Should Intelligent Design be taught in science class?

[CraigD]

… 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? …

Welcome to scienceforums, TRoutMac! May your experience here be enjoyable and productive.

 

As would nearly any reasonable person, I’d immediately assume the hedge had been trimmed by an intelligent designer. I’d go a step further, and assumes many things about the designer: that they are a human being (as opposed to, say, a superintelligent goat with a topiary bent); that they maintain the hedge with some regularity; even some characteristics of who might do the maintenance (eg: a professional landscaper, a member of a local garden club, but probably not the town mayor himself)

 

If I was truly concerned with the origin of the shrubbery, I could easily formulate these assumptions into a hypothesis, and design an experiment to test it. One such experiment would be to set up surveillance of the bush and wait for a hedge-trimmer to make an appearance. Another would involve a complicated analysis of the hedge, looking for artifact features of the tools used to trim it, and attempting to match them with known hedge-trimming tools. A more expedient experiment would be to ask local residents who trims the hedge, visit this person or people, and obtain acceptable evidence that they are truly the creator of the hedge. Any of these experimental designs would convince a reasonable skeptic that the hedges are trimmed by human beings.

 

I don’t believe the “theory of why Bend, Oregon’s hedge spells B E N D” can in good faith be equated to ID theories such as those concluding that terrestrial plant and animal forms are due to an intelligent designer. I can’t observe an intelligent designer actually creating or maintaining a plant of animal. While a complicated analysis of an organism may reveal signs suggesting unusual biological mechanisms employed in creating them, my understanding of such mechanisms is too poor and speculative to allow a compelling match. And I can’t find witnesses to the creation or maintenance of a plant or animal who can introduce me to a creator with whom I can have an ordinary conversation.

[Buffy]

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?

Correct answer is :hihi: *if*

• We have observations of lanscape designers building similar formations.
  
• We can replicate their methods.
  
• We can examine the bushes and find cut marks on their branches showing evidence of topiary transformation.
  
• We can examine the ground and find evidence of the use of planting implements such as shovels, trowels, bootprints, etc.
  

Correct answer is a) *if*

• We have observations that show that no manipulation was done.
  
• We have examples of other plants of the same species growing in isolated or controlled situations and they show similar transformations.
  
• We have dating to show that the age of the formation predates the existence of landscape architects.
  
• We have animals in the area that enjoy consuming such hedgrows and there are other examples of them chewing similar "shapes"
  

Of course you'll note that I've made no mention of the fact that these hedgrows "just happen" to form *letters*, and this is entirely based on physical evidence. More importantly, under the scientific method, either of these theories can be overturned by contrary evidence.

 

Now related to this approach, while you say you're "getting back to basics", you're promulgating one of the most fundamental problems of the ID argument, known as argument from ignorance, which basically comes down to "if science can't explain it *today*, then it must have been designed." I repeatedly refer back to the notion that flight 400 years ago was accepted by most to be based on angel's lifting birds on high, while we know today that it has to do with aerodynamics: You can *endlessly* come up with examples (as Behe and others like to do) and simply say, "you can't explain that!" and yet we eventually do. The fact that it can't be expained *today* is not a valid justification for the *unsupported* conclusion that a designer was involved.

 

You want to have valid conclusions, you'd better have evidence, not just a flippant "well, it can't be explained any other way..."

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[TRoutMac]

As would nearly any reasonable person, I’d immediately assume the hedge had been trimmed by an intelligent designer.

 

Well, that's interesting. What would you say to me if I insisted that that hedge grew that way by undirected, natural processes? What if I said, "Gee, CraigD… I didn't observe the landscape designer planting or trimming the shrubs, so I shouldn't for a MOMENT entertain the notion that there might have been a landscape designer. No, I am SURE that forces of wind, rain, pollenation, etc. over a long period of time resulted in a hedgerow that spells the name of the city it's growing in."?

 

 

I’d go a step further, and assumes many things about the designer: that they are a human being

 

One step at a time, CraigD. We're not to the point yet of IDENTIFYING the landscape designer. All we're trying to do here is see if it's reasonable, based ONLY on the information I presented, to conclude that there WAS an landscape designer. Either that's reasonable, or it's not. I'm saying it's NOT reasonable, that natural forces and processes randomly created that configuration.

 

What do you say to that? And what is your BASIS for saying it?

 

Why are you so sure that a landscape designer with intelligence planted the shrubs that way?

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[TRoutMac]

You can *endlessly* come up with examples (as Behe and others like to do) and simply say, "you can't explain that!" and yet we eventually do.

 

Let's zoom out for a minute, Buffy. You believe essentially that the existence of life can be explained by reference to the existence of natural processes, is this not correct?

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[Buffy]

Let's zoom out for a minute, Buffy. You believe essentially that the existence of life can be explained by reference to the existence of natural processes, is this not correct?

Oh so *now* you want to change the nature of the debate. Please explain why that matters to the question you posed.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Buffy]

Well, that's interesting. What would you say to me if I insisted that that hedge grew that way by undirected, natural processes? What if I said, "Gee, CraigD… I didn't observe the landscape designer planting or trimming the shrubs, so I shouldn't for a MOMENT entertain the notion that there might have been a landscape designer. No, I am SURE that forces of wind, rain, pollenation, etc. over a long period of time resulted in a hedgerow that spells the name of the city it's growing in."?

You have conveniently avoided my explanation of this. We'd go inspect the plant. There'd be lots of evidence to go through. Don't you watch CSI?

 

Can you see why this argument might get you into trouble? You're taking a specific one, one where there's lots of specific evidence that can be gathered, and then you're going to in the next step jump to a general conclusion. Unfortunately, your example is completely resolvable, so if I were you, I wouldn't expect that there will be any "interesting" conclusions that pop out of this one. Its the same trap as the Behe arguements...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[johnkwhite]

The appropriate "no" will eventually come to show the intricate design of the creator and prove its point... But we will argue which is the correct "no" untill then. Perhaps a closer look at the specific code used in this post might lead us to a more refine aproximation as to the correct "no". (Perhaps we could just ask for devine inspiration also...)

The question makes me uneasy. Is it a trick question? I'm OK with notions like teach and science and class, although I think my OKedness would probably be shown incomplete if pushed to explain what I understand by those notions; intelligent design suggests that there could be non-intelligent design, and that leaves me thinking (well, now that I think about it, :rolleyes: I'm not too sure what I mean by that!) that I really don't understand (oops, that either) the notions of intelligent or design very well. So, whether I answer no or no is not instructive.

[TRoutMac]

Oh so *now* you want to change the nature of the debate. Please explain why that matters to the question you posed.

 

Not changing the nature of the debate at all, Buffy. You said, in effect, that "arguing from ignorance" is bad form and that explaining life by reference to something that cannot be explained is not scientific. I would just like to know whether you apply that same standard to Darwinism and naturalism.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[Buffy]

Not changing the nature of the debate at all, Buffy. You said, in effect, that "arguing from ignorance" is bad form and that explaining life by reference to something that cannot be explained is not scientific. I would just like to know whether you apply that same standard to Darwinism and naturalism.

Uh, yes, you are. Polite disingenuity is not an effective debating tactic, honest. All you're trying to do is pigeon hole me, preparing to attack my argument based on that position. My position on "Darwinism and naturalism" is irrelevant to your example as you have stated it, unless you want to restate your example.

 

Why don't you continue with your example?

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[TRoutMac]

The question makes me uneasy. Is it a trick question? I'm OK with notions like teach and science and class, although I think my OKedness would probably be shown incomplete if pushed to explain what I understand by those notions; intelligent design suggests that there could be non-intelligent design, and that leaves me thinking (well, now that I think about it, :rolleyes: I'm not too sure what I mean by that!) that I really don't understand (oops, that either) the notions of intelligent or design very well. So, whether I answer no or no is not instructive.

 

John:

 

What question is that makes you uneasy? You quoted something from someone else's reply, so I'm not sure what question you're referring to. Please clarify.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[TRoutMac]

Uh, yes, you are. Polite disingenuity is not an effective debating tactic, honest. All you're trying to do is pigeon hole me, preparing to attack my argument based on that position. My position on "Darwinism and naturalism" is irrelevant to your example as you have stated it, unless you want to restate your example.

 

Now what risk could there possibly be of you becoming pigeon holed? If you stand on testable, legitimate science then there is no such risk. You can freely answer the question with a simple "yes" or "no" with complete confidence that you cannot be trapped by your own position.

 

Once again… Do you or do you not believe that the existence of life can be explained by reference to natural processes? It's a simple, honest question.

 

Why don't you continue with your example?

 

I'll continue with my example in good time. I just need to get a few answers from you all first.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

ARGUEMENT FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT first of all will get you nowhere.

Buffy would be best off handeling this by simply waiting for TM to grow up a little.

