Intelligent design isn't science

[Yonivore]

read it

Why? The bias is apparent in the le. It will obviously be written to pretend that creationism and intelligent design are one in the same.

[Phenomanul]

Did you not catch my point about there being other fields of study besides science?

ID also does not fall into my definition of art, or literature, or engineering. I imagine you will not be irritated at all about my saying those things, which gets back to my point about the unreasonable pedestal upon which we place science in this society.

No, I did catch it... as I asked !Oh Gee!... how is the pursuit of genetic understanding not science???

Sure... it has implications in other fields, but I'm not suggesting we push those implications down other people's throats.... let them draw their own conclusions.

The extremist proponents in the other camp (and I believe we have had this discussion before) much like the extremists in the ID camp DO have agendas... You do see it. I completely see eye to eye with Yonivore's ID viewpoint even though it is not the same as mine... I want people to draw their own conclusions.... pulling it out of the classroom will mean that the topic of disscusion will eventually be pulled out from state university classrooms as well... You would be blind to think that this would not be the case.

So now what, this discussion would only be delegated to private universities... They want to see this discussion wiped off the map altogether... Yonivore's quotes from Evolutionary proponents were very overt in their intentions.

And to address boutons' comment: why shouldn't this discussion be pulled out of H.S. classes????

Simply because that is where students begin to really think about their place and purpose in this world... understanding the world is essential to their question... Don't give me the b.s. that all philosophical thought should stay out of H.S. My high school biology professor was much like you in that he rarely hid his contempt toward the 'other' theory... guess what?? he pretty much brainwashed every single one of those students into feeling the same way he did... I questioned his motives and reasoning on several occasions only to find disdain.... I still ended up with an A+ despite his best efforts to make a fool out of me. And I placed 1st in the STATE UIL SCIENCE compe ion with a perfect score in the Biology section.

[velik_m]

Why? The bias is apparent in the le. It will obviously be written to pretend that creationism and intelligent design are one in the same.

it's not actually about creationism or intelligent design, it's about why such ideas are becoming popular and what consequences such thinking brings

[Oh, Gee!!]

No, I did catch it... as I asked !Oh Gee!... how is the pursuit of genetic understanding not science???

because you're not pursuing a scientific understanding. Science can only explain so much. I can live with that. But you propose to supplement biology with supernatural, religious, theological, metaphysical theories. The Bible only explains so much, do we need to supplement that with other fields of study as well?

[Extra Stout]

Simply because that is where students begin to really think about their place and purpose in this world... understanding the world is essential to their question... Don't give me the b.s. that all philosophical thought should stay out of H.S.

I agree with you on this. In science class, it is not as if they just do experiments all day, i.e. pure science. They teach about the history of science, the ethics of science, the implications of science on other fields, and certainly the philosophy of science.

hegamboa's anecdote is fairly typical -- a science teacher with an openly hostile bent towards religious faith who abuses science to shove a naturalistic worldview down students' throats. That is every bit as bad as a teacher who evangelizes in class; however, secularists have succeeded in framing the argument so that belittling students' faith becomes "science."

[boutons]

"think about their place and purpose in this world"

I don't think HS is where many kids expect to find those deep issues addressed.
what HS course does "my purpose in the world" fit into?

That's a "meaning of (my) life" question, which is a religous, spiritual, philosophical question better addresssed in an appropriate organization outside of school, by parents, whatever, but not in a publically funded school.

[Phenomanul]

"think about their place and purpose in this world"

I don't think HS is where many kids expect to find those deep issues addressed.
what HS course does "my purpose in the world" fit into?

That's a "meaning of (my) life" question, which is a religous, spiritual, philosophical question better addresssed in an appropriate organization outside of school, by parents, whatever, but not in a publically funded school.

To think that these issues are not being faced in high-school would be foolish....

[Yonivore]

it's not actually about creationism or intelligent design, it's about why such ideas are becoming popular and what consequences such thinking brings

Well, I woul assert that the consequences of teaching creationism (a theistic approach) are probably in line with what you believe while, I don't see any more onerous consequences to exploring design theory (a scientific approach) than I do for exploring Darwin's theory of evolution.

[FromWayDowntown]

I want people to draw their own conclusions.... pulling it out of the classroom will mean that the topic of disscusion will eventually be pulled out from state university classrooms as well... You would be blind to think that this would not be the case.

But, as a matter of Cons utional law, you're wrong about that. Courts have, since Establishment Clause jurisprudence arose, differentiated between public secondary schools and public colleges and universities. The Establishment Clause concerns that exist in public secondary schools are muted (at least to some degree) in a collegiate environment. With all due respect, you don't understand the law if you posit that rejecting ID in public high school curricula will lead inexorably to the same rejection in public university curricula. I would tell you that just the opposite is likely to be true -- largely because ID can be included in public university curricula as a philosophical question left open by the current state of evolutionary theory.

So now what, this discussion would only be delegated to private universities... They want to see this discussion wiped off the map altogether... Yonivore's quotes from Evolutionary proponents were very overt in their intentions.

I don't know that there is some viewpoint discrimination that segregates evolutionists to private universities. I think there are some scientists who believe that science can and will eventually explain the creation and development of all physical properties in the universe. It may be that for those scientists, their educational background has caused them to be distrustful of religion; but that does not mean that science is inherently antagonistic to religion -- it just means that some scientists believe more in science than in religion. It strikes me as quite likely that there are equal or greater numbers of scientists who seek to square their scientific enterprise with their religious beliefs. They aren't heralded much in this debate, but I know a good many scientists who are among the more religious people I know.

[Yonivore]

But, as a matter of Cons utional law, you're wrong about that. Courts have, since Establishment Clause jurisprudence arose, differentiated between public secondary schools and public colleges and universities. The Establishment Clause concerns that exist in public secondary schools are muted (at least to some degree) in a collegiate environment. With all due respect, you don't understand the law if you posit that rejecting ID in public high school curricula will lead inexorably to the same rejection in public university curricula. I would tell you that just the opposite is likely to be true -- largely because ID can be included in public university curricula as a philosophical question left open by the current state of evolutionary theory.

I don't know that there is some viewpoint discrimination that segregates evolutionists to private universities. I think there are some scientists who believe that science can and will eventually explain the creation and development of all physical properties in the universe. It may be that for those scientists, their educational background has caused them to be distrustful of religion; but that does not mean that science is inherently antagonistic to religion -- it just means that some scientists believe more in science than in religion. It strikes me as quite likely that there are equal or greater numbers of scientists who seek to square their scientific enterprise with their religious beliefs. They aren't heralded much in this debate, but I know a good many scientists who are among the more religious people I know.

I agree the courts have differentiated between high school and secondary education. And, I agree with the courts on the matter of the establishment clause.

However, my argument is that intelligent design theory wouldn't violate the establishment clause. Concluding, however, the intelligent designer is a deity, to the exclusion of any other possible answer, would.

You can teach intelligent design theory without concluding the designer is God.

[FromWayDowntown]

To think that these issues are not being faced in high-school would be foolish....

Those issues are being faced in high school, but not in classroom settings. I don't recall ever having a "place in the world" discussion in a classroom setting at any point in my public high school, and I was around the most motivated students (now graduates of Harvard, Yale, Duke, Rice, among others; now working as physicians, scientists, lawyers, and entreprenuers) and taught by the best teachers in that school. We were taught the subject matter and given some practical application for certain abstract concepts -- but that didn't pour over into any sort of philosophical investigation into any of the issues discussed. The kids in those classes were the best equipped to handle those sorts of discussions, yet they never arose -- and somehow, we all proceeded to find success beyond our apparently-inadequate high school.

I suspect, knowing many who weren't included in those classes, that had such discussions arisen in other classrooms, with other students and other teachers, the result would have been either the virulent spread of misinformation in the guise of fact, violent disagreements, or mindnumbed students who had little or no interest in participating in such discussions.

[FromWayDowntown]

I agree the courts have differentiated between high school and secondary education. And, I agree with the courts on the matter of the establishment clause.

However, my argument is that intelligent design theory wouldn't violate the establishment clause. Concluding, however, the intelligent designer is a deity, to the exclusion of any other possible answer, would.

You can teach intelligent design theory without concluding the designer is God.

I don't dispute that in the abstract -- and there may be some instances in which some students can appreciate the nuanced way in which the material would be presented. But there are students who don't necessarily deal in the abstract and who want concrete answers. When the theory is presented and Johnny or Sally asks the teacher who this intelligent designer is, how should that question be answered? Surely, at some point, that question will arise and at some point the answer has to contemplate the possibility of a deity-based explanation for the design. The intersection of those points is a huge Establishment Clause problem in a public high school setting.

[Phenomanul]

But, as a matter of Cons utional law, you're wrong about that. Courts have, since Establishment Clause jurisprudence arose, differentiated between public secondary schools and public colleges and universities. The Establishment Clause concerns that exist in public secondary schools are muted (at least to some degree) in a collegiate environment. With all due respect, you don't understand the law if you posit that rejecting ID in public high school curricula will lead inexorably to the same rejection in public university curricula. I would tell you that just the opposite is likely to be true -- largely because ID can be included in public university curricula as a philosophical question left open by the current state of evolutionary theory.




I don't know that there is some viewpoint discrimination that segregates evolutionists to private universities. I think there are some scientists who believe that science can and will eventually explain the creation and development of all physical properties in the universe. It may be that for those scientists, their educational background has caused them to be distrustful of religion; but that does not mean that science is inherently antagonistic to religion -- it just means that some scientists believe more in science than in religion. It strikes me as quite likely that there are equal or greater numbers of scientists who seek to square their scientific enterprise with their religious beliefs. They aren't heralded much in this debate, but I know a good many scientists who are among the more religious people I know.

You know at some point this will not be the case. Once 99.99999999% of the population accepts the evolutionary theory as fact anyone with a differing viewpoint will be marginalized no matter where they pursue their counterpoint data.

I won't argue legal matters with you, for I know that this happens to be your realm of expertise... At the same time I would point out that what is law today won't always stand as law tommorrow. And I know you know that.

As for your other comment, yes... there are exceptions to every movement... and not everyone shares the same motive. I'm just suggesting that you can't point to the ignorant "bible thumpers" variety ID proponent and criticize his "creationist" motive without realizing that there is an analogous counterpart in the other camp with anti-religious motives of his own.

[DarkReign]

I'm just suggesting that you can't point to the ignorant "bible thumpers" variety ID proponent and criticize his "creationist" motive without realizing that there is an analogous counterpart in the other camp with anti-religious motives of his own.

That very well maybe true.

But the anti-religious stand on the soapbox of proven/provable science.

The other camp stands on theology, which has no standard of testing or years of righteous criticism.

[FromWayDowntown]

You know at some point this will not be the case. Once 99.99999999% of the population accepts the evolutionary theory as fact anyone with a differing viewpoint will be marginalized no matter where they pursue their counterpoint data.

I don't know that, and you just assume it. Even if you're right, that sort of tacit viewpoint discrimination exists in almost any field of education when an important question has not been settled. Do we compel that teachers provide information about both sides of the argument in those realms, too? I don't recall, for instance, that history teachers are compelled to raise contrary arguments concerning the genesis of matters as to which there is historical hypothesis but no settled answer.

I won't argue legal matters with you, for I know that this happens to be your realm of expertise... At the same time I would point out that what is law today won't always stand as law tommorrow. And I know you know that.

True enough. But the principles of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in this sense are quite well-settled. Ultimately, however, it's an unwise idea to set policy decisions based on some the possibility that extant law could eventually be reversed when there is absolutely no indication that there is a reversal coming.

Since we're guessing, though, I'll tell you that if the future brings any significant change in the way the Establishment Clause is applied to public education, the more likely possibility is that more religion will be allowed in public secondary schools -- that public secondary schools and public colleges and universities will be treated more similarly than they currently are treated. Just a guess.

[Yonivore]

I don't dispute that in the abstract -- and there may be some instances in which some students can appreciate the nuanced way in which the material would be presented. But there are students who don't necessarily deal in the abstract and who want concrete answers. When the theory is presented and Johnny or Sally asks the teacher who this intelligent designer is, how should that question be answered?

How about, "no one knows." It's the same answer science teachers give when Johnny or Sally ask them how life originated.

Surely, at some point, that question will arise and at some point the answer has to contemplate the possibility of a deity-based explanation for the design.

Not necessarily. As I've already explained designer <> deity. Deities have some qualities that are not necessary for one to be a designer. How many mechanical engineers do you know that can give you the current disposition of every machine they've devised? That's a characteristic assigned to a deity, not a designer.

The intersection of those points is a huge Establishment Clause problem in a public high school setting.

Is this any different than the science teacher who, when asked if the theory of evolution proves there is no God, says, "yep, absolutely -- God is dead thanks to Charles Darwin."

Because, atheistic science teachers do that all the time.

[hendrix]

"A key strategy of the intelligent design movement is in convincing the general public that there is a debate. This debate has not taken place in scientific circles, but in the cultural and political realms."

[FromWayDowntown]

How about, "no one knows." It's the same answer science teachers give when Johnny or Sally ask them how life originated.

And if no one knows, then why teach it?

Look, I see that point, but if kids are as thirsty for this sort of knowledge as you posit them to be, then at some point, the idea of a deific designer has to come up. If you truly are to complete the educational process on that topic, the issue of intelligent design as a religious construct has to come up -- it would be a horribly incomplete answer (and, I think, a waste of time) to tell students that there is this countervailing theory, but that we can't really answer any questions about it because there are matters of faith involved.

Not necessarily. As I've already explained designer <> deity. Deities have some qualities that are not necessary for one to be a designer. How many mechanical engineers do you know that can give you the current disposition of every machine they've devised? That's a characteristic assigned to a deity, not a designer.

That strikes me as an implausible explanation. There is some designer that created what now exists, but that the designer is not necessarily a deity. Where did that designer come from -- if there can be no explanation for earthly existence other than the existence of a designer, then who designed the designer?

Is this any different than the science teacher who, when asked if the theory of evolution proves there is no God, says, "yep, absolutely -- God is dead thanks to Charles Darwin."

Because, atheistic science teachers do that all the time.

I'd like to see some proof that that is happening pervasively. I could see anecdotal evidence that some science teacher somewhere said something like that, but I'm hard-pressed to believe that any teachers "do that all the time."

[Yonivore]

And if no one knows, then why teach it?

Well, because even if you don't know, you can still explore the evidence presented that biological life is designed.

We don't know how the universe originated but we teach astronomy and we discuss theories about why things operate the way they do.

Darwinian evolution doesn't tell us how species originated but we teach that theory.

I think you're being intentionally obtuse.

Look, I see that point, but if kids are as thirsty for this sort of knowledge as you posit them to be, then at some point, the idea of a deific designer has to come up. If you truly are to complete the educational process on that topic, the issue of intelligent design as a religious construct has to come up -- it would be a horribly incomplete answer (and, I think, a waste of time) to tell students that there is this countervailing theory, but that we can't really answer any questions about it because there are matters of faith involved.

I disagree. I wholeheartedly believe design theory isn't dependent upon there being a deity at the helm.

That strikes me as an implausible explanation. There is some designer that created what now exists, but that the designer is not necessarily a deity. Where did that designer come from -- if there can be no explanation for earthly existence other than the existence of a designer, then who designed the designer?

You're presuming science must lead to an ultimate answerable. Sometimes, the truth is larger than we are. For instance, I doubt we'll ever learn what was before the big bang, but the presumption is that something was before -- and that hasn't stopped us from teaching big bang theory in school even if we don't know from what that bang eminated.

Not knowing or even understanding the principals that could lead to understanding should preclude you from exploring those things you do know.

I'd like to see some proof that that is happening pervasively. I could see anecdotal evidence that some science teacher somewhere said something like that, but I'm hard-pressed to believe that any teachers "do that all the time."

Why, given the constructs of high school education, how could they answer it any other way?

How would you answer the question?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Why, given the constructs of high school education, how could they answer it any other way?

How would you answer the question?

Er, evolution neither proves nor disproves the existence of God, but we are not here to discuss that? In other words, that won't be on the test.

I don't see where you would automatically have to go the "God is Dead" response.

[Yonivore]

Er, evolution neither proves nor disproves the existence of God, but we are not here to discuss that? In other words, that won't be on the test.

Intelligent design neither proves nor disproves the existence of God, either.

I don't see where you would automatically have to go the "God is Dead" response.

Hyperbole.

It is reasonble to suggest that a good portion of science teachers would use the question to show that Darwinian evolution tends to preclude the existence of a God...even if they personally were believers in a diety.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Intelligent design neither proves nor disproves the existence of God, either.

bull , if that's not what it attempts to do in reality

Hyperbole.

It is reasonble to suggest that a good portion of science teachers would use the question to show that Darwinian evolution tends to preclude the existence of a God...even if they personally were believers in a diety.

so, in other words, you pulled it out of your ass.

[Yonivore]

bull , if that's not what it attempts to do in reality

Why is that bull ?

so, in other words, you pulled it out of your ass.

So, what proof do you have that intelligent design theory would be taught as proof of God's existence?

I made the arguement early on that theists are just as likely to argue that intelligent design proves God's existence as are atheists to argue that Darwinian evolution proves there is no God.

