What's wrong with intelligent design?

[deaddude]

Microevolution is observeable, as is more radical evolution in the case of extremely simple organisms. And yes macro evolution is obserevable, we simply do not have the time frame to examine it right now. We have been recording history for at most 5-6 thousand years, when you talk about a process which can take millions of years, it becomes apparent that we have not been observeing for any significant amount of time.

Evolution is scientific, because it A. can theoreticly be observed, B. does not require the intervention of the supernatural, and C. because it successfully explains an observeable phenomenon.

 

[Hobbit]

Microevolution is observeable, as is more radical evolution in the case of extremely simple organisms. And yes macro evolution is obserevable, we simply do not have the time frame to examine it right now. We have been recording history for at most 5-6 thousand years, when you talk about a process which can take millions of years, it becomes apparent that we have not been observeing for any significant amount of time.

Evolution is scientific, because it A. can theoreticly be observed, B. does not require the intervention of the supernatural, and C. because it successfully explains an observeable phenomenon.

Intelligent design can be observed since we, as intelligent beings, may one day decide to design organisms of our own.

Supernatural is a very subjective term, and theology is thrown around way too much in the ID debate. Many agnostics believe in ID, saying that they don't know who designed us, or even if it was a deific figure, but it looks like somebody did. Supernatural is also not a scientific term. In fact, supernatural seems to be the term used to refer to science that isn't yet understood. Before chemistry was fully understood, violent acid/base reactions, explosives, and chemicals that burned in different colors were all considered 'magic.' If we found energy patterns in a previously undiscovered medium that held an impression of a dead person's brain waves, including an occasional visible light pattern based on how the ethereal psyche saw itself, then ghosts, previously considered 'supernatural,' would become science.

ID most certainly meets your third criterion. However, evolution does not, as it fails to give a rational explanation for the creation of the first life form.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Look, I'm assuming you're religious and I'm going to venture to say that we will not agree on the "legitimacy" of homosexuality. My answer to your question about homosexuality in a health class is that it is not their to corrupt your children or anything of that nature, but to present the reality of sexuality-- there are those who to prefer to have sex with people of the same gender: it's a part of today's society and should be recognized in a health class to alert students of what is going on in the "real world."

Now, if they told your kids to be gay, then I might take issue with that...

I made no claims about homosexual legitimacy one way or the other. I did and do maintain that if we are going to have a narrow view of what belongs in science, then we should have an equally narrow view of what belongs in health. The fact that we don't have a consistently narrow or broad view is just more evidence of a liberal leaning agenda in public schools.

As for discussing gay issues in health class, talking to my daughter left me no doubt that kids know about gays long before they reach high school. Believe me, they don't need a class to, as you put it, "alert them to what is going on in the real world". The real world is doing a good job of reaching them.

If sending home a questionnaire for parents to disclose their feelings about gays and gay marriage is relevant, why can't the science teachers send home a questionnaire about our thoughts on ID? So you decide- do you want to disallow what you consider a non-scientific topic in the science class, and also ban what I consider a non-health topic from health class? Or let both in for a free-wheeling discussion? You just need to be consistent.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

At my school, there is a club called the Gay Straight Alliance (GSA). Their main pillar is tolerence, urging people to tolerate gays and lesbians with their silent days and rainbows. However, they are outspoken against intelligent design. How then, are the they tolerating? According to them, it is, therefore anything gay I'm automatically labeling as 'wrong'.

In what way are they opposed to it?

Are they opposed to the teaching of it in science class? If so, that is merely a position based on logic. Any sane person would oppose the teaching of a non-science in science class.

 

[Semper Fi]

In what way are they opposed to it?

Are they opposed to the teaching of it in science class? If so, that is merely a position based on logic. Any sane person would oppose the teaching of a non-science in science class.

They oppose it by claiming it is a stupid idea and want nothing to do with it whatsoever. However, I could use the exact same terminology and claim that homosexuality "is stupid and want nothing to do with it," and be labeled "intolerant" by them, who's ideals (not necessarily club membership) are widespread throughout the school. Why, then is it "tolerant" to reject my ideals and lifestyle, but "intolerant" for me to reject theirs?

 

[Semper Fi]

And about ID being tought in a science classroom, well it goes hand in hand (no pun intended) with the homosexual awareness being tought in the aforementioned health class. The teachings in the class made students aware of the homosexual option, conversely ID makes students aware of the non-evolutional option. And the reason for it wanting to be taught in a science class is because it is required by most, if not all, curriculums (I'm not sure of any HS curriculum other than my own). Philosophy/culture classes, while there are some, are not typically a required class (Alaska studies, for example is a cultures class, required to be taken by freshman). Elements of different religions, I recall, were covered in my World History class, but the ID idea was never once touched.

