Intelligent Design?

[rahvin]

Athanasius,

I think you misunderstood me when I included social interaction. I don't intend that to mean that the school staff should be concerned with teaching anything in that regard. What I mean when I say that is that extra curricular activities and the structure of our school system is meant to teach young people how to act in groups of their peers. Lessons like if you hit someone they will probably hit you back, if you act like a nitwit you will probably get teased or beat up. These are essential lessons the parents can't teach (and one the big reasons people should attend public schools), but these aren't lessons taught as part of the curriculium. They are simply a side benefit of our system of education.



<< As far as "science should be taught in science class", I am fine with that, so long as it is emphasized that science, under its current paradigms, has limitations and that one has to search in other places. But such is not the case in many instances. The prevailing attitude is often, "Science cannot answer that question, which means it is not a question worth asking. Let's deal with real life." >>



So they should teach biology in biology class but at the end say that philosophy has other things to say that we can't verify or prove? What value does that have to the science class? Isn't it the role of parents to teach their children other world views? Science is concerned with the known universe nothing more.

The defense being made and the insistance that other paradigms of view be taught as valid views in a science class are nothing more than veiled attempts to indoctrinate children against parents wishes. In fact it may be so veiled of an attempt that you may not even be aware of it. Can you honestly say that everyone pursing the inclusion of intelligent design in public education do not intend this to be an attempt to indoctrinate children (their own and others) in a world view that they favor?

Religion doesn't belong in school, it belongs in the home.

 

[BooneRebel]

Hey, I've got a new sig!

 

[Athanasius]

rahvin:

I think our main point of tension here is that you seem to be talking specifically about science class whereas I am talking about education in general.

As far as social interaction goes, I am not sure that the public school system (which I am not against; my wife was a public school teacher and may be again) is the best social model to follow. It is characterized by peer groups of a very narrow age group where those who are idolized are often very poor role models and those who are scapegoated certainly never should be scapegoated. It is hardly a meme that should be considered essential if parents choose other options.

FYI, I am a public school product with no axe to grind against public school per se.

 

[Athanasius]

rahvin:

Sorry, I forgot to respond to this query:

<< Can you honestly say that everyone pursing the inclusion of intelligent design in public education do not intend this to be an attempt to indoctrinate children (their own and others) in a world view that they favor? >>



Of course that occurs, but that is not the standard that should be employed. "Abusus non tollit usum." The abuse does not abolish the proper use.

The question you raised is just as open to abuse by either side. As a person of faith, I have experienced that firsthand, as you probably have as an atheist (or agnostic?).

And I still would dispute the premise that this statement constitutes an advocacy of any particular religion: "Science has found again and again that the hypothesis of Intelligent Design is one rational hypothesis that could explain the current data." Nor do I think it unscientific to say: "Current scientific paradigms are limited and you should be made aware of that lest you draw the conclusion that non-materialistic paradigms are intrinsically illogical."

Again and again I have encountered people who think that logic=science. It does not. Science is one child of logical thought, but not the only child. Since this error is so prevalent (though most aren't even aware that they are making it), statements need to be made to correct it. Isn't that a legitimate role of education?

But we will probably have to agree to disagree.

 

[rahvin]

<< As far as social interaction goes, I am not sure that the public school system (which I am not against; my wife was a public school teacher and may be again) is the best social model to follow. It is characterized by peer groups of a very narrow age group where those who are idolized are often very poor role models and those who are scapegoated certainly never should be scapegoated. It is hardly a meme that should be considered essential if parents choose other options. >>



I absolutely agree that it is a horrible model, unfortunately it mimics the adult world quite well and as a result gives children good survivial instruction.



<< And I still would dispute the premise that this statement constitutes an advocacy of any particular religion: "Science has found again and again that the hypothesis of Intelligent Design is one rational hypothesis that could explain the current data." >>



It constitutes the advocation of religion, not a particular religion. Intelligent design presumes the existence of a God. As someone without religion I'm displeased with statements that would advocate any religion. School is not the place to teach religion, unless it is a world religion class and all religions are given equal time (but this class would have a high potential for abuse in a system that encourages it).

As an example, revserse your statement to: "Science has found again and again that the hypothesis of theology is impossible to verify as a rational explanation for any of the current data.".



