Thread: Teaching Intelligent Design

Originally Posted by George Aligator

Does anyone have a list of countries where ID is taught in the public schools or is even an issue of national debate? I'd like to know if we are alone.

We are nearly alone. Almost no where else in the world is Creationism taught, or even accepted. Even Popes have spoken out against creationism.

"“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”"

Pope: Creation vs. evolution an ?absurdity? - World news - Europe - The Vatican - msnbc.com

Originally Posted by George Aligator

Does anyone have a list of countries where ID is taught in the public schools or is even an issue of national debate? I'd like to know if we are alone.

I am not aware of any European country where ID is taught in science classes or an issue of national debate. Some ID light proponents can be found in church maybe but none of them has suggested it should be taught as alternative to evolution in biology classes.

Originally Posted by George Aligator

Does anyone have a list of countries where ID is taught in the public schools or is even an issue of national debate? I'd like to know if we are alone.

Your question made me curious so I did a little research.

The direct answer to your question is that there aren't any public school systems that teach ID/creationism on a regular basis and there aren't any countries where ID/creationism is such a hot-button education issue as it is in the United States.

The other side of that coin, however, is that the vast majority of the world doesn't have a public education system anywhere close to being on par with what we here in the United States, and our friends in Europe and the developed regions of Asia, enjoy.

In much of the world (Africa, India, Middle East, parts of South America, parts of China) children are never exposed to the theory of evolution through public education so there's really no reason at all for them to be exposed to ID/creationism either.

This is a pretty interesting topic. I wish I had more time to look in to it.

Some USPOL undergrad needs to write a paper on this.

Hm, maybe I was too fast in my response above. There seems to be creationist agitation also in Europe but I still sustain my opinion that it has not reached nowhere the level of public attention it has in the US:

Attempts to introduce Intelligent Design in Europe spark backlash

The report of the Council of Europe which was passed by the full assembly can be found here: The dangers of creationism in education

It is non binding but a guideline for national actors.


The funniest thing I have found however was this site (in German): http://www.ekd.de/ezw/42714_pressemi..._nr_4_2007.php
It is from the Protestant Church in Germany and is an argumentative guideline against ID.

Originally Posted by Good1

With due respect, Bart, I'm not here to convince you.

For example, you could look around you and be awestruck at the unimaginable and intricate inner-workings of a leaf, or a lizard, or a child. You could marvel at the birth of an infant and wonder how it could all occur JUST right ...

But you won't. And, inexplicably, there will be nothing I can say, ever, to get you to see all the evidence. I know it's there. A lot of people see it every day.

You don't.

That is tragic.

I've looked around, observed those wondrous things.. I do it all the time. But the best I can conclude is that it may have all been created by a god, or God, or gods, or perhaps it's just some kind of natural force that all things march to. I can't understand how anyone can view those things as solid evidence of God's existence. Might be God, might just be how things fall in to place.

I thought we could move the discussion of abiogenesis and the origins of life to this thread.

Scientist make early life RNA molecules from scratch

Originally Posted by bg85

no, he wouldn't understand the significance of the numbers involved any more than the biologists. biologists aren't stupid, and we're not talking graduate-level or extremely advanced probability theory here. the simple fact is that there are far too many unknowns to figure out anything remotely close to being an accurate representation of what the true probability of abiogenesis would be.

i don't know what this hoyle guy's motivation was for saying this, but i suspect it was to either make a buck or advance some kind of an agenda. if you know what his methods for coming up with this probability were, i'd love to hear about them, because to me it sounds like a bunch of unsubstantiated bullshit.

the bottom line is that as long as abiogenesis is AT ALL possible, given astronomical amounts of time, it becomes far more likely to eventually occur.

Hoyle was either an agnostic or atheist. Atheists and agnostics aren't typically given to poking holes in their own world view.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

That is not correct. He made a very crude and simple probability calculation of amino acids forming a protein as found today in modern life by pure chance. That means forming a specific amino acid sequence by chance.

Modern life? From a biochemical standpoint, life even in the pre-Cambrian was no different than it is today. Life then possessed Kreb’s cycles, nuclei,, ribosomes, mitochondria and ad nauseum. You’re presupposing that there was such a thing as ‘ancient life’ that was somehow distinct from biological life as we know it today.

We do not know this: It is a supposition.

Also, we know of no instance where a protein ever formed apart from a ribosome. Do we? Sans ribosome, the probabilities involved in random protein formation are both incalculable and prohibitive. Proteins aren’t non-descript chains of amino acids. In order to be called a protein, and not a random chain of amino acids, they must fold in specific ways in order to perform a specific function, such as in enzymes---or even in the ribosome itself. It is simply inexplicable that they would arise by chance. Even if they did, they would have nothing to do apart from other proteins that were formed to perform similar specific functions.

The fact is, no one knows the improbabilities that are involved in life forming via random chance.. For all we know, Hoyle was being generous with the probabilities. And as an apparent agnostic, he was certainly motivated to be generous.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

This is flawed on several levels. None of the current hypothesis of abiogenesis base on such a random formation of a whole modern protein. Hoyle therefore missed the point with his calculation if his intention was to estimate the probability of abiogenesis.

How can we know of these ‘non-modern’ proteins? How can a hypothesis that relies on unknowable entities be falsified?

Originally Posted by darth omar

I only read it because I was challanged to by an agnostic. He was sure I would find Dawkins' argument convincing. In The God Delusion Dawkins' conclusion basically boiled down to this: If the universe is improbable, God is neccessarily moreso; to which, I say, 'so what'? Probabilities are something that pertain to this universe; even cause and effect have no relevance in eternity. For probabilities to have any bareing on the subject of God, God would have to be part of His own creation; but He is not, so Dawkins' conclusion never gets off the run-way.

