Should Intelligent Design be taught in science class?

[TRoutMac]

You missed my point. All you wuold be able to find with a theory that says "the universe might have been designed" is that the universe *might* have been designed. You will not find out that it has been designed.

 

Again, another presupposition. Why don't you examine the evidence first and then decide where the evidence points? Why are you so opposed to doing this? That is the scientific method!

 

I don't rule out the possibility that the universe was designed. I don't believe it, however, and I don't view it as a scientific endeavour.

 

You don't believe it, and by virtue of that and that alone, you have apparently chosen to place it outside of the realm of science in hopes that you can prevent anyone else from being exposed to it. Do you call that science? Do you call that objective?

 

BTW how can you be so sure what science would conclude?

 

First, let me remind you that in the very same post you said "You will not find out that it has been designed." So, to then ask me how I can be so sure of what science would conclude is, well, a little disingenuous, dontcha think?

 

Secondly, I don't have to speculate as to what science would conclude. Science (real, legitimate science, science without presuppositions) can already show, and therefore conclude, that there is an Intelligent Designer.

 

That's my most fundamental problem with ID-er's - they have no idea what science is about.

 

And yet, between Questor and myself, (and Lolic, too!) we have demonstrated that we most certainly do understand what science is all about. It's about not making assumptions and presuppositions that limit the options you are willing to explore. It's about letting the evidentiary chips fall where they may and not steering them toward one conclusion that you happen to be attracted to philosophically.

 

Do you disagree with that description of science? How is this description of science incorrect?

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[rockytriton]

I wonder where TroutMac is from :doh:

[questor]

Tormod, you said:

 

'' Over and over and over and over again. We are responding to your requests and telling you you're not getting any answers from us. How many times must we explain it to you?''

i don't quite understand what you mean here. i am not demanding anything from anyone here, and no one needs to answer me.

 

''Yes, you are on a crusade here - your postcount vs posts about ID ratio shows it loud and clear. You are trying to show the stupidity of science and the idiocy of not accepting ID as the truth.''

i have the utmost respect for science and scientific methods, my education and career has been in science. i have never called or implied anyone was stupid for not believing in ID, nor do i care what one believes. it really doesn't matter, because we will never know the answer. it will be left to scientists far in the future to know the truth. my statements have always been that since we don't know, one is led to believe one way or another by

perceived evidence and this i think points to ID. if some one believes differently, i assume

he/she has good reason.

[TRoutMac]

I wonder where TroutMac is from :doh:

 

Well, I dunno what it has to do with anything, but I'm a native of Nebraska and have lived in Oregon since 1978, save for a 5-year stint in Seattle, Washington.

 

Does that somehow disqualify me to comment or contribute to the discussion?

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[pgrmdave]

TRoutMac, why is it that any time someone says that they don't believe in ID, you say that they have presupposed that there is no creator, while only YOUR views are open minded? Perhaps it is time for you to learn that assuming that there is no creator because there is NO DIRECT EVIDENCE for such a creator is scientifically sound.

[Tormod]

And yet, between Questor and myself, (and Lolic, too!) we have demonstrated that we most certainly do understand what science is all about.

 

No, you have not. I didn't know the three of you were a team, though. Good to know.

 

It's about not making assumptions and presuppositions that limit the options you are willing to explore. It's about letting the evidentiary chips fall where they may and not steering them toward one conclusion that you happen to be attracted to philosophically.

 

Do you disagree with that description of science? How is this description of science incorrect?

 

It is a sugar puff description of the scientific method (which should not be mistaken for science). Science is the study of the natural world. The scientific method is what is used to do science. I don't think any good scientist would say there is no bias. We all have a common bias - we are human. We have eyes that see only so much, and ears that hear only so much (for starters).

 

Bias is inherent in all science. Uncovering bias is important - for example, a strong bias would be to say "X appears to imply Y. Z also appears to imply Y. Therefore the evidence for Y is very strong". The problem is there could also be that X implies V and Z implies W, and this very possibility means that one must first find out if the sceintific study is designed so that it only has one outcome, or whether it can falsify it.

 

Alas, this is why ID fails. ID - and yourself - says

 

Secondly, I don't have to speculate as to what science would conclude. Science (real, legitimate science, science without presuppositions) can already show, and therefore conclude, that there is an Intelligent Designer.

 

It is a strong bias for Y. It is starting by saying "The universe is designed. Let us find out how we can prove it". It is impossibly to falsify ID. Therefore it is by definition not science.

 

There is nothing strange about this. And nobody is saying you shouldn't believe in ID. It just doesn't belong in a science forum. Nobody is taking a grasp of science and saying "only this far". ID is no more science than a book is an animal.

[Tormod]

Well, I dunno what it has to do with anything, but I'm a native of Nebraska and have lived in Oregon since 1978, save for a 5-year stint in Seattle, Washington.

 

Does that somehow disqualify me to comment or contribute to the discussion?

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

 

I think he was referring to this:

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

 

--------------------

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

 

But you apparently failed to see the humor in it.

[TRoutMac]

I think he was referring to this:

 

But you apparently failed to see the humor in it.

 

No, that is funny, I'll admit. What I failed to see is that I'm getting two sigs in my posts. Sorry about that.

 

Okay still learning some things about how this forum functions, I guess.

[rockytriton]

Yes, I was referring to the fact that it's in each message twice and in your "Location" on the left of each message. Just kinda funny. I was really just trying to get things off topic hoping to keep things from staying on this circular pattern.

[questor]

Dave, did gravity begin with the big bang? if so was it stored somewhere before the big bang? was the matter and energy released during the big bang stored somewhere?

was there any planning for the BB or did it happen? do you not see any type of planning or design in any of these events? even if it was all random, how did we get such order?

[Turtle]

____This thread is the evidence in my view for why this subject does not belong in primary or secondary schools. :doh: Weeks now of this wrangling haven't made one wit of advance in establishing a single verifiable data point. Teach young people to read, write, & count so they can choose their own interest & direction.

[questor]

Turtle, are we to assume you are also against the teaching of evolution since that theory does not boast answers to all its questions? and perhaps literature since it is more about feelings and opinions.?

[IrishEyes]

AMEN!!

 

Turtle, it never ceases to amaze me how you can say soooo much with so few words.

[rockytriton]

yea, if these kinds of discussions went on in school, we would spend all 4 years of high school in circular debates while kids in other countries would actually be advancing in the fields of science.

[Biochemist]

Gentlemen (oops, and ladies)-

 

I have to admit I am a little surprised by the quantity of discussion in this thread, in spite of the lack of content. We have over 200 posts, and it is tedious for any new entrant to plow through the volume here.

 

Further, the notion of "teaching ID" is really pretty trivial, since "teaching" it usually means that instructors would offer a single paragraph at the beginning of any segment on speciation. The paragraph would suggest that there are other interpretations of the fact set than pure naturalism.

 

That much is science.

 

However, proponents of the ID camp have (so far) been less than prolific at identifying predictions based on their point of view, or falsifiable test cases. In that sense, the ID camp has been weak at advancing a scientific thesis. There actually might be falsifiable examples, but I have not seen any in peer reviewed studies.

 

Nosie without substantive support is not science.

 

I suggest (as moderator) that we close this thread, and open a new one that is exclusively focused on two points:

 

1) Are there any peer reviewed studies in the literature that would bolster an ID position?

2) Can we identify any falsifiable hypotheses that would support ID over more naturalistic interpretations of facts?

 

I suggest that we discuss this idea briefly , and then close this thread.

[TRoutMac]

No, you have not. I didn't know the three of you were a team, though. Good to know.

 

We are a team only to the extent we have made similar arguments.

 

It is a sugar puff description of the scientific method (which should not be mistaken for science). Science is the study of the natural world. The scientific method is what is used to do science.

 

"Sugar puff" or not, it's accurate. It may be broad, but it's accurate. I grant you that the concept of science is really an ideal. We would all like for science to be completely free of bias, but since humans are the ones using science, we end up polluting it with our bias to one extent or another. I think we agree on that.

 

It is starting by saying "The universe is designed. Let us find out how we can prove it". It is impossibly to falsify ID. Therefore it is by definition not science.

 

Yet another blatant misrepresentation about where I.D. starts. Misrepresentation does not belong in science, wouldn't you say?

 

You are saying we are starting with a presupposition and then try to prove it. But that is what evolution is doing. You presuppose that there is no designer and then you selectively interpret the evidence to prove your hypothesis and won't allow interpretations of evidence that would support that which you have rejected already.

 

We don't presuppose that there is a designer, only that there might be a designer. Later on, when we get to the evidence, we see that the evidence supports our side, and upon testing your hypothesis, we see that if fails miserably.

 

And nobody is saying you shouldn't believe in ID.

 

If you believe that I.D. is false, and you are convinced that you're right, then by all means you should say I should NOT believe it. I dunno about you, but I don't want to fool myself about reality. I don't want to believe in fairy tales. And I don't think you should, either. I don't want to believe in what's not true. Do you?

 

If I.D. is false, then no one should believe in it. Likewise, if evolution is false, then no one should believe in it. Isn't that only logical? Of course, we are free to believe in what we choose to believe and obviously we should not enforce one belief or another by force of legislation.

[rockytriton]

I suggest (as moderator) that we close this thread...

 

I've been waiting for this to happen since it was moved here from the watercooler, where I created it ask a joke.