. Some eastern religions talk about a group of people who came from another Galaxy and fought over the earth. After winning the battle, they created men to serve their purpose. A current resurrection is taking place in India, where they talk about aliens visiting the earth to collect some resources. They became engaged with humans and even Bombed a city (currently being investigated by archaeologist) for one of the kings in the local neighborhood. They taught men how to fly in their aircraft, etc.

          None of this religious stuff is static anymore. Lots of activity springing up involving religion, Archeology, Palaeontology, etc. around the Planet. If your going to comment on it, you need to keep updated.


          Your not trying to slap some kind of label on my head are you?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.