Intelligent design isn't science

[Oh, Gee!!]

There is no physical evidence they were crafted by humans. It is presumed they were simply because they bear the tell-tale marks of design.

Same thing with life. It's fundamental cons uent parts bear the tell-tale marks of design.

Archeology is a physical science aimed at solving mysteries such as the construction of the Easter Island statues, Stonehenge, etc...

Why deny there is just as much of a benefit to exploring the apparent design features of biological structures?

I was joking, hence the lol. I don't think it would be bad to "explore the apparent design features of biological structures," but so far that can only be done using philosophical or metaphysical arguments. ID'ers aren't proposing any new technology (gamboa's word) or scientific principles for doing what you're asking.

[Yonivore]

But intelligent design, unlike creationism, is not based upon the Bible. Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority.--Originally posted by some dip then taken for granted as Truth by Yoni and hegamboa

Because biological data can only explain so much. So what? We fill in the blanks or finish the story with theories that can't be tested by any available scientific means?

Well, to prove any hypothesis conclusively, you have to be able to reproduce it outside the realm of your influence as a scientist. Under this constraint, astronomers and evolutionists are lost because, they have neither the space to recreate a universe nor the time to recreate evolution from primordial soup to Albert Einstein.

So, in reality, evolution can only be approximated in scientific experiments. And, based on your assessment of what makes science valid (the ability to apply scientific means to a hypothesis) Intelligent Design theory is more tenable than Evolution.

After all, we are close to being able to reproduce the flagellar motor. We've already done so on a macro scale. We are not so close to being able to survive billions of years to test the theory of evolution.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I'll leave this thread now because we're going in circles here. But I will say this, Spurs will beat the Pistons on X-Mas day.

[Yonivore]

I was joking, hence the lol. I don't think it would be bad to "explore the apparent design features of biological structures," but so far that can only be done using philosophical or metaphysical arguments. ID'ers aren't proposing any new technology (gamboa's word) or scientific principles for doing what you're asking.

Then, we're back to denying the teaching of this theory in schools. If you don't think it would be bad to explore the design features of biological structures, why is it bad to teach this theory in schools?

If it's apparent enough to warrant scientific exploration, it's significant enough to let our children know that the scientific community is seriously investigating the implications.

Intelligent Design proponents never suggested that the theory of evolution be supplanted by Intelligent Design theory; just that it be taught as being as scientifically relevant as Darwinian evolution theory.

[Phenomanul]

I was joking, hence the lol. I don't think it would be bad to "explore the apparent design features of biological structures," but so far that can only be done using philosophical or metaphysical arguments. ID'ers aren't proposing any new technology (gamboa's word) or scientific principles for doing what you're asking.

Talk about selective reading....

I wasn't referring to any specific technologies in particular I was making the point that one must use the best available methods in search for truth...

You were proposing we simply stick to what we knew... that in itself was a scientific oxymoron... because you were proposing we stifle any argument or pursuit which would hurt Darwinian principles...

[Yonivore]

...because you were proposing we stifle any argument or pursuit which would hurt Darwinian principles...

And, there, I think you've hit on the source of all opposition to Intelligent Design theory.

Unfortunately for opponents to ID theory, Intelligent Design doesn't contradict Darwinian theory; Darwin never explained how life originated -- only how it has adapted and evolved in response to natural selection and environmental forces.

[Phenomanul]

And, there, I think you've hit on the source of all opposition to Intelligent Design theory.

Unfortunately for opponents to ID theory, Intelligent Design doesn't contradict Darwinian theory; Darwin never explained how life originated -- only how it has adapted and evolved in response to natural selection and environmental forces.

Yeah... but I've always maintained that you can't explain one without addressing the origin of the other...

[boutons]

"Intelligent Design doesn't contradict Darwinian theory"

Then why do Thomas More Ins ute and Dover/Kansas school boards insist that ID theory is an alternative to Darwianian theory?

The nullificaion of Darwinian theory is a key objective of the ID movement.

[FromWayDowntown]

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?

I don't want taxpayer money to attempt to stress religious morality in the public school classroom.

Morality is co-existent with religion -- there are overlaps, but there are also facets of what you term "morality" that are only contiguous with religious doctrine. Again, I don't believe that State resources should be expended to teach religious doctrine in public schools. I do think the non-religious aspects of "morality," in a broad sense, are already inculcated by the social aspects of public schools.

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.

That is complete and utter nonsense. The will of the majority should NEVER subjugate the rights of the minority -- that's precisely what the Cons ution was intended to prevent. We don't even elect a President by popular wish.

If you were right -- if State is intended solely to fulfill the wishes of the people, I'd have to infer that you believe either: (1) that overt State-sponsored racial discrimination could be revitalized if enough people would support it; or (2) the true will of the people is important only in certain subjects. In either event, you can't possibly be correct in presuming that the Cons ution permits the majority to trample upon the guaranteed and fundamental rights of the political, social, religious, or racial minority. I'm appalled that you would even suggest that to be true.

It's not an answer in a Cons utional sense to say that the minority can just go elsewhere -- we tried that once before, when we segregated the races and told blacks that they could just go elsewhere. That proved to be both uncons utional and bad public policy.

The solution to the problem you're concerned with isn't schools segregated between some "moral majority" and others. The solution is to reenforce the proper division of labor between public schools on the one hand and churches and families on the other.

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

That's right; I'm taking the altogether controversial stance of wanting my/your children to have the sort of religious moral values you're contemplating enforced and reinforced at home and in church.

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.

So are you suggesting that we include moral education in every classroom setting? I still don't get what it is that you want me to say, joch.

I categorically disagree with the idea that public schools should be in the business of attempting to address moral/religious issues as a subject of education. Kids get out of schools these days struggling to read, write, add, and subtract. You want to now take an amorphous and idiosyncratically-nuanced concept like morality and ask public schools to try to inculcate those values as well -- and to do so without (or perhaps in spite of) the Establishment Clause? Will you be happy with anything other than public adoption of sectarian teaching?

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.

I AM sticking to the topic, joch. I'm trying to understand where the policy choice that you want made finds its logical end. In reasoning out any policy decision, it's important (I think) to understand why the choice is being made and to apprehend whether the policy can be applied consistently over a broad spectrum of cir stances -- a policy that is inconsistently applied isn't a very good policy. You've broadened the scope of this from the notion of ID as a public school subject to some broader notion that public schools should be teaching morality. I'm taking you up on that assertion, and wondering where your policy finds its end -- if government makes a policy choice to instill the sort of moral values that you wish to provide via public education, why shouldn't that policy be made applicable to adults who weren't afforded that sort of education while in school?



Ultimately, I don't think that you'll convince me that the province of the State includes either: (1) education concerning articles of faith; or (2) inculcation of anything other than purely secular moral values. I also think that schools already provide some semblance of secular morality through the social setting of a school. If you wish to go beyond that, I don't think the State is competent to convey religious values to children in any sense; I do think that the onus of providing that sort of education falls solely upon the family and the church, which are the en ies with competence to perform those tasks. I also don't think the State can begin even quasi-religious education and satisfy the teachings of every sect (notwithstanding the significant Cons utional concerns that would arise from parents and students who are genuinely atheistic or agnositc), thus putting the State in a position of choosing which sects' values it will respect and teach. And I don't find that result to be compatible with Cons utional norms, which tell me that the will of the majority cannot trample upon the fundamental rights of the minority.

[Yonivore]

Yeah... but I've always maintained that you can't explain one without addressing the origin of the other...

Therefore, I believe you teach both and openly discuss the controversy between the two and the areas in which each compliment the other.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Talk about selective reading....

I wasn't referring to any specific technologies in particular I was making the point that one must use the best available methods in search for truth...

You were proposing we simply stick to what we knew... that in itself was a scientific oxymoron... because you were proposing we stifle any argument or pursuit which would hurt Darwinian principles...

What "best available methods" are ID'ers proposing to prove their theory? I'm not saying stick what we knew, I'm saying that the ID'ers aren't offering any ideas or methods for proving their theory. In general, you start with your conclusion/hypothesis and provide evidence for it. The ID'ers conclusion/hypothesis is "there must be an intelligence behind the design." The beginning point is the observation that there is some complexity to living things. That's fine. But they show no link (as of yet) between the complexity of the design and the ultimate conclusion that something intelligent designed it. They say one could infer the conclusion from the observation alone. Probably they're right, but that's not science. Not yet at least.

[Phenomanul]

"Intelligent Design doesn't contradict Darwinian theory"

Then why do Thomas More Ins ute and Dover/Kansas school boards insist that ID theory is an alternative to Darwianian theory?

The nullificaion of Darwinian theory is a key objective of the ID movement.

read between the lines....

Darwin's paper was led "Origin of Species" again it doesn't address the origin of Life... What most assume as the "Theory of Evolution" is not the same as what it implies. ID does not contradict the written theory... ID's own implications do however, contradict the implications of "Evolution"...

[Oh, Gee!!]

Therefore, I believe you teach both and openly discuss the controversy between the two and the areas in which each compliment the other.

Or, you could teach your own kids your own philosophical/theological beliefs.

[boutons]

"you teach both and openly discuss the controversy between the two and the areas in which each compliment the other."

That's your position. Is that the majority ID position, or the position of the Thoman More Inst or of the Kansas/Dover school boards?

There is no evidence for super-natural designing en y, no matter how complex biological mechanisms have become in 3.5 billions years. Perhaps ID "scientists" should spend their research billions on experiments for detecting super-natural designer(s).

In K-12 syllabus, can anyone find one where deep, hard-core, paradigm- challenging courses are taught even in 12th grade?

[Yonivore]

What "best available methods" are ID'ers proposing to prove their theory? I'm not saying stick what we knew, I'm saying that the ID'ers aren't offering any ideas or methods for proving their theory. In general, you start with your conclusion/hypothesis and provide evidence for it. The ID'ers conclusion/hypothesis is "there must be an intelligence behind the design." The beginning point is the observation that there is some complexity to living things. That's fine. But they show no link (as of yet) between the complexity of the design and the ultimate conclusion that something intelligent designed it. They say one could infer the conclusion from the observation alone. Probably they're right, but that's not science. Not yet at least.

How do evolutionists prove their theory? Put a blob of mud on a table and wait 5 billion years?

No, they make assumptions, based on known facts, about how things "evolved" over time.

However, this theory has some glaring holes. One of the most prevalent is the failure to explain the sudden appearance of many marine body "styles" approximately 530 million years ago.

But, the most significant failure of evolution is that it doesn't explain the origin of the biological life from which the results of the theory are said to explain.

[Yonivore]

Or, you could teach your own kids your own philosophical/theological beliefs.

The structure of a cell and it's origin are neither philosophical or theological. They exist. Intelligent design is, as best I can tell, the only theory that proposes to explain the origin of that structure.

[Phenomanul]

What "best available methods" are ID'ers proposing to prove their theory? I'm not saying stick what we knew, I'm saying that the ID'ers aren't offering any ideas or methods for proving their theory. In general, you start with your conclusion/hypothesis and provide evidence for it. The ID'ers conclusion/hypothesis is "there must be an intelligence behind the design." The beginning point is the observation that there is some complexity to living things. That's fine. But they show no link (as of yet) between the complexity of the design and the ultimate conclusion that something intelligent designed it. They say one could infer the conclusion from the observation alone. Probably they're right, but that's not science. Not yet at least.

Again... you're hung up on the methods... You were right we seem to be going in circles...

How can we offer anything if entire generations of students are being instructed...no.. being told to accept the fact that this is not a valid scientific pursuit???

As for the methods, I'm suggesting that the pursuit itself will generate them... but all you care about is stifling that pursuit.... Without the aid of advanced instruments we wouldn't even be able to look at the complexity behind our genomes. Fortunately our desire to understand how genes can be used to prevent and eradicate diseases is enough of an incentive to keep generating technologies and methods to further that pursuit.

You my friend are asking for a technology to measure the presence of GOD... That is a wholly different thing all together and I'm sorry I can't provide that for you. But that's just it... GOD wants to meet you on grounds of faith not grounds of "OK now that I can see you, I believe in You".... it would be way too easy then...

The mere fact that we are alive is example enough of GOD's grace... He could easily wipe out sin by destroying the world... NO, instead HE has given us a chance to find HIM so that we might be saved... I don't intend for you to embrace this belief, I'm just pointing out why a "pursuit to measure GOD" would be negated by GOD's purpose.

[Oh, Gee!!]

The structure of a cell and it's origin are neither philosophical or theological. They exist. Intelligent design is, as best I can tell, the only theory that proposes to explain the origin of that structure.

The existence of an intelligent designer is a matter of fact like the existence of cells and living organisms? The theory of an initiating, intelligent (and invisible?) force is neither philosophical nor theological? We just don't agree on this one.

[Phenomanul]

"you teach both and openly discuss the controversy between the two and the areas in which each compliment the other."

That's your position. Is that the majority ID position, or the position of the Thoman More Inst or of the Kansas/Dover school boards?

There is no evidence for super-natural designing en y, no matter how complex biological mechanisms have become in 3.5 billions years. Perhaps ID "scientists" should spend their research billions on experiments for detecting super-natural designer(s).

In K-12 syllabus, can anyone find one where deep, hard-core, paradigm- challenging courses are taught even in 12th grade?

You assume the current status of most K-12 curricula is logical and adequate...

Why on earth would you teach a foreign language to students in high-school... Studies have shown that the minds of children under the ages of 8-11 can learn new languages 100 times more efficiently than minds past this age range....

Much misdirected effort went into my 3 years of high-school "french" for me to have only "marginal" dominion of the language today...

[Extra Stout]

But intelligent design, unlike creationism, is not based upon the Bible. Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority.

So ID is an inference. That's a good and fine logical construct. When I do apologetics, I use inferential logic. I'm all for it. But that alone is not science.

Inferring the notion of ID would make a hypothesis, were it faslsifiable. But I can't fathom how one would construct an experiment, be it examination of the fossil record or whatever, to falsify the hypothesis. At best, results would be inconclusive, and the ID proponent could make another inference.

I've beaten this into the ground, but ID falls into the same fallacy as creationism, though it appears more sophisticated. As Westerners, we have accepted that science is the be-all, end-all of uncovering truth, and if something can't be proven scientifically, then we don't need to concern ourselves with it. That religious people even go to the trouble of coming up with things like ID means they have accepted this fallacy.

But that fallacy is like saying that the hammer is the be-all, end-all of tools, and if a job can't be done with a hammer, then it's not worth doing, and then going out and trying to build a house with just a hammer.

So the scientist, whose job it is to put up sheetrock and lay shingles, gets along OK, but the theologian, whose job it is to lay the foundation, looks like an idiot when he insists upon trying to do it with a hammer.

So, in reality, evolution can only be approximated in scientific experiments. And, based on your assessment of what makes science valid (the ability to apply scientific means to a hypothesis) Intelligent Design theory is more tenable than Evolution.

A. Scientist proposes evolutionary mechanism (hypothesis).
B. Scientist reviews fossil record or DNA to test hypothesis (experiment).
C. Hypothesis either is verified or falsified by experiment.

ID is a perfectly fine realm of study, in the sense that it looks at the body of data and infers the existence of creator. Great. I agree. I have discussions about this all the time on the philosophical and theological level.

But it's not science. And frankly, I hate it when it's used as science, because every new scientific discovery puts the theistic case into retreat. ID argues that some biological feature could not have devleoped on its own, then a biologist figures out the mechanism for its development, and the ID conception of God shrinks. It's called the god-of-the-gaps fallacy, and for as many ID proponents who say it isn't, well, sorry, it is.

Meanwhile, serious scientists are making discoveries that bring up ten new baffling and wondrous questions for every one they answer, getting all tingly and spiritual because of it, and yet the ID folks are nowhere to be found, because they're back making simplistic arguments about things long since settled.

My problem with the ID/evolution debate is not that I am an enemy of ID so much that the way proponents argue the case makes for terrible theology. We should have gotten past this notion that if we cannot explain it, God must have done it, long ago. God is bigger than just the things we don't understand yet about the world.

[scott]

Therefore, I believe you teach both and openly discuss the controversy between the two and the areas in which each compliment the other.

Why those two? Since ID has as much scientific backing as my theory that Invisible Dancing Purple Elephants planted the seeds of life here on earth so that they could harvest our organs to maintain the propagation of their species... why doesn't the IDPE theory get discussed? Is it because ID has been determined church friendly (in fact, as been shown by the court, ID in many cases is just two words used in the place where one was once used - creationism) whereas religious text makes no mention of the IDPEs?

What I find most ironic about the now-ousted Dover school boards plea to "keep an open mind" to Intelligent Design in regards to Evolution is that they themselves were quite obviously closed-minded on wanting some form of creationism taught in schools. Most people I talk to don't have a problem with the teaching of ID, just so long as it is done in a proper framework. And while many in this thread continue to stress that ID and Evolution are not exclusive one another (which I would certainly agree with) - that has been shown not to be the feeling of the majority of the ID proponents.

The other fatally comic error I see on the behalf of ID proponents is the constant mention of Darwin and his theory on the Origin of Species. Again, Darwin's theory is not prevailing scientific theory. The theory of Evolution, as it is known today is not Darwin's theory. The continual desire to make such a connection beyond the fact that Evolutionary theory has its roots in Darwin does nothing more than act as a giant flashing neon signing reading "Idiot Here, Please Ignore."

If ID proponents ever wish to be taken seriously even in a philosophical framework, they need to do their homework. This isn't the 19th century anymore, science and even philosophy have "evolved" (if you will) since then. Arguing ID's merits versus other scientific or philosophical theories is a fruitless endevour if it is done on antiquated terms. I often see IDers trying to draw light to the flaws of some of Darwin's specific observations (with the beak of finches, for example), which is roughly tantamount to trying to argue that the world is a triangle because you have proof that it isn't flat.

And, for anyone who has even taken introductory Philosophy in college (which I thought was a requirement?), the basic theory of Intelligent Design is already discussed. What additional inclusion do IDers really seek? Why is there such an impetus on bringing this (quite complex) debate to the 9th grade battle front? There is a clear motive behind such an impetus, and it certainly is not the promotion of scientific understanding.

[scott]

The structure of a cell and it's origin are neither philosophical or theological. They exist. Intelligent design is, as best I can tell, the only theory that proposes to explain the origin of that structure.

Eureka! The problem is that you obviously don't read enough. Try something outside of the Yonivore approved list of OpEd writers.

[boutons]

"How can we offer anything"

If you've got it, offer it!

"that the pursuit itself will generate them."

then go pursue, and get other pursuers to pursue, publish, get peer reviews, let it be challenged, de-bunked, re-formulated, by the best minds around, over generations, and let's see what you come up with. This is how knowledge of the natural universe progresses, aka, science.

"all you care about is stifling that pursuit"

bull . hardcore scientific research is NOT performed in highschools now, why should you expect ID "research" to be one in HSs?

"asking for a technology to measure the presence of GOD"

ah, so ID really IS all about religion, and not about (natural) science.

"GOD wants to meet you"

do you have evidence of that? there is a Tower of Babbling Bull ters all telling us what God wants. You're lost in the babble.

So here we have YV trying to take God and religion out of ID (which I'm pretty sure is the MINUSCULE MINORITY position), while hegam keeps bringing God into ID.

So teaching ID, a brand new idea dating back to?, as a credible, and nullifying alternative to all of science, with evolutionary biology as the bleeding edge victim, is really all about teaching super-natural religious beliefs by a particular fringe cult in highschool. The judge's ruling was slam-dunk, nuked-ly correct.

[Yonivore]

ID argues that some biological feature could not have devleoped on its own, then a biologist figures out the mechanism for its development, and the ID conception of God shrinks.

Example please.

[Oh, Gee!!]

You my friend are asking for a technology to measure the presence of GOD... That is a wholly different thing all together and I'm sorry I can't provide that for you. But that's just it... GOD wants to meet you on grounds of faith not grounds of "OK now that I can see you, I believe in You".... it would be way too easy then...

Honestly, who is the intelligent designer? God. Everybody knows that's what ID is getting at. The whole premise of ID rests on the existence an intelligent designer (or as I call him, God). If that fact can't be proven scientifically, then what is the point of ID?