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.

  • thumb
    Jun 12 2013: My point has always been, that with the complexity of all the universe, most of which is way beyond our understanding, there is just too much consistency, that has come out of chaos. Chaos math guys tell us that there is consistency in chaos... OK, but in all our universe with all that it means, there is the time factor, 14 B years or 6 days as our creationist friends say.... I can't see that as sufficient time.
    The only plausible answer is that our universe got help. I don't know how, or who, or even why, but that is the only thing that makes sense to me.
    • Jun 12 2013: I like this line of thought Mike. I ultimately don't know how things came about. The organization of the chaos is mind boggling, especially on the level we see on the planet. Ultimately, we can't "prove" either theory. Why can't we allow for alternating views, regardless of which is right or wrong?

      At the end of the day, we are standing here and can't explain why. Arguing over how we got here is a bit silly. Scientifically speaking, it is a challenge to wrestle with and a good conversation, but ultimately, it doesn't change the fact that I stand here today. Why couldn't there be a higher power out there helping us out? It add a bit of mystery to the universe.

      In the end, it is not something I spend a lot of time dwelling upon.
      • thumb
        Jun 13 2013: How did we get here? I'd like to recommend the book "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss since you seem so misinformed of origins. It is a very possibility that you can get something from nothing, and a catalyst is not required. And maybe you really should dwell more time on it before concluding your reasoning.
        • thumb
          Jun 13 2013: Krauss is good but his book is about a plausible theory. I have a plausible theory, we all have plausible theory's.
        • Jun 13 2013: You assume in error. I am very aware, and knowledgeable, about the theories that exist as to the beginning of our existence as a species. I am also aware that science can not prove one theory over another at this point. There is evidence supporting one theory over another, that would be accurate to say. However, it is still a theory. Evolution is not scientific Law, which has very specific guidelines, it remains a theory. Plausible? Sure, of course it is and science is generally supporting that theory with evidence over ID. No question. But still a theory.

          My thought is simple, why can't we leave a little to wonder and the imagination? In this thread, there appears to be no room for the "maybe". No matter how small.

          I would put forth that I am here today. I know how I generally got here, but I don't know how I evolved from single DNA strands banging together in some historical ooze. Nor do I know if a higher being put forth some "magic" that sparked the existence of what now existis. At the end of the day, I have about 80 years to exist. To spend a great deal of time worrying about how humans came into existence is for those scientists who make it their life work. Me, I prefer to leave it at wonder, and not trouble with it while I spend my life living.
      • Jun 14 2013: Everett, you stated:

        "I am also aware that science can not prove one theory over another at this point."

        Very true- science has never been about "proving" definitively. Science is about first coming up with ideas, which, depending on the type of idea, will be considered either a hypothesis, a theory, or a law. Once you have an idea, you then choose those which have the best evidence to support them and those whose predictions are best confirmed.

        "There is evidence supporting one theory over another, that would be accurate to say. However, it is still a theory. Evolution is not scientific Law, which has very specific guidelines, it remains a theory. Plausible? Sure, of course it is and science is generally supporting that theory with evidence over ID. No question. But still a theory."

        A scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted on the same exact basis- amount of evidence, not absolute proof. Neither a theory nor a law can have or will ever have absolute proof- that is not what sets them apart. What them apart is in the type of statements they make and in the expansiveness of the statements. A law states a singular property of Nature- Energy is conserved, F=ma, Entropy never decreases, etc etc.
        A theory on the other hand does not state, it explains and describes, and is therefore focused on much more than a single property of Nature. The theory of evolution explains and describes how life came to be so diverse using the concept of decent with modification (notice the theory of evolution says NOTHING about the origin of life- that is left to the abiogenesis) , the theory of relativity describes a universe in which the law that the speed of light is constant holds, etc.
      • Jun 14 2013: "My thought is simple, why can't we leave a little to wonder and the imagination? In this thread, there appears to be no room for the "maybe". No matter how small. "

        Imagination is of central importance in the sciences. How do you think Einstein came up with his ideas?
        The thing is, imagination is not enough. You can say "maybe" all you like, but if you want to present your ideas as more than mere speculation to be taken lightly, you must present evidence, or at least a sound mathematical argument in those cases where experimentation is not immediately possible.
    • thumb
      Jun 14 2013: Hi Mike

      I also don't fully understand how a fertilized egg develops in a apple or a rabbit or a human. But I suggest this is not sufficient reason to assume invisible agency at work arranging the molecules and cells etc.

      I really can't imagine an atom, or what an electron is and the forces that hold it together. But I suggest this is not sufficient reason to suggest a god is helping.

      Previously people did not have germ theory, so they thought gods or evil spirits were responsible.

      I suggest your line of thinking is a bit similar to this. Agency assumption is pretty human.

      Not being able to grasp the complexity of the universe or having a full explanation that your human mind can accept is not a reason to believe in gods. I guess what you are proposing is either an argument from ignorance or an argument from incredulity.

      I can't grasp or accept it so a god must have done it.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.