Intelligent Design and Evolution

[Honoko]

Okay, with whatever US school board news (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/09/evolution.intelligentdesign.ap/index.html) going on, it makes me wonder what exactly is the big deal about teaching intelligent design along with evolution.

I remember in how in grade school or high school I was taught Darwinism as well as the big bang theory. Is the opposition to intelligent design preventing the big bang theory taught in schools? or is the big bang theory not part of the intelligent design opposition? I'm asking exactly why can't you just teach both subjects and let the kids decide for themselves?

I'm just asking this b/c if the big bang theory is NOT being taught in schools anymore (due to the opposition to intelligent design), then I personally think it's totally retarded. The big bang theory is as equally valid a scientific theory as evolution and it's stupid to let politicians dictate what's "real" science and what isn't.

If you actually read this post, you'll notice that I'm not asking for a (flame) war between the advocates of either side here. You'll also note that I want this topic strictly in the realm of scientific theory. Do refrain from pointing to the Bible. There's plenty of theory to go around to support either claim without it. And do try to stay on topic or else I'll ask the mods to lock this thread i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif

Well? Any thoughts? Comments?

[XanBcoo]

Is the opposition to intelligent design preventing the big bang theory taught in schools? or is the big bang theory not part of the intelligent design opposition?
I don't think the big bang theory has anything to do with Intelligent design. One is pretty scientific and the other is based on creation by a higher power. In any case I'm not sure what to think of this, and I've never really experienced the problem (I've been going to Catholic schools for about 10 years). I do think, though, that it is pretty closed minded to ignore one teaching or the other based on something like politics. Just goes to show how powerful the "separation of Church and State" ideals can be I guess.

[FrogKing]

Originally posted by: Honoko
... what exactly is the big deal about teaching intelligent design along with evolution.

...Is the opposition to intelligent design preventing the big bang theory taught in schools? or is the big bang theory not part of the intelligent design opposition? I'm asking exactly why can't you just teach both subjects and let the kids decide for themselves?

...The big bang theory is as equally valid a scientific theory as evolution..

...realm of scientific theory...
I I came across this post tonight and thought I would try to contribute; however, I am not sure what you are asking? Do you think that evolution and big bang theory are separate theories representing the two sides (i.e. intelligent design, big bang, and scientists, evolution)? Ok, if I have it right and the question is why not teach about evolution AND the big bang theory? I started to write out a very long scientific explanation of how evolution fits INTO the big bang theory, but before I post that I wanted to find out if that is what you meant.

If you merely mean, why isnt intelligent design AND evolution both taught in a science class? If so, then I think it is a question of how 'science' is defined which I could go into how intelligent design deals with a spiritual entity and science deals with model design and experimental rationale. Do they sound the same? Then why teach them in the same classroom? Which is it? or am I totally off base? if so, please elaborate and I'll toss my opinion in.

Oh, I think I got your question. It is the second one; I was just confused for a sec& I thought you treated Darwinism and evolution as the same theory. You meant, that Darwinism fails to explain evolution as a whole and that his ideas have not quite stood the test of time and that scientists have uncovered my flaws or gaps in his theory of why things evolve. Intelligent design offers an explanation to explain away the gaps in Darwinism and redefine evolutionary theory. Rather than fitness driving evolution, in intelligent design a spiritual being designed us to evolve into who we are. Therefore, there is no need for an overall fitness increase to drive evolution. Instead, the universe and time are like a clock&God wound up the clock at the big bang and everything He planned for was played out over time. Our existence and the existence of all the beings before me was apart of some divine plan and that the infinitely complex set of dominos (so-to-speak) was all kick started by an omniscient God. Hmmmm&that is actually a good question, but I think it is (as I stated above) a question of theology or philosophy and NOT science.

If someone (i.e. your kid) wants to ask that kind of question, then reply by telling him or her that, 'That is a great question, son/daughter. If you study hard and get good grades, then you can go off to college. In college, you can take classes that ask that very question and learn all about coming up with your own opinions and think for yourself. 'Until then, I want my high school son or daughter to learn the core curriculum and not tackle theology or philosophy (hell, teenagers have a hard enough time dealing with just who they are questions). Sci

ence attempts to use experimental analysis to test a model. Darwinism is a model; science has challenged this model by observing the world and applying his ideas to the inhabitants (us, plants, animals, bacteria) in an attempt to describe rules that govern the world around us. Not all scientific models are perfect and most all have asterisks in them (i.e. gaps or exceptions in them). Has intelligent design stood up to scientific scrutiny? Ill let you do some more research but the short answer is a resounding no. It doesnt stand to scrutiny under the guidelines that defines science, but that is true for theology.

