Should Intelligent Design be taught in science class?

[Lolic]

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

How many references to peer-reviewed journals articles and-the-like would you care to see?

 

Here are two:

 

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force? Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

 

Most animal cells contain a pair of centrioles, tiny turbine-like organelles oriented at right angles to each other that replicate at every cell division. Yet the function and behavior of centrioles remain mysterious. Since all centrioles appear to be equally complex, there are no plausible evolutionary intermediates with which to construct phylogenies; and since centrioles contain no DNA, they have attracted relatively little attention from neo Darwinian biologists who think that DNA is the secret of life. From an intelligent design (ID) perspective, centrioles may have no evolutionary intermediates because they are irreducibly complex. And they may need no DNA because they carry another form of biological information that is independent of the genetic mutations relied upon by neo-Darwinists. In this paper, Wells assumes that centrioles are designed to function as the tiny turbines they appear to be, rather than being accidental by-products of Darwinian evolution. He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that—if corroborated by experiment could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology.

 

 

Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).

 

This article underwent conference peer review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings. Minnich and Meyer do three important things in this paper.

 

First, they refute a popular objection to Michael Behe’s argument for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum.

 

Second, they suggest that the Type III Secretory System present in some bacteria, rather than being an evolutionary intermediate to the bacterial flagellum, is probably represents a degenerate form of the bacterial flagellum.

 

Finally, they argue explicitly that intelligent design is a better than the Neo-Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum.

 

Would anyone like to see more? ;)

[Southtown]

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?

What should be taught is the evidence and the method. Why teach them art? Just give them paintings.

[Southtown]

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?

Page 5, inquiry begins. LOL Refer to previous post.

[Southtown]

It could come down to the question, 'do people have the right to believe what they want to, or must it first be approved, or peer reviewed?'

[Buffy]

How many references to peer-reviewed journals articles and-the-like would you care to see?

 

Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force? Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.....From an intelligent design (ID) perspective, centrioles may have no evolutionary intermediates because they are irreducibly complex.

Irreducible Complexity is not a scientific concept. Every example cited completely ignores Bayesian probability, and makes overly restrictive assumptions about the probability of the processes involved. While Biology Forum is "peer-reviewed" the peers all appear to accept irreducible complexity as valid, although it is not generally accepted by the scientific community. The latest issues' *lead* paper is "Ancon Sheep: A Now Disproven Example of Macroevolution". I'll leave it to you to guess what that one is about.

And they may need no DNA because they carry another form of biological information that is independent of the genetic mutations relied upon by neo-Darwinists.

it is a false characterization that DNA is the sole source of the generation of complex biological systems. Evolutionary theory does indeed accept that folding protiens, RNAi (covered in this week's Nova on PBS), and many other elements are critical to the behavior and evolution.

Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004). ... This article underwent conference peer review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings. Minnich and Meyer do three important things in this paper.

As for peer review, Second International Conference on Design & Nature, is a conference *on* Intelligent Design, and as above, the "peers" agree with irreducible complexity, while the scientific community does not.

First, they refute a popular objection to Michael Behe’s argument for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum.

Which still mis-applies the probabilities.

Finally, they argue explicitly that intelligent design is a better than the Neo-Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum.

But the argument is entirely based on irreducible complexity...

 

"Peer-review" is meaningless if the peers represent a small minority of scientists, and the premises they agree on have indeed been shown wanting by the rest of the community.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Buffy]

It could come down to the question, 'do people have the right to believe what they want to, or must it first be approved, or peer reviewed?'

Oh I don't have any problem with people believing whatever they want to. Believe that we were created in a test tube by little green men? I don't have any problem with you going out on the street corner and screaming it at the top of your lungs, or being Pat Robertson's next guest on the 700 Club. I just think its a bad idea to teach kids that a "theory" that has--to be *extremely* charitable--very little evidence to back it up is *just as valid* as the established theory that is accepted by 99% of the experts on the topic.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Buffy]

Intelligent Design as it is presently taught by the religious is illogical because it often disagrees with what science has 'proven'.

On the contrary, ID scrupulously avoids reference to *anything* religious, and in fact, its proponents get very bent out of shape when some try to say that its proof of "truth" of the Bible rather than possible proof that we were made by little green men.

 

The problem with ID is the same as your arguement that the Bible is proof of anything: neither theory properly conforms to the scientific method (although at least ID *tries*).

However, if it could be shown in a systematic, rational way that the Bible really is an unusual book, would the scientific community listen???

No, because it is just a book. It might be a special book, and it might even be divinely inspired. But that does not have *any* relevance with regard to the scientific method, and thus science must ignore--not "repress"--it. Its not an experiment or a description of repeatable process. Its not scientific in any way, shape, or form.

