Intelligent Design.

Zombrex

growler wrote:

To teach ID is very different to examing it.

It takes about 2 seconds to examing ID and come to the conclusion that it has no scientific merrit or basis ...

Put it another way, people who came up with ID only did because of there religious beliefts, not from an examination of any scientifc theories or facts. If you remove the religious asspect of ID there is simply nothing left.

ID is a religous idea, it has no basis in science, and as such it would as pointless to teach/examin the idea as it would be to spend money trying to prove/disprove that the Earth was actually created when two giants climbed down from the heavens (the Viking idea of creation).

Hobbes

Wicknight wrote:

ID is a religous idea, it has no basis in science, and as such it would as pointless to teach/examin the idea as it would be to spend money trying to prove/disprove that the Earth was actually created when two giants climbed down from the heavens (the Viking idea of creation).

Which makes an intresting point. Do they pick one extreme being or cover all extreme beings as it would be required in scientific study. Also this would also have to factor in that the extreme being could be an alien from another planet that seeded the planet? Which begs the question where did they come from?

Zombrex

Hobbes wrote:

Which makes an intresting point. Do they pick one extreme being or cover all extreme beings as it would be required in scientific study. Also this would also have to factor in that the extreme being could be an alien from another planet that seeded the planet? Which begs the question where did they come from?

Exactly .. I wonder how willing Bush would be for it to be taught in schools that there exists an idea that the oceans were the sweat of a giant ... its a "theory" after all ... he would probably be the first to the picket line

mycroft

Hobbes wrote:

Which makes an intresting point. Do they pick one extreme being or cover all extreme beings as it would be required in scientific study. Also this would also have to factor in that the extreme being could be an alien from another planet that seeded the planet? Which begs the question where did they come from?

Isn't there a episode of star trek TNG where Klingons, Hu-mans, Romulans et all get together and discover they're all productions of a single race genetically seeding the galaxy?

Will that be taught in Science class as well?

I'd have a go at growler but both Dadakopf and Bonkey gave an explaination to why the word "theory" has such an exact and clearly specific meaning in a science classroom.

bus77

I remember reading that Darwin himself was engrosed in ID theory and many others before he came up with evolution. So what I took away from that was it makes feckall differnce.

bonkey

mycroft wrote:

IWill that be taught in Science class as well?

As I already pointed out, Bush wants both and not all sides of the debate to be in schools. Whatever about pedantry interpreting the word 'theory', there is no question that 'both' does not imply more than two options.

The very assertion that there are two sides places ID as a competing scientific theory, and implies that it is the only serious one out there to challenge Darwinian evolution.

jc

DadaKopf

bus77 wrote:

I remember reading that Darwin himself was engrosed in ID theory and many others before he came up with evolution. So what I took away from that was it makes feckall differnce.

ID is famously attributed to an English theologian called William Paley who's best known for making the 'Argument from Design'.

In getting to grips with the religious problem of the challenge of science, in which he was genuinely involved, he wrote in Natural Theology - or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity from Appearances of Nature, in 1802,

". . . when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive ... that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, or placed after any other manner or in any other order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it ... the inference we think is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker - that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer, who comprehended its construction and designed its use."

supersheep

And the argument from design is as close to scientific as Intelligent Design gets... What I would like to know is, why doesn't someone do an experiment with a few million generation of virii or bacteria and show people that evolution happens, and see if Darwin's theory was right?

sceptre

supersheep wrote:

And the argument from design is as close to scientific as Intelligent Design gets... What I would like to know is, why doesn't someone do an experiment with a few million generation of virii or bacteria and show people that evolution happens, and see if Darwin's theory was right?

It wouldn't prove it happened the first time. And it certainly wouldn't serve as evidence for those who reckon that all is fatalistic and all happens by design. And it wouldn't disprove the notion that existence was set in motion by an external influence (though I realise that you're not getting into a discussion on the existence of a god, nor am I). And those that put faith in the logic of Darwin's work probably aren't all that unduly worried by the relatively small number that reckon it's a load of cobblers, especially those that believe that a god put dinosaur bones there to test our faith or something.

Additionally and rather importantly it wouldn't prove non-creationist abiogenesis, though for those that believe our planet had something of a different climate billions of years ago, the Urey-Miller experiment takes us rather a long way in that direction.

Put bluntly, for those who believe that everything is so complex that someone must both have created it and guided it in some way (or from a cynical point of view for the subset of this group that believe that they themselves are so complex that they personally must exist for a reason of divine importance), at varying levels of intervention depending on their belief system, no experiment we can currently imagine short of creating our own artificial universe would prove anything for them. Of course, even taking this step would make us the creators of our own giant petri-dish, again making the experiment of limited worth as evidence for those that refuse to even countenance the more basic ideas of inheritance and mutation.

As for church views, I tend to find the comments from JP2 in the mid-90s about evolution being more than a hypothesis a little more comforting than Pius XII's occasionally unfortunate Humani Generis. JP2 may have knocked evolution a little by making a point of referring to the theories of evolution but even from a non-sciency guy, one has to walk before one can successfully run. I can understand their misgivings - soul placement will forever be something of a stumbling block for that church and other churches. However, at least they're thinking of walking - even a move to ID, which the current newbie pope appears to like would be something of a step forward from what we've had in the past. Baby steps, baby steps.

rsynnott

supersheep wrote:

And the argument from design is as close to scientific as Intelligent Design gets... What I would like to know is, why doesn't someone do an experiment with a few million generation of virii or bacteria and show people that evolution happens, and see if Darwin's theory was right?

There are some lovely computer-based examples.

DadaKopf

Sure are. And to those who say, "mnyeh, it's still a computer program manipulated by a man", as Dawkins says, the argument against ID - i.e. the theories about the fact of evolution - only has to plausible to beat the socks off ID nuts.

GUBU

I think a problem only arises if they are taught in the same way, in the same class. Explaining the theory of intelligent design and debating it in religion class, then explaining evolution theory and debating it in science class exposes children to both sides of the argument and allows them, as far as is possible, to make up their own minds. Many people seem to underestimate the capacity of children to think for themselves and question what they are taught, whether at home or school.

Before we criticise how these theories are taught in America, maybe we should look at how they are taught here. I have just finished the Leaving Cert, and can honestly say that up until 4th year there were people in my year who had never heard of the theory of evolution and would not believe me when I mentioned it and had to explain it to them. I do not remember a single instance of it being taught in primary school or up until Junior Cert in science class, and knew about it myself from my parents and because I read widely from an early age. On the other hand, religion classes did not usually focus on creationism either, and I only remember it being taught as fact, in the middle years of primary school. In secondary school, religion classes tended to focus on 'moral education', and discussing the significance of religious stories and theories seemed to be something of an embarrassment for some teachers. Thankfully this seems to be changing, and the new religion syllabus explains the theories of various world religions in an objective and critical way. I hope the science syllabus has also been updated to complement it.

Calina

Anyone read Darwin's Watch by Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen? Prior to reading it I hadn't any idea about this intelligent design movement (clearly don't pay enough attention to affairs in the States). There's a pretty decent explanation of the whole watchmaker thing which was the basis for the hypothesis for intelligent design.

bonkey

GUBU wrote:

Explaining the theory of intelligent design and debating it in religion class

...would mean that you lived outside the US, because by law their schools don't have religion classes. This is what the entire issue is about - Bush is suggesting that ID be given some sort of exemption from the law which says that religion has no place in State-funded schools, which is backed by pushing the common misconception that ID is actually a suitable subject for inclusion in the education curriculum, and not - as it in fact is - simply a pseudo-scientific religious belief.

Before we criticise how these theories are taught in America, maybe we should look at how they are taught here.

The quality of the Irish education system isn't really relevant to the question here. We do not have laws to remove religion from teh classroom, and that is what the central issue is here.

ID, despite what scientific sheep's clothing it is presented in, is a religious wolf. Ergo, in a nation where religion is banned from schools, ID has no place in said schools.

In a nation where no such ban exists (i.e. Ireland) then it is the seperate question of which class it should be taught in, should a school decide to teach it.

