Should Intelligent Design be taught in science class?

[TRoutMac]

But you were the one who mentioned proof, not C1ay. He simply pointed out that existence is not evidence for anything but existence. And stop shouting.

 

First of all, I'm not shouting. I'm just placing added emphasis on certain words.

 

Secondly, I may have mentioned proof, (there, is that better?) but I did not say that existence was proof that something was created. And now, this is the fourth time I've had to explain this.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[Tormod]

Secondly, I may have mentioned proof, (there, is that better?) but I did not say that existence was proof that something was created. And now, this is the fourth time I've had to explain this.

 

And nobody has said that you have said so. I don't know what you are fighting so hard for here.

[C1ay]

I'll reply as to nylonase and ring species later… no time now to get into it.

Just a small reminder. It will be interesting to view an IDist's POV on these.

[Boerseun]

"Intelligent Design" presupposes "design" in some form.

 

Science doesn't work that way, nothing is presupposed. Therefore, Intelligent Design doesn't fit the requirements for qualifying as Scientific at all. ID is trying to force itself into a field of knowledge where it doesn't belong.

 

Get over it.

[TRoutMac]

"Intelligent Design" presupposes "design" in some form.

Science doesn't work that way, nothing is presupposed.

 

Oh really? NOTHING is presupposed? By restricting explanations of origins to naturalistic causes, your brand of "science" is PRESUPPOSING that there is no supernatural realm. And the statement that there is no supernatural realm is untestable, unprovable! Therefore, you are taking ON FAITH (big no-no in science, remember? everything's supposed to be empirical!) that there really is no supernatural, no Intelligent Designer, and so you won't even CONSIDER the Intelligent Design side. You've short circuited the scientific method!

 

Intelligent Design says that since we cannot PROVE there is NOT a intelligent designer, there COULD be one. THEN, we TEST that hypothesis against what we know intelligence creates (by virtue of what we as intelligent humans have created) to see evidence in lifeforms that's very similar, but even more complex, to what we as intelligent humans create!

 

Therefore, Intelligent Design doesn't fit the requirements for qualifying as Scientific at all. ID is trying to force itself into a field of knowledge where it doesn't belong.

 

Therefore, your reply is just the standard, canned mantra that's actually just so much smoke and mirrors.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[infamous]

Oh really? NOTHING PRESUPPOSING ON FAITH CONSIDER

 

PROVE NOT COULD THEN, TEST

 

 

 

 

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

Please read our FAQ page TRoutMac, you'll discover that posting in all Capital letters is considered shouting and is discouraged here at Hypography.

[questor]

Boerseun, your quote:

"Intelligent Design" presupposes "design" in some form.

 

"Science doesn't work that way, nothing is presupposed. Therefore, Intelligent Design doesn't fit the requirements for qualifying as Scientific at all. ID is trying to force itself into a field of knowledge where it doesn't belong."

 

let me offer a couple of facts. if it were to be proved there was a creator, that would be the most scientific Fact ever presented, since all things would flow from this existence.

there is no proof whatsoever that there was not a creator. if you have this proof, please present it.

since there is no proof there is or is not a creator, taking a position on one side or the other is not scientific. the answer is that we simply don't know.

in my opinion, there is much more evidentiary evidence that there was a creator than there wasn't. if you have some hard evidence to the contrary, please enlighten me.

[Tormod]

Intelligent Design says that since we cannot PROVE there is NOT a intelligent designer, there COULD be one. THEN, we TEST that hypothesis against what we know intelligence creates (by virtue of what we as intelligent humans have created) to see evidence in lifeforms that's very similar, but even more complex, to what we as intelligent humans create!

 

The predicted outcome of this would be: The universe might have been designed. So what.

 

The universe might have come from candy floss for all it's worth. Yet we don't consider candy floss a science.

[Tormod]

since there is no proof there is or is not a creator, taking a position on one side or the other is not scientific. the answer is that we simply don't know.

in my opinion, there is much more evidentiary evidence that there was a creator than there wasn't. if you have some hard evidence to the contrary, please enlighten me.

 

You seem to lack a basic understanding of science and the scientific methods. Please read our site rules, especially the part about fallacious arguments.

[TRoutMac]

Please read our FAQ page TRoutMac, you'll discover that posting in all Capital letters is considered shouting and is discouraged here at Hypography.

 

My apologies. I'm in the bad habit of using caps to add emphasis, not intended to be "shouting". I understand that IS the common and accepted interpretation, however. My mistake.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[Tormod]

My apologies. I'm in the bad habit of using caps to add emphasis, not intended to be "shouting". I understand that IS the common and accepted interpretation, however. My mistake.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

 

It is usually accepted to use *asterisks* or _underscores_ to emphasize points. Bold text may be used sparingly.

[TRoutMac]

The predicted outcome of this would be: The universe might have been designed. So what.

 

So what? You folks are insisting that it was NOT designed, and that we can't even consider that a possibility. Here's the "so what": If it wasn't hamstrung by this paradigm of "naturalistic explanations only", science would be free to examine the evidence and test THE I.D. hypothesis, (in ways similar to that which I've already decribed) and science would conclude based on the evidence, that the I.D. hypothesis is supported incredibly well, and evolution would be abandoned entirely; relegated to the heap of other discarded, formerly-scientific ideas.

 

That's what.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[pgrmdave]

TRoutMac, I think that you are ignoring an important, and often discussed idea in science, that of Occam's Razor. The fact that there is no direct proof of a creator means that it is added onto a naturalistic theory, which would be simpler. Remember, lack of a disproof does not constitute a proof, thus science cannot assume that something exists when there is no proof, even if there is no disproof. Science only deals with testable events, so whether or not there is a creator, science would have to assume that there is not until such a time as there is direct evidence for a creator.

[questor]

Tormod, you seem to have an antipathy to the view that there may have been a creator

using ID, but have no facts to back it up. you keep referring to '' science'', but the scientific principles i use allow no statements as facts based upon unprovable evidence. you belittle yor opponents views but offer no proof against them. why hold this position?

[pgrmdave]

Because science is not concerned with things which have no evidence either way.

 

Read this: http://www.users.qwest.net/%7Ejcosta3/article_dragon.htm

 

It is a short article which sums up what the problem with intelligent design is in a simple manner.

[IrishEyes]

let me offer a couple of facts. if it were to be proved there was a creator, that would be the most scientific Fact ever presented, since all things would flow from this existence.

What exactly would make this the 'most scientific fact ever presented'? I have no idea what you are saying here, and that's saying a lot.

there is no proof whatsoever that there was not a creator. if you have this proof, please present it.

How can you prove the non-existence of something? Re-check the FAQ and look very closely at the argument fallacies listed. I think you may understand why your argument has holes.

since there is no proof there is or is not a creator, taking a position on one side or the other is not scientific. the answer is that we simply don't know.

(emphasis added)

You can substitute just about any old fairy tale for the word creator. You could say "Easter Bunny" or "Father Time" or "Mother Nature" or "The Great IPU", for example. However, if I told you that since there was no proof that there either was or was not a 'tooth fairy', so taking a position on one side or the other is not scientific, because we simply don't know, would you not think I was at least partly crazed?

in my opinion, there is much more evidentiary evidence that there was a creator than there wasn't.

Thank you for sharing your opinion. However, your opinion really does not qualify as evidence or proof. Have you done any testing to prove your position? What 'evidentiary evidence' do you have? Are you willing to lay it all out here for our review?

if you have some hard evidence to the contrary, please enlighten me.

That's not quite how it works. Again, you can NOT prove the non-existence of something. The burden to prove whether or not there is an intelligent designer lays on the person that is making the claim. In other words, if you want to say that everything was designed, then you must bring forth some proof of your claims. And sorry, but 'in my opinion there is more evidence for the idea of a designer' just doesn't cut it.

 

I dont' mean to come down hard on the IDers. Most of you are very familiar with what my personal beliefs are. However, in the past year+ that I have been a member here, I've learned a little bit. In order to make a valid argument, you must be willing to play by the rules. Our FAQ is very extensive on the subject of argument fallacies. If you don't want to make the same mistakes again and again, PLEASE take the time to read the FAQ and click on a few of the links that correspond to this issue.

The time you save may be your own. And that would be good. But it also may be mine, and that would be even better. :)

[TRoutMac]

Remember, lack of a disproof does not constitute a proof, thus science cannot assume that something exists when there is no proof, even if there is no disproof. Science only deals with testable events, so whether or not there is a creator, science would have to assume that there is not until such a time as there is direct evidence for a creator.

 

I never said that a lack of disproof constitutes proof. I said, much as Questor said earlier, that a lack of disproof means just that and nothing more. Meaning, you must be open to both possibilities until the evidence steers you away from one or the other.

 

If science only deals with "testable" events, then how can science

assume that there is not a creator if it has no proof that there's not? Of course, I realize it's impossible to prove a negative, but that just proves my point even more. If science is to be objective, it has to consider both possibilities (let's call them naturalism and supernaturalism, if you'd like) with equal weight until the evidence rules one or the other out.

 

If you say that doesn't matter, that science cannot consider anything but naturalist explanations under any circumstances, then you are by necessity saying that science is no longer concerned with discovering the truth. And at that point, if you continue to call it "science", then that's a fraud, is it not?

 

Again, Intelligent Design does not presuppose a designer. It merely recognizes the abstract possibility that there could be a designer, and then examines to evidence to see if the evidence supports it. And, the evidence DOES support it.

 

It is on this basis that I insist it is the naturalist position that makes presuppositions, not the I.D. position, and therefore it is the naturalist position that is "unscientific."

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon