What's wrong with intelligent design?

[Semper Fi]

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"



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



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.



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

Scientific theory, I do not know, but a time-tested viewpoint accepted from throughout the early middle ages to today in my opinion trumps any scientific theory with the lifespan of evolution. Scientists today invent theories daily. On CNN every morning, a different food is always thought to be healthier than previously thought, and those theories don't last.

No, they don't teach logic. They teach evolution. Aside your attempted slam at intelligence, yes, "non-science" should be taught in a science class, as it is an alternate idea of evolution. Where else should it be taught, language arts? Mathematics? Auto-shop?

There is a lack of diverse curriculum, depending on what interests you. I myself am a history and social studies class, so I feel jipped. However if you like math and science you'd be right at home. However, a single ID lesson acknowledging that there is an alternate to evolution would not ruin a fluffy semester of science. I take it you didnt get much out of school?

 

[Gunny]

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.

If science is going to promote ANY theory of origin, then science should promote ALL theories of origin since ALL rely on the same amount of scientific evidence/proof ....NONE.

Scientific speculation is no less speculation just because someone decides to call it "science."

 

[liberalogic]

Scientific theory, I do not know, but a time-tested viewpoint accepted from throughout the early middle ages to today in my opinion trumps any scientific theory with the lifespan of evolution. Scientists today invent theories daily. On CNN every morning, a different food is always thought to be healthier than previously thought, and those theories don't last.

No, they don't teach logic. They teach evolution. Aside your attempted slam at intelligence, yes, "non-science" should be taught in a science class, as it is an alternate idea of evolution. Where else should it be taught, language arts? Mathematics? Auto-shop?

There is a lack of diverse curriculum, depending on what interests you. I myself am a history and social studies class, so I feel jipped. However if you like math and science you'd be right at home. However, a single ID lesson acknowledging that there is an alternate to evolution would not ruin a fluffy semester of science. I take it you didnt get much out of school?

"yes, "non-science" should be taught in a science class"

Come on now, does that really make any sense? ID is a religiously-influenced "theory." It has no place in a SCIENCE class. What if I am an atheist? Why should this be infused in my science class? If it had merit; if we had fingerprints from God or something of that nature, then I would say go for it. But there is no evidence, only the "faith" of believers.

It is a philosophy and should be taught as such.

 

[Gunny]

"yes, "non-science" should be taught in a science class"

Come on now, does that really make any sense? ID is a religiously-influenced "theory." It has no place in a SCIENCE class. What if I am an atheist? Why should this be infused in my science class? If it had merit; if we had fingerprints from God or something of that nature, then I would say go for it. But there is no evidence, only the "faith" of believers.

It is a philosophy and should be taught as such.

You're already teaching "non-science" when you teach BS like the "Big Bang," or that life evolved from some coming together of just the right amount of energy and matter.

A Creator is FAR more logical than either of those theories.

 

[liberalogic]

You're already teaching "non-science" when you teach BS like the "Big Bang," or that life evolved from some coming together of just the right amount of energy and matter.

A Creator is FAR more logical than either of those theories.

Who created the creator?

You have NO proof while scientists have studied fossil remains and linked them to evolution. Also, in accordance with the early inflation of the universe and its current, ever expanding nature, the Big Bang can be hypothesized It is hypothesized, though, through OBSERVABLE events, from which we logically conclude how the universe began based on this evidence. When's the last time you saw God or excuse me, the "Intelligent Designer?"

Not to mention that besides the ID argument having no validity, it's ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE to mix a public school science class with THEOLOGY. We shouldn't even be having this discussion in the first place: the government does not sponsor ANY religion: leave it out of the public school science classroom.

 

[manu1959]

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.

wmd's that met the un definition were found...

i transitional form from soup to man has not been found....

bush 1 : evoulution nil

 

[manu1959]

Who created the creator?

You have NO proof while scientists have studied fossil remains and linked them to evolution. Also, in accordance with the early inflation of the universe and its current, ever expanding nature, the Big Bang can be hypothesized It is hypothesized, though, through OBSERVABLE events, from which we logically conclude how the universe began based on this evidence. When's the last time you saw God or excuse me, the "Intelligent Designer?"

Not to mention that besides the ID argument having no validity, it's ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE to mix a public school science class with THEOLOGY. We shouldn't even be having this discussion in the first place: the government does not sponsor ANY religion: leave it out of the public school science classroom.

where did the matter come from to create the big bang? what caused the big bang? you do know that the big bang is now considered crap and that the universe may in fact be colapsing not expanding? but don't let that get in your way.....scientists once thought the world round.....and priests once put scientists to death for beining magicians.....your belief system is no more grounded in "facts" and proveable than any other belief system....

