Intelligent Design

[DesiPower]

Are science classes the right place for it, though, when the root of ID cannot be subjected to the scientific method?

... ID cannot be subjected to the scientific method yet, that does not mean that we dismiss it as a myth

 

[HumblePie]

Right, when teaching you absolutely DO NOT want to present both sides of thought. That is just good critical thinking when you completely eliminate the 'thinking' of 1/2 of the argument. Hopefully we can parlay this into not teaching about the Tea Party, Republicans, Conservatives, or anyone else you disagree with.

Bigotry! Its OK when its taught in schools!

At the theory of the flat earth, or man not walking on the moon, or the JFK assassination was a secret CIA plot, or any other "theory" thought up loons should be taught and mentioned in schools too is just as stupid as teaching ID in a science class. Why? It gives equal merit to theories which have NO FUCKING EVIDENCE for them and go against mountains of evidence contrary to them. It's not bigotry when you ignore insanity.

 

[middlehead]

Voted "No, has no place."

"No, but can be mentioned" would be acceptable, but I do not believe there should be any particular depth to it.

 

[zsdersw]

... ID cannot be subjected to the scientific method yet, that does not mean that we dismiss it as a myth

That was not suggested.

 

[BeauJangles]

Right, when teaching you absolutely DO NOT want to present both sides of thought. That is just good critical thinking when you completely eliminate the 'thinking' of 1/2 of the argument. Hopefully we can parlay this into not teaching about the Tea Party, Republicans, Conservatives, or anyone else you disagree with.

Bigotry! Its OK when its taught in schools!

So should we also teach our children the Hopi people's creation story?

How about the Navajo?

Intelligent Design has no factual basis, just like those other fairy tales.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Wikipedia says this is what ID is:

"certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

My answer stands despite the false dichotomy presented....natural selection does not preclude the existence of a creator as inferred by this definition. People need to clearly understand that science has nothing to do with justifying religious/nonreligious beliefs. This is what needs to be taught in schools. We have more than a few here that falsely think science somehow precludes the existence of a creator....apparently they weren't very well educated on this subject in school.

 

[child of wonder]

ID is not science. It offers no testable theories nor has it been used to discover anything.

It should not be taught or mentioned in science class.

I do, however, feel there should be a class teaching about religions in general. It can be mentioned there by its real name: Creationism.

 

[DesiPower]

So should we also teach our children the Hopi people's creation story?

How about the Navajo?

Intelligent Design has no factual basis, just like those other fairy tails.

again... you are dismissing something just coz you dont like it, you are sticking to science like Medieval ppl stuck to their bible, you dismiss any idea that you books don't support. There is so much we don't know, there is so much we cant see, how can you dismiss anything specially when there is so much even your books cant explain.

 

[BeauJangles]

again... you are dismissing something just coz you dont like it, you are sticking to science like Medieval ppl stuck to their bible, you dismiss any idea that you books don't support. There is so much we don't know, there is so much we cant see, how can you dismiss anything specially when there is so much even your books cant explain.

There is plenty we don't know about this world, that doesn't mean we should adopt beliefs that have no basis in science in order to explain them. Intelligent Design is just Creationism wrapped in more BS. It belongs in a science classroom as much as any other creation story from any other religion does.

 

[Jaskalas]

ID is not science. It offers no testable theories nor has it been used to discover anything.

It should not be taught or mentioned in science class.

I do, however, feel there should be a class teaching about religions in general. It can be mentioned there by its real name: Creationism.

That would be a proper compromise if there ever was one.

 

[DesiPower]

There is plenty we don't know about this world, that doesn't mean we should adopt beliefs that have no basis in science in order to explain them. Intelligent Design is just Creationism wrapped in more BS. It belongs in a science classroom as much as any other creation story from any other religion does.

I am not asking anyone to adopt it as a part of science, but I want room for discussion. I don't want anyone thinking outside the science book to be outcast-ed from science community.

 

[drebo]

Are science classes the right place for it, though, when the root of ID cannot be subjected to the scientific method?

The root of evolution/big bang theory cannot be subjected to scientific method either. We do not have the capability to create life out of nothing.

Until a scientist comes along and lays out a formula for turning miscelaneous atoms into a living being, neither has any more real credibility than the other.

Evolution is observed in nature, sure. However, the start of everything is not even close to being a closed subject: ID has the potential to be just as valid as the Big Bang Theory.

 

[drebo]

ID is not science. It offers no testable theories nor has it been used to discover anything.

Neither does the Big Bang theory.

Both are beliefs. One is the belief in an intelligent creator, the other is the belief that a 1 in a googolquadrigazillionbajillion chance of energy acting in exactly the right way to create matter, which then bound in just the exact way to form impossibly long and complex chains of molecules to form the basis of organic matter which found its way to create organs which found their way to combine in such a way as to create a complex, sentient being.

To be honest, both are pretty hard to believe.

 

[her209]

I think it should be explored, particularly in light of the big bang. The big bang IMO is impossible based on real scientific tenets (cause and effect) anyway, at least if you keep going back to "what came before the big bang". I still don't know how it's possible that we all have come into existence without something either starting the universe out of the blue or the universe always having been here, neither of which follow the laws of science.

I don't think evolution ever tried to explain the Big Bang.

 

[shocksyde]

Neither does the Big Bang theory.

Both are beliefs. One is the belief in an intelligent creator, the other is the belief that a 1 in a googolquadrigazillionbajillion chance of energy acting in exactly the right way to create matter, which then bound in just the exact way to form impossibly long and complex chains of molecules to form the basis of organic matter which found its way to create organs which found their way to combine in such a way as to create a complex, sentient being.

To be honest, both are pretty hard to believe.

"the other" is waaaaaaaaay more believable than a magical man in the sky born of nothing and being intellegent enough to "create matter, which then bound in just the exact way to form impossibly long and complex chains of molecules to form the basis of organic matter which found its way to create organs which found their way to combine in such a way as to create a complex, sentient being."

 

[her209]

ID is not science. It offers no testable theories nor has it been used to discover anything.

It should not be taught or mentioned in science class.

I do, however, feel there should be a class teaching about religions in general. It can be mentioned there by its real name: Creationism.

Who's version of "Creationsim" is going to be taught?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

The root of evolution/big bang theory cannot be subjected to scientific method either. We do not have the capability to create life out of nothing.

Until a scientist comes along and lays out a formula for turning miscelaneous atoms into a living being, neither has any more real credibility than the other.

Evolution is observed in nature, sure. However, the start of everything is not even close to being a closed subject: ID has the potential to be just as valid as the Big Bang Theory.

Evolution does not address the creation of life. That would be abiogenesis and science is slowly moving towards beings able to create life by simply combining chemicals.

As far as the root of the Big Bang, it can indeed be subjected to the scientific method. Science such as M-Theory postulates the root cause of the BB, is subject to mathematical proofs, and is therefore testable. In fact, science can mathematically test BB theory right up to the point of the singularity. The only reason science can't go any further at this point is because we don't understand the physics of a singularity...yet. Once we do have that capability the BB can be fully subjected to the scientific method. ID, however, by its very nature, will never be subject to the scientific method because it is not science, it's ultimately pure guesswork that employs an unknown mediator.

 

[BeauJangles]

The root of evolution/big bang theory cannot be subjected to scientific method either. We do not have the capability to create life out of nothing.

(a) Evolution does not talk about the origin of life.

(b) http://www.impactlab.net/2010/05/21/artificial-life-created-in-a-laboratory-for-the-first-time/ We are getting extremely close to being able to synthesize life.

 

[BeauJangles]

I am not asking anyone to adopt it as a part of science, but I want room for discussion. I don't want anyone thinking outside the science book to be outcast-ed from science community.

This is not a discussion anymore. In over 200 years since it was first postulated, the Theory of Evolution has only become stronger, more well-supported, and better understood. There is no scientific counter-argument. There is no discussion. Fair tales belong in the story-time portion of school, not the scientific portion.

 

[drebo]

(a) Evolution does not talk about the origin of life.

(b) http://www.impactlab.net/2010/05/21/artificial-life-created-in-a-laboratory-for-the-first-time/ We are getting extremely close to being able to synthesize life.

"Close" and "being able to" are two very, very different things.

People in this thread and in the general public point to "evolution" and say "see, creationism has to be wrong". Well, no it doesn't. It doesn't have to be right, either. The existence of evolution does not disprove ID, which is a very common misconception. That is why I brought it up.

Until an alternate theory is PROVEN, both theories have to be considered plausible. Whether or not one is more plausible than the other is a subject for a science classroom to discuss. But to dismiss out-of-hand one of the theories is to not be objective in the pursuit of learning.

 

[DaveSimmons]

"Close" and "being able to" are two very, very different things.