 

What makes this hard for some people to understand is that like you appear to, there is only faith. Some have been even taught that reason is the devil's work: you should only believe what the Lord tells you. No matter how more or less extreme you are on the scale of that worldview, it does lead many to believe that "science is just another faith", but mainly because they have avoided learning what it is all about. I encourage all believers to take some time to learn more about science and get to understand that its completely different--not better, just different--than religion.

 

Render unto Einstein that which is Einstein's,

Buffy

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

To me "intelligent design" (perhaps because I'm more interested in machines than theology) would be actually thinking out as design thoroughly, ironing out the bugs simplifying those components that are needlessly complicated to make or repair once installed, making sure the intended consumer can actually use said product for it's intended porpous with decent reproducable results and at least some reliability.

 

As far as the how are we here version of intelligent design my personal thoughts on the matter are as follows: who cares I'm here now when I die I'll be there wherever there is. Until then I intend to live life to the fullest degree of fullest as I can. (There will be plenty of time to figure out all of the secrets of the meaning of life when I'm dead)

 

 

-SHV- at [email protected]

[Lolic]

He hits a home run with this one...

 

full post:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/index.php?p=735&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#more735

 

highlights...

The Darwinist Misinformation Train:

I have a 3 step theory for how it comes to pass that many people come to believe that intelligent design is an appeal to the supernatural:

 

Type I Darwinists critics: It starts with these Darwinist critics who correctly understand ID and realize that it respects the limits of science and doesn’t try to identify the designer. Yet, Type I Critics then purposefully misrepresent ID to the public (and particularly to scientists) as an untestable and unscientific appeal to the supernatural. This is despite the fact that ID proponents understand the nature of scientific inquiry and have formulated their theory to respect its boundaries. The dubious tactics of Type I critics are effective because it results in many people thinking that ID cannot be science because it makes claims about the supernatural -- beyond the scope of what can be studied using the scientific method.

 

Type II Darwinist critics: These are the people created by the activities of Type I critics. Type II critics misunderstand ID because they have been told by Type I critics that ID is an untestable appeal to the supernatural. This causes them to think it is makes exclusively religious claims, is not scientific, not empirically based, and not appropriate for the laboratory or the classroom. Type II Critics aren’t necessarily to blame for their misapprehensions because they have been misled. Nonetheless, it would behoove them to pick up some of the scholarship of ID proponents they are criticizing before they speak about it publicly. If they did so, they would realize their misunderstandings.

 

The Public: The Public consists of the people out there who are trying to figure out ID. Some of them may have read books or other literature by ID proponents and know the truth. But, for the most part, the public has been misled by Type I and Type II critics who are telling them that ID is an unscientific appeal to the supernatural, and shouldn’t be studied in labs or taught in science classes.

 

:hihi: IMO well worth reading the entire post at the above link. Explains the tactics of the NCSE and not so forthright "science" lobbiests like E. Scott. :rolleyes:

[CraigD]

http://www.evolutionnews.org/index.php?p=735&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#more735

... IMO well worth reading the entire post at the above link. Explains the tactics of the NCSE and not so forthright "science" lobbiests like E. Scott. :rolleyes:

Indeed, an interesting read from someone who appears to be toward the middle of the 2 extremes (angry atheist <-> angry fundamentalist) in the ID debate.

 

The image of a train being pulled by a panda with a jet nozzle extruded from ... well, from where panda's don't normally have jet nozzles, is a bit insulting, though. :hihi: A little respect is a good thing in debates like these

[Lolic]

image of a train being pulled by a panda with a jet nozzle extruded from ... well, from where panda's don't normally have jet nozzles, is a bit insulting, though. :rolleyes: A little respect is a good thing in debates like these

Rockets do normally push from the "bottom" :hihi:

[CraigD]

I don’t believe ID should be taught in grades K-12, except in advanced placement/honors courses. Not because it is inherently unscientific, but because the academic skills necessary to study it in a scientific manner involves advanced information theory and statistical methods that are inappropriate to those grade levels. For advanced students with the necessary mathematical background, I see no reason to exclude consideration of the ideas put forth under the heading of ID.

 

While a profound understanding of Evolutionary Biology also requires advanced Math, it lends itself to simple illustrations, such as selection. ID likewise lends itself to simple illustrations, such as the Genesis story. While selection can be observed in nature, however – for example, the rapid extinction of a species that fails to adapt to human habitat encroachment - there appears to be no credible equivalent for the Genesis story – it is inherently about one-time events occurring before human history.

 

Therefore, I believe that it is appropriate to teach Evolutionary Biology in grades K-12.

[Buffy]

He hits a home run with this one...

