Kansas can now teach Intelligent Design

[Stargazer]

i don't want an unqualified teacher teaching religion, i'm saying that ID and evolution could be taught in the same class, since neither has been scientifically proved. ID comprises much more than just religion.

If you're suggesting there's no evidence for evolution, then you're wrong. Oh, and would you please explain the ID "theory"? No one has so far been able to do it.

[Tarantism]

i don't want an unqualified teacher teaching religion, i'm saying that ID and evolution could be taught in the same class, since neither has been scientifically proved. ID comprises much more than just religion.

 

well, from what i can recall, in high school i was taught not nessesarily creationism, but the seven major religions in general. i was also taught evolution. what i cant understand is why anyone would want them to be taught TOGETHER seeing as how they are two conflicting things, one theory and one faithful belief (i cant see religion as a theory since i have seen no evidence to prove it right or wrong).

[questor]

item #1 evolution is a theory. the word science means to know.

evolution will be science if and when it is proved by the scientific method.

item #2 id is a theory also, it is not a science.

why not give students both theories and what is known about each ?

as the facts appear, one theory will become science.

as far as a poltical movement ID is only trying to protect its existence. there are many reasons to believe in ID which have nothing to do with religion.

perhaps if you could fill in species lines gaps, and prove abiogenesis,and explain the origin of dna, evolution may become science.

[Tarantism]

item #1 evolution is a theory. the word science means to know.

evolution will be science if and when it is proved by the scientific method.

item #2 id is a theory also, it is not a science.

why not give students both theories and what is known about each ?

as the facts appear, one theory will become science.

as far as a poltical movement ID is only trying to protect its existence. there are many reasons to believe in ID which have nothing to do with religion.

perhaps if you could fill in species lines gaps, and prove abiogenesis,and explain the origin of dna, evolution may become science.

 

well, i have seen evidence to support the theory of eveolution, and more and more evidence pours out every year. i have seen absolutely no evidence to support id. hm.B)

[Stargazer]

item #1 evolution is a theory.

Yes, it is. And a very good one. Why is that bad?

 

the word science means to know.

evolution will be science if and when it is proved by the scientific method.

Scientific truths are temporary, it's theoretically possible that they will need to be revised or completely discarded in the future.

 

item #2 id is a theory also, it is not a science.

I agree, it's not science. Just once I would like an ID proponent to explain this elusive ID theory. I'm hoping for too much, is my guess.

 

why not give students both theories and what is known about each ?

as the facts appear, one theory will become science.

One of those two theories? Why not a third one?

 

as far as a poltical movement ID is only trying to protect its existence.

That's not how science works. Politics and ideolougies are completely and utterly irrelevant. Evidence is what matters.

 

there are many reasons to believe in ID which have nothing to do with religion.

perhaps if you could fill in species lines gaps, and prove abiogenesis,and explain the origin of dna, evolution may become science.

Why would evolution become a science when you "prove" abiogenesis? One is about the evolution of life, the other is about the origins of life.

[Boerseun]

it feels like, THERE'S A MULLET BEHIND ME! B)

"don't tell my heart, my achey breakey heart"

billy ray cyrus, the master of mullets :confused:

Nice beat you're keepin' there, mate!

[Nootropic]

While I have done extensive reading on Intelligent Design (particularly that of right-wing propagandas) I have come to a few conclusions about it:

 

While people for Intelligent Design attempt to provide justification for it, they fail to provide even the slighest of concrete evidence. While Evolution is by no means a complete theory, it rests on a larger base than that of Intelligent Design.

 

Although—and I have tried defending it before—it may claim not to be "Creationism in a cheap suit", that is exactly what it is. The name outright implies it. Design implies that something must have "designed" it, and therefore, there must be a designer, implying a creator. I can understand the ruling for this case in that the term creator may have multiple interpretations, and may not always have to be of a religious purpose (Off-shoot wild theory: We were created in labratories by aliens from galaxies 54205051 light years away. This would then have a very, crazy, but scientific base nonetheless).

 

Worldnet Daily has supplied many a conservative literature upon this topic and I find their topics for defending self-contradictory. In one article, they claimed that it had many ferverent believers that were not outright Christians (some were even agnostic!) and in the next they claimed that most scientists had believed in God. Ulterior motives? Most definitely. It really leads to the postulation that they are not interested in advancement of science (which I will talk about in the next paragraph), but the advancement of religion into our already religious country.

 

How can Intelligent Design be taught? Maybe it's just my supreme ignorance, but what activities can be done? Lessons? It's basically a theory (if that) saying that something has created everything and given it certain specifications. End of story. Are students going to be given a bowl and told to create a universe and note its progression? What doctrine can it truly emobdy? It would, in essence, be a biology unit that states there was a designer and this is how the designed function. Quite pointless, indeed.

[Boerseun]

Excellent post, Nootropic!

 

I couldn't agree with you more. What they are trying to bring to the table is worthless in scientific terms. And anyone who doesn't fully agree with them, is flat out wrong. That's not how science works, and that's not how we discern between conflicting hypotheses.

 

Creation theories (such as ID) attempts to explain the origins of Life with a method (a 'being', be it supernatural or alien) that's in itself even more complex than its creation. This raises questions about the origins of the creator. And since we can't have a slice of this 'Designer' to inspect under a microscope, creation myths and 'Intelligent Design' must be relegated to metaphysics, philosophy and religion. Not rock-hard science. The acceptance of ID is a leap of faith, as you've rightly pointed out, and plugs in nicely to the right-wing conservative Christian point of view.

 

Do I give a damn that George Bush Junior have called for ID to be taught in schools? No. George Bush Junior is not a scientist. He's a politician. And politicians do what has to be done to keep the electorate happy. Do I care about Behe's promoting of ID? No, once again. Behe is a pseudoscientist, attempting to corrupt and rape the Scientific Method for his own personal beliefs and gain. Would I care if ID goes through and passes the whole peer-review process, publishing the findings of scientifically sound evidence and experiments, validating ID in the process? Hell yes. I would care, and I would be the first to stand up and say "I was wrong - Intelligent Design is the truth. Bye bye evolution." That's the way science works. Ironically, science per se is subject to 'evolution'. What we have is competing hypotheses, and the one closest to observed phenomena and able to make successful predictions in repeatable experiments would be the winner, albeit temporarily. Newton was the rage till Einstein came along. This is not to say that Einstein was right, however. But, he hasn't been proven wrong (yet). For the time being, Einstein is right.

 

Sadly, ID hasn't been able to come up with anything resembling science. They cannot explain the fossil record, for instance, the continuous decrease in physical complexity of fossils found the deeper you go down the strata. This implies the truth of Macro-evolution. If ID is true, it simply implies that their 'Designer' was cranking out brand-new species over a period of millions of years, constantly. Probably still is. But we haven't found any evidence of biological labs and factories from the appliccable periods in the fossil record, though. Instead, what ID does is to question. They question the validity of every scientific discipline that need to be overthrown for their silly little fairytale to be true. They question the dating of rocks. They question the truth behind continental drift, tectonic plate theory, the fossil record, molecular biology, etc.

 

They raise issues about the personal lives of reputable scientists.

They sensationalise the whole issue by continuously referring to irrelevant, unappliccable metaphors and analogies.

 

The whole thing consists out of smoke and mirrors.

 

They don't seem to understand that the gripe the science community has with ID is not personal on any level - it's just that there's no evidence. And without evidence, there can be no proof. And to accept ID as the truth regarding the origins of Life without one iota of proof, is a leap of faith. And that is religion. And religion belongs in Theology Class, not in Science Class.

[questor]

in teaching science, let's accept evolution as a natural and observed phenomenon as to the progression of species. in teaching this class, what do we say about how life originated? what do we say about how DNA originated and how it works on the sub-atomic level? what do we teach about the sub-atomic creation of human thought, instinct, and the life force itself? what do we say about the origin of the universe and the necessity for all the physical laws such as gravityand the other forces necessary to be in equilibrium for life to exist? how do we explain the sudden appearance of modern man around 100,000 years ago? where was he hiding until then? if the word science means ''to know'', it looks to me that we have some distance to travel.

[Nootropic]

Which is the exact pursuit of science, Questor! Science does not claim to already have every ounce of knowledge in its hand. Science exists because of curiousity and curiousity because of our will to the truth. Science seeks answers; it does not claim them before investigation. And, yes, we do have a long way to go. An extremely long way before we can find the answers to our questions. And those answers will only breed more questions, which is the embodiment of science.

[questor]

Notropic, i think most of the frequent posters here have been exposed to or trained in the scientific method. what discipline is your degree in, if i may ask?

you just repeated some facts of which we are all aware.

[Nootropic]

Well, currently my degree happens to be from the High School of Holt Magna *** Laude Junior. And, yes, I was quite aware I repeated some of the facts, and I was going to apologize if I had repeated some because I was too anxious to post and didn't thorougly read through all the facts. However, I just wanted to drive my point (as well as many others) across as quickly as possible because people did not seem to thoroughly understand it.

 

And you missed my point as well. I was not discussing the scientific method. I'm talking about the pursuit of science: To understand the world (excuse my overuse of the colon). It's not using a methodology; it's about how far we have to go to understand the world, which is why we don't readily understand everything.

[Pyrotex]

... it's about how far we have to go to understand the world, which is why we don't readily understand everything.

Ironically, we will never KNOW, and CAN never know, how much of the Cosmos is still unknown to us. :lol:

[InfiniteNow]

in teaching science, let's accept evolution as a natural and observed phenomenon as to the progression of species. in teaching this class, what do we say about how life originated? what do we say about how DNA originated and how it works on the sub-atomic level? what do we teach about the sub-atomic creation of human thought, instinct, and the life force itself? what do we say about the origin of the universe and the necessity for all the physical laws such as gravityand the other forces necessary to be in equilibrium for life to exist?

I'd say... "Philosophy class is in room 219. Theology is in 412. We're going to be covering the currently accepted views that science has to offer in this classroom. Now shut the hell up and take some notes. You WILL be tested on this material."

[Biochemist]

I have re-read this thread, and I am struck by a number of comments by well-informed folks that really ought to know better. Boer- I am going to pick on you just because you can take it well. But a lot of my content here applies as well to many other posters.

...What they are trying to bring to the table is worthless in scientific terms. And anyone who doesn't fully agree with them, is flat out wrong.

This looks like the treatise of a died-in-the-wool conspiracy theorist. Folks that support the notion of ID are not homogeneous, any more than basic scientists are. It is not really helpful to label "them" as bigots. Further, most of the folks that are ID advocates are indeed not scientists. If they were, they would recognize that ID has no conflict with evolution (generally). Rather, ID is opposed to Naturalism, which is not science either. Unfortunately, Naturalism IS usually taught in science class as if it is science (without using the word "Naturalism"). Naturalism is the philosophical position that things arrived as they are without supernatural intervention. Naturalism is certainly not science, but is allowed as a fundamental presupposition in science curricula. If the ID folks were scientists (they usually aren't) they would characterize ID as the opponent of Naturalism, not the opponent of evolution.

...The acceptance of ID is a leap of faith, as you've rightly pointed out...

This is true, but would require that you accept that Naturalism is an equal leap of faith.

...Do I care about Behe's promoting of ID? No, once again. Behe is a pseudoscientist, attempting to corrupt and rape the Scientific Method for his own personal beliefs and gain.

Behe is a biochemist. A regular PhD biochemist. And Behe does not beleive that ID is in conflict with evolution. It is not clear why you would characterise his assessment of data as a "rape" of the scientific method. Scientists are not homogeneous thinkers. The link below:

 

http://dim.com/~jambo/evolution/lewin.html

 

is from the proceedings of a conference on evolution from about 2000. It is rife with opinon and conflict, and includes a couple of misrepresentations of the "consensus" at the meeting. It is a good example of the fractious positions within the scientific community. Nothing in this link (that I saw, anyway) has anything to do with ID.

...That's the way science works. Ironically, science per se is subject to 'evolution'. What we have is competing hypotheses, and the one closest to observed phenomena and able to make successful predictions in repeatable experiments would be the winner, albeit temporarily.

Evolution is currently a basket of competing hypotheses. It is reasonable to include all of the following within evolution:

1. Natural selection
   
2. Gradualism by genetic drift
   
3. Gradualism by genetic mutation
   
4. Punctuated equilibrium

Most ID proponents do not have any problem with 1, 3, or 4. Most have a problem with 3, but even that is not universally true.

 

One could certainly include some implication of ID as an addition to the above list. We should NOT put ID on the list (per se) because it does not predict anything. Then again, if we used that criterion, we would not put PE on the list either. PE does not predict anything, it just characterizes an apparent problem in the fossil record. Similarly, ID characterizes an apparent problem in the gradualism model, but I would not put it on the list until someone frames (and names) a falsifiable hypothesis based on that point of view.

..ID hasn't been able to come up with anything resembling science. They cannot explain the fossil record, for instance, the continuous decrease in physical complexity of fossils found the deeper you go down the strata.

Careful. The fossil record does NOT support gradualism very well either. And gradualism is still regarded (I think incorrectly) as the core of macroevolution. PE has stood as a vaild interpretation of data since Gould first published in 1972 (as I recall). My link above has Gould still discussing the issues in 2000, 28 years later.

...what ID does is to question. They question the validity of every scientific discipline that need to be overthrown for their silly little fairytale to be true....

I don't think this is generally true. I attend a conservative church. I successfully convinced an entire adult Sunday school class that thery were all evolutionsts in 30 minutes. They are not scientists. I explained what evolution is, what science is, why ID is not at odds with evolution and why ID is not credible as science. They all agreed. This would be a set of the "they" that believe the "fairytale". Who are you talking about? At least part of the problem is that the science community has not framed the issue very well.

...They don't seem to understand that the gripe the science community has with ID is not personal on any level -

I don't believe that you can say that. There are a significant number of real, qualified basic scientists with real biases, and for them it is certainly personal. Do I need to list names?

[Erasmus00]

And Behe does not beleive that ID is in conflict with evolution.

 

Most of Behe's popular work is attacking evolution with what he calls the problem of "irreducible complexity." I saw a public lecture where he spent a lot of the time developing the idea that flagellum couldn't have evolved. He certainly has set himself up as against traditional ideas of evolution.

 

Another popular advocated of ID, Dembski, believes evolution impossible due to what he calls "specified complexity." It doesn't seem to be a mistake, in general, to link ID proponents with anti-evolution sentiment. In a brief attempt on google I couldn't find a "theistic evolutionist" who identified themself with the "intelligent design" movement.

-Will

[Biochemist]

Most of Behe's popular work is attacking evolution with what he calls the problem of "irreducible complexity." I saw a public lecture where he spent a lot of the time developing the idea that flagellum couldn't have evolved. He certainly has set himself up as against traditional ideas of evolution.

 

Another popular advocated of ID, Dembski, believes evolution impossible due to what he calls "specified complexity." It doesn't seem to be a mistake, in general, to link ID proponents with anti-evolution sentiment. In a brief attempt on google I couldn't find a "theistic evolutionist" who identified themself with the "intelligent design" movement.

-Will

Will- I do understand Behe's issues with irreducible complexity. But Behe is making an observational point. Others may elect to use imprecise language to make Behe an anti-evolutionist, but we do not have to. Behe himself has said publicly that ID is an additional point of view within evolutionary theory. Behe's Irreducible Complexity point is that his examples are poorly explained by the dominant view, the speciation-by-mutation mechanism. On its face, the point appears a valid point of view.

 

Dembski is a mathemetician. I don't question his math. I don't think he is the strongest reference for a basic science argument.

 

 

ID proponents are mostly not basic scientists. The opinion of the rank-and-file ID proponent is as useful as the average Democrat's view of tax policy. I would rather have the economic argument about tax policy that the popular view of the tax policy.