Under this premise, Darwin evolution shouldn't be taught for the same reasons you argue intelligent design shouldn't be taught; because people will exploit it for religious reasons.

Darwin doesn't explain the nano-technology or DNA sequencing in a living cell. What's wrong with teaching they have traits of intelligent design?

In other words, human beings -- using their intellectual capacity -- designed the internal combustion engine. Is it just a coincidence the flagellar motor of a bacteria uses some of the same design principles, developed by man, to make a bacteria move?

I think that's a very interesting question. Before we had knowledge of the flagellar motor, we designed a similar machine. Wow! How is that?

That's what should be taught in High School.

[Phenomanul]

Why is that bull ?


So, what proof do you have that intelligent design theory would be taught as proof of God's existence?

I made the arguement early on that theists are just as likely to argue that intelligent design proves God's existence as are atheists to argue that Darwinian evolution proves there is no God.

Under this premise, Darwin evolution shouldn't be taught for the same reasons you argue intelligent design shouldn't be taught; because people will exploit it for religious reasons.

Darwin doesn't explain the nano-technology or DNA sequencing in a living cell. What's wrong with teaching they have traits of intelligent design?

In other words, human beings -- using their intellectual capacity -- designed the internal combustion engine. Is it just a coincidence the flagellar motor of a bacteria uses some of the same design principles, developed by man, to make a bacteria move?

I think that's a very interesting question. Before we had knowledge of the flagellar motor, we designed a similar machine. Wow! How is that?

That's what should be taught in High School.

They won't listen they have cotton packed in their ears and shades over their eyes...

[FromWayDowntown]

Well, because even if you don't know, you can still explore the evidence presented that biological life is designed.

We don't know how the universe originated but we teach astronomy and we discuss theories about why things operate the way they do.

Darwinian evolution doesn't tell us how species originated but we teach that theory.

I think you're being intentionally obtuse.

I'm not trying to be obtuse and I hope I'm not coming off that way. I am, however, trying to test your argument.

We teach astronomy and discuss theories about why things operate the way they do, but we do so because the theories have been developed through the application of scientific principles and are not articles of faith.

Darwinian evolution, assuming that things are already in existence and are changing to evolve (even to the point of augering the creation of new species) is equally testable and verifiable for all but the ultimate question.

ID, as a means for explaining existence that, I suppose subsequently gives rise to evolution, is wholly different in the sense that it is almost entirely philosophical -- and, in some sense, spiritually-rooted. One who does not believe in the existence of God (or another deity) is unlikely to believe in a more abstract sense, that there is some designer (whether a deity or not) who created all that exists -- it would be wholly an hetical to that belief system. In that sense, then, there has to be a spiritual component to ID.

I disagree. I wholeheartedly believe design theory isn't dependent upon there being a deity at the helm.

You wholeheartedly believe that. What makes your belief any more worthwhile than the belief shared by others, that ID doesn't make sense without a deity as the designer?

You're presuming science must lead to an ultimate answerable. Sometimes, the truth is larger than we are. For instance, I doubt we'll ever learn what was before the big bang, but the presumption is that something was before -- and that hasn't stopped us from teaching big bang theory in school even if we don't know from what that bang eminated.

Not knowing or even understanding the principals that could lead to understanding should preclude you from exploring those things you do know.

I'm assuming that you meant "should not preclude you . . . ."

But that is exactly my point. In public high schools, we teach what we know (or what scientific theory can prove) and don't engage in the metaphysical/quasi-spiritual issues that are the precursors to that information. Evolution might not explain how anything got here, but it is a plausible explanation for why things are as they are today. Smart students who are concerned with developing more fact or testable theory in that regard have the wherewithal to investigate further and ask the questions that arise from the theorized truths we now know. It's not as if a student who would be predisposed to undertake that search would be unlikely to do so except for a brief explanation of a precursor theory of existence; indeed, just the opposite result (a student feeling the question has been satisfactorily answered) strikes me as the more plausible possibility. That, to me, is precisely where the rubber meets the road in the context of public secondary schools -- we shouldn't be in the business of teaching deeply-abstract theory in that setting; get the facts out and in the context of science, deal with testable theory, and allow students who are so inclined to delve further into the subject through college and independent study.

Why, given the constructs of high school education, how could they answer it any other way?

Faced with that question, I'd tell a student that the existence of God, juxtaposed against any scientific theory, is something that should be asked of his or her parents and his or her church. Again, I think those are the ins utions that are best equipped to answer that question.