Intelligent Design

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Should intelligent design be taught in science classes, and to what degree?

  • Yes, intelligent design should be taught in science classes and fully explored.

  • Yes, intelligent design has a place in science class, but it should only be mentioned.

  • No opinion / neutral

  • No, intelligent design shouldn't be taught in science class, but it can be mentioned.

  • No, intelligent design does not have a place in science classes.


Results are only viewable after voting.
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
I would like to ask a highly hypothetical question of the ID proponents. Suppose it is proven beyond absolute certainty that ID is correct and that Vishnu was the one responsible. If that happened are you going to dump your god and become a Hindu? iow, what happens if it turns out that your preferred god is not really the true creator?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,787
10,085
136
I would like to ask a highly hypothetical question of the ID proponents. Suppose it is proven beyond absolute certainty that ID is correct and that Vishnu was the one responsible. If that happened are you going to dump your god and become a Hindu? iow, what happens if it turns out that your preferred god is not really the true creator?

In that case I'd ask my god to kill that god. Problem solved. ():)
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
(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.

Here's a good explanation of the difference between theory as used in everyday language and as used in s scientific context.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process.

A simple analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory:

Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

* Start with an observation that evokes a question: Broth spoils when I leave it out for a couple of days. Why?
* Using logic and previous knowledge, state a possible ansser, called a Hypothesis: Tiny organisms floating in the air must fall into the broth and start reproducing.
* Perform an expierment or Test: After boiling some broth, I divide it into two containers, one covered and one not covered. I place them on the table for two days and see if one spoils. Only the uncovered broth spoiled.
* Then publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal. Publication: "Only broth that is exposed to the air after two days tended to spoil. The covered specimen did not."
* Other scientists read about your experiment and try to duplicate it. Verification: Every scientist who tries your experiment comes up with the same results. So they try other methods to make sure your experiment was measuring what it was supposed to. Again, they get the same results every time.
* In time, and if experiments continue to support your hypothesis, it becomes a Theory: Microorganisms from the air cause broth to spoil.

Useful Prediction: If I leave broth open to the air, it will spoil. If I want to keep it from spoiling, I will keep it covered.

Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next open container of broth will spoil. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever left a cup of broth open for days and it did not spoil, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out.

Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. They must be capable of being modified based on new evidence. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable, they don't depend on new evidence, and they do not follow the scientific method.


..
 

ConstipatedVigilante

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2006
7,670
1
0
No. If you are going to introduce a deity into explaining how the singularity came into existence you've already divorced from the necessity of science's cause and effect and thus need not explain how it got there in a scientific way.So why bring it up?That's kind of like saying this car I'm selling you works great it's just missing its ECU so in actual fact it doesn't work at all. I have read on what science says about what came "before" the big bang theory and basically it resorts to "well in quantum physics some things just happen. We don't know why, but they do, and that's what we think happened with the big bang".Science has been "really close" for a while now.A lot of scientists disagree.

Anyway I'd pull back my original vote, since ID though a plausible cause of existence, is not a scientific concept so not really applicable in science class.
You're just looking for reasons to deny rational, scientific thought. Synthetic life has been created. http://content.usatoday.com/communi...5/us-scientists-create-first-synthetic-life/1

To say that just because something is still being worked out, it can't possibly work, is just stupid. There is no basis of working things out for religion - the religion just changes to accommodate undeniable facts.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,746
6,762
126
The only folk on earth who believe in intelligent design are fundi Christians. You don't believe in it unless you have been brainwashed in these two ways. ID is a defense mechanism taught to fools to keep them that way.

Neither God, Who is beyond scientific analysis one way or another, or truth, itself, require any defense. ID is for folk who have weak faith and the stupid belief that the Bible is literal, which only a moron would believe.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
I would like to ask a highly hypothetical question of the ID proponents. Suppose it is proven beyond absolute certainty that ID is correct and that Vishnu was the one responsible. If that happened are you going to dump your god and become a Hindu? iow, what happens if it turns out that your preferred god is not really the true creator?
If there is a creator...I imagine it's well beyond what science and 3 lbs of brain can fathom. How would you answer your question?
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
It can't be subjected to the scientific method so I suppose it has no place in a science class. No need to be argumentative about it, that's just the facts.
What!? The scientific reasoning behind ID is:

Look at this animal. Its too advance for its time period, therefore, it must be due to a Creator!

