Should Intelligent Design be taught in science class?

[Buffy]

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?

Well, these questions have nothing to do with science do they? You are still EVADING the question I posed, WHY do you want to know? What can *possibly* be relevant about these questions with regard to science? The word "supernatural" is by definition in the realm of metaphysics, that science does not address.

 

In my mind you are very clearly setting up a "battle" between science and the "supernatural" where many of us see none. That's your problem and it is irrelevant to any discussion of how you can justify ID as being a scientific theory. Your questions are completely irrelevant to that discussion. If you disagree with that then you'd better start explaining your thought. You will get nowhere but to lose your audience if you sit there and *demand* answers that have nothing to do with the topic. Stop treating us like stupid children. Its offensive and rude.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

TM is the glass half empty or half full

[Csongor]

Ok thanks....wow : ) Yes, sure...

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

is it a glass at all?!

 

Are you a figment of my imagination or am I of yours?

 

If the electrical impulses in our bodies are a sign of life then aren't the electrical impulses in power lines also a sign that they are alive?

 

How can science be so sure that the surface of the sun is 10,000 degrees or for that matter the chemical composition or properties of the sun seeing as they have never been there to measure or sample it?

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Welllllllllllllll? please to anwer my questions. Incidently you point at those statements of mine and say that they are different. I see no difference in the first I say make your own choice in the second I offer a third option (an olive branch so to speak) which goes right along with make your own choice in this matter "right" means right for you. A choice that will provide you a saticfactory answer to a question that has no proven answer as of yet .

An answer that you can live with one that gives you a reason to live, explore, hope, dream, one that will aid in your decision making (or not). The point is until someone actualy proves with real hard evidence that only one answer is correct all are correct.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Or having thought a little more about it all are incorrect. :) I still prefer to think in terms of all are correct until proven wrong though! :hihi:

But this is all off track the origional question was should "ID" be tought in school to which I replied (and stand by it) my answer is still that it should be mentioned as an alternative theory to the big bang/evolution theory briefly explained and then left to the religious organization of the students choice to explain the who and how. O.K.! :rolleyes: :)

[johnkwhite]

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

 

The question to which I was referring was: Should Intelligent Design be taught in science class? My apologies for intruding into your posting.

 

jkw

[TRoutMac]

Alright, Buffy. Let's just clear away all the fluff and get straight to it, then. Getting back to your original replay to me, you said this:

 

"The fact that it can't be expained *today* is not a valid justification for the *unsupported* conclusion that a designer was involved."

 

So obviously, since you reject the idea that a designer was involved, you must believe that the existence of life, nature, the universe can POTENTIALLY be explained by reference to natural processes, even if you acknowledge that science hasn't yet accomplished this.

 

I agree with you, by the way, about science being a learning process. Over the history of scientific pursuits, ideas that were once thought of as scientifically valid have been abandoned in light of new discoveries. What you'll find is that Darwinian evolution is on that track as we speak. More on that later…

 

You believe that I.D. equates to "if science can't explain it *today*, then it must have been designed." Well, this is a patently absurd characterization. Science CAN explain origins TODAY and the best, most sensible explanation for origins IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN. And the illustration I led with demonstrates this in no uncertain terms.

 

Now, you don't like that explanation because you see it as an appeal to something that cannot be explained scientifically… the intelligent designer.

 

Well, okay… that's a fair point. Trouble is, this problem is NOT UNIQUE to the Intelligent Design camp. The idea that origins can be explained by reference to natural processes PRESUPPOSES the natural processes!! You see, on the naturalist side, you still haven't answered the question. You still have to explain how the natural processes came into being!!

 

Were those natural processes caused by natural processes? Then what caused THOSE natural processes? You see, you're stuck and you're stuck BIG. You are yourself offering as an explanation of origins, something that is itself scientifically inexplicable.

 

So now the question is, Why is it that YOU can appeal to the inexplicable, but we (I.D. proponents) cannot?

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[Lolic]

Were those natural processes caused by natural processes? Then what caused THOSE natural processes? You see, you're stuck and you're stuck BIG. You are yourself offering as an explanation of origins, something that is itself scientifically inexplicable. So now the question is, Why is it that YOU can appeal to the inexplicable, but we (I.D. proponents) cannot?

Interesting to see how the use of logic has shut the debate down. Is that why the pro-evolution scientists didn't show up at Kansas?

 

When you say "appeal to the inexplicable" I think that might be over stating what ID does. I see that they utilize scientific methods and determine that what they are investigating is the action of an intelligent agent or cause. The evidence however doesn't say who or what the intelligence agent or cause is. Some posit God, but that is their metaphysical interpretation or belief. ID theory does not make that claim. ID detractors are quick to make a strawman with God in it when ID never makes that claim itself. (I'm not sure if that is poor logic or poor morals, but it's the prevalent tactic)

 

So if we determine it's the action of intelligence, why call that "inexplicable". (not a big point but I'm curious why you chose that word.)

 

So what would it hurt to teach ID in HS or college and educate people on how to descreminate between chance, natural law, and intelligent causes?

 

What's wrong with that, and if nothing is wrong, why do people fight it so much?

 

IMO it's interesting that we have thousands of years of human history where we can see whats the result of natural law and whats the result of an intelligent agent. Yet people act like it's some mystical thing. People have been drawing inferences to design for years, now the methodology for determination is much better....why "freak out" now?

[C1ay]

However, the scientific community is now so closed to anything to do with the Bible, it is virtually impossible to get them to see the Bible in any other light.

No, it is the religious community that wants the scientific community to accept as science that which is not science.

 

What's really puzzling to me is the drive to introduce bible ideologies as physical science. Why the determination to make religion a science? Why the determination to have it compete with a rigorous physical science like biology? Why the determination to blur the line between a physical science and philosophy? Why does this seem to be mostly a christian effort? (There's 5 questions for you TM)

 

Mankind does not have the answers to where life came from. No one can claim with any testable hypotheses that life came from here or there. All discussion of where life began is simply an exercise in philosophy at this point. Why not treat it as such?

[HydrogenBond]

Teaching Intelligent Design and Evolution in class might actually be useful. There are a lot of holes in both approaches, life being the biggest one. ID is thin on the details, while E is too philosophical and too heavily dependant or randon events like mutations. The compromise is logically ordered science without the need for mutations.

[johnkwhite]

Having been cordially welcomed to jump right in, I will.

 

The discussion about the teaching of intelligent design in science classes, from the posts and counterposts I've read, seems to be centering on whether the argument for evolution is teleological, order was caused by God, (a la Chardin??), or not, i.e., order is a natural process, (Gould/Eldrege, neo-darwinists??).

 

What is so dysfunctional in educating a student in a subject by examining the current and historical philosophical thinking and debate over the subject? The discussion doesn't lay out a clear and convincing case of it being dysfunctional.

 

History teaches us that Bruno-burning is not particularly persuasive in stifling the debate of competing ideas. Besides, imagine the opportunity the high school and grade school teachers (and even some of the more educated college teachers) will have in being able to acquaint students with the wondrous and delightful pantheistic evolutionary thought of Ervin Laszlo alongside Julian Janyne's thoroughly intriguing theory on the evolution of a bicameral-mind theory to explain the talking-god statues from Greek mythology.

 

In fact, it is the framing the argument as a religious/science debate which is dysfunctional, because it implies that there a playing field on which to bat around evidentiary balls, and that simply isn't true. For example, one can very easily teach the the difference in the thinking by going to Gould, a brilliant paleontologist, and contrasting his views with those of another brilliant palenotologist, Father Teilhard de Chardin. In fact, I would hazard a guess that Gould was as much driven in reformulating the structure of Darwin's theory by de Chardin's work, as he was by his own need to make sense out of the fossil gaps in the geologic record. Heaven help us if we ever get to the point where we are forbidden to teach or ask students to read Laszlo or de Chardin alongside Gould and Eldredge.

[Erasmus00]

You believe that I.D. equates to "if science can't explain it *today*, then it must have been designed." Well, this is a patently absurd characterization. Science CAN explain origins TODAY and the best, most sensible explanation for origins IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN. And the illustration I led with demonstrates this in no uncertain terms

 

Given your hypothesis "an intelligence designer designed life," we need a scientific way to test it. Some experiment we can do to potentially disprove or support your claim. The problem with intelligent design is that they handwave about irreducilbe complexity and ordered information, but they haven't produced rigorous exampls. Anytime some cell biologist discovers sime evolutionary mechanism, ID just says "that really wasn't irreducibly complex."

 

Now, while we are talking about silly examples (such as your hedge), I recentlty moved, and the tiles on the bathroom in my new apartment are all cracked. Most incredibly, there is one row of tiles where the number of cracks in each successive tile is 2,3,5,7. These are the first four prime numbers. Did an intelligent person put that information into the tiles, or was it largely a result of random processes?

-Will

[TRoutMac]

No, it is the religious community that wants the scientific community to accept as science that which is not science.

 

You guys keep spewing this mantra, and Intelligent Design proponents continue to demonstrate that I.D. is COMPLETELY science-based. You folks try to ignore us, hoping we will go away. But we're not going away.

 

What's really puzzling to me is the drive to introduce bible ideologies as physical science. Why the determination to make religion a science?

 

The reason why it puzzles you so is that you're attributing this behavior to the wrong group. Physical science POINTS TO AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER independent of what the Bible says or does not say, and it does so by virtue of overwhelming evidence. Evolution, on the contrary, IS a religious philosophy disguised as science. It is completely faith-based.

 

Why the determination to have it compete with a rigorous physical science like biology?

 

I.D. does not "compete" against rigorous science, EVOLUTION DOES. (specifically, MACRO-evolution)

 

Why the determination to blur the line between a physical science and philosophy?

 

Why indeed! I've been wondering for YEARS why evolutionists insist on doing this. Excellent question… you got me.