<< Again and again I have encountered people who think that logic=science. It does not. Science is one child of logical thought, but not the only child. >>



Most people have a hard enough time grasping scientific principles, something that can be seen and verified. To introduce the other social science forms of logic is probably well beyond the abilities of over 80% of the human population. The classical education that was prevalent in the early part of the previous century is dead.

 

[Netopia]

<< For any argument to be a scientific arguement it must be reproducable/predicable and falsifiable. >>

Really? Hmmm.... so, eternity and infinity can never be utilized in ANY scientific argument because neither is reproducable/predictable (how can you predict something that already is) and falsifiable? Seems to me I've heard it argued that there may be infinite universes, and therefore an infinite chance for life to develop. Isn't that a little two-faced of the scientific community?

"Well... we'll accept the infinite if it is mindless and suits our purpose, even though we can't prove it... but FORGET that personified infinite stuff!"

That's what it smacks of.

Joe

 

[rahvin]

<< Really? Hmmm.... so, eternity and infinity can never be utilized in ANY scientific argument because neither is reproducable/predictable (how can you predict something that already is) and falsifiable? Seems to me I've heard it argued that there may be infinite universes, and therefore an infinite chance for life to develop. Isn't that a little two-faced of the scientific community? >>



I believe you are confusing a concept with an arguement. Infinity is a concept, not an arguement. Reread what I wrote:



<< For any argument to be a scientific arguement it must be reproducable/predicable and falsifiable. >>



For example, I could make the statement: "The Universe is Infinate". When used in the context of the statement Infinate means the universe is so immensely large that we consider it to be essentially infinate. This does not preclude the existence of a universal space-time barrier. Taken litteraly the statement is not true, the Universe (as we understand it) is NOT infinate, but we can consider it infinate because the actual distances are so large that in our scale they are infinity. Irregardless, the statement above is not a scientific argument, it's a statement. Scientific arguements contain equations or data or observations.

The use of the infinity concept is one of the fundemental lessons in learning calculus, have you ever taken calculus Joe?

 

[Netopia]

<< The use of the infinity concept is one of the fundemental lessons in learning calculus, have you ever taken calculus Joe? >>

No... the rebelliousness of my youth haunts me to this day... and the education I missed. That doesn't mean though, that I cannot think.

Do you believe that it is ok to make suppositions using infinity as a possible cause for things... like because there may be infinite universes, then there is an infinite chance that life will be created in one of them and therefore the odds of life existing are in the believable realm? And, if you do believe in the use of infinity as a cause, then why would it be wrong to theorize (scientifically) that an infinite being is the cause?

Joe

 

[Moonbeam]

I have read the thread, but I can't get a grip. What are we arguing about. I have been struck stupid and cannot think. In my yard I see green things dancing in the wind and a pale blue sky that goes forever. I could think intelligent design, but I am too weak. The olive branch that bobs up and down sings not of design but that 'we are'.

 

[chrisjor]

too damn many words!!!!!

 

[Athanasius]

<< Most people have a hard enough time grasping scientific principles, something that can be seen and verified. To introduce the other social science forms of logic is probably well beyond the abilities of over 80% of the human population. The classical education that was prevalent in the early part of the previous century is dead. >>



Well, I have a hunch that its "death" had much to do with the advocacy of materialism and the belief that non-physical paradigms were not worth exploring because either (1) the "sheep" could not handle anything more, or (2) the presupposition of intelligent design = lack of rational thought.

I think it was kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, the end result of which has been the misperception that science=logic.

But that is not true. How can one say they are committed to education and yet leave such a gross error unadressed? Maybe only 20% of the people will get it, but probably less than 20% of the people get calculus, yet it is still offerred, even in high school, for those who demonstrate proficiency.
They demonstrate proficiency by being exposed to more and more complex forms of math until they reach a certain "saturation point."

Yet nothing is offerred about the principles of thought itself. It is as if we all assume the validity of materialistic analysis without ever exploring the process of analytical thought itself.

Hence, most people, even most doctorates, come out of their education thinking that Christians thought the world was flat, and that the stars were fixed in a literal dome of earth's atmosphere. Most of this is based on the "Galileo fiasco" and a few other incidents. People believe that constructs such as evolution, multiple universes, and re-creating universe theories are the child of the modern, "enlightened" materialists. They are not.

 

[rahvin]

<< No... the rebelliousness of my youth haunts me to this day... and the education I missed. That doesn't mean though, that I cannot think. >>



As with most higher mathematics the understanding doesn't come till later course anyway. When doing limit problems most people just get frustrated or miss the point the lesson is trying to teach. I actually don't think I picked it up till after a full year of calculus. I do know you can think Joe.



<< Do you believe that it is ok to make suppositions using infinity as a possible cause for things... like because there may be infinite universes, then there is an infinite chance that life will be created in one of them and therefore the odds of life existing are in the believable realm? And, if you do believe in the use of infinity as a cause, then why would it be wrong to theorize (scientifically) that an infinite being is the cause? >>



I have used the supposition you are referring to before and let me try to explain why. Infinity doesn't mean infinity to me. Infinity is a concept that as a teacher once told me means "really big number". If you flip a quarter, how many times would you have to flip it before it landed on it's edge? To me that is infinity, it's a big number, something I have difficulty even comprehending. I'm not sure that in reality there is anything that is infinite, everything has a limit but for our purposes some things are infinite. The universe is immensely large, in excess of a billion billion stars. Given what we know of chemistry I think even if the odds of life developing are infinitely small (like a quarter landing on it's edge), there are enough chances.



<< I think it was kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, the end result of which has been the misperception that science=logic. But that is not true. How can one say they are committed to education and yet leave such a gross error unadressed? >>



Science and the logic used in it have a credibility that is hard to fight. The process itself compensates for human weaknesses. In addition the logic used in science can be verified in the universe we live in. The other forms of logic you are refering to do not have these attributes, often the logic appears sound but there is no way to verify/falsify the logic used and as a result most people will give it less merit. It's human nature to believe more strongly in something that can be proved to you. Because of this I think you will find most scientists discredit philosphic logic because it can't be verified, it is outside the scope of the pursuit of science. I believe in a wide poll of scientists you would find most believe in god. Although we should probably be a little careful with this topic because I believe I'm talking about classical logic and you are refering to the early christian/platoian view of the legos <sp>.



<< Yet nothing is offerred about the principles of thought itself. It is as if we all assume the validity of materialistic analysis without ever exploring the process of analytical thought itself. >>



On the contrary, college courses in philosophy and in specific logic are quite common. Most of those classes are populated by future lawyers.

 

[Athanasius]

Athanasius quote:

<< Yet nothing is offerred about the principles of thought itself. It is as if we all assume the validity of materialistic analysis without ever exploring the process of analytical thought itself. >>




rahvin response:

<< On the contrary, college courses in philosophy and in specific logic are quite common. Most of those classes are populated by future lawyers. >>




But I am talking about basic education. These things were a part of the classical education that has been pronounced "dead."

Unfortunately, lawyers tend to use logic to sway opinion rather than uncover truth. It is the nature of their profession. In fact, such logic is often used to conceal truth rather than to uncover it. That is sophistry.

Something we are all more vulnerable to because we have not been exposed to principles of logic, only the facts of materialism.


But perhaps we have strayed to far from the concept of "intelligent design?"

The original post suggested that "intelligent design" is intrinsically nothing more than religious indoctrination, and therefore cannot be mentioned in a science class. I think the clear historical evidence of our country makes it obvious that the mere mention of Designer as a possible explanation by no means constitutes the establishment of religion.

Which generates the following rebuttal: "But 'Intelligent Designer' is not science, it is philosophy."

To which I say, "Fine, then provide a forum within basic education that allows these things to be discussed."

To which the following rebuttal is offerred: "That constitutes the establishment of religion." I think that such a position is historically untenable. Yet it has a stranglehold on our public education system.


Which is why I say that, by abdication, materialism becomes the de facto premise by which our society functions. If a public education science class raises questions that public education is not allowed to address in any way, then how balanced is our public education?

 

[linuxboy]

Hi Athanasius and Moonbeam.

Oh and I see rahvin, hayabusarider and Netopia are here too. *waves*

Cheers !