As for TM having faith in a higher power ain't bad everybody needs some sort of answer to the how are we here question......B....U....T........ when you argue your point from the "because I say it is so" point of view you don't tend to win any supporters for your side of the discussion. especially when you have no way of proving that you are right (at least not yet anyway nobody has ever seen the creator of the universe and all things in it in action) Bythe way the truth of existence may very well fall somewhere in between!

[TRoutMac]

Buffy would be best off handeling this by simply waiting for TM to grow up a little.

 

Well, I've only dropped a few posts on this forum and already here come the insults. I ask a thought-provoking question and now I need to "grow up"?

 

As for TM having faith in a higher power ain't bad everybody needs some sort of answer to the how are we here question

 

Oh, I see. So we all just come up with our own little private 'fairy tale' to explain our existence?

 

Look, we are either here for a purpose or we aren't. And if I'm NOT here for a purpose, then my faith to the contrary is not going to change that reality.

 

Now, looking back through the posts I noticed some things you said and I wonder if you could kindly reconcile them. In an earlier post, you wrote:

 

"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."

 

And then in your most recent post, you wrote:

 

"…the truth of existence may very well fall somewhere in between!"

 

Is there such a thing as objective truth, or isn't there?

 

If there's no such thing as objective truth, then your first statement is true. (except that would require there to be such a thing as objective truth!!) And if there IS objective truth as your second statement implies, then your first statement is, well, false. Isn't that correct?

 

How would you reconcile these two diametrically opposed statements?

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[TRoutMac]

For those critics of I.D. who care to commit to some very basic questions, please answer the following 5 pertinent questions with a simple "yes" or "no".

 

1. Do you believe that there is a supernatural realm?

 

2. Do you believe that science has the capacity to explore and/or gain knowledge about a supernatural realm, IF there is one?

 

3. Would you contend that referring origins to a cause that is itself inexplicable (for example: supernatural) is NOT scientifically valid?

 

4. Do you believe that the existence of nature (life, the universe, matter, etc.) can be explained by reference to natural processes?

 

5. Do you believe that humans are the only beings in the natural realm (read: universe) who possess a level of intelligence greater than or equal to that of ourselves?

 

Looking forward to your direct, NON-EVASIVE answers.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[CraigD]

As would nearly any reasonable person, I’d immediately assume the hedge had been trimmed by an intelligent designer

Well, that's interesting. What would you say to me if I insisted that that hedge grew that way by undirected, natural processes?

As with any person making a claim I found intuitively unobvious, I would ask you to provide proof. I would not accept the forcefulness of your belief in your claim as valid proof of it.

I’d go a step further, and assumes many things about the designer: that they are a human being

One step at a time, CraigD. We're not to the point yet of IDENTIFYING the landscape designer. All we're trying to do here is see if it's reasonable, based ONLY on the information I presented, to conclude that there WAS an landscape designer.

I disagree. Where in the process of my forming a “theory of the BEND hedge” I am, and what available information I use, including common assumption (eg: the hedge is an ordinary hedge growing from the dirt of an ordinary roadside berm, not, say a glowing hedge hovering above it) is mine, not yours, to state.

 

You are, or course, free to disagree with my conclusion that the hedge has been trimmed to form letters, on the grounds that my experiment is flawed, or the data obtained by it in error (eg: the observed/interviewed landscaper and local people are engaging in an intentional deception about the artificial nature of the hedges shape). You may not, however, limit my access to available data, or restrict my scientific formalism to a predefined collection of theorems.

 

I continue to assert that equating a topiary hedge with terrestrial biology, which I believe you intend to do, is invalid and disingenuous.

[Csongor]

I'm a bit confused about the term of supernatural realm. Could you explane to me..?

 

 

 

Csongor

[TRoutMac]

I'm a bit confused about the term of supernatural realm. Could you explane to me..?

 

Geeez. I certainly hope you're not serious. But in case you are, I'm okay with the following dictionary definition:

 

Supernatural:

adj : not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material; "supernatural forces and occurrences and beings" [ant: natural] n : supernatural forces and events and beings collectively; "She doesn't believe in the supernatural"

 

Realm:

n 1: a domain in which something is dominant; "the untroubled kingdom of reason"; "a land of make-believe"; "the rise of the realm of cotton in the south" [syn: kingdom, land] 2: a knowledge domain that you are interested in or are communicating about; "it was a limited domain of discourse"; "here we enter the region of opinion"; "the realm of the occult" [syn: domain, region] 3: the domain ruled by a king or queen

 

I trust that clears it up for you.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon