Intelligent Design in Schools

[LotC]

Creationists don't deserve the respect of a debate; they only deserve to be ridiculed and called stupid.

[Q Classic]

As far as the topic.

Without any peer-reviewed and legitimate scientific evidence backing ID, and without any conclusions that follow the scientific method, it cannot be taught in a class whose entire premise is to educate students about said method.

Philosophy and religion classes, as well as fiction and literature classes, would find ID more germaine to their fields of study, as they too seek truth--but do not require using the scientific method.

The scientific method is not about throwing up hands when there are unexplained difficulties in real-life observations when compared to theory; there's no hand-waving and saying, "Well, it's obvious a certain quintessence makes it work," and then solving something else. God-in-the-gaps does not meet the rigor demanded in the method; continual refinement and correction of existing theories, however, do.

One of the favorite --and disproven-- examples used to cast aspersions on science is the queer notion that physics cannot explain the flight of the bumblebee. While this was true over a century ago, this was, quite simply, because physics modeling and experimental capabilities had not yet reached the threshold where it could adequately understand the mechanisms. Now that we've more powerful tools, and understood how some of our underlying assumptions had been incorrect (for instance, insect wings are not rigid, but flexible membranes), physics can adequately explain flight.

Just because a theory cannot yet be proven experimentally does not mean it is necessarily false, if existing experiments lead to a theoretical conclusion; rather, patience is required while methods for such experimentation are refined. Atoms, for instance, couldn't really be proven before the 20th century, though scientifically, they were considered a credible theory.

(It does not help that many ID supporters often conflate the scientific definition of "theory" with the non-scientific definition; indeed, most scientific "laws" are simply scientific theories which have stood the test of time, successfully predicted outcomes, and have yet to be contradicted by any evidence, whereas most non-scientific theories could hardly be considered as scientific hypotheses.)

Besides, if one does posit that intelligent design is correct, then the designer's ****e. When they suggest that no part of the eye could function without any other, they're correct, but they ignore many of the precursor examples suggested by the evolutionary process, which have been discovered; more saliently, however, they ignore the fact that the human eye has a blind spot because the optic nerve covers part of the retina--something no intelligent designer (for example, those working on digital cameras) would have done.

No intelligent designer would create so many different ways to do the same thing: gorilla blood and human blood, for instance, are not interchangeable, even though there's no real benefit to having one over the other. Reproduction, too--there are multiple ways of creating sexes: the X0 sytem, the XX/XY system, and the ZW system; what purpose does such variation serve? If it's for reasons of diversity, why do none of them truly provide any sort of benefit compared with each other? If one did, why has it not displaced the others? And regardless of their comparative efficacy, why do they mess up with surprising frequency?

There's no real benefit to body hair on a human. Yet, growing it does have a specific resource cost; why would an intelligent designer include something so nonfunctional, aesthetics notwithstanding? And if aesthetics were a factor, why is there so much variation? Furthermore, why do many species of cave-dwelling fish develop fully functional eyes during their youth, only to have them regress and be useless by the time they're adults?

What of genetic disorders? Or cancers?

If one posits it's the intelligent designer's will, then can one honestly say that the designer in question is "good" by traditional, human measures? If not, can one logically place a "good" value on such an inhuman creator, even with apparent cases of sloppy handiwork and even sadism? If one steps away from trying to place moral judgements on such a creator, one can only judge said creator by his or her works--which, as inspiring as they are from afar, cause great dismay upon close and deeper inspection, resulting in a feeling much like discovering the framed Rembrandt one just bought is merely a shoddy forgery.

[Q Classic]

Also, like clockwork. (slyt)

If you click on more, you can download the code used to generate this result. (Admittedly, being a simulation, it does make several assumptions--but these assumptions are quite similar to how evolution is supposed to work on the grand scale.)

[Chemical Ollie]

The only place where teaching of "Intelligent design" is motivated is in French Engineering schools

[Nikolai]

I've never understood the obsession to make a religious-scientific alternative to evolution and make it the überawesome only correct theory. Granted, of the 5 (or was it 6?) different kinds of evolution, only one is scientifically proved, but the others have some support from various sources. I don't know, I don't buy evolution as the 100% sure fact many make it, but I have no problem to see God using evolution in his creation to some extent. I believe he created the world, so I don't believe in evolution as something that "just happened", but I have no strong need to replace evolution with ID, which sounds much more fishy. All I ask is that school acknowledge that evolution is a theory, that part often fail to communicate.

[trev]

The massive quantities of sedimentary rock on the earth is best explained by a catastrophic global flood such as Noah's flood as described in the Bible. It is such a flood which is responsible for rapid burial of dying animals and their fossilization within this sedimentary rock. The flood and associated climatic changes is responsible for mass extinctions of animal and plant life.
This is the best explanation for the earth's appearance, geological structure and fossil record.

[Q Classic]

All I ask is that school acknowledge that evolution is a theory, that part often fail to communicate.

No, they communicate it. They just use the scientific definition, not the layperson definition. It's that kind of conflation that allows supporters of ID to create a "debate" where none exists.

True, some students may not understand the nuance there. Many ID'ers don't, and many people without a scientific bent are unaware that it exists. But isn't that more the fault of the educational system failing to grant people the necessary intellectual tools to understand subtlety, nuance, and finesse, which, in part, leads to the whole misbegotten American public discourse?

[TheStinger]

Dawkins gives very good explantions of evoultion, his theory on memes might well be rubbish but it shoud not detract from evolution by natural selection which is what he is best at explaining.

Whilst he is clearly a very strong advocate for atheism, I don't see this is a problem at least with evolution you don't have to be an atheist whreas with creationism/ID you have to believe in a GOD (generally of the white portestant flavour)

[Robert]

ID shouldn't been seen as an independant theory or something, because it's not a 'scientific theory'.

We should only consider ID to be an important question to evolution scientists. And as such a question it should be token seriously. Everytime scientists should try to answer that question.

"Is it possible that this system has been brought forward through random mutation and natural selection, and if so, how has that been possible?"

ID is indeed a 'scientific negative' and thus not valid as a scientific theory.

It is of course valid as a philosophical or theological theory. Someone can say: "I consider too much systems in life to be too complex to be created by random mutations and natural selection, I do believe there's intelligent design behind it."
But that's not a scientific explanation.

As a 'believer' I think that we should never accept 'God' to be the answer. I believe that God has created a world that doesn't contain 'gaps' that only God can fill.
Except the 'first cause' gap, btw.

Science, on the other hand, should always shy away from the chance that it considers itself to be the god of the gaps. Ie: science will find an answer.
Science may find answers, but it's very well possible that human intelligence is not capable to find answers to everything.

But we should never accept that. We should keep looking for answers. Never accept our limitations, but still not forget that we are limited anyway.

[Robert]

Since I read that Dawkins said something like: "If God can exist without a cause, then the universe can exist without a cause as well" I can't take him seriously anymore.

That's kindergarten philosophy.
People who write crap like that shouldn't be token seriously by anybody from both 'camps'.

[SlowwHand]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Mr Fun
Well, you're being more forgiving with creationists than I am.

Originally posted by David Floyd


No, I just find that calling people stupid is a poor way to get them to debate you, and also sort of undermines your own position. Besides, sometimes, just sometimes, people give you even more rope when they open their mouths

Exactly why I'm not interested in your bull****. You're not here for an exchange of ideas, nor are you interested in possibly embracing religion. You're just a boringass atheist who likes to bait creationists.
Go piss up a rope.

[Sandman]

Since I read that Dawkins said something like: "If God can exist without a cause, then the universe can exist without a cause as well" I can't take him seriously anymore.

That's kindergarten philosophy. People who write crap like that shouldn't be token seriously by anybody from both 'camps'.

It was David Hume that came up with that argument first, I think. What's wrong with it?

[Robert]

What's wrong with it?

It's kindergarten philosophy, that's what's wrong with it.

Basing a conclusion on the comparison between two things of a different kind is just stupid.

The Bike doesn't have a mother because the man who made the bike has a mother.

It's not like wood cannot burn because water can't burn either.

A thought doesn't need space because the author of the thought also needs space.

People who compare apples to stones and proudly claim victory after that are insane.

[Sandman]

How do you know what 'kind' of thing the universe is? We don't have any grounds for comparison.

[Robert]

It has matter and space.
(the concept of) God has no matter and no space.

(the concept of) God is a spiritual being while the universe is a physical being.

C'mon, don't start to debate the obvious.
You can still be a 100% atheist if you admit that comparing god to the universe is bollocks. It's not as if an atheist has to disagree with a theist at everything.

I'm a theist but I will certainly admit that many theists (including myself) do oftenly say very stupid things.

Please don't claim that atheists always speak the truth and you will always agree with them and back them up. That quote of Dawkins (or David Hume) is pure stupidity.