Intelligent Design.

Hobbes

After Bushes comments kind of endorsing it..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201686.html

It looks more like a way to get by the seperation of church and state then anything else.

Zombrex

Hobbes wrote:

After Bushes comments kind of endorsing it..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201686.html

It looks more like a way to get by the seperation of church and state then anything else.

No great surprise .. Bush has very little respect for the idea of seperation of Church and State (at least the Christian church) and he is a born again from Texas who probably couldn't understand the idea of evolution if it was drawn out by bobo the clown on a big board with crayons.

It is just funny how we look to the middle east for examples of religious fundamentalism putting democracy civil rights and science on the back burner when it is actually going on far more to the west of us

Wheely

Actually could someone explain the notion of Intelligent design cos im not really sure what it means...I know thw |Times today called it "re-packaged creationism" but what is it exactly

Zombrex

Wheely wrote:

Actually could someone explain the notion of Intelligent design cos im not really sure what it means...I know thw |Times today called it "re-packaged creationism" but what is it exactly

Intelligent Design (I.D) is the idea that life is just too complex a system to have occured naturally in nature, so there for some form of intelligence must have designed it.

In reality it is really just a way for religious people to try and get the idea of Creationism (God created the universe along with us) into the field of evolution because they believe it sounds more scientific than simply saying "God did it." It tends to be promoted by people who have already made their minds up that God did it, I don't think you will find many athestis going "you know what that makes sense".

As it stands there is no scientific basis for ID at all, it just sounds kinda scientifc so the creationists roll it out when they want to sound all serious like

bonkey

Intelligent Design basically puts forward the notion that any complex design needs a designer. This is clearly at odds with Darwinism, which puts forward the idea generally summarised as "survival of the fittest", which leads to random changes being "filtered" so that we evolve forwards.

Bush's statement is somewhat misleading, because he argues that both sides should be taught so that people can know what the debate is about. But that completely dodges the issue - it presupposes that ID is not spiritual / religious in origin, but rather is a competing scientific theory - which it isn't. It makes no falsifiable predications, and therefore cannot be disproven. This is not a theory.

So while there may be two sides to the debate, its no different to the Church saying that homosexuality is a disease and the medical community saying it isn't, and this meaning that both sides of said debate are suitable for teaching in school. Again - there is a debate / disagreement, but only one side is actually scientific, while the other is religious - something which is not allowed in US schools.

I agree with Hobbes on this one...it smacks of an effort to get around the Seperation of Church And State issue.

Its interesting to note though that Bush doesn't want Federal input on this one. He wants it left to the schools. Presumably that would be so that those schools in the bible-belt who wanted to introduce this religiously-entrenched concept into their education system could do so with less fear of interevention.

jc
jc

DadaKopf

This from Stephen J. Gould (of Simpsons fame):

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution. (Source)

ID is not a competing theory and proper scienticians don't defend it. It's identical to the argument made by Godboys to rubbish his theory (it was a theory at the time). I'm always open to competing ideas, but supporters of ID proceed by deciding what conclusion they want to make and work backwards, and that's just not science. Or cricket.

The IG argument is designed to be impenetrable to scientific enquiry and experimentation because the cause of ID - the creator - is beyond scientific investigation. Unless you believe in God or you're a crackpot metaphysician. It dabbles with science, co-opts scientific language, but avoids that most important value of natural science: reproducibility.

The timing of the ID movement is curious to say the least, as are the advocates of ID. Why all of a sudden, during Bush's tenure, has it become a new scientific 'paradigm'? It's definitely a secularised attempt by right-wing WASPS to get religion into schools through the back door. It's offensive to democracy and science. But that's just a theory. For now.

tomMK1

GW Bush wrote:

"Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about," he said, according to an official transcript of the session. Bush added: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

I bet he doesnt intend to include all the different religious schools of thought

bonkey

tomMK1 wrote:

I bet he doesnt intend to include all the different religious schools of thought

Course not. Thats why he said both sides of the debate, and not all sides

rsynnott

Wicknight wrote:

Intelligent Design (I.D) is the idea that life is just too complex a system to have occured naturally in nature, so there for some form of intelligence must have designed it.

In reality it is really just a way for religious people to try and get the idea of Creationism (God created the universe along with us) into the field of evolution because they believe it sounds more scientific than simply saying "God did it." It tends to be promoted by people who have already made their minds up that God did it, I don't think you will find many athestis going "you know what that makes sense".

As it stands there is no scientific basis for ID at all, it just sounds kinda scientifc so the creationists roll it out when they want to sound all serious like

It's purest psuedo-science, and should only be taught to those pursuing a course in quackery.

uberwolf

This is a topic with the capacity to get me really worked up - though I don't envisage having someone debate the topic with me here!

Science has developed the respect and authority that it currently enjoys due to the perception of meticulous examination of all available facts and developing theories based on those and debunking old theories as new become avail. (see Popper vs Kuhn for more on the nature of scientific development).

What I perceive as happening here is politics and religion recognising they can't compete at the same level of authority as science and so attempting to strongarm what they wish to be true and lending their theories credence through hijacking science. Which removes from both.

In the classroom subjects should be kept seperate. I.D is a faith based theory that has very little in the way of substance to withstand examination. Teach it in religion if you wish. Everything taught in science should face the same level of scrutiny.

gregos

uberwolf wrote:

lending their theories credence through hijacking science.

Through hijacking scientific terminology, maybe, rather than actual science?

buellershow

I don't see the problem. Evolution's a theory on the universe's origins, so is intelligent design. Why not present both in the interests of academic fairness and debate rather than say there's only one theory which hasn't been completely proven yet dismiss the other one? Discuss them both, it's the educational way.

rsynnott

There's nothing scientific about "intelligent design"; it's not a scientific theory.

catholicireland

Well, after all. everything cannot be explained by science. There is a higher power called God.

rsynnott

catholicireland wrote:

Well, after all. everything cannot be explained by science. There is a higher power called God.

So you believe, and so the creators of "intelligent design" believe. But it is certainly not science, and as such has no place in a science class. It is a legitimate subject for a religion class, along with other ideas about the creation of the universe. But it is nothing like science, and the credibility of science would suffer enormously.

catholicireland

But it is certainly not science, and as such has no place in a science class.

Thats a good point. But anything taught that is anti-religion in a science class i think should not be taught. Its a tricky subject and I think it comes down to whether you believe in God or not.

supersheep

catholicireland wrote:

Thats a good point. But anything taught that is anti-religion in a science class i think should not be taught. Its a tricky subject and I think it comes down to whether you believe in God or not.

Keep discussion of religion and what is anti-religion to a religion class. Keep science and discussion of what is anti-science to a science class... If science is anti-religion, so be it. Religion is anti-science, after all... (A generalisation I know, but somewhat true, especially where people try to change what we see to fit with what some old book says...)

catholicireland

If science is anti-religion, so be it.

But isnt that insulting to everyone?

supersheep

catholicireland wrote:

But isnt that insulting to everyone?

How so? Similarly, if religion is anti-science, so be it... I'll just pick the one that is based on observation, not a book that tells me to stone raped women to death... And I will respect your choice to pick the one that is based on being nice to people, not the one that killed more than eighty thousand people in a few seconds sixty years ago today...

rsynnott

supersheep wrote:

How so? Similarly, if religion is anti-science, so be it... I'll just pick the one that is based on observation, not a book that tells me to stone raped women to death... And I will respect your choice to pick the one that is based on being nice to people, not the one that killed more than eighty thousand people in a few seconds sixty years ago today...

Strictly speaking, that was political application of science.

And evolution is not anti-religion; it just makes alternative claims to the origin of life than christianity.

bonkey

Interestingly, it occurred to me that to look at the argument presented by ID, one can actually look at the mathematical model of Genetic Algorithns to show that it is fundmentally flawed, or simply not at odds with evolution.

GA allows the mathematician/programmer to set up rules for an evolutionary system. This involves what types of mutations/crossovers to have, probabilities for each occurring, etc. Then you let the program run, and all of the "work" (genetically-speaking) is actually random, with an evaluation routine at the end providing a "survival of the fittest" mechanism. (This description is oversimplified, but its close enough for our purpose here).

Now...here's the thing...a Genetic Algorithm system is designed. However, it arrives at progressively better solutions through a random, undirected system. So the design is in the setting of the initial conditions, but the evolution itself is random and arbitrary. Not only that, but there is no guarantee that two successive runs of a GA will produce comparable output. Its possible that one run will find an optimal or near-optimal solution to the problem at hand, while a subsequent run with the same starting conditions will fail utterly and get stuck in a "localised high point" which is actually quite crap.

So ID is either not at odds with evolution (God created the evolutionary system, and let evolution run its course), or it is based on a fallacious assumption (that complex solutions cannot be arrived at without direction, ergo evolution is directed). Complex systems can be arrived at without direction...as long as one has the appropriate framework in place to allow it.

Which brings us neatly back to the notion that ID is little more than a obfuscation of the "but whats behind it all" question that religious types pose scientific types all the time. Science doesn't address that question, religion and/or spirituality does....

supersheep wrote:

Keep discussion of religion and what is anti-religion to a religion class.

Sure...but in America, as far as I know, religion and school don't mix - there is no religion class. So what you're saying is effectively keep discussion of religion out of schools, which is what the law says, and what Bush is trying to help circumvent.

Oh - and science is not anti-religion, no more than religion is anti-science. They address different questions and their fields only overlap in the minds of those who do not understand where one stops and the other starts.

jc

growler

bonkey wrote:

GA allows the mathematician/programmer to set up rules for an evolutionary system. This involves what types of mutations/crossovers to have, probabilities for each occurring, etc. Then you let the program run, and all of the "work" (genetically-speaking) is actually random, with an evaluation routine at the end providing a "survival of the fittest" mechanism. (This description is oversimplified, but its close enough for our purpose here).

Now...here's the thing...a Genetic Algorithm system is designed. However, it arrives at progressively better solutions through a random, undirected system.
jc

sounds like an experiment setting out prove rather than test a theory, its conceivable that randomness would eventually arrive at optimal outcomes (in line with what the experimentor would view as optimal), we have no way of really extrapolating what the actual outcome of trillions of possible genetic combinations might actually mean for a species, evolution-wise.

Science itself is biased against the very concept of religion because it doesn't fit a preconceived view of the universe, it can't or science would be largely redundant. Religion is afraid of science because it threatens the very , promoted reason, for the services religions provide to their donors/ belivers. The more science purports to understand , the less mystery in the world etc etc.

Its weird to see myself typing this....but.... in Steven Hawkins Brief History of Time he says that he believes that the universe is so complex that there may well be an intelligence behind it. Mr Hawkins would be a voice of science who's views I have to respect. I don't believe in god-stuff but then I've never hit a scientific brick wall and stood back amazed at my limitations.
Scientists have been getting it wrong ever since (and long before) some alchemist tried to make custard out of rocks.

I think there may be a case for both sides to be presented as alternative theories but trying to find a vast number of US teachers willing to suspend their own heartfelt beliefs in the interest of a balanced debate is remote. Putting it in science class might be the best place for such a debate.

rsynnott

growler wrote:

Its weird to see myself typing this....but.... in Steven Hamkins Brief History of Time he says that he believes that the universe is so complex that there may well be an intelligence behind it. Mr Hawkins would be a voice of science who's views I have to respect. I don't believe in god-stuff but then I've never hit a scientific brick wall and stood back amazed at my limitations.
Scientists have been getting it wrong ever since (and long before) some alchemist tried to make custard out of rocks.

Just because Stephen Hawkins believes in a god or god-like thing, doesn't mean that science is obliged to accept it, you know...

And the religous don't have the greatest track record when it comes to getting things wrong, either.

I maintain that this unscientific idea has no place in a science class, and certainly not to a class of impressionable children. How can you expect them to think objectively, if they are taught "oh, don't think about that the way you think about normal science. Bush knows best!"

supersheep

rsynnott wrote:

Strictly speaking, that was political application of science.

And evolution is not anti-religion; it just makes alternative claims to the origin of life than christianity.

Aye, I'm aware. But it is hard-to-impossible to not make a political/moral judgement here, no?
And apologies. I should have said religion can be used to be anti-science, and vice versa.
But, if you allow ID, then why not the concept that the Universe was sneized out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure? It's another 'theory'...
Finally, I believe that religious education should be allowed in schools, but only in a 'comparative religions' style... Unfortunately, the US prohibits this, I know. But a science classroom is still not the forum for religious discussion.

bonkey

growler wrote:

sounds like an experiment setting out prove rather than test a theory,

Nope. Its an established and highly successful mathematical strategy for finding acceptably good solutions acceptably quickly in excessivly large brute-force (np-complete) problems, and other such types.

More than that is more apt for another forum.

Science itself is biased against the very concept of religion

As I've already pointed out, science and religion do not contradict each other in the slightest, except when religion tries to enter the realm of the material. Science doesn't attempt to explain what started it all. It attempts to explain how things have progressed since then. It neither confirms, refutes, nor even addresses the basic realms of religion - they why and by what/whom of things.

The more science purports to understand , the less mystery in the world etc etc.

Yes, and this only serves to strip away much of the fluff that religious pomposity has wrapped around the basic tenets of belief.

Its weird to see myself typing this....but.... in Steven Hawkins Brief History of Time he says that he believes that the universe is so complex that there may well be an intelligence behind it. Mr Hawkins would be a voice of science who's views I have to respect. I don't believe in god-stuff but then I've never hit a scientific brick wall and stood back amazed at my limitations.

As I keep saying - religion and science are not at odds, except when one tries to overstep its bounds.

I think there may be a case for both sides to be presented as alternative theories but trying to find a vast number of US teachers willing to suspend their own heartfelt beliefs in the interest of a balanced debate is remote. Putting it in science class might be the best place for such a debate.

<shrug>
You don't get it, do you?

ID is not a theory.

It is not scientific.

It has no more place in the science classroom than the theory that the world is a big disk which sits on the back of a turtle being carried through space by four elephants.

Put it in philosophy, maybe, but never science.

growler

bonkey wrote:

<shrug>
You don't get it, do you?

ID is not a theory.

It is not scientific.

It has no more place in the science classroom than the theory that the world is a big disk which sits on the back of a turtle being carried through space by four elephants.

Put it in philosophy, maybe, but never science.

ID is a theory, so is the giant turtle , it may be equally implausible, but its a theory none the less. Theory by definition includes abstract speculation.

You say that religion and science are so distinct that they (should) never cross paths, but historically religion and science have always been at odds, religion provided one view (theory) of the universe ..creation, evolution, intelligence etc. and science, by accident or design disproved many such beliefs.

Evolution is a theory, one we all agree on, darwinism is a theory, but is not a proven theory yet.

I don't really see the problem with examining two theories in a scientific light, one has far more evidence and research to support it , the other (ID) is , while neither proveable or otherwise, less likely to stand up to unbiased scientific scrutiny, that doesn't lend it pseudo-credence. To teach ID is very different to examing it.

Hobbes

growler wrote:

I don't really see the problem with examining two theories in a scientific light, one has far more evidence and research to support it , the other (ID) is , while neither proveable or otherwise, less likely to stand up to unbiased scientific scrutiny, that doesn't lend it pseudo-credence. To teach ID is very different to examing it.

Teaching children complete nonsense is very different as well to teaching science. Doesn't mean it should be done.

bonkey

growler wrote:

ID is a theory, so is the giant turtle , it may be equally implausible, but its a theory none the less. Theory by definition includes abstract speculation.

Not if you're referring to the term theory in the scientific sense.

In that sense, neither the turtle nor ID is a theory.

You might be able to argue that its a hypothesis, but even then you'd be up against it.

You say that religion and science are so distinct that they (should) never cross paths, but historically religion and science have always been at odds,

Yes, they have. Religious bodies have taken it upon themselves to offer explanations of how things are, and backed up those claims with some assertion of divine correctness. Why do you think the Catholic church opposed scientific progress in certain fields for so long? Its not because they were outraged at heresy...its because the heresy was effective proof that their "divine knowledge" was incorrect...which then suggests that its not divine at all. And if that isn't divine, but the church claims it is...what religious proclamations aren't suspect.

As I said...religion overstepped its borders, and sooner or later was shown to have done so. Today, the catholic church still live in cloud cuckoo land regarding their "divine understanding" of what homosecuality is. Not only have they frequently shifted position (as - again - science repeatedly shows them to be suffering head-up-ass syndrome), but once they stray away from religion. Religion does not explaing the how of the physical world. Churches attempt to wield religion to do so, but thats a seperate issue.

religion provided one view (theory) of the universe ..creation, evolution, intelligence etc. and science, by accident or design disproved many such beliefs.

Again, you're misusing the term theory, unlses you're using it explicitly in a non-scientific manner. If you are doing so, then you're implicitly agreeing that what you call theories are not scientific. If you believe you are not doign so, then I'd ask you to show how ID is a scientific theory....because no-one has to date.

I don't really see the problem with examining two theories in a scientific light,

One of them is nto a scientific theory. I can't stress this enough. The use of english in science - like in mathematics is - incredibly precise in this regard. Terms such as theory mean something far more restricted in scientific terms than in general usage. You are mixing the two here.

There is no problem examing two scientific theories in a scientific light. There is a problem examing two ideas which people refer to as theories using common english but which are not scientific theories.

one has far more evidence and research to support it , the other (ID) is , while neither proveable or otherwise, less likely to stand up to unbiased
scientific scrutiny,

You're still at it. If it is neither proveable nor unproveable, then by definition it is not a theory.

To teach ID is very different to examing it.

As I've already said...if one wants to teach it, then teach it in the appropriate forum. Trying to suggest that forum is the science class is ludicrous, because it is not scientific. You might as well say that "God exists" is nothing but a theory, and therefore is scientfic. Forget ID entirely....lets just say that religious belief in its entirety is a theory....et voila.

So...do you believe we should teach religion in the science class? I can call it a theory, and by every interpretation you've offered of what that term means, it qualifies. By the scientific interpretation - the one I've been offering from the start - it doesn't.

At the end of the day (and getting back to the political arena) ask yourself why Bush doesn't want to get the courts involved, but rather leave the decision up to individual schools. Courts understand the concept of the preciseness of langauge in field-specific usage. They understand that words when used in a legal sense often mean something far more restrictive than when used in a general sense. The courts would have no problem understanding that the same holds true in the scintific field, and the ID proponents know that they haven't a hope of convincing anything less than a religiously-biased judge that their idea is a scientific theory.

So, the longer it gets kept out of federal courts, the bigger the foothold this religiously-based idea can gain in schools, under the misrepresentation that it is scientific.

jc

growler

is there a semantics forum where the exact meaning of "theory" can be debated.

If you wish to be so pedantic as to only accept one definition of "Theory", thats fine by me, I agree with your scientific definition of the word, however the word itself has other meanings which include assumptions or speculation.

DadaKopf

You might like to read this.

A theory is "a logically self-consistent model or framework describing the behaviour of a certain natural or social phenomenon. Theories are formulated, developed and evaluated according to the scientific method."

A hypothesis is "a statement which has not been tested yet" and "whose merit is to be evaluated".

Words can have multiple meanings, but we're talking about science here. In science, verbal accuracy is everything because science aims for total objectivity.

IG advocates are exploiting people's ignorance of science and its precise terminologies to push religion into federal schools under the flag of "academic freedom". The faster this gets to the Supreme Court, the better.

bonkey

growler wrote:

is there a semantics forum where the exact meaning of "theory" can be debated.

If you wish to be so pedantic as to only accept one definition of "Theory", thats fine by me, I agree with your scientific definition of the word, however the word itself has other meanings which include assumptions or speculation.

growler - I haven't once suggested that there is only one interpretation of hte word....merely that there is only one scientific interpretation of the word. If you wish to discuss whether or not it is appropriate for a science classroom, then only that meaning of the word theory should be applicable.

If, conversely, you believe that something which is a theory only in a non-scientific sense is suitable for the science classroom because it is a non-scientific theory then I don't really know how to respond.

If you believe the science classroom is the place for speculation, assumption, or anything else...then sure...you should have ID in the classroom. But explain then why religion in general isn't also valid as a science topic. Once you fail to make the distinction that something has to be scientific before being appropriate for a science class, then the entire concept of the seperation of church and state falls to pieces. Everything religious can simply be renamed to be "a theory in a non-scientific sense" and voila....its fair game for teaching in the science class.

jc