 

Why does this seem to be mostly a christian effort?

 

Because Christians are the only ones with the cajones to accept that there is a single, infinitely powerful and infinitely intelligent God who created the universe for a purpose.

 

Now that I've answered your question, despite the fact that almost ALL of them were based on false premises and, as such, were pretty ridiculous questions (which is why my answers were somewhat flippant) why don't you step up to the plate and answer mine? Are you afraid the answers will make you vulnerable?

 

Anybody here have the stones to answer my questions?

 

It appears not.

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[C1ay]

why don't you step up to the plate and answer mine? Are you afraid the answers will make you vulnerable?

1. No

2. irrelevant

3. yes

4. yes

5. no

 

Your questions are completely irrelevant to my belief though. It's not that I don't believe that man can determine at this point in his existance if the universe was created or not, I know man cannot prove this or he would have already. Even the big bang theorists cannot prove it was any beginning of matter and energy. I believe matter and energy have always existed and didn't need a beginning. I believe that matter and energy can be neither created or destroyed. Perhaps there was a big bang event that redistributed them, but no one can prove that it did or didn't actually happen, only that observable evidence makes it appear that there was some event in the past.

 

The ID proponents can't prove their case either. It's certainly not any proof of anything to say, "it's so complicated it had to be designed" except to say "oh we need to invent our own answers because we just can't figure out any other way". The right answer in that case is simply, "we don't know" until you can conclusively prove your case. The only proof of any supreme being is that being itself. Until you can introduce it to us you have nothing but talk.

 

As for evolution, we know that mutation, adaptation and acclimation do occur. I do not believe any proof exists that this explains all new species but there is evidence it produces some like new strains of the flu each year.

 

Just for fun though, how does ID explain nylonase and ring species.

[TRoutMac]

Given your hypothesis "an intelligence designer designed life," we need a scientific way to test it. Some experiment we can do to potentially disprove or support your claim.

 

Fine. Got it. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

 

The problem with intelligent design is that they handwave about irreducilbe complexity and ordered information, but they haven't produced rigorous examples.

 

Are you KIDDING me? Have you ever heard of DNA? NO RIGOROUS EXAMPLES? Holy smokes.

 

Anytime some cell biologist discovers some evolutionary mechanism, ID just says "that really wasn't irreducibly complex."

 

What evolutionary mechanism are you referring to? Can you name one? Natural selection? Natural selection CAN explain MICRO-evolution… we I.D. proponents are "on-board" with micro-evolution. But natural selection CANNOT explain macro-evolution.

 

Now, while we are talking about silly examples (such as your hedge)

 

Care to explain why the hedge is a silly example? Do you understand where that example leads? Do you understand that DNA has a LANGUAGE underlying it? Do you understand that only intelligence is capable of producing LANGUAGE?

 

I recentlty moved, and the tiles on the bathroom in my new apartment are all cracked. Most incredibly, there is one row of tiles where the number of cracks in each successive tile is 2,3,5,7. These are the first four prime numbers. Did an intelligent person put that information into the tiles, or was it largely a result of random processes?

 

In a series of only four tiles, the odds against that are not that large. In fact, I'd say that compared to the odds of bushes growing naturally to spell the name of the city where they are growing, your scenario is downright LIKELY. If I dumped a bag of scrabble letters on the floor, I might indeed get short sequences of letters in close enough proximity to one another, and in the proper alignment so as to be legible according to conventions of our language. "CAT", for example. But here's the catch… it's really only a message if it's the message I INTENDED.

 

I INTENDED to type this particular message to you today. If I thought chance could produce this message, I wouldn't have bothered to type it… I'd have mowed the lawn instead. Back to your cracks, if there were a longer sequence which continued the pattern which you describe, then at some point we MIGHT have to conclude that some disturbed person was cracking your tiles. But at the level you describe, while it is interesting and impressive, it can be explained quite comfortably by reference to chance.

 

DNA, however, is a whole new ball game. Hundreds of MILLION base-pairs, all ordered precisely according to a LANGUAGE CONVENTION common to living organisms that geneticists refer to as the "Universal Genetic Code." And elsewhere in the cell, a system that processes, translates, interprets that code and builds proteins accordingly. You gonna try to compare THAT to 4 cracked tiles? He, he… I don't THINK so!! (by the way, there's a rigorous example for you, discovered something like 30 years ago)

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon

[TRoutMac]

1. No

2. irrelevant

3. yes

4. yes

5. no

 

In light of your answer to question 3, your belief that matter and energy have always existed is scientifically invalid. Why? Because you're accepting them as a "given". To you, the existence of matter and energy is inexplicable. They just "always were".

 

In light of your answer to question 4, please explain the existence of the natural processes? See… you've got the same problem. Natural processes, in your mind, are eternal and need no explanation. And again, referring to your answer to question 3, that makes naturalism a scientifically invalid theory, and it also makes evolution scientifically invalid.

 

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

 

TRoutMac

Bend, Oregon