I have no objection to ID being taught, wherever religion is appriately taught. I have an objection to it being passed as science in order to score a home run around the laws removing religion from school as exist in the US. I also have a long-standnig loathing of the contempt that Bush clearly holds science in. For him, its nothing more than a political tool with no merit on its own. Good science for His Shrubness is whatever is politically (and religiously?) expedient, and the mutedness of the objections to such an indefensible approach is something that never ceases to amaze me.

For a nation that supposedly leads the world in many technological fields, its amazing that the Americans put so little value in the worth of science any more.

jc

jc

Jesus Trash Can

What's up with you all. Can't you just accept that the world was made in 6 days (kind of puts the M50 to shame) by God, Noah went to all the extremities of the planet and gathered polar bears and tropical spiders and garden slugs (yes, blame Noah) and lions and kangaroos and put them in a big boat that he built becouse he knew the world would be flooded. And hence saved all the creatures including humans. Or that Joana went for a weekend break in the digestive system of a whale. Now isn't that alot easier to understand? Pah! And there was you saying it was a complicated affair. Are yiz all mad or what?

Zombrex

Jesus Trash Can wrote:

What's up with you all. Can't you just accept that the world was made in 6 days (kind of puts the M50 to shame) by God, Noah went to all the extremities of the planet and gathered polar bears and tropical spiders and garden slugs (yes, blame Noah) and lions and kangaroos and put them in a big boat that he built becouse he knew the world would be flooded. And hence saved all the creatures including humans. Or that Joana went for a weekend break in the digestive system of a whale. Now isn't that alot easier to understand? Pah! And there was you saying it was a complicated affair. Are yiz all mad or what?

Well I'm convinced ... burn him for being a witch!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Trojan

I have been touched by His Noodly Appendage.

Zombrex

Jesus Trash Can wrote:

Can't you just accept that the world was made in 6 days (kind of puts the M50 to shame) by God,

Never really understood the 6 days bit ... God is a god right (I'm an athesist, so religiousy people help me out here) .. surely he can create anything he wants in a micro-second ... why does it take him 6 days (I completed a game of Civ 2 in shorter time, does that make me a god?) ... plus he rested on the 7th day ... God needs to "rest"? What was he tired? The all powerful, onipitent (sp?) God was feeling a little light headed and need a lie down?

mycroft

Wicknight wrote:

Never really understood the 6 days bit ... God is a god right (I'm an athesist, so religiousy people help me out here) .. surely he can create anything he wants in a micro-second ... why does it take him 6 days (I completed a game of Civ 2 in shorter time, does that make me a god?) ... plus he rested on the 7th day ... God needs to "rest"? What was he tired? The all powerful, onipitent (sp?) God was feeling a little light headed and need a lie down?

I think after he created the platypus he started laughing so hard he had to go and have a lie down.

bus77

bonkey wrote:

ID, despite what scientific sheep's clothing it is presented in, is a religious wolf. Ergo, in a nation where religion is banned from schools, ID has no place in said schools.

This sort of reminds me of the argument that the gun lobbyists make every time a gun control measure is brought up.

Is it really only just a religious question though? I fully realise it's fundamentalists pushing for it as well as the thousand and one bull**** "scientific" arguments that have sprung up around the notion. And I am not advocating it be presented as science in any way shape or form.

But if a really big push is made for it in the states I dont see why some sort of compromise cound'nt be worked out. Maybe an expanded history of some of the stuff going around at Darwins time or included in whatever version of social/humanities class they have there.

The scope for debate and wonder is enormous and may have benificial effects.

supersheep

sceptre wrote:

It wouldn't prove it happened the first time. And it certainly wouldn't serve as evidence for those who reckon that all is fatalistic and all happens by design. And it wouldn't disprove the notion that existence was set in motion by an external influence (though I realise that you're not getting into a discussion on the existence of a god, nor am I). And those that put faith in the logic of Darwin's work probably aren't all that unduly worried by the relatively small number that reckon it's a load of cobblers, especially those that believe that a god put dinosaur bones there to test our faith or something.