Seems pretty valid to me.
 
Dec 26, 2007
11,782
2
76
It has absolutely no place in the science classroom. Period.

It has absolutely NO basis in evidence or fact.

It has absolutely NO support through the scientific method.

It has absolutely NO place in an system designed to educate people to give them a common knowledge base to further our society on. The ONLY place ID has in any type of classroom is if it's a religious fundamentalist school that rejects any sort of science.

For those of you who voted yes and say "well both ideas should be presented for the children to decide what they believe" (or however you want to word it), do you have any idea how scientific method works? Last I checked it wasn't a democracy where the idea with the most votes wins, and instead any idea presented needs facts and evidence to support the idea then be peer reviewed before it can become anything that should be brought up in a class environment.

Pushing ID is a horrible idea. Even presenting it as an equal theory (which for the record, it is not a theory in any academic arena). You want to know what pushing ID and other ideas that reject science? Take a look at Islam nations. They were the pinnacle of education at one point in history, now those who have rejected science in favor of religious ideologies are no longer beacons of education and science. Take a look at European history. Humanity was gaining knowledge at a fairly steady rate and kept growing. Then the Dark Ages (where science was rejected in favor of religious based teachings) happened and we lost many scientific advances that had to be relearned from the Enlightenment period on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWdvuSUMipM&p=AC3481305829426D&index=17

If, you want to teach ID, then do it in a Church or other institution that is not based on science. If you want to teach your kids that at home, that is your right. If you want to teach that to your parish, that is your right. It is not your right to put ID in any envrionment meant to learn science and gain knowledge to further our species.
 

ModestGamer

Banned
Jun 30, 2010
1,140
0
0
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!

No your just a dumbass, who votes. the straight of it is that Evolution is not claiming any creator. It simply shows how life forms have changed over time. Nothing more.

You can belive there is a creator all you like, but with no scientific proof to establish this as fact, its not a pluasable conclusion.

at best ID is a postulation and induces magic into intelectual honesty.

Idiocay like yours should be dettered. We aren't getting smarter becuase the stupid fucks keep outbreeding the smart people.. Our population is getting dumber.

go watch idiocracy, but I doubt you'd get it.
 

ModestGamer

Banned
Jun 30, 2010
1,140
0
0
It has absolutely no place in the science classroom. Period.

It has absolutely NO basis in evidence or fact.

It has absolutely NO support through the scientific method.

It has absolutely NO place in an system designed to educate people to give them a common knowledge base to further our society on. The ONLY place ID has in any type of classroom is if it's a religious fundamentalist school that rejects any sort of science.

For those of you who voted yes and say "well both ideas should be presented for the children to decide what they believe" (or however you want to word it), do you have any idea how scientific method works? Last I checked it wasn't a democracy where the idea with the most votes wins, and instead any idea presented needs facts and evidence to support the idea then be peer reviewed before it can become anything that should be brought up in a class environment.

Pushing ID is a horrible idea. Even presenting it as an equal theory (which for the record, it is not a theory in any academic arena). You want to know what pushing ID and other ideas that reject science? Take a look at Islam nations. They were the pinnacle of education at one point in history, now those who have rejected science in favor of religious ideologies are no longer beacons of education and science. Take a look at European history. Humanity was gaining knowledge at a fairly steady rate and kept growing. Then the Dark Ages (where science was rejected in favor of religious based teachings) happened and we lost many scientific advances that had to be relearned from the Enlightenment period on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWdvuSUMipM&p=AC3481305829426D&index=17

If, you want to teach ID, then do it in a Church or other institution that is not based on science. If you want to teach your kids that at home, that is your right. If you want to teach that to your parish, that is your right. It is not your right to put ID in any envrionment meant to learn science and gain knowledge to further our species.


teaching Id anywhere besides in the home by parents should be illegal, it is intelectually dishonest and it isn't rasing up the people, it is lowering them into slavery and cuasing a distrust of science. Exactly what the religous zealots want. they want to destablish inteletualism and inttelegence.

Stupid people are easier to lead.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
If there is a creator...I imagine it's well beyond what science and 3 lbs of brain can fathom. How would you answer your question?
I don't believe in a god so I have no horse in that race. If it was determined that Vishnu was the one...well...I guess my first order of business would be to procure a copy of the Kama Sutra and take things from there.
 

ModestGamer

Banned
Jun 30, 2010
1,140
0
0
I don't believe in a god so I have no horse in that race. If it was determined that Vishnu was the one...well...I guess my first order of business would be to procure a copy of the Kama Sutra and take things from there.

It would only be pluasiable if such evidence existed to make such a claim be irrefutable. The problem is that the fundis still would ignore the evidence, thus proving they are mental slaves to theology.
 

Rustican

Member
Feb 7, 2005
120
0
76
Alchemy is a subject of chemistry. It's not an important subject within chemistry, and I don't think it deserves time in a high school intro chemistry course, but that doesn't negate its existence.

It is 100% possible to turn one substance into another substance (yes, even gold) using nothing but chemical processes. That is alchemy. Alchemy should be taught and mentioned to the point where children realize that popular culture references to it (such as those in sci-fi/fantasy books and stories) are incorrect and not factual. But the entirety of the field should not be ignored simply because fiction has characaturized it.

If Alchemy is taught in a Chemistry class it should be show how it is sudo-science and why it's fundamental principle of chemical transmutation of one element into another is physically impossible. Please link a source where where you found one element was converted to another through a purely chemical process.

If ID is taught in a Science class, it should be shown how it is also sudo-science as it is untestable and provides no methods to falsify or prove it's claims.
 

ModestGamer

Banned
Jun 30, 2010
1,140
0
0
If Alchemy is taught in a Chemistry class it should be show how it is sudo-science and why it's fundamental principle of chemical transmutation of one element into another is physically impossible. Please link a source where where you found one element was converted to another through a purely chemical process.

If ID is taught in a Science class, it should be shown how it is also sudo-science as it is untestable and provides no methods to falsify or prove it's claims.


Both should be rejected and the only mention of them should be to mention that they are not science and to point out the flaw of the proces used to create them.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
If Alchemy is taught in a Chemistry class it should be show how it is sudo-science and why it's fundamental principle of chemical transmutation of one element into another is physically impossible. Please link a source where where you found one element was converted to another through a purely chemical process.

If ID is taught in a Science class, it should be shown how it is also sudo-science as it is untestable and provides no methods to falsify or prove it's claims.

LOL I was going to respond to Drebo's post but you got to it first.

Drebo, Alchemy by definition is the conversion of one basic element into another. The only elements known to do so are those higher than lead and are radioactive. They eventually degrade into lead and that is it. There is no known chemical process by which I can transform lead to gold, or hydrogen to copper. It is just not possible. Teaching such a ridiculous thing in a Chemistry class is like teaching ID in a Science class.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
It has absolutely NO place in an system designed to educate people to give them a common knowledge base to further our society on.

So critical thinking and the ability to reason on one's own aren't part of a fundamental common knowledgebase?

Sounds like a leftist idea to me. You know, with the whole telling-people-what-they-should-think thing.
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
176
106
LOL I was going to respond to Drebo's post but you got to it first.

Drebo, Alchemy by definition is the conversion of one basic element into another. The only elements known to do so are those higher than lead and are radioactive. They eventually degrade into lead and that is it. There is no known chemical process by which I can transform lead to gold, or hydrogen to copper. It is just not possible. Teaching such a ridiculous thing in a Chemistry class is like teaching ID in a Science class.

This was drebo's way of letting us all know we can ignore him now. There's no reasoning with this level of indoctrination.
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,353
1,862
126
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!

When we teach science, we should focus on the actual science, aka "the process." To better explain and enforce the process, and to make use of it, theories and laws must be explained. Fantasy should not be brought into the picture. Schools need to stick with facts, and fact based theories. I am not suggesting we eliminate anything from an argument. What I am saying is that creationism/design does not have a scientific or rational argument. If you believe in "design" then you believe due to faith, not because it's based on observed or provable scientific facts. Thus, your argument is invalid.

I have friends and family who are conservatives and republicans. I have a friend who loves the tea party. I disagree with them on some issues sure, and agree on others. But, we pretty much universally agree about facts, just have different ways that we think will solve problems.

So, in short,
evolution vs antievolution isn't an argument. It's simply a matter of "correct" vs "incorrect." all arguments against evolution are based on faith/religion. faith and religion should not be taught in school.