I think my point is (after all the above babbling) is that science class belongs in high school. In high school, I think it is of extreme value to teach about the use of observation and experimentation to help build the mind of a young adult and help him/her gain a better understanding of how an individual can solve problems. We should definitely encourage kids be inquisitive but there is a place and time for that whether it be in college or not. Until then (and some scientific proof), stick with the science&

<hops off soap box>
Whew, that was a long opinion...sorry to make you read this...


edit: Yeah, what he said above...
edit2: Paragraphs

[ChiaCheese]

i have absolutely no problem with intelligent design being taught in schools. i don't know why anybody would have a problem with ergonomics.

[Lefty]

Well the problem of teaching intelligent design along wiht evolution is that Intelligent design isn't a theory, its an ideology. Thats why. Most of the world looks and laughs at the retard in the corner that america has become. Intelligent design is an insult to every one, because it tries to make people belive that we were made by god, and that they're god is the only god and that we must do what he says and then we're drinking the cool aid to get on the sapce ship to go to heaven. Evolution is a theroy and that changes when more information has been gathered. Intelligent design is set in stone never weavering to the pilling evidence that proves evolution. Can't we all agree that god created the unverse but not the things in it. The bible freaks are happy and the liberals can shut up.

[el_boss]

I have never heard of this "intelligent design", but from what I have read in this thread it seems to be an idae that a "higher" being has created the universe or some such. I am quite baffeled that this is taught as "fact" in american schools. Here in sweden we learned these things in religion-history and ordinary history, and that they were things that people believed in in the past.

[basey44]

lol well its simple here, we're not allowed to be taught evolution in highschool, unless your doing biology i guess.
i guess they figure they cant teach how the world started stuff cos they dont wanna get in trouble from either side. but u'd be taught the religious version in religion class. But not allowed in history class, thats the main thing i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif

[el_boss]

Originally posted by: basey44
lol well its simple here, we're not allowed to be taught evolution in highschool, unless your doing biology i guess.
i guess they figure they cant teach how the world started stuff cos they dont wanna get in trouble from either side. but u'd be taught the religious version in religion class. But not allowed in history class, thats the main thing

So they can't even teach evolution as a theory in american schools except in biology? What about other religions than christianity and different cultures, is that prohibited as well? It seems like the american school system is set on giving the stidents a extremly biased view of the world.

[basey44]

im in australia i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif

[KitKat]

First of all, el_boss, if you'd clicked basey's profile, you'd have seen that he lives in Australia. Not everyone here is from the US. Second, this discussion is about the teaching of intelligent design in schools along with evolution. It's an ongoing debate in the US right now. Some advocates want to have intelligent design briefly presented as another viable theory, whereas others feel that this violates the separation of church and state.

@ Lefty: I find it a bit hurtful that you view people of my faith in such a derogatory manner. And I think perhaps you misunderstand intelligent design. I actually never heard the term until this whole kafuffle with the US school board started. But from what I've read, it seems to be a broad theory since it advocates no particular religion but just proposes the idea that some higher being created the universe and aided its development.

What is science? Science is how we have defined it: It is what we can see, what we can measure, what we can touch, what we can recreate. In my view, science has become our society's god. We worship science because it is perfect and flawless. Everything can be proven or disproven. We must have facts and proof in order to be convinced of anything. The problem when we start to talk about the spiritual realm is that it doesn't fit nicely into our little science box. But here is my question: Just because a theory does not fit into what we have defined to be science, does that reduce its probability of being true?

Anyways, back to the question at hand. I don't see a problem with intelligent design being taught in schools. The legislature only specifies one paragraph, whereas I imagine that evolutionary theory will still be taught in great detail. Kids are smart, they can make their own decisions. Do you think that by exposing them to a point of view that is held by more than half the world will confuse them and make them less able to make rational choices? I really don't think it's a big deal, and all those US officials need to not get their panties in a knot and chill out.

[el_boss]

Originally posted by: basey44
im in australia

I see... but they have a similiar system in america as well, right?

[Honoko]

@Lefty: are you saying that intelligent design is not a theory but an ideology and has nothing to do with the big bang theory? I feel like I have to disagree (which is why I wanted someone more knowledgable than me to answer the question of whether or not big bang is part of intelligent design or not). The thing is, in the big bang theory, scientists think that the universe started off as nothing and then suddenly exploded into existence. If you actually do your research (the objective kind, stay away from those rants from the advocates), there is a lot of evidence that *supports* this theory but not actual proof (hence the word, theory =P). And if the big bang theory (which is, btw, held as a valid theory in the scientific community) actually holds, it implies that something (or, if I'm permitted to mention: someONE) actually *caused* that explosion. That is, at least, why I'm wondering whether or not big bang is part of intelligent design in the first place.

And if it is, then I find it quite disappointing that the US schools are instructed to not teach it. It's so unreasonable to be so phobic of religion that it actually gets in the way of teaching actual science. That whole seperation of church and state thing is beginning to get out of hand.

Oh, and Frogking? Next time I recommend you use paragraphs i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif It's easier on the eyes hehe

[FrogKing]

Yeah, after I looked at my post I was like 'ouch a little chunky'...

Anyhow, if you look at the amazing equation E=mc2 and apply it to the singularity termed the 'big bang' then you might get a better sense of time and space and what happened at the beginning. However, science hasn't been able to provide a concrete theory of why it started and what was there before (how can you have a 'before' when you don't have time/light yet?). Intelligent design merely fills that void and offers the simplest explanation (re: Occam's Razor about simple explanations), but should we teach it in science without it being tested by the rules of science?

Evolution has withstood quite a bit of testing and the gaps/exceptions in the model have been exposed. It is not a perfect model, but it fits well and until another theory can supplant it and explain (thru careful analysis) what evolution could not...it should stand. Science is about understanding and questioning the world around us; it is not about applying convenient ideas to explain the as-yet unexplainable without withstanding close analysis.

You've started a nice little discussion Honoko...good luck and I'll check back a little later to see if any other replies.

[masamuneehs]

You're going to believe what you want to believe, no matter what you were taught...

We're talking about matters that I honestly don't see having a very big impact on people's lives in today's world. So maybe A Supreme Being created us according to some blueprint, or maybe we evolved ala Darwin. Does it make a difference? It still doesn't answer the great philisophical question "Why are we here?" or, the more practical version of that question, "What should we do with the time/abilities we have here?" So it seems like a large waste of time to dispute such a thing, as it most likely will escape human comprehension anyhow...

[Assertn]

Don't make generalizations about the US school system. The school system is more or less divided into their respective counties and I'm pretty sure they each have a certain degree of control over what classes are taught in school. For example I've never had an evolution nor an intelligent design class K-12

[The Heretic Azazel]

The reason is that those of faith who are religious want to validate their own opinions and try to base facts on their own faith, which is a paradox of faith, something that exists because there are no facts to support it. I think intelligent design is a joke, personally. That is, trying to teach it, not believing it, because there's nothing to back it up.

I mean, if we teach intelligent design in school, what the hell difference does it make if what we learn all through school is right or wrong? Any teachers could give bullshit crackpot ideas and pass them off as valid theories.

You've all come from dust, and back to dust shall turn.. i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif

[XanBcoo]

Originally posted by: masamuneehs
We're talking about matters that I honestly don't see having a very big impact on people's lives in today's world. So maybe A Supreme Being created us according to some blueprint, or maybe we evolved ala Darwin. Does it make a difference? It still doesn't answer the great philisophical question "Why are we here?" or, the more practical version of that question, "What should we do with the time/abilities we have here?" So it seems like a large waste of time to dispute such a thing, as it most likely will escape human comprehension anyhow...

Even if you accept that fact, the point is that schools are going to try and teach the theories of our origin (It's probably along the same lines as the reason for teaching History). The different groups are not exactly arguing how it happened in this case, just which version of creation they don't want their children to be taught. You're right, people will beleive what they will, but that won't stop others complaining about the school system because it seems to advocate one side or the other.



I am quite baffeled that this is taught as "fact" in american schools
Probably for the same reasons that many Scientific theories are taught in schools. It almost depends on which side you look at it from. I've never heard of Intelligent Design before this topic, but it is very probable that it includes some rational theories. Quoting Kitkat's question, "Just because a theory does not fit into what we have defined to be science, does that reduce its probability of being true?" I'm gonna say of course it doesn't. Science is just an attempt to explain the world. Intelligent Design just seems to do it in another manner, like FrogKing explained.

I think there's no problem at all teaching both theories, and some people (like Politicians and overly concerned parents) are being way too sensitive about it.

[Lefty]

@ Kit Kat: Sorry if I came off hurtful but this subject always gets me fired up. But the Version that most groups want taght is the 'GOD' version. When you have this stuff shoved down your throwt by Ignorent evangelicals you tend to get really irritated really fast, which i did get and i'm sorry if i offended you.

@ honoko: I never mentioned the big bang theroy because I'm more concerned on the subject of that intelligent dessign was goingot make it's way into the school system.

[Nin10doman]

I have no problem with Intelligent Design being taught in schools...But I do have a problem with it being taught in SCIENCE classes. If suddenly in Biology books, right after the evolution chapter, they had a section for Intelligent Design, I'd probably be a little ticked.

Other people did pretty well explaining why this Intelligent Design idea is not a science, so I won't go into that.

And I really hate how just a little bit of whining can get something like this started..."Oh noes a couple people are offended by ID not being taught in schools, let's start a nationwide debate..."

:\

[FrogKing]

@masamuneehs: "You're going to believe what you want to believe, no matter what you were taught..." I wish that was true, but unfortunately I don't think that is the case for most people. I think the overall goal of education is to give humans examples and tools for thinking for themselves and to question what we see/hear. However, I know that during my teenage years I didn't know how to really think for myself an that it wasn't until I began to apply what I was taught in both a college and job setting that I really started to stake my own beliefs. It was the foundation of my education that helped make an impact on HOW I interpret the world around me. If you don't think that what you're taught can make an impact just ask Lefty and his views on religious schooling at a young age...

@Heretic Azazel: I agree mostly with what you said, but I think that there IS a place for religious study...IN a religious studies course. I think as humans we should explore the possibilities of alternate explanations. It's just that those don't always need to be sold a science or fact; but rather, I a theological or philosophical course setting.

@XanBcoo: see my comments for Heretic. Science and theology have their respective places in education NOT both in a science class which I think is what Honoko was bring to our attention.

By the way, if we are on the subject you should check out this 'new' intelligent design theory...

Open letter to Kansas school board (http://www.venganza.org/)

I TOO AM A BELIEVER IN THE FLYING SPAGETTI MONSTER THEORY; THEREFORE IT MUST BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL!

WWFSMD

[Board of Command]

If intelligent design is being taught, it should be taught in some sociology/anthropology class, not science. Intelligent design is not a scientific topic whatsoever.

[mage]

If they began teaching intelligent design in schools, what would they teach? What would the kids learn from an intelligent design class that they wouldn't learn in church? There's really no reason to have this type of class in public schools, and the only people that want it are hardcore Christian parents that don't want their children learning about evolution. Oops! Did i say the "e" word?



Originally posted by: Lefty
Can't we all agree that god created the unverse but not the things in it.
no.

[Honoko]

so basically, the general feeling i'm getting here is that big bang theory has nothing to do with intelligent design despite the fact that this theory implies an intelligent designer. yes?

[darkmetal505]

intelligent design has a "metaphysical" force built into it, but i dont think its an excuse for creationism. It has its differences.

[XanBcoo]

Originally posted by: Honoko
so basically, the general feeling i'm getting here is that big bang theory has nothing to do with intelligent design despite the fact that this theory implies an intelligent designer. yes?

I have never heard of an "intelligent designer" being part of the Big Bang theory. It was my understanding that the big bang just "happened", and is not generally attributed to the actions of some higher being.

@Frogking: I see what you were saying and I pretty much agree. I was just trying to stay as open as possible to others' beleifs I suppose. My point is that neither theory should be stopped from being taugh alltogether. But yeah, theology in a science class doesn't make very much sense.

[Mae]

Yeah, the big bang theory is one theory of how the universe began, and the science part of it just says that the big bang happened, nothing about anyone causing it. Intelligent design is separate from this theory.

Now, I agree that intelligent design doesn't really belong in a science class. Science classes should be about the scientific method and what has been learned by using it (basicly things that can be proven by repeatable experiments). I see science as one useful way of looking at the world that is at it's best is neutral on religious/moral/philisophical issues, just looking at the way the world works and reporting what it sees.

Now, I think the problem arises when people use their view of science to make value judgements on religious/moral/philisophical issues. There are people that believe that science isn't just a useful way of looking at the world, they think it's the BEST way (or in some cases the ONLY way). They dismiss anything that cannot be proven scientifically as something not worth even discussing, either superstitious nonsense (religion) or useless philosophical drivel (morality), and they love feeling smugly superior to us poor deluded idiots that are interested in additional ways of understanding the world and our place in it (as in, "You actually BELIEVE that crap?")

Such people will be offended if you suggest they are religious, yet I find their faith in science as the be all and end all of human understanding no better than traditional religious thought. Can they prove using science that the scientific method is the best or only worthwhile way of looking at the world? Of course not. That idea is not science, it is a value judegement, and now you're into religious/philosophical territory.

I think it's that idea that people are really worried about, not science itself, which as I said should be value-neutral. If children were being taught this idea, which is philosophy, then it would make sense that people would want to throw in other philosophical ideas, like intelligent design. Personally, I think both ideas should be kept out of science class and in either history (which looks at how people have understood and interpreted world events) or in philosophy where they belong. Anyways, that's my two cents on the subject.

[Assassin]

Originally posted by: Mae
Yeah, the big bang theory is one theory of how the universe began, and the science part of it just says that the big bang happened, nothing about anyone causing it. Intelligent design is separate from this theory.

Now, I agree that intelligent design doesn't really belong in a science class. Science classes should be about the scientific method and what has been learned by using it (basicly things that can be proven by repeatable experiments). I see science as one useful way of looking at the world that is at it's best is neutral on religious/moral/philisophical issues, just looking at the way the world works and reporting what it sees.

Now, I think the problem arises when people use their view of science to make value judgements on religious/moral/philisophical issues. There are people that believe that science isn't just a useful way of looking at the world, they think it's the BEST way (or in some cases the ONLY way). They dismiss anything that cannot be proven scientifically as something not worth even discussing, either superstitious nonsense (religion) or useless philosophical drivel (morality), and they love feeling smugly superior to us poor deluded idiots that are interested in additional ways of understanding the world and our place in it (as in, "You actually BELIEVE that crap?")

Such people will be offended if you suggest they are religious, yet I find their faith in science as the be all and end all of human understanding no better than traditional religious thought. Can they prove using science that the scientific method is the best or only worthwhile way of looking at the world? Of course not. That idea is not science, it is a value judegement, and now you're into religious/philosophical territory.

I think it's that idea that people are really worried about, not science itself, which as I said should be value-neutral. If children were being taught this idea, which is philosophy, then it would make sense that people would want to throw in other philosophical ideas, like intelligent design. Personally, I think both ideas should be kept out of science class and in either history (which looks at how people have understood and interpreted world events) or in philosophy where they belong. Anyways, that's my two cents on the subject.


I agree completely with everyhting she said

[ChiaCheese]

let's all just look at the facts.
The Facts (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512)

[Honoko]

hah, thanks. that one REALLY cleared things up for me i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

[Assassin]

heh, that was great. I like how they want the students to make an "informed decision" by providing them with a strictly christian theory.

I love how the guy uses the bible quotes too i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif.

In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says,'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them falljust that they will fall.

do they wonder why he also says "fall" not 'they will be pushed down by god'?


Einstien Vs Jesus: The ultimate battle!

[Munsu]

I graduated from a catholic high school... even though the big bang theory and evolution are not beliefs that a catholic should have, they still taught us that...

I see no problem on them teaching the Intelligent Design... it's simply a matter of how they go about it... Schools shouldn't shy away from it, but they have to be very careful on how to they introduce it...

Do I think Intelligent Design should be taught in all schools? Yes.
Do I think Evolution and the Big Bang theory should be taught in all schools? Yes.

[FrogKing]

@Budweineken: I think the qestion is...Do you think Intelligent Design should be taught in a science class? Other than that, the consensus from the posts agree with your other thoughts.

[The Heretic Azazel]

If intelligent design is taught in science classes, evolution better be taught in Sunday school.

[Honoko]

oh, i don't know.... i've read about intelligent design (sans big bang theory) and if you take away all mentioning of the Bible, there is still a lot of scientific evidence present that can point strongly towards an intelligent designer of the universe. if anything, i think evangelists need to seriously consider how they're wording their case and the media should stop going into automatic bashing mode everytime the word "Christianity" is mentioned.

[Lefty]

And that's the problem the people trying to push it the most are the evangelical groups, and I think only the evangleical groups. I don't see any other groups trying to sell intelligent design. It's mostly if not commpleatly owned by christian groups. But what I'm more worried about is students getting into fights over this subject. We give kids enough to hate eachother over, why give them another thing to seperate the "diffrent kids" from the "accepted" kids. Also some of the more political savy students might also stage walk outs on the days intelligent design wil be taugh in class to prove the point that they don't want it. A whole shit storm involving everyone is wating to be let out of the box.

[XanBcoo]

I agree Honoko. That's what I was getting at when I said: "I've never heard of Intelligent Design before this topic, but it is very probable that it includes some rational theories." If anyone here has any knowledge of this theory beyond thinking that it's just a crackpot "excuse" that "Evangelical nuts" use, please share. I also know that there are quite a few logical arguments attempting to prove the existence of at least some higher power - many of them being pretty reasonable.


why give them another thing to seperate the "diffrent kids" from the "accepted" kids
If you are saying that the school boards should have the power to tell one group of people that their beleifs are wrong, then I completely disagree.

[darkmetal505]

creationism is mainly paved towards christianity. Other religions dont really say "God" created humans. Itelligent design is not an excuse for creationism in the sense that it does not define the force being there. The universe is built on atoms and even smaller particles and when ealing with biology, many people wonder how could such a thing as an organism (that is so complex, but works beautifully) been created by evolving. Is there not some force behind this? In this aspect religion is not part of intelligent design. There is no definition of "God" or any religion in the theory, so no violation on Seperation of Church and State. Therefore, I see no reason for it to be not taught.

[Honoko]

Originally posted by: XanBcoo
If anyone here has any knowledge of this theory beyond thinking that it's just a crackpot "excuse" that "Evangelical nuts" use, please share. I also know that there are quite a few logical arguments attempting to prove the existence of at least some higher power - many of them being pretty reasonable.

I'm gonna have to dig out that book i read.... to give you accurate reasonings. One of the points i remember most vividly is something that has to do with probability. And this was being explained by an astrophysicist... you're gonna have to wait a couple of days since i'll be out of town. But if you guys are really interested, I'll look for the info and post it.

@Lefty: it's only natural for those evangelists to embrace this theory and push for it loudly. it is, after all, supporting their cause. But there are members in the scientific community who do take this theory seriously w/o having to spout out verses from the Book of Genesis.

The interesting thing about this whole intelligent design issue on the religious side of it is the Vatican's position on it. I read that they are actually distancing themselves away from the evangelists and do embrace science as a "way of explaining how things work" (as many on this forum talked about) and have said that the creation story shouldn't be taken literally. It should be taken as "yes, God did create the world" but that you couldn't rule out evolutionary theory altogether. Hmmm, looks like I am about to tread off topic in my own thread ;-) Whoops.

(Thanks everyone who've been contributing. This thread's been fun ^^v)

[FrogKing]

Originally posted by: Honoko

I'm gonna have to dig out that book i read.... to give you accurate reasonings. One of the points i remember most vividly is something that has to do with probability. And this was being explained by an astrophysicist... you're gonna have to wait a couple of days since i'll be out of town. But if you guys are really interested, I'll look for the info and post it.

I can't wait to hear it. I have never heard any actual scientific data point to a higher being. Please post your source as well because I would like to look at it first hand (and see the credential of the author). As an individual who has taken an interest in astrophysics, this will be news to me.

[XanBcoo]

Originally posted by: Honoko
The interesting thing about this whole intelligent design issue on the religious side of it is the Vatican's position on it. I read that they are actually distancing themselves away from the evangelists and do embrace science as a "way of explaining how things work" (as many on this forum talked about) and have said that the creation story shouldn't be taken literally. It should be taken as "yes, God did create the world" but that you couldn't rule out evolutionary theory altogether. Hmmm, looks like I am about to tread off topic in my own thread ;-) Whoops.


That's why I love Catholicism so much. It takes the most reasonable (and oftentimes pretty moderate) approach for most controversial issues such as this - well, most of the time. It's not so closed-minded to say that their views are the only way, and allows for rational (or scientific) thought to help explain our world, rather than resulting to, LOL, intelligent falling.

[The Heretic Azazel]

The whole world needs to know about intelligent falling.

Your homework assignments are to bring it up in a conversation!

[KM]

Some clarifications:

- Intelligent Design is not about god.
- Whether Intelligent Design should be taught has no relation to Evolution or Big Bang
- The debate is about whether Intelligent Design should be taught in <u>science</u> classes
- It has nothing to do with whether Intelligent Design is probable or not

Intelligent Design in a nutshell:

- Sometimes, nature exhibits patterns known as Irreducible Complexity (IC) or Complex Specified Information (CSI)
- It is observed that these patterns are common results of designs.
- It is not observed that these patterns are results of natural mechanisms
- Therefore, it is reasonable to hypothesize that articles (e.g. cells, etc...) exhibiting IC or CSI are of Design*

* In the formal presentation, "Design" does not imply god. Similar to Big Bang, formal advocates of Intelligent Design DO NOT suggest that the articles are created by any specific entity. They simply state that those articles are not likely to be results of natural mechanisms. Who the designer is, is irrelevant. It can be aliens. It can be the Matrix. Whatever that is, doesn't matter, because those aren't science.


The bottom line:

- Intelligent Design is NOT science. It looks like science, but it is not. Talkorigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html) (Note that I am not showing a ref because I need authority to convince you that ID is not science, it is <u>common sense</u> that ID is not science, as long as you read the actual arguments of ID (such as the one by Behe) objectively)
- Including Intelligent Design in <u>science</u> class is nonsense.
- The inclusion of Intelligent Design is not a "what harm can it do anyway?" problem. It corrupts the meaning of science. It is like asking a music class to teach drawing also.
- The debate itself has no scientific merits. It is purely a political topic.
- The political pressure that evangelical groups is making is unethical.

[Lefty]

Originally posted by: XanBcoo
I agree Honoko. That's what I was getting at when I said: "I've never heard of Intelligent Design before this topic, but it is very probable that it includes some rational theories." If anyone here has any knowledge of this theory beyond thinking that it's just a crackpot "excuse" that "Evangelical nuts" use, please share. I also know that there are quite a few logical arguments attempting to prove the existence of at least some higher power - many of them being pretty reasonable.


why give them another thing to seperate the "diffrent kids" from the "accepted" kids
If you are saying that the school boards should have the power to tell one group of people that their beleifs are wrong, then I completely disagree.

No NO no NONO. What i was trying to get at is that kids will use this a as anopther thing to seperaste them selves form people that are diffrent from the whole. It will jsut create another requierment to be in or excluded from a group. Telling another person there belifes is wrong but forcing it upon people when they just don't want to hear it was what I have a problem with. Believe what you want, it's your right as an americain and a human being. Just keep it to your self unless some asks, or seems to have an intrest in what you believe.

[The Heretic Azazel]

What could you possibly talk about concerning ID anyway, if you don't specify a creator? And specifying a creator would in fact alienate people who don't believe in that one particular creator..

Hell, if they could say anything it would probably only be what KM said on top of this page. "Some people think this world wasn't formed by natural mechanisms, but created...by someone else. Hey, we have no proof, but I'm just gonna throw that out there for you guys!"

[Assassin]

"everybody is stupid except for me" - Homer Simpson

[mr3vi1m0nk3y]

the main problem with intelligent design being taught is that its not a science. end of story. there is no scientific proof supporting it as there is with evolution. the groups that are pushing for ID keep trying to muddle the debate by saying that evolution doesnt really have any proof and its just a theory so other "theroies" should be taught along side it. thats just wrong, thre have been hundreds of scientific studies that support evolution by scientists all over the world. to me its just insane that this debate has gone so far when its obvious which is actually science and should be taught in a science class.

[Honoko]

I think this article (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/051107a.asp) explains the science supporting intelligent design better than I can summarize.... also a couple of books to look at if anyone is interested:

The Mystery of Life's Origin by Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen &lt;-- the book that consolidates all of intelligent design theories and explores the weaknesses of evolutionary theory. Raised eyebrows in science community when biologist Dean Kenyon wrote the foreward of the book (since he was at the time known as one of the biggest proponents of the idea that chemical reactions had the inherent ability to evolve into living cells)
Darwin's Black Box by Michael J. Behe &lt;-- talks alot about how random chance could not possibly evolve to life.

Oh, and I lied about the astrophysist. Sorry. Walter L. Bradley got a Ph.D in materials science from UT Austin and was a mech.e prof at Texas A&amp;M who also specialized in polymers and thermodynamics. I'm sure the other authors have similar eminence.

"The most amazing thing to me is existence itself. How is it that inanimate matter can organize itself to contemplate itself?" Allan Sandage, cosmologist

So, to me, it seems like intelligent design is something that could be taught in a science classroom with no need to mention the Bible. And that's the thing most people are getting confused with here, I think. If someone teaches the intelligent design theory, they shouldn't grandly conclude, "so hey! All this implies that GOD exists!" but rather should just say something like, "look at all this evidence. what conclusion can you derive from it?" And if you look at those two questions very carefully, one can be applicable to a science classroom, and the other would be more in place in a Sunday School classroom. So maybe, everyone in the media to the school boardrooms are just handling this whole thing wrong.

[mr3vi1m0nk3y]

the article is on the Christian Broadcast Network. hardly the place i look for impartial judgement on a case like this

[Honoko]

that shouldn't prevent you from reading the article objectively. I didn't see the word "genesis" mentioned in there once. and anyone with brains should be able to ignore all the Christian bias in it and pick out the scientific stuff on his/her own.

[mage]

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/051107a.asp



In plain terms, a bit more gravity would mean any creature larger than the size of a pea would be crushed into nothing. And a little less gravity would mean that the Earth would come unglued and fly off into space.
What? I guess that's why everyone that landed on the moon (which has 1/6th the gravity of Earth) just flew off once they landed right? Total BS.



Darwinism has been maintaining that advanced life is easy to produce all over the universe.
Nobody that knows what they're talking about has ever said it's easy to produce anywhere. Total BS.

Who wrote this junk? I would hate to be on the same side as these people. The title of this article is called "Intelligent Design Grounded in Strong Science," yet they make nothing but weak claims. All they are doing is saying evolution can't possibly be true, therefore they're right. Not like anything more could be expected from CBN, though.



Originally posted by: Honoko
that shouldn't prevent you from reading the article objectively. I didn't see the word "genesis" mentioned in there once. and anyone with brains should be able to ignore all the Christian bias in it and pick out the scientific stuff on his/her own.
The only scientific "evidence" to support the claims in that article is that all the pieces of a flagella must (he should avoid using the word 'must' since he may be wrong) be in place before it can work (no proof is given), and that the odds of a planetary scenario that can sustain life forming are too low. He also (stupidly) adds that a little more or a little less gravity would destroy anything on the planet or the planet itself (he says the planet would come unglued and fly apart if there were not enough gravity). How is it possible for anyone to take this article seriously?

[XanBcoo]

Originally posted by: mage
He also (stupidly) adds that a little more or a little less gravity would destroy anything on the planet or the planet itself (he says the planet would come unglued and fly apart if there were not enough gravity).
I beleive the whole gravity argument was referring to the fact that the amount of gravity that earth applies to everything on it is the right amount to sustain everything on it (the pea example), and if the sun (or any other body) applied more or less gravity to earth, then the earth would leave its orbit (and fly off into space; or a whole bunch of other shit would be affected - the tides for example). It's eternally set to the "right" amount. That's what I see it's trying to say.

Keep in mind mage that this is a news article, and many of the proponents of ID they interview or refer to are (to quote) "people with serious academic training. They are Ph.D.s from very, not just reputable -- but elite -- institutions. And they are people doing research on the key pressure points in biology and physics, and so their arguments are based on cutting-edge knowledge of developments in science."

Beleive what you will about ID, I think the real issue is stuff like this (most of which has already been discussed in this thread):


West remarked that "hate speech, speech codes, outright persecution, and discrimination is taking place on our college campuses, in our school districts, against both students and teachers and faculty members."

In fact, universities are evolving into centers for censorship. Five years ago, Baylor University dismissed mathematician Dr. William Dembski from his position, primarily because he headed a center for ID there.

Also...


Walter L. Bradley got a Ph.D in materials science from UT Austin
Hook 'em.

[mage]

Originally posted by: XanBcoo
I beleive the whole gravity argument was referring to the fact that the amount of gravity that earth applies to everything on it is the right amount to sustain everything on it (the pea example), and if the sun (or any other body) applied more or less gravity to earth, then the earth would leave its orbit (and fly off into space; or a whole bunch of other shit would be affected - the tides for example). It's eternally set to the "right" amount. That's what I see it's trying to say.
I know what he was trying to say, however, if the Earth had a different gravity, I don't believe it would be much different. Life would have adapted to that gravity just as well as it has to Earth's.

[darkmetal505]

this should have a poll

1) if you think it should be taught
2) if you think it shouldnt
3) you could care less and everyone is making a big deal out of it

[mr3vi1m0nk3y]

Originally posted by: mage


Originally posted by: XanBcoo
I beleive the whole gravity argument was referring to the fact that the amount of gravity that earth applies to everything on it is the right amount to sustain everything on it (the pea example), and if the sun (or any other body) applied more or less gravity to earth, then the earth would leave its orbit (and fly off into space; or a whole bunch of other shit would be affected - the tides for example). It's eternally set to the "right" amount. That's what I see it's trying to say.
I know what he was trying to say, however, if the Earth had a different gravity, I don't believe it would be much different. Life would have adapted to that gravity just as well as it has to Earth's.


but then again he doesnt believe that organisms evolve so that never fit into his argument

[mage]

Originally posted by: XanBcoo
and if the sun (or any other body) applied more or less gravity to earth, then the earth would leave its orbit (and fly off into space; or a whole bunch of other shit would be affected - the tides for example).
It definitely wouldn't happen that way. The sun cannot change it's mass so drastically in the middle of its lifespan to put the Earth into a different orbit. Earth would not fly off into space if it or the sun had less mass. Mars and Pluto both have less mass than Earth, are on both sides of Earth, yet they still orbit the sun. The only way for the Earth to have a different orbit is for it or the sun to have been a different mass in the first place, or if something large collided with Earth, but life would have adapted (denying that life is unable to adapt to certain situations is the same as denying that Earth orbits the sun) to those conditions if it were even able to form in them in the first place.

Many people also believe life was once present on Mars (there is some very good evidence). If Earth is so special, how could there have (possibly) been life on Mars at one point?

[mage]

sorry, double post

[Honoko]

Originally posted by: mr3vi1m0nk3y
but then again he doesnt believe that organisms evolve so that never fit into his argument
Xan never said that. Stop being so hostile.



Originally posted by: darkmetal505
this should have a poll
That's a good idea, except after 3 pages worth of discussion, I think it's a bit too late. Everyone's said what they wanted to say, I'm pretty sure.

Anyways, I didn't post that ID article so you could speculate on stuff Ph.D people have been studying and probably know a lot more than we do. Someone wanted to know some scientific theory that can point to an intelligent designer and I provided the sources.

And if you really seriously want to argue the whole ID theory, go read those two books I mentioned and then find ones that're equally as acclaimed that supports evolutionary theory and then create a new thread and duke it out.

The last two quotes in Xan's most recent post in here is most relevant to the topic of this thread. A discussion about the amount of gravity needed for us to live is useless because who here actually studies gravity for a living? =P

I think this thread's about to run out of steam anyway, unless someone out there has something new to contribute. Otherwise, we're on the verge of recycling old arguments.

[mage]

Originally posted by: Honoko
The last two quotes in Xan's most recent post in here is most relevant to the topic of this thread. A discussion about the amount of gravity needed for us to live is useless because who here actually studies gravity for a living? =P

I hope to study it for a living one day.

[XanBcoo]

Originally posted by: mr3vi1m0nk3y


Originally posted by: mage
I know what he was trying to say, however, if the Earth had a different gravity, I don't believe it would be much different. Life would have adapted to that gravity just as well as it has to Earth's.
but then again he doesnt believe that organisms evolve so that never fit into his argument
No one said anything about organisms evolving. We were talking about gravity, buddy - which has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. I have no idea who or what you're referring to. If you're referring to me then you're a dumbass for putting words in my mouth (because I DO beleive organisms evolve), and if you're referring to propenents of ID in general, then you're an even bigger dumbass for reasons I've already stated. Stay relevant, please.


Originally posted by: mage
~~Stuff about gravity~~

I had thought of a lot of that myself, which is why ID doesn't make complete sense to me. But even then, I'm still getting from the article that ID asserts that there is something keeping all the physical factors about the universe not only adequate, but also constant, instead of relying on random chance and unexplainable forces. I don't know what to think about the theory itself, but I do think that no one should stop it from being taught on the basis that they beleive it isn't "scientific." Again, all that's been discussed and I've already given my thoughts on it.

[mage]

By the way, regarding the "intelligent falling theory" link posted earlier, if you want to know why it is completely untrue, then read this (a stupid article but informative):

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae198.cfm

The mass of an object bends space, which is why light can be "pulled" into a black hole even though it has no mass. The light follows the curvature of space into the black hole. Unlike what the intelligent falling article says, we do have a pretty good idea of how gravity works.