Ok, I never claimed Dawkins' argument was any good or even that I agreed with Dawkins.

Hoyle was not talking about evolution. He was referring to the improbability of life forming via random chance aka abiogenesis. Which both myself and Hoyle realize is not evolution---strictly speaking at least.

Except life didnt form via random chance and that isnt abiogenesis.

But I want to point something out here: There is Darwinian evolution or neo-Darwinism [or the formal theory of evolution] that purports to explain the present biological diversity via appeals to the fossil record, common descent, random mutations and natural selection, genetic drift and et cetera. I don't neccessarily subscribe to its every detail, but I accept that it is a legitimate scientific theory.

In contrast, when the notion that life arose via some unguided purely and naturalistic process---becomes coupled with the theory---the theory is no longer a theory but a philosophy or a worldview.

That would be true if we had no evidence and no way to demonstrate that part of the theory. We are able to do both.

Darwin himself, assumed the existence of the putative first cell when he put forth his theory of evolution.

Darwin's understanding was also many decades behind our own.

But neither group has any prior knowledge about the designer in either instance. If ID has to account for the nature and attributes of the designer in order to be called a science then SETI needs to explain ET.

SETI is looking for something we KNOW to be designed, we may not understand the how or the who with what we're looking for, but we know that a specific pattern of information received is very likely to come from an artificial source. It's extremely unlikely that the universe could naturally transmit a message through space, on top of that we've transmitted messages through space and we understand that it can be done.

Pattern recognition with a verifiable source is valid, pattern recognition with an unknown and unverified source is guessing.

For instance, would you say this was designed?


It looks engineered, except we know that it wasnt. It's a very intricate pattern, but we know it has a naturalistic explanation. We know that because we can replicate it using the same processes, understand how it happens by observing the process, repeating it, and testing it. We can gather samples of new fallen snow and see similar intricate structures.

Fair is fair.

Except it isnt fair, you're comparing apples and oranges.

I disagree with that. If, in medicine, you are talking about antibiotic resistant bacteria, this falls under the general rubric of micro-evolution.

For starters, understand what "microevolution" actually says.
Microevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The treatments and protocol for antibiotic resistant bugs would be virtually the same had Darwin never been born. The means of discovery had to do with advances in micro and molecular biology---the electron microscope didn't hurt either. It was bound to happen with or without Darwin.

There is an entire field of medicine devoted to it.

This article explains it very well.
Evolutionary medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now if you want argue that it comports with Darwin's theory, that's fine. The problem is, it also comports with Creationism since they will only be impressed with changes in 'kind'.

"Kind" is not a scientific term, it's also incredibly poorly defined.

And from the ID crowd, it elicits a collective yawn.

That's because the vast majority of the ID crowd is anti-intellectual.

Originally Posted by Good1

similarly, people have to be pretty darn dim to dismiss such ample evidence for an intelligent designer for centuries...

Such as?

Originally Posted by Jefe

I've looked around, observed those wondrous things.. I do it all the time. But the best I can conclude is that it may have all been created by a god, or God, or gods, or perhaps it's just some kind of natural force that all things march to. I can't understand how anyone can view those things as solid evidence of God's existence. Might be God, might just be how things fall in to place.

While your wonderment is understandable and something I can relate to, I have to ask two questions.

One, are they any less wonderful for having been created by natural forces as opposed to supernatural forces?

Two, why does something wonderful HAVE to be created by something supernatural?

Originally Posted by darth omar

Hoyle was either an agnostic or atheist. Atheists and agnostics aren't typically given to poking holes in their own world view.

so what? this statement means absolutely nothing in the context of what i posted.

Originally Posted by Hoplite

While your wonderment is understandable and something I can relate to, I have to ask two questions.

One, are they any less wonderful for having been created by natural forces as opposed to supernatural forces?

No. Wonderful is wonderful.

Two, why does something wonderful HAVE to be created by something supernatural?

It doesn't.

People have always wondered "where did we come from?". We've basically got two schools of thought: we were created by some supreme being or power, or it was all random. Personally, I fail to see the need to distinguish between the two. At the end of the day, I really don't give a fuck, and I wish both sides would grow up and learn to respect each other.

Originally Posted by Jefe

I've looked around, observed those wondrous things.. I do it all the time. But the best I can conclude is that it may have all been created by a god, or God, or gods, or perhaps it's just some kind of natural force that all things march to. I can't understand how anyone can view those things as solid evidence of God's existence. Might be God, might just be how things fall in to place.

Good of you to acknowledge. Your mind is open to the possibility.

I don't know that any of it has to be "solid" evidence. Not only is "solid" evidence pretty rare, but it is also relegated to the scientific method (and those pursuing it are thrilled when they find it). Most of the time, they see some evidence and have to draw conclusions based on it EVEN THOUGH they'd really like more validation.

I suggest that if God came down and stood amongst us, talked to us, walked with us, exemplified what He meant when He gave us all those rules, there wouldn't be a rational person amongst us who would doubt... or would there be?



Seriously, though, my point is that we each have our threshold of how strong evidence has to be before we'll acknowledge "yes, it does point to that." But regardless of which point along the continuum it falls, without Faith, it will still not make sufficient sense.

Further, and just so we all know before the inevitable "magic fairy dust" definition of faith comes hobbling along here, "Faith" that I'm talking about is not like what most or many here will assume it means.