Should Intelligent Design be taught in science class?

[Csongor]

Thanks for that. By the way, for the original question, I think there could be a place in science class to teach about, this theory, as one possible theory, wich is logically describe the existence of this entire system.

 

 

Surely, if you think about to create an other, you get closer to understand so much more about our- one....

[Buffy]

I think there could be a place in science class to teach about, this theory, as one possible theory, wich is logically describe the existence of this entire system.

The only way that ID would be appropriate in its current form is as an excellent example of a pseudo-scientific "theory" that violates quite a few requirements of the scientific method. I somehow doubt though that its proponents would agree to do that, although I've yet to see a decent justification of why it might actually be considered scientific.

Surely, if you think about to create an other, you get closer to understand so much more about our- one....

You've got an interesting theory there Csongor, but just because *we* could create a universe, doesn't mean that the one we are in was created by an intelligent being!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Csongor]

Sure.

 

 

 

But this theory as logic as any others, so I preferre to teach it in class later on, if the teachers enough intelligents to understand the responsibilities, wich is comming together with this challange to teach some revolutionary science.

 

 

For the second:

- If you are one person who think logically, you are able to understand this is min. as logic as any other systems.

 

- If we try to do this, we will see what's happenning. In the new system I'll deffenitelly ( sorry about spelling errors) program, as if they'll do anything like this I'll contact them.

 

 

 

So yes this is a bit scary, a bit revolutionary, but logically a most intresting way to go for any future scientific result. I think....

[Dark Mind]

I think people are starting to intentionally keep the score tied now... ;)

[CraigD]

There is zero conclusive evidence to support any claim that nature is assisted by any directed intelligence. Any hypotheses that make such a claim are not even testable and therefore, not science.

I disagree. There is ample evidence that nature is assisted by directed intelligence: domesticated plants and animals. Human beings clearly influence evolution toward planned goals.

 

Of course, unlike ID, there is nothing supernatural or mysterious about this.

 

Although I hesitate to mention it for fear of being associated with the junk science of “ancient astronauts” enthusiasts, we cannot categorically rule out the possibility that the course of evolution was effected by large-scale domestication by a pre-human intelligent species. Although there’s no way to propose a scientific theory in support of this idea, in the absence of archeological evidence that may never be found, such an idea doesn’t violate any fundamental rules of Physics or Biology.

[Southtown]

It's amazing how much intelligence is used in a disscussion like this, in an attempt to prove that no intelligence was necessary in the first place.

. . .

By the way - I vote "YES".

 

Strangely, that option seems to be missing from the selections.

 

It appears that intelligent design was not used in the creation of this poll.

I second that.

 

And what are (if any) the facts that support ID? There are plenty of facts that support evolution.

Not in this thread...

 

There is zero conclusive evidence to support any claim that nature is assisted by any directed intelligence. Any hypotheses that make such a claim are not even testable and therefore, not science.

...and therefore cannot possibly be true, correct?

 

I disagree with the repeated "total absence of evidence" comments.

http://www.creationscience.com/HydroplateOverview3.html#wp3151571

[Tagred]

Sure.

But this theory as logic as any others, so I preferre to teach it in class later on, if the teachers enough intelligents to understand the responsibilities, wich is comming together with this challange to teach some revolutionary science.

 

For the second:

- If you are one person who think logically, you are able to understand this is min. as logic as any other systems.

 

- If we try to do this, we will see what's happenning. In the new system I'll deffenitelly ( sorry about spelling errors) program, as if they'll do anything like this I'll contact them.

 

So yes this is a bit scary, a bit revolutionary, but logically a most intresting way to go for any future scientific result. I think....

the problem with logic is that it is not always scientific, or good logic.

 

For instance; "Einstein didn't do well in school, therefore any kid who does poorly in school is like Einstein."

 

It seems logical but not very scientific. and using bad logic myself ;), it seems that religious doctrines are full of bad logic and very light on scientific data. Which is why I think it has no place in the science classroom. I suppose you could sort of merge them into a philosophy class though.

[C1ay]

...and therefore cannot possibly be true, correct?

Are you suggesting that anything that might possibly be claimed as true by someone should be taught as science? Your statement is irrelevant. Maybe the story about the Flying Spaghetti Monster is true. It's certainly true that noone can absolutely prove that it's false. Should it be taught as science too? What about every other unsubstantiated hypothesis that anyone should happen to proffer?

[CraigD]

I fear that the passion of the pro-science community may be working against its goals when it is applied to the question of teaching ID as Science.

 

Science, and the promotion of the scientific worldview (also known as “naturalistic”, “rational”, “non-supernatural”, etc.) are two very distinct endeavors. Good Science demands fairly strict adherence to formalism, and extreme skepticism. The promotion of a scientific worldview is a social activity, demanding an intuitive grasp of the wide gamut of human emotions: desire, fear, love, hate, the need for meaning in life, and so on.

 

Historically, scientists – using the term broadly to mean not just professional scientists but all people with a scientific worldview – display a tendency to confuse Science with the promotion of a scientific worldview, committing a fundamental logical fallacy, a category error. The consequence of this error is that the faction that is behind the movement to teach Religion as Science – which contains a strong element that seeks not just to equate Relegion with Science, but to ultimately displace the former with the latter - is gaining ground in the social and legal tug-of-war.

 

The pro-science community need to be cognizant of the nature of this debate, and avoid playing into the hands of those who framed it in the first place by ridiculing ID for its lack of scientific validity. This is not a scientific debate. It is a social one about Science. Failure to realize this could have dire consequences.

 

My humble proposal is that we argue against the teaching of Religion as Science on the grounds of utility. Science intermingled with Religion is not a useful tool for doing such things as building safe bridges and treating the sick and injured. The flip-side of the utility argument requires that science supporters contain any personal beliefs they may hold of an atheistic nature and acknowledge that human beings exhibit a undeniable need for what Religion has to offer, and that Religion, therefore, has value and utility for doing such things as promoting peace, happiness, and goodwill.

 

The argument I’m making here is, I think, a rephrasing of the one Stephen Gould is making when he writes and speaks of non-overlapping magisterial (PDF, 24Kb)

[Aquagem]

As I've written before, ID and evolutionary science would be perfectly appropriate to be taught in a class on comparative mythology, where we could profitably study their differences. ID satisfies a deep emotional craving to have a special place in the universe, and science satisfies a deep emotional craving to understand the truth of the universe in which we live. By understanding the fundamental differences at their root, we can better recognize where each might be appropriately applied. And in that light, ID has NO PLACE in SCIENTIFIC EDUCATION, except as a cautionary tale about where we've been and why our understanding of nature has been so late coming in our own evolution.

[rockytriton]

Just out of curiosity, those of you who think that ID should be taught in science class, do you think they should only teach ID according to the Christian bible, or should it be taught according to every existing religion that has a different viewpoint about creation? Should they also teach about the Ra, Zues, Jupiter, or any other current or ancient religion?

[CraigD]

Just out of curiosity, those of you who think that ID should be taught in science class, do you think they should only teach ID according to the Christian bible, or should it be taught according to every existing religion that has a different viewpoint about creation? Should they also teach about the Ra, Zues, Jupiter, or any other current or ancient religion?

If you read ID literature, you’ll notice that most of it painstakingly avoids reference to specific religions, referring instead to a generic “creative intelligence”.

 

ID is not meant to promote a particular religion, but to promote Religion in general, and, I think, tear down Science. IMO, This makes it more, not less, dangerous. Only once its very denomination-neutral message has gain acceptance are we likely to see particular brands of religion come to the fore.

[Fishteacher73]

ID is not meant to promote a particular religion, but to promote Religion in general, and, I think, tear down Science. IMO, This makes it more, not less, dangerous. Only once its very denomination-neutral message has gain acceptance are we likely to see particular brands of religion come to the fore.

 

Yet it is centered on the Judeo-Christian ideas of creationism. There are plenty of other creation stories out there that do not start with a single "creative intelligence" or those that see their creative force as non-intelligent (Chaos, for example), just intirializing forces. The thing that is difficult for many americans to realize when they speak of religion, they generally only think of the various Judeo-Christian ideals of religion, at best just the Abrahamic religions.

 

To promote ID IMO is obviously not appropriate in a science class and pushing the limits on separation of church and state.

[Buffy]

The pro-science community need to be cognizant of the nature of this debate, and avoid playing into the hands of those who framed it in the first place by ridiculing ID for its lack of scientific validity. This is not a scientific debate. It is a social one about Science. Failure to realize this could have dire consequences.

 

My humble proposal is that we argue against the teaching of Religion as Science on the grounds of utility. Science intermingled with Religion is not a useful tool for doing such things as building safe bridges and treating the sick and injured. The flip-side of the utility argument requires that science supporters contain any personal beliefs they may hold of an atheistic nature and acknowledge that human beings exhibit a undeniable need for what Religion has to offer, and that Religion, therefore, has value and utility for doing such things as promoting peace, happiness, and goodwill.

This is a topic I brought up under the 3790 thread, and it has multiple aspects to it, and the question of how to combat it is a hard one. I'm not sure the science/scientific worldview method is helpful here, because the definition is soft and it actually implies that the "scientific worldview" is by definition atheistic (or at least agnostic) which it is *not*. In fact I think the best way to handle this issue is to say that which is unknowable is by its very nature in the realm of metaphysics and is completely separate from science. Within that realm you can argue whatever you want. I do agree that many scientific-types fall into this trap though.

 

The issue of "utility" could be similarly limiting. What is utility? Does cosmology have utility? Archeology? Evolution? Are you...sure? More importantly, the whole ID movement is built upon the notion that by strictly avoiding the word religion and disclaiming any association with any specific beliefs (the favorite phrase is "the designer could be aliens from another planet, we don't make any claims at all").

 

I think it is important to realize that if ID wins the debate of whether it is science or not, that science has a real problem because the definition of the scientific method is destroyed. Avoiding this debate in the belief that it is the only way to make "believers" accepting of science has dangerous consequences.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[rockytriton]

ID is not meant to promote a particular religion, but to promote Religion in general, and, I think, tear down Science. IMO, This makes it more, not less, dangerous. Only once its very denomination-neutral message has gain acceptance are we likely to see particular brands of religion come to the fore.

 

I think that most of the people who are so against science hate only one thing more than they hate scientists, and that's other religions. With science, they can always say, oh that was God's plan. But with another religion, they need to fight to make people believe one theory with no proof over another theory with no proof.

[Csongor]

I think, if we have a new theory, wich is logic as the others, not destructive, and open new areas for the scientific person for research, categorise, and just build the entire word creativelly, and optimistically, brobably this is teachable at schools, if we are sure, the related peoples, are positive, cooperative and acceptable person.

 

 

I don't know anything about them, and sorry I'm only talk based on your messages. By the way as long as I understand rightly the subject, this is probably the most intresting theory, defenitelly the most intresting scintific view to teach at the modernest schools.

 

 

Actually, after all you understand, every other theories could be the part of it.......

 

 

 

Csongor

[Csongor]

"I think it is important to realize that if ID wins the debate of whether it is science or not, that science has a real problem because the definition of the scientific method is destroyed."

 

 

 

Actually I think something is a science, wich is -look at my previous answer- and we want to keep up for longer time, and kind of garanty, for the future generations....

 

 

Csongor