Type I Darwinists critics: It starts with these Darwinist critics who correctly understand ID and realize that it respects the limits of science and doesn’t try to identify the designer. Yet, Type I Critics then purposefully misrepresent ID to the public (and particularly to scientists) as an untestable and unscientific appeal to the supernatural. This is despite the fact that ID proponents understand the nature of scientific inquiry and have formulated their theory to respect its boundaries.

It always facinates me that the ID proponents *mislead* in the *same* way that they claim their opponents do. The primary argument against ID is that it makes claims that are not scientific. Period. They are not testable, and in most cases they consist of simply throwing up examples that turn the scientific method on its head. The fact that a few of these people have degrees and they've formed their own conferences and journals that feebly attempt to create biased "peer review" arguments is nothing short of silly.

 

And this is supposed to be the "home run?" Ignoring one's opponent's arguments is just yet another example of the derision that ID proponents heap upon science and the scientific method. They don't care, they just want to win, and they're happy to ignore any facts that get in the way.

 

Pretty sad if you ask me.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Lolic]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/235729_idesign09.html

 

highlights....

 

While intelligent design may have religious implications (just like Darwin's theory), it does not start from religious premises.

 

A second misunderstanding is that proponents of intelligent design theory are crusading to have it required in public schools. In fact, they are doing the opposite.

 

Discovery Institute, the main research organization supporting ID scholars, opposes efforts to mandate intelligent design. Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community.

 

A third misunderstanding is that there are widespread efforts to mandate the teaching of design. In reality, what most states are considering is not teaching design but teaching the weaknesses as well as the strengths of modern Darwinian theory. This is the approach adopted in the science standards of Ohio, Minnesota and New Mexico. It's also the approach under consideration by the Kansas State Board of Education, which earlier this year heard testimony critical of Darwin's theory from professors of biology, genetics and biochemistry.

 

While scholars supporting ID are not seeking to impose their views, opponents have tried to silence critics of Darwin's theory using coercion and intimidation. At George Mason University, a biology professor was banned recently from teaching about intelligent design in her classes. At the Smithsonian Institution, the editor of a biology journal says he faced discrimination and retaliation after accepting for publication a pro-ID article.

 

Supporters of intelligent design are willing to disavow misguided efforts to impose it by government fiat. Defenders of Darwinism likewise need to reject efforts to enforce their views by trampling on academic freedom.The validity of intelligent design should be decided through fair and open debate, not through legislation enacted by its friends or witch hunts conducted by its foes.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

-shv- at [email protected]

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

O.k. here's the deal:

First off: Nobody will ever be able to PROVE that GOD exists. For those that believe in GOD (or as some of us call him "THE CREATOR" incidently as far as religion goes) I think 99% of all of the religions out there actually are all worshiping the same god they just have a different name for him/her. Kind of like the way there are in the judeo/christian faith different rules that the jewish peoples must follow that baptists etc. don't have to follow and then there are even more rules that catholics must follow that baptists and jewish persons don't though oddly enough they all pray to the same god.

 

Second: Those that believe in the big bang/ evolution theory of existence will never truly be able to PROVE that without even the slightest of a doubt that they are right either.

 

In short believe what you want to believe either answer is right. Whichever one you choose as long as you choose it for yourself is the right answer. But you should never try to force anyone to accept or believe that your choice is the only correct one and that they are inferior, criminal, or stupid for having their own beliefs on this matter! Their have been to many lives lost and/or destroyed in the name of God because someone didn't have the "RIGHT"answer to the god question. Aren't there more important things to fight for and worry about. You know things like the freedom to live without fear of repression, cancer, aids, freedom to think for yourself, etc.

 

The evo/creationism question is best left to the individual to decide.

 

Now for my answer to should theological "ID" be taught in school. I think it should be mentioned that billions of people worldwide believe that there is some form of a creator with a brief explanation of creationism and then the subject should be dropped without centering on any personal religious standpoint. Let the religious organizations handle the theological end of things.

 

-shv- at [email protected]

[TRoutMac]

Having been invited to this forum by another participant, I think I'll jump in here with a useful illustration and see where you all stand. If anyone here's gonna make any sense of this issue, then we're gonna have to get back to some basics.

 

If you were to visit the town where I live, as you enter the city limits on the main highway, you will see a hedgerow on a landscaped birm which faces the incoming traffic. In the hedgerow, you can clearly make out the letters B E N D.

 

These shrubs just happen to spell the name of the city in which they are growing.

 

Now, you can come to one of two conclusions as to how these shrubs grew in this particular configuration:

 

a) An intelligent designer (in this case, a landscape designer)

:rolleyes: Random, undirected natural processes

 

In the above illustration, which of these two answers is correct, and WHY?

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon