Intelligent design isn't science

[jochhejaam]

you obviously have never heard of separation of church and state. So public schools should convert heathens?

That's an ignorant assumption and follow-up and is therefore not worthy of dialogue. [B]<flicks the mosquito known as Oh, Gee off of his arm and looks for something other than a lightweight fluff post> [/B]

Try to come up with something that's doesn't fall into the "unfounded charge" category and isn't so preposterously absurd and then maybe we can have an intelligent exchange of ideas.

[hendrix]

I love wikipedia, from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design

Argument from ignorance

Eugenie Scott with Glenn Branch and other critics have argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance.[69] In the argument from ignorance, one claims that the lack of evidence for one view is evidence for another view (e.g., science cannot explain this, therefore God did it). Particularly, Michael Behe's demands for ever more detailed explanations of the historical evolution of molecular systems seem to assume a dichotomy where either evolution or design is the proper explanation, and any perceived failure of evolution becomes a victory for design. In scientific terms, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" for naturalistic explanations of observed traits of living organisms.

Intelligent design proponents often point out that intelligent design's goal is to prove design and not to identify the designer or its origin. Some critics have responded that positing a designer that accounts for many things but which requires no explanation is not a contribution to knowledge, but a rhetorical device used as a thought-terminating cliché.

They feel many intelligent design concepts could be described in these terms, especially the neologisms, which they contend are designed to end the desire for further investigation rather than to serve as the basis of scientific hypotheses.

This has also been characterized as the "God of the Gaps" argument, which has the following form:

* There is a gap in scientific knowledge
* The gap is filled with acts of God and therefore proves God.

Scientists state that this argument contributes nothing to scientific knowledge since it can be used for any question. (i.e. Why is the sky blue? God did it.)

[Spurminator]

Yeah, if high-schoolers were educated enough and wise enough at this point to make intelligent decisions, but most still lack the critical thinking skills to distinguish between fact and non-fact.

If we assume they're smart enough to distinbguish between fact and theory in Science, why can't we assume they're smart enough to distinguish ID as a philosophical theory? I don't think you're giving them enough credit. It's not about protecting them from possibly converting to Christianity, or promoting it... it's about education.

[JoeChalupa]

God created Heaven and Earth.

[Spurminator]

Who is fighting so hard for ID to be included in public school cirriculum? Fundamenatlist Christians.

So you propose to teach kids that the universe is a product of an intelligent designer without revealing the iden y of the "intelligent designer?"

Okay class, I know you heard all this hooey about evolution but it is my duty as a teacher to inform you that evolution is not the entire story. There was something more powerful that set everything into motion.

Kid raises hand: Are you talking about God?

Teacher: I can't answer that question.

Why couldn't they answer the question? God is not Taboo in public schools, just religious propaganda.

Saying that "People believe in God" is not the same as saying "There is a God." If we ever get to a point where schools can't teach about various world religions then we're just as bad off as if we were promoting Christianity.

Okay, so teach ID in philosophy and not in science (because it is not science).

Which is exactly what I said.

[boutons]

"God is not Taboo in public schools"

In practice or in curricula, means what?

"where schools can't teach about various world religions"

history of religion, comparative religion, etc are all valid academic subjects, but mostly at post-HS level.

But I bet the fascism of the ID/creationits/evangelicals would cause them to fight the mention in HS of ANY non-Christian religions presented on non-judgemental, equal footing with Christianity, lest their children have a broad education and appreciation of a wider world.

For the Christian radicals, much as for the radical Muslims, Christianity is the only valid religion.

[scott]

I disagree with the general assumption that ID is an intentional slippery slope to Creationism by fundamentalists. Even if ID was somehow passed off as Science and taught in the classroom, it would still be an enormous fight to even consider bringing Creationism into public schools.

At least in the Dover case, the plantiff's did a remarkable job of showing that it WAS. I encourage you to give a crack at the 139 page opinion. The Dover school board members were on record of wanting to introduce creationism into school before they settled on their statement referring students to ID. The textbook they were referred to, "Of Pandas and People", has had several verions... the court examined two versions, one prior to the Supreme Court's ruling that "creationism" cannot be taught in schools and one after. Amazingly, before the Supreme Court ruling, all mentions of the word "Intelligent Design" previously read "creationism."

Maybe, just maybe, there are some ID proponents out there who are NOT creationists (in the fundemental Christian sense), but they are the vast minority and are certainly not represented in ID's push. Take the Discovery Ins ite for example, the leading organization pushing ID... in their 5 year strategic plan that was considered by the court, they explicitly say that they want to replace evolution in schools with a Christian view of the origins of life.

[xrayzebra]

Kid raises hand: Are you talking about God?

Teacher: I can't answer that question.



Okay, so teach ID in philosophy and not in science (because it is not science).

Okay, in my college years, in world lit. We studied the bible. I had a
Prof from the University of Edinburgh who was teaching in our class. Naturally, all of us in the class ask essentially the same question only in
a different way. We ask him did he believe there was a God. He gave
almost the same answer as above, a phrased a little different. We are
studying lit, not religion. He was a great teacher, but never got an
answer from him. One way or the other on his beliefs.

[scott]

Here is a link to the full opinion.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...miller_342.pdf

It's 139 pages, but it is worth the read. If you are short on time, I recommend the last 10 pages or so.

[scott]

In his opinion, Judge Jones also mentioned something that is often overlooked in any "ID/creationism" debate. Certain proponents of these design theories like to act as though ID is some new "science" or revalation as to the origins of life, when it actually nothing more than Thomas Aquinas's Great Designer theory, which he developed way back in the 13th century. St. Thomas Aquinas was a great thinker on many levels - but I don't think there is any debate of whether he was a theologian or a scientist.

[xrayzebra]

In his opinion, Judge Jones also mentioned something that is often overlooked in any "ID/creationism" debate. Certain proponents of these design theories like to act as though ID is some new "science" or revalation as to the origins of life, when it actually nothing more than Thomas Aquinas's Great Designer theory, which he developed way back in the 13th century. St. Thomas Aquinas was a great thinker on many levels - but I don't think there is any debate of whether he was a theologian or a scientist.

And another problem is that some people look at Darwins' theory as
their holy text, never to be challenged in anyway. Like many Greene's look
at Mother Earth. I think they could be called the modern day Druids.

[scott]

I particularly enjoyed this part of the ruling:

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a cons utional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately uncons utional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

[Marcus Bryant]

If we assume they're smart enough to distinbguish between fact and theory in Science, why can't we assume they're smart enough to distinguish ID as a philosophical theory? I don't think you're giving them enough credit. It's not about protecting them from possibly converting to Christianity, or promoting it... it's about education.

Yet would not a complete education require some examination of the history and structure of religious faith?

What this debate seems to boil down to is that you have two extremes which would like to foist their beliefs upon impressionable young minds.

[scott]

And another problem is that some people look at Darwins' theory as
their holy text, never to be challenged in anyway. Like many Greene's look
at Mother Earth. I think they could be called the modern day Druids.

What people are those? "Darwinism" is not a prevailing scientific theory. "Evolution" is. While "Evolution" may have its roots in Darwin, Darwinism and Evolution are not one in the same.

[xrayzebra]

What people are those? "Darwinism" is not a prevailing scientific theory. "Evolution" is. While "Evolution" may have its roots in Darwin, Darwinism and Evolution are not one in the same.

Splitting hairs. It is his theory. But have it your way. People do not
want evolution challenged and consider it like their bible. Otherwise they
wouldn't be fighting as hard as they do to not have it challenged.

[FromWayDowntown]

Christians believe in life after death either with God in Heaven or without him in . Many children live in families that are void of any mention of God, Jesus Christ, heaven, or the Church. You get quite passionate about a the hypothetical innocent on Death Row possibly having his mortal body wrongfully terminated, where's the passion for those that are in need of spiritual education in an area that has eternal repercussions that affect not only the physical body but the soul?
Many slip through the cracks of uncaring or unknowing parents and family and are never taken to church and I see electives in school as a safety net for those that fall into this category.

I still believe that it is the object of the Church, rather than the State to instill those values. I don't see that as being terribly controversial. I am passionate about the State not interfering in the way that individuals operate their lives unless and until that operation negatively affects the rights of another. At that point, the State should be in the business of punishing, but not in the business of condemning. I think the State should neutrally respect the any autonomous person to live his life, whether that person is free or, because of his actions, incarcerated.

Inculcating purely religious values -- something that you appear to acknowledge ID to be -- is not the State's business. If children in some families are not exposed to religion and religious values, the solution isn't to teach religion in public schools. The solution is for churches to reach out to kids by offering extra-curricular activities or finding other ways to get involved in the lives of those children and, through that process, teach the Word of God. If that's a hard thing to do, so be it, but churches should the conduit for religious information, not State en ies. Beating children over the head with articles of faith and purely religious dogma through the machinery of the State is terribly close to the foundation of a theocracy.

