Intelligent Design and Evolution

[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

[Honoko]

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

[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 [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif[/img].

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.