 

[Gunny]

It isn't about whether or not ID is science. ID falls within the definition of science, and I couldn't possibly make a better argument about it than Hobbit did.

What this is about is the anti-religious who dishonestly call themselves "secular" attempting to squelch anything and everything relating to religion.

If ID is not science, then neither is macro-evolution; yet, the latter is taught in science class.

Nothing more than a double-standard based on intolerance.

 

[MissileMan]

I think it's folly for the Christians to hitch their wagon to ID. What most are saying is that evolution didn't occur because God created all life on earth in basically their modern forms. That is to say the belief is that He created birds, fish, amphibians, animals, and man all at the same time and that none of these developed from simpler life forms millions of years ago. These arguments are setting up an either/or situation where if one is true, the other is false. What happens WHEN (I believe it is inevitable) they find a transitional species fossil?

IMHO, it would be better for religion to keep itself firmly anchored in the supernatural rather than risk a devastating blow from natural science.

 

[manu1959]

I think it's folly for the Christians to hitch their wagon to ID. What most are saying is that evolution didn't occur because God created all life on earth in basically their modern forms. That is to say the belief is that He created birds, fish, amphibians, animals, and man all at the same time and that none of these developed from simpler life forms millions of years ago. These arguments are setting up an either/or situation where if one is true, the other is false. What happens WHEN (I believe it is inevitable) they find a transitional species fossil?

IMHO, it would be better for religion to keep itself firmly anchored in the supernatural rather than risk a devastating blow from natural science.

evolution does not explain the begining of life....and the book of genisis does not say what you claim....scientist claiming there is a transitional fosil is like bush looking for WMD's .... no?

 

[liberalogic]

I made no claims about homosexual legitimacy one way or the other. I did and do maintain that if we are going to have a narrow view of what belongs in science, then we should have an equally narrow view of what belongs in health. The fact that we don't have a consistently narrow or broad view is just more evidence of a liberal leaning agenda in public schools.

As for discussing gay issues in health class, talking to my daughter left me no doubt that kids know about gays long before they reach high school. Believe me, they don't need a class to, as you put it, "alert them to what is going on in the real world". The real world is doing a good job of reaching them.

If sending home a questionnaire for parents to disclose their feelings about gays and gay marriage is relevant, why can't the science teachers send home a questionnaire about our thoughts on ID? So you decide- do you want to disallow what you consider a non-scientific topic in the science class, and also ban what I consider a non-health topic from health class? Or let both in for a free-wheeling discussion? You just need to be consistent.

Though it may not seem apparent, there is a huge difference between a science class and a health class. A science class can cover such an expansive diversity of topics from the numerous branches that it has. A health class is used to talk about the human body: how it is being used in society (sexually, drug-related, etc.). It's intended to give students an adequate representation of what people are doing to their bodies and the consequences they may face. Homosexuality, whether you think there are a "few loose screws" or not is real: gay people have sex with each other; it's a part of society. ID, on the other hand, is a philosophy with religious underpinnings. It does not belong in public school science classes.

And that survey thing was wrong; they shouldn't have sent that home to you: quite frankly, your views are none of their damn business. On the other hand, I think homosexuality should be in the classroom. I think it should be taught to be TOLERATED, but not necessarily ACCEPTED.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

They oppose it by claiming it is a stupid idea and want nothing to do with it whatsoever.

Is that the statement of individuals within the group, or an official group statement?

However, I could use the exact same terminology and claim that homosexuality "is stupid and want nothing to do with it," and be labeled "intolerant" by them, who's ideals (not necessarily club membership) are widespread throughout the school. Why, then is it "tolerant" to reject my ideals and lifestyle, but "intolerant" for me to reject theirs?

Do they believe you should have less rights under the law because of your beliefs?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

And about ID being tought in a science classroom, well it goes hand in hand (no pun intended) with the homosexual awareness being tought in the aforementioned health class.

I don't see how the two classes have anything to do with each other. They are separate issues. What is taught in a health class has no bearing on the fact that non-science is still non-science. Scientists don't sit down and think "Is this theory scientific or not? I don't know, lets find out what they are teaching in the health class at the local high school and then decide"

aware of the non-evolutional option.

If there is a scientific theory which involves lack of evolution, I'd sure love to hear it.

And the reason for it wanting to be taught in a science class is because it is required by most, if not all, curriculums (I'm not sure of any HS curriculum other than my own).

You think non-science should be taught as science because science is a required class? I take it they don't teach logic at your school, either.

Philosophy/culture classes, while there are some, are not typically a required class

So your solution to lack of a diverse curriculum is to screw up science class?

 

[Hobbit]

Though it may not seem apparent, there is a huge difference between a science class and a health class. A science class can cover such an expansive diversity of topics from the numerous branches that it has. A health class is used to talk about the human body: how it is being used in society (sexually, drug-related, etc.). It's intended to give students an adequate representation of what people are doing to their bodies and the consequences they may face. Homosexuality, whether you think there are a "few loose screws" or not is real: gay people have sex with each other; it's a part of society. ID, on the other hand, is a philosophy with religious underpinnings. It does not belong in public school science classes.

And that survey thing was wrong; they shouldn't have sent that home to you: quite frankly, your views are none of their damn business. On the other hand, I think homosexuality should be in the classroom. I think it should be taught to be TOLERATED, but not necessarily ACCEPTED.

Well, people do believe in ID, whether the school wants to call it science or not. I think that, at the very least, a brief (less than 15 minute) overview of the working ID theory and the evidence supporting it included in any evolution unit. As it is, macroevolution is taught as the unquestionable truth, when at best, it's a widely accepted, educated guess, and its detractors need a little stage time to ensure that it's seen as such.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

ID falls within the definition of science, and I couldn't possibly make a better argument about it than Hobbit did.

No it doesn't. It is neither testable or potentially falsifiable.


WHAT is the evidence, which if found, would help show that ID is true?

WHAT is the evidence, which if found, would help show that ID is not true?


The answer to both of these questions, is, no such evidence could exist. Therefore, NOT scientific.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

What happens WHEN (I believe it is inevitable) they find a transitional species fossil?

They already have. We've been finding transitional fossils for decades now. The creationists are still holding onto an argument that lost the weight it had about 50 years ago. (It was admittedly a good argument at the time, but the fact is, now we actually have transitional forms, yet they continue to maintain we do not, simply choosing to ignore reality)

A simple google search by an open minded person would turn up numerous examples. Give it a try.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

evolution does not explain the begining of life....and the book of genisis does not say what you claim....scientist claiming there is a transitional fosil is like bush looking for WMD's .... no?

Its just like Bush looking for WMD's.

Except we've FOUND transitional forms.

And Bush DIDN'T FIND any WMD.

THat's the only difference, really.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Well, people do believe in ID, whether the school wants to call it science or not.

A) Science isn't a discussion of people's various belief systems. I don't know where you got the idea that it was.

B) The school doesn't get to decide what science is. That is determined by these people called "scientists." But they apply a test that any other person could use to determine what science is, as well. Namely - is the theory testable, is it potentially falsifiable?

I think that, at the very least, a brief (less than 15 minute) overview of the working ID theory and the evidence supporting it included in any evolution unit.

Then you'd have 15 minutes of nothing, because there is no evidence supporting it.

As it is, macroevolution is taught as the unquestionable truth, when at best, it's a widely accepted, educated guess, and its detractors need a little stage time to ensure that it's seen as such.

You are wrong on both counts. It is taught as a scientific theory which is backed by a preponderance of scientific evidence - just like everything else that is taught in science class.

 

[liberalogic]

A) Science isn't a discussion of people's various belief systems. I don't know where you got the idea that it was.

B) The school doesn't get to decide what science is. That is determined by these people called "scientists." But they apply a test that any other person could use to determine what science is, as well. Namely - is the theory testable, is it potentially falsifiable?



Then you'd have 15 minutes of nothing, because there is no evidence supporting it.



You are wrong on both counts. It is taught as a scientific theory which is backed by a preponderance of scientific evidence - just like everything else that is taught in science class.

Spiderman, I couldn't agree with you anymore. ID is NOT science by any means; evolution, while it may be unable to answer that "eternal" question of how life began, is based on factual evidence: it's really as simple as that.

ID is not science, it is an alternative to it. Science class is not there to tell students what they should believe, but instead to present facts that have been analyzed scientifically.

Put ID in a philosophy class or learn it at home: it is not science.

 

[Semper Fi]

Is that the statement of individuals within the group, or an official group statement?



Do they believe you should have less rights under the law because of your beliefs?

Unanimously decided upon by the group, but as a school-sponsored activity it cannot take an 'official' stance on any issure. Except of course homosexuality.

No they dont. Do I belive gays should have less rights? No. Do I believe gay unified couples should have the same benefits of heterosexual wed couples? No.

 

[Gunny]

No it doesn't. It is neither testable or potentially falsifiable.


WHAT is the evidence, which if found, would help show that ID is true?

WHAT is the evidence, which if found, would help show that ID is not true?


The answer to both of these questions, is, no such evidence could exist. Therefore, NOT scientific.

BS. It is just as testable as "The Big Bang," the "expanding universe," and/or that life was created by happenstance from muck.

I am not sure how to answer such an absoulte statement as "no such evidence could exist." Famous last words.

You're like a tamp and flow switch. Either crap is pouring out of you, or you're shut. Nothing ever gets in.