Additionally and rather importantly it wouldn't prove non-creationist abiogenesis, though for those that believe our planet had something of a different climate billions of years ago, the Urey-Miller experiment takes us rather a long way in that direction.

Put bluntly, for those who believe that everything is so complex that someone must both have created it and guided it in some way (or from a cynical point of view for the subset of this group that believe that they themselves are so complex that they personally must exist for a reason of divine importance), at varying levels of intervention depending on their belief system, no experiment we can currently imagine short of creating our own artificial universe would prove anything for them. Of course, even taking this step would make us the creators of our own giant petri-dish, again making the experiment of limited worth as evidence for those that refuse to even countenance the more basic ideas of inheritance and mutation.

As for church views, I tend to find the comments from JP2 in the mid-90s about evolution being more than a hypothesis a little more comforting than Pius XII's occasionally unfortunate Humani Generis. JP2 may have knocked evolution a little by making a point of referring to the theories of evolution but even from a non-sciency guy, one has to walk before one can successfully run. I can understand their misgivings - soul placement will forever be something of a stumbling block for that church and other churches. However, at least they're thinking of walking - even a move to ID, which the current newbie pope appears to like would be something of a step forward from what we've had in the past. Baby steps, baby steps.

I don't know. I think that such an experiment would scare away many ID fans - after all, if they know so little about science that they think a designer is NECESSARY, they will probably be scared off by an experiment saying "Evolution is right".
And, unfortunately, sims won't work - cos people will just go, "So? It's just a computer game..."
ID seems to me like a cheap way to justify your belief in God by saying it HAS to be true. If you believe in God, then you don't need someone else to say he has to exist...

bonkey

bus77 wrote:

This sort of reminds me of the argument that the gun lobbyists make every time a gun control measure is brought up.

I don't quite follow...

Is it really only just a religious question though?

It doesn't matter if its only just religious or not but for the record, my stance is that while it may not be "only just religious", its definitely not "religious and scientific". Why doesn't it matter? Because once its religious, its banned. If its religious-and-something-else, its banned. Even if it was religious-and-scientific, it would be banned.

But if a really big push is made for it in the states I dont see why some sort of compromise cound'nt be worked out.

Because the law explicitly forbids the teaching of religious subject matter in schools. Its not that it can sort of be taught. Its not that it can be taught as long as we don't point out to the kids that its religious. It cannot be taught if it is a religious issue.

If you believe it should be taught, then argue why its not religious, or why you don't believe it to be so. Its not enough to be religious-as-well-as-something-else. If it is religious, its out.

The scope for debate and wonder is enormous and may have benificial effects.

I'm at a loss to figure out the beneficial effects, honestly. Either way, its not the issue. The issue is - again - whether or not it is a religious topic. It can be as beneficial as you like, but if it is religious, its out.

As for the scope for debate...sure there's scope for debate. Similarly, if we introduced hollow-earth theories into schools and pitched them to kids when they're young enough....we'd have great scope for debate there too. I'm not sure that this is any reason to introduce hollow-earthism into schools myself, but it is a competing theory, after all, and (other than the religious origin) meets or surpasses pretty-much all the standards that ID meets. So should we teach that too?

Incidentally...I notice that the churches et al in the US aren't running about offering to teach evolution alongside their creationism. Apparently the wish for debate only extends to those arena's where religion doesn't have supremacy. In other words...its ok to only hear one side of the story as long as its the religious one, but you shouldn't be taught the scientific side in isolation.

If this doesn't suggest to us that something smells rotten from the start...I don't know what will.

bus77

bonkey wrote:

I don't quite follow...

I'm sorry, I should have elaborated futher. Your point of view reminds me of the gun lobbyists because every time a gun control measure is brought up some of them start saying it's just a sly way of taking the guns off people, then they point to the constitution....

bonkey wrote:

If you believe it should be taught, then argue why its not religious, or why you don't believe it to be so. Its not enough to be religious-as-well-as-something-else. If it is religious, its out.

I think a lot of these things that creationists are coming out with is an attempt at a religious soulution to a scientific problem.