 

[Semper Fi]

"yes, "non-science" should be taught in a science class"

Come on now, does that really make any sense? ID is a religiously-influenced "theory." It has no place in a SCIENCE class. What if I am an atheist? Why should this be infused in my science class? If it had merit; if we had fingerprints from God or something of that nature, then I would say go for it. But there is no evidence, only the "faith" of believers.

It is a philosophy and should be taught as such.

The quotations around non-science was to emphasize the phrase.

Your "what if I am an atheist" does not apply. Nobody seems to care that I am a Christian and being taught something I don't believe in. Why should it apply only to atheists?

You seem to talk about Christianity as if it were a recent trend. It is not, and for about 2000 years has been practiced by vast populations in the world. If it has lasted that long, don't you think it may have even a speck of validity?

And allow me to use hypothetical symbolism. Look at it this way, ID is essentially the opposite and virtually only alternative to evolution, so why teach it in a completely different class? Teaching two opposite ideas in different classes would no doubt cause a lot of confusion. In some classes in which ideas and not confirmed truth are taught, all aspects are covered, so why not in science. In fact, a few of my friends are enrolled in a "comparitive religions" class, which teaches the outlines of all religions, not just the most "logical" Why not teach ID in this class? Because it would lead to an oxy-moron, evolution but ID at the same time- simply causes confusion. Also, about 5% of the school at most is enrolled, I believe only one class of about 30 people are enrolled.

 

[Abbey Normal]

My daughter's H. S English teacher keeps talking about Christianity in English class. It is not connected to any book they are reading, and it is all negative. Yesterday, he discussed how believing in the Rapture is wrong.

Is is related to grammar? The novels they are reading? NO. Yet, he talks about it every week. And as I pointed out in another post/thread, her Health class had speakers and questionnaires about gay marriage and parents' attitudes towards gays in general.

I contend that this and all kinds of irrelevant discussion goes on in classrooms across America, but the anti-ID people choose to ignore it. ID is much more pertinent to a discussion on evolution, than this anti-Bible discussion is to English, or Gay marriage to Health.

Not to mention the fact that the ID case in PA wasn't even about teaching ID in class. It was only about mentioning it, and telling the kids about a book they could read outside of class. I could only wish that was all my daughter's English and Health teachers were saying about Christianity and Homosexuality.

Why do I let these things go? Because I, as a Conservative, have more regard for free speech, and less regard for PC nonsense, than libs ever will. Once again, it is the libs who try to stifle any discussion they don't like.

If you all were so truly concerned about the material being taught in class, you would be protesting all kinds of agenda-driven irrelevant discourses. Yet you only protest ID taught in science class. Because it dovetails so well with the anti-Christian agenda.

 

[liberalogic]

The quotations around non-science was to emphasize the phrase.

Your "what if I am an atheist" does not apply. Nobody seems to care that I am a Christian and being taught something I don't believe in. Why should it apply only to atheists?

You seem to talk about Christianity as if it were a recent trend. It is not, and for about 2000 years has been practiced by vast populations in the world. If it has lasted that long, don't you think it may have even a speck of validity?

And allow me to use hypothetical symbolism. Look at it this way, ID is essentially the opposite and virtually only alternative to evolution, so why teach it in a completely different class? Teaching two opposite ideas in different classes would no doubt cause a lot of confusion. In some classes in which ideas and not confirmed truth are taught, all aspects are covered, so why not in science. In fact, a few of my friends are enrolled in a "comparitive religions" class, which teaches the outlines of all religions, not just the most "logical" Why not teach ID in this class? Because it would lead to an oxy-moron, evolution but ID at the same time- simply causes confusion. Also, about 5% of the school at most is enrolled, I believe only one class of about 30 people are enrolled.

1) In earlier forums, I've proposed the idea that evolution not be taught to those who are religious enough to strongly oppose it and feel as though it threatens their freedom. Although I firmly stand behind my belief in evolution, I value even more the separation of church and state; and that goes both ways: when it benefits religious freedom and when it imposes upon religious ideals. By NO MEANS do I support ID in public science classes because IT DOES, UNDOUBTEDLY, push religious beliefs (I see no room for that in a public school). At the same time, though, if you feel that evolution is degrading to your religion, I do not think that you should be forced to learn it. I'm sure the education leaders can think of an adequate independent study assignment that you can do. While that will take a lot of work, I think that is a very fair compromise.

2) No I don't think that simply because it's been around that long makes it valid. Personally, I believe that Christ's message has been distorted by those who followed him and the leaders of the church. Remember, Christianity was a political practice as well as a religion for many years. How many people died needlessly in the name of Christ? I think many leaders in Europe saw it as a way to assert authority and control the people using a message that Christ himself would've objected to.

Beyond that, I think that there are many things that cannot be explained by science or by logic. All that we can do is stop at a certain point (God) and say nothing goes higher than him. It makes sense because we can't make sense of much that surrounds us. At the same time, though, that doesn't make it right because there is no evidence to back it up.

I wrote that kinda quickly so I might've lost you a little bit, but I hope you understand what I'm getting at.

 

[Semper Fi]

1) In earlier forums, I've proposed the idea that evolution not be taught to those who are religious enough to strongly oppose it and feel as though it threatens their freedom. Although I firmly stand behind my belief in evolution, I value even more the separation of church and state; and that goes both ways: when it benefits religious freedom and when it imposes upon religious ideals. By NO MEANS do I support ID in public science classes because IT DOES, UNDOUBTEDLY, push religious beliefs (I see no room for that in a public school). At the same time, though, if you feel that evolution is degrading to your religion, I do not think that you should be forced to learn it. I'm sure the education leaders can think of an adequate independent study assignment that you can do. While that will take a lot of work, I think that is a very fair compromise.

2) No I don't think that simply because it's been around that long makes it valid. Personally, I believe that Christ's message has been distorted by those who followed him and the leaders of the church. Remember, Christianity was a political practice as well as a religion for many years. How many people died needlessly in the name of Christ? I think many leaders in Europe saw it as a way to assert authority and control the people using a message that Christ himself would've objected to.

Beyond that, I think that there are many things that cannot be explained by science or by logic. All that we can do is stop at a certain point (God) and say nothing goes higher than him. It makes sense because we can't make sense of much that surrounds us. At the same time, though, that doesn't make it right because there is no evidence to back it up.

I wrote that kinda quickly so I might've lost you a little bit, but I hope you understand what I'm getting at.

1. I can see the logic behind your compromise idea. I would accept that, if the opportunity had been given to me. However, the thing that stands in the way is the principle. Evolution has not been conclusively proven, at least to my standards and a fair amount of persons on this board. And if ID has not been proven, why is it considered inappropriate? I suppose you could classify this as equality. Evolution isn't proved, yet it is tought in school. ID isn't proved, yet it isn't tought in schools. Do you see the inequality here?

2. My point was that the ID idea has been around for a long enough time that I consider it to be valid. I never said anything about Christianity, which I would agree has had its rough spots, that by no means prevents me from being a Christian, however.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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.

Alright then, just answert the questions If you've got a different answer to the following questions than I do, please by all means, lets us know.

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

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

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Scientific theory, I do not know, but a time-tested viewpoint accepted from throughout the early middle ages to today in my opinion trumps any scientific theory with the lifespan of evolution.

I'm not sure what you mean by "time-tested". Are you implying something is true if a certain amount of people believe it for a certain length of time?

Scientists today invent theories daily.

There's a lot of science going on. Their theories are testable and potentially falsifiable, and if their theory is useless it will be tossed out, if it is useful, if it predicts observation, it will be kept.

On CNN every morning, a different food is always thought to be healthier than previously thought, and those theories don't last.

You watch too much TV.

Aside your attempted slam at intelligence, yes, "non-science" should be taught in a science class

That's just retarded.

Where else should it be taught, language arts? Mathematics? Auto-shop?

Philosophy, or religion. The lack of these two curricula in most schools is no excuse to pollute science class, unless you'd prefer the US no longer be on top of the world in science - which will lead us to no longer being on top of the world in anything.

There is a lack of diverse curriculum, depending on what interests you. I myself am a history and social studies class, so I feel jipped. However if you like math and science you'd be right at home. However, a single ID lesson acknowledging that there is an alternate to evolution would not ruin a fluffy semester of science.

There is no scientific alternative. If there is, like I said, I'd love to hear it. Science class is about teaching science, not about teaching the different beliefs of different people.

I take it you didnt get much out of school?

Why? Because I don't want teachers to waste time in science class by teaching non-science?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

If science is going to promote ANY theory of origin, then science should promote ALL theories of origin since ALL rely on the same amount of scientific evidence/proof ....NONE.

Scientific speculation is no less speculation just because someone decides to call it "science."

? Evolution is supported by huge volumes of evidence. We have found hundreds of transitional fossil forms, for instance, not to mention, observed speciation in nature.

You know Gunny, you can't "wish" this evidence away. Its not going to disappear, no matter how often you assert it does not exist.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You're already teaching "non-science" when you teach BS like the "Big Bang," or that life evolved from some coming together of just the right amount of energy and matter.

The Big Bang theory is a testable theory.

The evolution of life has nothing to do with its beginning. Evolutionary theory does not cover the origin of life itself, only the origin of the diversity of life.

A Creator is FAR more logical than either of those theories.

Creationism makes no testable predictions, and its therefore useless.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

wmd's that met the un definition were found...

i transitional form from soup to man has not been found....

bush 1 : evoulution nil

What is a transitional form from soup to man?

Transitional forms have been found. That is evidence. In fact hundreds of them have been found.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

where did the matter come from to create the big bang? what caused the big bang?

No one knows for sure.

you do know that the big bang is now considered crap

No it isn't.

scientists once thought the world round.....

Last I checked, the Earth is round.

and priests once put scientists to death for beining magicians.....your belief system is no more grounded in "facts" and proveable than any other belief system....

A belief system cannot be proven. However, a theory which makes predictions about observation can either be shown to predict those observations well, or to not predict them well.

 

[Semper Fi]

Creationism makes no testable predictions, and its therefore useless.

So your evolution makes testable predictions? Tell me, what feature will humans evolve into?

Creationism, in reference to Christian theology, does make predictions. Ever heard of the Apocalypse? Of course it is not testable, but how can you test the events that end the world?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

My daughter's H. S English teacher keeps talking about Christianity in English class. It is not connected to any book they are reading, and it is all negative. Yesterday, he discussed how believing in the Rapture is wrong.

Call the ACLU and sue the school. That teacher has no business taking his religious beliefs into the class room, whether he is promoting a religion or telling students it is wrong.

Seriously, you should do something about it. Call the school, and if they refuse to do something about it, call the ACLU. Your daughter has a right to attend a school in which her religious beliefs are not challenged by the teachers.

That is, unless its a private school, in which case the only remedy you have past talking to the school about it is to take her out of the school.

ID is much more pertinent to a discussion on evolution, than this anti-Bible discussion is to English, or Gay marriage to Health.

It still isn't science. You are attempting to justify lowering our quality of science education by pointing out that the quality of education in other fields is also low - what kind of sense does that make?

It was only about mentioning it, and telling the kids about a book they could read outside of class.

The parents are the ones responsible for shaping the students belief system, not the school.

Why do I let these things go? Because I, as a Conservative, have more regard for free speech, and less regard for PC nonsense, than libs ever will.

Free speech does not apply to people who at their jobs. Are you suggesting that if the teacher started teaching Satanism in place of any English whatsoever, you'd be fine with that because its covered by "free speech"? please, give me a break. A teacher has a job to do, first of all, and if it is a public school they are additionally an employee being paid by the people's tax dollars. If a teacher is spending time in class making anti-Christian, speaches, or Christian speaches for that matter, he should be fired.

Once again, it is the libs who try to stifle any discussion they don't like.

Once again, science class isn't a place to discuss everything under the Sun, its a place to discuss science, and since ID isn't science, its a waste of time to discuss it there.

If you all were so truly concerned about the material being taught in class, you would be protesting all kinds of agenda-driven irrelevant discourses.

Didn't I just tell you to call the school and complain, and if they don't do anything, call the ACLU, or another pro-bono civil rights attorney? You're the on who thinks this teacher should be able to get away with speach whose only purpose is the reliigous views of a particular group of people, not me.

Yet you only protest ID taught in science class. Because it dovetails so well with the anti-Christian agenda.

Is Christianity anti-science? If not, why do you assume science is anti-Christianity?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

1. I can see the logic behind your compromise idea. I would accept that, if the opportunity had been given to me. However, the thing that stands in the way is the principle. Evolution has not been conclusively proven, at least to my standards and a fair amount of persons on this board.

No science has been "conclusively proven".

And if ID has not been proven, why is it considered inappropriate?

Because there is no way in which it could be proven, and no way in which it could be disproven, therefore - not science.

I suppose you could classify this as equality. Evolution isn't proved, yet it is tought in school. ID isn't proved, yet it isn't tought in schools. Do you see the inequality here?

The overwhelming vast majority of experts in the field of life sciences are of the opinion that evolution is indeed supported by a vast amount of physical evidence. As a person of scientific training (though not in the life sciences), I can tell you that I also believe that evolution is well supported by a vast amount of evidence. Evolution is supported by hundreds of transitional fossil forms, as well as observed speciation, as well as the general progression from simple to complex life observed in the fossil record.

You, on the other hand, have already made up your mind that it is wrong, hence there is no amount of evidence that would "prove" it to you.

2. My point was that the ID idea has been around for a long enough time that I consider it to be valid.

People thought the Earth was flat for a really long time, do you consider that valid?