Being a Christian yourself what's the justification for wanting to deny them this? Why so impassioned for the possible wrongfully innocent executed on Death Row and yet so passoinate against taking advantage of every possible avenue to educate children in an area that leads to death of both body and soul?
I'm also curious.

Again, I'm not about denying it to those children -- I am about ensuring that it comes from places that are competent to deal with the questions that are a part of the development of any religious faith. Why is a public school teacher competent to deal with the religious and philosophical complexities of religious questions? Why would a public school teacher be any more competent to deal with that than a pastor or a minister? And if your answer is to say that the pastor or minister should be permitted to teach in the public school, why is it not enough to say that the elective course will be held outside of the school context in a church?

You posit that the course could be taught as an elective and imply that making the course elective would elminate the concerns for theocracy, but that makes a gigantic assumption. It's an equally plausible assumption that the kids from non-religious families who would be interested in taking such an elective would be just as likely to have been drawn into churches to seek those sorts of answers -- that, or they would be likely to be interested in attending extra-curricular activities offered by a church. Otherwise, the kids you get in that course will be mostly kids with religious backgrounds who, again, can get ID teaching at their churches.

It's all about the proper role of the State, joch; I can't see it ever being a good thing for the State to take up the mantle of religious education, particularly in a religiously-pluralistic society.

[travis2]

Splitting hairs. It is his theory. But have it your way. People do not
want evolution challenged and consider it like their bible. Otherwise they
wouldn't be fighting as hard as they do to not have it challenged.

Actually, not true. The theory of evolution is as far beyond Darwin as we humans are above microbes. Not only has the field of knowledge advanced, but some things that Darwin proposed are no longer accepted.

That's the way of scientific exploration.

Also, I do not consider the ToE my "bible". Actually, I find that highly offensive. When ID advances to the level of a scientific hypothesis, I would be more than happy to consider it.

Unfortunately, it is basically an argument ad ignorantium at this point...which is a logical fallacy.

[Extra Stout]

Christians believe in life after death either with God in Heaven or without him in . Many children live in families that are void of any mention of God, Jesus Christ, heaven, or the Church. You get quite passionate about a the hypothetical innocent on Death Row possibly having his mortal body wrongfully terminated, where's the passion for those that are in need of spiritual education in an area that has eternal repercussions that affect not only the physical body but the soul?
Many slip through the cracks of uncaring or unknowing parents and family and are never taken to church and I see electives in school as a safety net for those that fall into this category.

You need a revolution to make that happen. The First and Fourteenth Amendments get in the way, and I don't imagine attempts to amend them would go anywhere.

[jochhejaam]

You need a revolution to make that happen. The First and Fourteenth Amendments get in the way, and I don't imagine attempts to amend them would go anywhere.

It would have to be presented in such a way as to not infringe on the Cons ution. I'm not referring to a denominationally biased Bible thumping course where our youth is threatened with damnation or given the opportunity to give their life to Christ at the end of the class. I'm talking about an in depth cirriculum that teaches Christianity/Religion from geneological, historical, and moral viewpoints

It has undeniably played a major part in the history of our Country from it's founding to the present and most assuredly into our future. I don't think the teaching of this in our Public Education system in some significant form should be stifled.

[Spurminator]

At least in the Dover case, the plantiff's did a remarkable job of showing that it WAS. I encourage you to give a crack at the 139 page opinion. The Dover school board members were on record of wanting to introduce creationism into school before they settled on their statement referring students to ID. The textbook they were referred to, "Of Pandas and People", has had several verions... the court examined two versions, one prior to the Supreme Court's ruling that "creationism" cannot be taught in schools and one after. Amazingly, before the Supreme Court ruling, all mentions of the word "Intelligent Design" previously read "creationism."

Maybe, just maybe, there are some ID proponents out there who are NOT creationists (in the fundemental Christian sense), but they are the vast minority and are certainly not represented in ID's push. Take the Discovery Ins ite for example, the leading organization pushing ID... in their 5 year strategic plan that was considered by the court, they explicitly say that they want to replace evolution in schools with a Christian view of the origins of life.

You may be right, but in my opinion the motivation of the proponents is not a relevant legal argument. The only discussion should be whether ID is relevant or substantiated enough to be taught as a Scientific Theory, and whether its inclusion in curriculum qualifies as religious promotion.

[jochhejaam]

I still believe that it is the object of the Church, rather than the State to instill those values.

And if the Church fails miserably to the detriment of our youth too bad or so what? There's a large part of the population that either cannot or will not instill moral values into their children and you don't want taxpayer money to attempt to stress the importance of morality in the classroom?
FWD, are you saying that outside of religion man has no innate or engendered moral values to pass on from generation to generation?

If the answer is that there are indeed vallues that can be promoted or taught that would not infringe on the establishment of religion clause what would they be?





BTW, your previou

[FromWayDowntown]

And if the Church fails miserably to the detriment of our youth too bad or so what? There's a large part of the population that either cannot or will not instill moral values into their children and you don't want taxpayer money to attempt to stress the importance of morality in the classroom?

You're absolutely right that I don't want taxpayer dollars devoted to teaching religious values to children in public schools. The United States Cons ution makes it clear that government is not to play that role.

If churches cannot fill the gaps, then the Church needs to reexamine the means by which it undertakes its work -- indeed, joch, what you want the State to do IS the mission of any church, and that mission does not end (in most cases at least) with those who are already members of the congregation. Why burden the Church's work with endless layers of buerocracy and state-imposed regulations?

FWD, are you saying that outside of religion man has no innate or engendered moral values to pass on from generation to generation?

I'm not saying that -- I am saying that passing those beliefs down from generation to generation is not a matter that the State should regulate or in which the State should otherwise be involved. I think that's actually fairly simple.

If the answer is that there are indeed vallues that can be promoted or taught that would not infringe on the establishment of religion clause what would they be?

General societal values, some of which (though not all) are contiguous with the teachings of the Church, are taught in schools through societal interaction and discipline that is meted out. Those values are also incorporated in laws that govern our behavior in society at large. We teach kids those laws and that there are consequences for violating those laws, too. That's all within the purview of a public school's mission.

If you go beyond that, what values do you teach? I mean, Christians generally read the same Bible, but there are differing interpretations among denominations concerning the meaning of certain passages and the application of certain principles. For instance, there are certainly Christian churches that do not view sexuality as an abomination and certainly others that view it precisely that way -- which view should prevail if we're to teach Christian values in public schools? How do you decide? How do you decide what issues are or are not too controversial to be considered in that curriculum?

And, again, why is it, joch, that the school should take on any of the responsibilities of the church? You never really answered my question -- you posed a question to me. I'd like you to answer mine: why is it that public schools are better equipped and preferrable fora for the inculcation of religious doctrine? If you think that religious education in public schools is so essential, why aren't you arguing for religious re-education for those who have already graduated but weren't privy to such teaching -- after all, if you suggest that this is such an urgent societal need, why should it only apply to children? Are adults beyond teaching and salvation?

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE]

You're absolutely right that I don't want taxpayer dollars devoted to teaching religious values to children in public schools. The United States Cons ution makes it clear that government is not to play that role.

Okay with religous values, the question at the end of my sentence which you really didn't respond to was, "you don't want taxpayer money to attempt to stress the importance of morality in the classroom?"
Morality is nonexistent without religion?

If churches cannot fill the gaps, then the Church needs to reexamine the means by which it undertakes its work -- indeed, joch, what you want the State to do IS the mission of any church, and that mission does not end (in most cases at least) with those who are already members of the congregation. Why burden the Church's work with endless layers of buerocracy and state-imposed regulations?

The wishes of the people should be fulfilled by the state FWD, why shouldn't the majority of taxpayers that do want morality stressed (not State Religion) in the classroom be accomodated? For those of you that are in the minority and don't want moral values reinforced in the classroom we can provide schools that are void of all absolutes and moral truths. I assume that would work for you.

I'm not saying that -- I am saying that passing those beliefs down from generation to generation is not a matter that the State should regulate or in which the State should otherwise be involved.

So you do not want your/our children to have moral values reinforced in the classroom?

General societal values, some of which (though not all) are contiguous with the teachings of the Church, are taught in schools through societal interaction and discipline that is meted out. Those values are also incorporated in laws that govern our behavior in society at large. We teach kids those laws and that there are consequences for violating those laws, too. That's all within the purview of a public school's mission.

They're taught the downside of poor behavior through discipline and that in and of itself does not stress or promote a proper understanding in children about the upside or virtue of following and implementing morality into their character, all they learn is the by product or consequences of poor behavior. That's not enough.
And don't keep telling me that's solely the responsibility of the church, kids probably spend 35 hours in school and 0 (<--most) to maybe 3-4 in church.
I know, tough luck for those unfortunates.

And, again, why is it, joch, that the school should take on any of the responsibilities of the church?

Who says teaching morality is exclusively the responsibility of the Church? Where did you come up with that?









[QUOTE]

I'd like you to answer mine: why is it that public schools are better equipped and preferrable fora for the inculcation of religious doctrine?

They're not and I never stated that they were.

If you think that religious education in public schools is so essential, why aren't you arguing for religious re-education for those who have already graduated but weren't privy to such teaching -- after all, if you suggest that this is such an urgent societal need, why should it only apply to children? Are adults beyond teaching and salvation?

I thnk you may have lost your focus at the end here, the discussion is on what's being taught in the Public School classroom FWD and you're questions here have nothing to do with that nor can they be applied as arguement to anything I've stated. Let's try to stick to the topic at hand in this thread.

[Guru of Nothing]

Morality is nonexistent without religion?

Who says teaching morality is exclusively the responsibility of the Church? Where did you come up with that?

Bu-bye. Thanks for playing.

ETA: Dammit, I just saw the question mark in your first quote above. So, if you are suggesting that morality is possible without religious influence, I take back my comment above.

But seriously, we all have morals - it's just that some are better than others.

[Yonivore]

Not by chance

Relevant excerpts, [obviously, I recommend you read the entire article]:

Over the last 25 years, scientists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells. Inside these tiny labyrinthine enclosures, scientists have found functioning turbines, miniature pumps, sliding clamps, complex circuits, rotary engines, and machines for copying, reading and editing digital information-hardly the simple "globules of plasm" envisioned by Darwin's contemporaries.

Moreover, most of these circuits and machines depend on the coordinated function of many separate parts. For example, scientists have discovered that bacterial cells are propelled by miniature rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at speeds up to 100,000 rpm. These engines look for all-the world as if they were designed by the Mazda corporation, with many distinct mechanical parts (made of proteins) including rotors, stators, O-rings, bushings, U-joints, and drive shafts.

Is this appearance of design merely illusory? Could natural selection have produced this appearance in a neo-Darwinian fashion one tiny incremental mutation at a time? Biochemist Michael Behe argues 'no.' He points out that the flagellar motor depends upon the coordinated function of 30 protein parts. Yet the absence of any one of these parts results in the complete loss of motor function. Remove one of the necessary proteins (as scientists can do experimentally) and the rotary motor simply doesn't work. The motor is, in Behe's terminology, "irreducibly complex."

consider an even more fundamental argument for design. In 1953 when Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule, they made a startling discovery. The structure of DNA allows it to store information in the form of a four-character digital code. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals called nucleotide bases store and transmit the assembly instructions--the information--for building the crucial protein molecules and machines the cell needs to survive.

Francis Crick later developed this idea with his famous "sequence hypothesis" according to which the chemical cons uents in DNA function like letters in a written language or symbols in a computer code. Just as English letters may convey a particular message depending on their arrangement, so too do certain sequences of chemical bases along the spine of a DNA molecule convey precise instructions for building proteins. The arrangement of the chemical characters determines the function of the sequence as a whole. Thus, the DNA molecule has the same property of "sequence specificity" that characterizes codes and language. As Richard Dawkins has acknowledged, "the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like." As Bill Gates has noted, "DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created."

After the early 1960s, further discoveries made clear that the digital information in DNA and RNA is only part of a complex information processing system-an advanced form of nanotechnology that both mirrors and exceeds our own in its complexity, design logic and information storage density.

Where did the digital information in the cell come from? And how did the cell's complex information processing system arise? Today these questions lie at the heart of origin-of-life research. Clearly, the informational features of the cell at least appear designed. And to date no theory of undirected chemical evolution has explained the origin of the digital information needed to build the first living cell. Why? There is simply too much information in the cell to be explained by chance alone. And the information in DNA has also been shown to defy explanation by reference to the laws of chemistry. Saying otherwise would be like saying that a newspaper headline might arise as the result of the chemical attraction between ink and paper. Clearly "something else" is at work.

Of course, many will still dismiss intelligent design as nothing but warmed over creationism or as a "religious masquerading as science." But intelligent design, unlike creationism, is not based upon the Bible. Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority.

Even so, the theory of intelligent design may provide support for theistic belief. But that is not grounds for dismissing it. To say otherwise confuses the evidence for a theory and its possible implications. Many scientists initially rejected the Big Bang theory because it seemed to challenge the idea of an eternally self-existent universe and pointed to the need for a transcendent cause of matter, space and time. But scientists eventually accepted the theory despite such apparently unpleasant implications because the evidence strongly supported it. Today a similar metaphysical prejudice confronts the theory of intelligent design. Nevertheless, it too must be evaluated on the basis of the evidence not our philosophical preferences or concerns about its possible religious implications. Antony Flew, the long-time atheistic philosopher who has come to accept the case for design, insists correctly that we must "follow the evidence wherever it leads."