Who says it can't work the other way around? A scientific solution to a religious problem.
The problem as I see it is for what ever reason a large bunch of people can't get their heads around/or find unacceptable, the 'on the surface' vibe from evolution of randomness. That gap could be be bridged quite early on by showing the way dna has built in error correction. Or on a broarder scale the way the sex's work as a form of error correction in a chaotic system.

bonkey wrote:

I'm at a loss to figure out the beneficial effects, honestly.

For kids? Ask them if they can spot or come up with any examples of intelligent design. Then send them out the door...

bonkey wrote:

As for the scope for debate...sure there's scope for debate. Similarly, if we introduced hollow-earth theories into schools and pitched them to kids when they're young enough....we'd have great scope for debate there too. I'm not sure that this is any reason to introduce hollow-earthism into schools myself, but it is a competing theory, after all, and (other than the religious origin) meets or surpasses pretty-much all the standards that ID meets. So should we teach that too?

Just because it's the hard core religious that are calling for it, does'nt meen they have to write the curriculum...

bonkey

bus77 wrote:

I'm sorry, I should have elaborated futher. Your point of view reminds me of the gun lobbyists because every time a gun control measure is brought up some of them start saying it's just a sly way of taking the guns off people, then they point to the constitution....

OK. its kinda the reverse, but I see what you're driving at.

I think a lot of these things that creationists are coming out with is an attempt at a religious soulution to a scientific problem.

Thats exactly what they are, and so they are religious in nature.

And because they're religious in nature, you either change the law to allow religious matter in public schools, or you cannot allow them in schools.

Unlike the NRA, I'm not saying you cannot change the law...I'm saying you cannot introduce this stuff without changing the law. If enough 'mericans want it in schools, let them change their constitution/laws and make it legal to have it.

What I object to is this notion that there's no problem teaching ID under the current legal system, and/or that it should be an issue for the schools and not the courts. Its just a joke. It is nothing more than an attempt to simply side-step the law because the law is inconvenient in this instance.

I'm willing to bet that mr. Bush (being a fairly fundamentalist Christian) would not be so keen in changing the law to allow religion in schools, resulting (for example) in Islam being also a valid source of "theories" to teach, for example.

Thats the beauty of the ID argument for its supporters. They argue that its not religious in nature so the law shouldn't need change. That way, their religious viewpoint can be foisted on kids in school, without opening the door for other religious viewpoints.

Who says it can't work the other way around? A scientific solution to a religious problem.

Look at history for your answer. The church doesn't have problems. It has mysteries (which it knows there is no answer to) and it has that which it has already answered. Science can either agree that something is unknowable, can agree with religion, or can be wrong. There are no scientific solutions for religious problems.

Similarly, there are no religious answers to scientific problems. As I've tried to explain many times in this thread already, the two fields only overlap when one oversteps its boundaries - most typically when churches make some divinely-inspired pronounciation about the physical world which science later shows to be nothing more than bunkum.

The problem as I see it is for what ever reason a large bunch of people can't get their heads around/or find unacceptable, the 'on the surface' vibe from evolution of randomness.

The problem as I see it is far more fundamental than that. A large bunch of people don't understand what something being scientific actually means.

Another bunch of people know and don't care. They simply want to make sure that no-one gets taught "heretical" ideas that could undermine the absolute and divine correctness of their religious preachings on how the world works, without them at least having the chance to provide the religious counter-point at the same time.

Ask them if they can spot or come up with any examples of intelligent design.

Ask them if the sun goes round the earth and if the earth is at the centre of the universe.

Sound familiar?

Religious bodies have a long history of interfering with the sciences, and it has almost always been to stave off scientific progress threatening long-held religiously-decided standpoints.

In fact, other than making sure that moral issues are considered when dealing with modern research, I'm at a loss to come up with any interference by religion in the scientific field which has been to scientific advantage.

You want kids to be asked this question, then encourage parents to ask it. Or encourage the US to change their laws to allow the question in class. Or encourage it to be taught outside the school to those who are interested in the point of view.

But don't ignore that under existing law, this question cannot be asked in a classroom, and that the suggestion from the likes of Bush is that it can and should be asked without a legal change because its a legitimate scientific question.

Why are IDers so averse to actually saying "yes, its religious, and isn't it about time we abandoned this farcical notion of keeping religion out of schools"? Why is this - teh actual central issue - the one that they refuse to deal with.

They argue there are / might be benfits from teaching it....but they won't argue that the law should be changed....they argue that the law doesn't / shouldn't apply in this case.

Evasion of such central issues is always a strong indicator that someone's trying to pull a fast one.

Just because it's the hard core religious that are calling for it, does'nt meen they have to write the curriculum...

No it doesn't. It also doesn't mean that they have to or should get what they want and have it schools at all. So just ask yourself...if they manage to find a way to get it into schools, do you think they'll be happy to let it rest at that if they're unhappy at how it is taught?

jc

growler

bonkey wrote:

.
As for the scope for debate...sure there's scope for debate. Similarly, if we introduced hollow-earth theories into schools and pitched them to kids when they're young enough....we'd have great scope for debate there too. I'm not sure that this is any reason to introduce hollow-earthism into schools myself, but it is a competing theory, .

A pedant writes:

that would be "theory" in the non-scientific sense of the word then i guess ? I thought that since this was a debate about science we were to stick solely to the accepted scientific meaning of the word ?

sorry bonkey :-)

bonkey

growler wrote:

A pedant writes:

that would be "theory" in the non-scientific sense of the word then i guess ? I thought that since this was a debate about science we were to stick solely to the accepted scientific meaning of the word ?

sorry bonkey :-)

Nothing to be sorry for - I used the term deliberately.

See how ridiculous it is when one tries and pass off hollow-earthism as a theory? And yet there's no similar problem when one does likewise with ID?

Why? because Hollowearthism sounds more ridiculous?

When you look at it from a scientific perspective, it arguably is more scientific. I've seen well-researched papers which discuss things like reflectivity of sound-waves through the earth's core, and how the figures match more closely with a hollow-earth model than with the conventional model, as well as a number of other issues.

Hollowearthism makes predictions. It is falsifiable.

To that end, it is actually more of a scientific theory than ID will ever be....and yet you have more of a problem with it being scientific than with ID

So why is ID so respectable? And - perhaps more importantly - why is ID more scientific?

And if its not...maybe now you'll begin to see why I take such exception to ID being pushed as a theory.

jc

growler

it didn't say that ID was more or less scientific than either hollow earthism, giant turtle-ism or any other "theory", they are all patently nonsense. My point was that by comparing any of these theories with the currently accepted theory of evolutionary darwinism then they would clearly be shown to be waffle.

Admittedly since there are no known tests to check for the present of omnipresent turtles / gods etc. it may not be that easy to do.

mycroft

http://www.dinosauradventureland.com/kidos/index.html

Welcome to Dinosauradventureland.com
Since 2001 Dinosaur Adventure Land has been a place where families can come to learn about God's Creation through science and the bible. DAL is comprised of a 3 story Science Center, Creation Museum, and Theme Park, making it fun for all ages, and one of the most amazing Creation Parks in the world. Our goal is to win souls to Christ, by giving everyone another choice. You can believe that you came from a rock, or you can believe that a loving God created you for a purpose.

rsynnott

bus77 wrote:

But if a really big push is made for it in the states I dont see why some sort of compromise cound'nt be worked out. Maybe an expanded history of some of the stuff going around at Darwins time or included in whatever version of social/humanities class they have there.
.

That's fine in a social/humanities class. Just as long as they don't go claiming it's a scientific theory in a science class, which is what they want to do.

bonkey wrote:

I'm at a loss to figure out the beneficial effects, honestly. Either way, its not the issue. The issue is - again - whether or not it is a religious topic. It can be as beneficial as you like, but if it is religious, its out.

No, the immediate issue is "Is it science". The answer is no.

bonkey

rsynnott wrote:

No, the immediate issue is "Is it science". The answer is no.

The question of whether or not it is scientific only matters if it is not religious.