• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Intelligent design

S

Siva

Diamond Member
Bush said something like intelligent design should be taught in schools along with evolution. I don't really think this is a P&N thread because I just want a general expression of ideas and don't want to get too much into the politics of the issue. I would just like to know what people think of intelligent design, no flames.
 
The environment does not adapt to allow it's inhabitants to survive, the inhabitants adapt to the environment. Survival of the fittest.

Things are the way they are because that's how we evolved.
 
I find it hard to believe that all this happened by chance, and evolved from lesser forms, but I have a hard time believing in religion sometimes too...
 
I mean, you hear all this stuff about, "well if the charge on an electron was 1.6E-19 instead of 1.61E-19" or whatever it is, we wouldn't exist. Well, we might exist, just not as we are now. We might be better. We evolved around that because that's what was available.
 
Originally posted by: JohnCU
Note that ID is not considered a scientific theory. It's just creationism in a different form.
Click to expand...

It is not considered a scientific theory by the majority of the scientific community. But that doesn't mean that there aren't people who do consider it that way, as the poll has established.
 
Intelligent design is a religious viewpoint just from the fact it cannot be proven or disproven by science. There is no testable alternative hypothesis so in the scientific world it just can't be done. I do think it would be a pratical thing to teach in schools, but it can't be included with Biology because it isn't science. It needs to be discussed because I think it would help reduce bigotry if taught correctly and it allow students to think (if that's possible) if religion is right for them or not.
 
Originally posted by: Siva
Originally posted by: JohnCU
Note that ID is not considered a scientific theory. It's just creationism in a different form.
Click to expand...

It is not considered a scientific theory by the majority of the scientific community. But that doesn't mean that there aren't people who do consider it that way, as the poll has established.
Click to expand...

I was just noting that the National Academy of Science says it's not a scientific theory. 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Siva
Bush said something like intelligent design should be taught in schools along with evolution. I don't really think this is a P&N thread because I just want a general expression of ideas and don't want to get too much into the politics of the issue. I would just like to know what people think of intelligent design, no flames.
Click to expand...

I think it's hogwash.

thanks for asking.
 
Originally posted by: cscpianoman
Intelligent design is a religious viewpoint just from the fact it cannot be proven or disproven by science. There is no testable alternative hypothesis so in the scientific world it just can't be done. I do think it would be a pratical thing to teach in schools, but it can't be included with Biology because it isn't science. It needs to be discussed because I think it would help reduce bigotry if taught correctly and it allow students to think (if that's possible) if religion is right for them or not.
Click to expand...

So then all religions should be taught in school or just intelligent design? There are plenty of religions in which intelligent design would be impossible. It really only goes along with the big players, Christianity/Judaism/Islam.
 
ID does it backwarsds, it starts as a "fact" and then the people who belive in it try to use science to justify their predetermant fact. That is not science.
 
It might be able to become a scientific theory if they put more thought and effort into it, and actually treat it as a scientific theory and not just an alternative to current prevailing theories, and possibly a way to sneak creationism into the science class.
 
Your third question needs to be more specific. Taught in which class in school? I definitely think it should be brought up, just not in a science course.

 
Originally posted by: DougK62
Your third question needs to be more specific. Taught in which class in school? I definitely think it should be brought up, just not in a science course.
Click to expand...

I don't think it does need to be more specific than that. The only religion I ever learned in public school was the kind that fit into a historical context, (I.E. the crusades). Then if its a religion why would it be taught, there is no history to intelligent design. If its a science then should it be taught?
 
Intelligent Design is a conclusion first, "find the proof later" idea, and thus its not considered science. Why can't those ultra-fundamentalists just give ID a break; if you actually have to resort to science to back your beliefs, and not your faith, then what is the point of being religious then?
 
Originally posted by: StrangerGuy
Why can't those ultra-fundamentalists just give ID a break
Click to expand...

Because their hero is in the oval office and they know it's now or never. They have 3.5 more years to damage the country as much as possible and they're not wasting any time 🙁
 
Originally posted by: JohnCU
The environment does not adapt to allow it's inhabitants to survive, the inhabitants adapt to the environment. Survival of the fittest.

Things are the way they are because that's how we evolved.
Click to expand...

survival of the fittest isn't necessarily a sufficient explanation for macro evolution. evidence points to macro evolution often occurring in 'bursts' in a short amount of time. this theory is often referred to as punctuated equilibrium, bursts of change followed by long periods of little or no change- this better describes the evidence than a purely gradual darwinian natural selection. a proponent of this idea is stephen jay gould of harvard, who is one of the most prominent biologists in the world today (and also a staunch critic of intelligent design). here's an article from gould Evolution of Life on Earth

however, i wouldn't say all of intelligent design is all crock. i woudl suggest william dembski's The Design Inference : Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory) . he is a mathematician who is one of the leading voices in the intelligent design movement.

-edit-
yes, it is true that dembski is no biologist, and his writings are more mathematical and philosphical. just wanted to point sources to both sides. dembski readings are interesting, and if anything can spur discussion. michael behe attempts to make the case from a biological perspective - although his works are oft criticized by his peers.

i just encourage people to keep an open mind. although evolutionary change is a fact, people blindly assume darwinian natural selection as the only driver of macro evolution, when in fact, there are other newer and more probable theories. as i pointed out above gould has a lot of good writings, and he debunks a lot of the creationism/intelligent design arguments.
 
I don't care whether or not you think it is a P&N issue, this thread has already turned into a religion/intelligent design bashing thread. The fact is, neither macro evolution nor intelligent design can be proven or tested. Why bother even having these threads since all they ever do is just make people mad without ever changing anybodies opinion. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top