People in this thread and in the general public point to "evolution" and say "see, creationism has to be wrong". Well, no it doesn't. It doesn't have to be right, either. The existence of evolution does not disprove ID, which is a very common misconception. That is why I brought it up.

Until an alternate theory is PROVEN, both theories have to be considered plausible. Whether or not one is more plausible than the other is a subject for a science classroom to discuss. But to dismiss out-of-hand one of the theories is to not be objective in the pursuit of learning.

As I said above, it does make sense to bring up creationism / ID and explain how they aren't testable or disprovable and hence are not scientific theories, just faith-based beliefs.

Then go on to show the young Earth and instantly-created modern human beliefs are contradicted by all existing evidence, but that faith in some form of creator and creation does not conflict with evolution.

This will upset the young Earth believers, but should be acceptable to the deists with stronger faith.

 

[BeauJangles]

"Close" and "being able to" are two very, very different things.

People in this thread and in the general public point to "evolution" and say "see, creationism has to be wrong". Well, no it doesn't. It doesn't have to be right, either. The existence of evolution does not disprove ID, which is a very common misconception. That is why I brought it up.

Wrong. If you ever bothered to read what Theory of Evolution states, you would realize that it is completely incompatible with the idea that there is a supernatural guiding force.

Why don't you try learning about the science you're trying to disprove before you repeat the same crappy arguments that have been put forth countless times before?

It's insulting to think that I know more about Intelligent Design than you know about Evolution, considering one is a fantasy and the other is scientific fact.

Until an alternate theory is PROVEN, both theories have to be considered plausible. Whether or not one is more plausible than the other is a subject for a science classroom to discuss. But to dismiss out-of-hand one of the theories is to not be objective in the pursuit of learning.

In science, a theory is something that is conclusively proven. Take the Theory of Gravity.

Secondly, Intelligent Design is NOT a theory. It is not scientifically testable.

So, fail on two counts.

the opponents of evolution have had 200 years to come up with anything that even remotely disproves, modifies, or contradicts evolution. You've failed time and again. This isn't a debate. Evolution is a scientific fact and the faster you and your backwards religion come to accept that, the sooner our country can move forward and deal with real issues.

 

[HumblePie]

"Close" and "being able to" are two very, very different things.

People in this thread and in the general public point to "evolution" and say "see, creationism has to be wrong". Well, no it doesn't. It doesn't have to be right, either. The existence of evolution does not disprove ID, which is a very common misconception. That is why I brought it up.

Until an alternate theory is PROVEN, both theories have to be considered plausible. Whether or not one is more plausible than the other is a subject for a science classroom to discuss. But to dismiss out-of-hand one of the theories is to not be objective in the pursuit of learning.

Unfortunately for your argument, the Big Bang theory from science, like all scientific theories put forth and tested, HAS evidence for it. It is not a huge amount of empirical evidence such as the case for say Evolution or even the Theory of Gravity, but it has evidence nonetheless. Ignoring things such as Doppler Shifting because you want to believe in ID is not science. The problem is ID has NO evidence for it. Nothing at all. As such it can not be called a scientific theory. Period. Not at all. Since it can not be called a scientific theory it can not and should not be taught or even mentioned in a science class which deals with, guess what, science. This is why schools offer other courses. Such as history, philosophy, theology, and mythology. Any of those courses are prime places for the mentioning and discussion of ID. In a science class, not so much.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

As I said above, it does make sense to bring up creationism / ID and explain how they aren't testable or disprovable and hence are not scientific theories, just faith-based beliefs.

Then go on to show the young Earth and instantly-created modern human beliefs are contradicted by all existing evidence, but that faith in some form of creator and creation does not conflict with evolution.

This will upset the young Earth believers, but should be acceptable to the deists with stronger faith.

Young earthers, as well as many here, need to be taught what an allegory is.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Wrong. If you ever bothered to read what Theory of Evolution states, you would realize that it is completely incompatible with the idea that there is a supernatural guiding force.



In science, a theory is something that is conclusively proven. Take the Theory of Gravity.

Secondly, Intelligent Design is NOT a theory. It is not scientifically testable.

So, fail on two counts.

You're 1 for 2. Evolution proves that a creator is not necessary not that one does not exist.

Many Christians (which I'm not) accept evolution as natural law, along with carbon dating, old Earth / old universe, etc. They just hold that mankind is a special case where their creator intervened in the natural process, just like miracles sidestep natural laws to do things like part the red sea.

In other words, the universe has default behavior, but there is something that has the cheat codes for, ahem, God mode.