Thread: Teaching Intelligent Design

Originally Posted by Good1

While I completely agree that The Bible is not a science text, or a history text ... it very much does contain aspects of both of those disciplines (and several others as well).

So to relegate the entire collection of books to "just" history or "just" philosophy is an error, IMO.

Certainly, I'd think the best way to present it would be in a "Religious Studies" class, since you're right, it can't be neatly put into either history or philosophy. The history of the Bible and the philosophy of the Bible are two incredibly indepth studies by themselves, not to mention when the two are intertwined (and they often are).

What if (not saying this is fact, just saying what if) those intersections of a Biblical concept with science are actually true and accurate? If the whole collection of books is summarily dismissed as "philosophy," then those potential truths go unreviewed. But this is the exact basis by which those who oppose ID being taught in public schools get courts to go along with their (flawed) arguments: "it's in the Bible so, therefore, it must be "religion."

As long as the ideas can be subjected to the scientific method, I don't really care where the idea originated. We already know that the Bible has made claims that have been scientifically validated through the study of Archeology, for example.

And the Bible has been a strong influence on scientific discoveries for a long time. The story of Johannes Kepler figuring out the laws of planetary motion cannot be told unless you understand his Biblical motivations for doing so, for example. Sure the laws that he came up with can be understood without mentioning the Bible, but if one wants to understand how he got there...
that was my point: Thanks for the clarification.

I've recently encountered quite a few alleged "free thinkers" who disavow anything "religious" because they claim to have already reviewed ... and dismissed ... all the claims that religion makes. So when I read your earlier statement, I thought that was the direction you were heading (which you have since clarified) and they are quite adept at poisoning the well by branding anything they don't want to consider as "religion." Apologies for lumping you in.

No problem, the only parts I reject are the ones that we could not ever possibly test for. I'm not saying these things don't exist, I'm saying they're out of the realm of science. There could very much be a higher power behind the Universe as we know it, but that's not really in the hands of science to answer. Besides, I'm not even sure why religions would seek scientific validation of a God. Christianity, for example, relies on faith, but if you were to prove the existence of God, faith would not be necessary.

Sorry if I'm being a bit short here, kind of scribbling things out, it's a busy day.

Originally Posted by Commodore

I'm not talking about cautionary tales from social studies, I'm talking about the direct replacement of "God did it" with "abiogenesis did it" in biology class on the question of the origin of life itself.

Can you show me where abiogenesis is being taught as fact in public schools? And of course "God did it" shouldn't be taught in a biology classroom, because that's not science. One would have to solidly prove the existence of God with the scientific method first and as far as I know, that hasn't occurred. On the other hand, we know that proteins exist. We know what makes up proteins. We know that under certain chemical conditions, amino acids can be created. Therefor, will not completely proven, one idea has more scientific evidence behind it than the other.

I totally agree, though, that if a teacher is teaching abiogenesis as a fact, they're doing their jobs wrong.

If you don't think so, I'll just leave this here and wait for several other posters to tell you that is in fact what they want.

Oh, well, that'll prove it.

And for the record, I don't think the question of the origin life has a place in you average biology class. Between things like Mendel Peas, and going easy on the anti-bacterial soap, biology teachers have enough on their plate.

In your 'average' biology class? I'd agree. In the more advanced courses, it certainly does have a place, though. If we're going to figure this shit out, we're going to need students who are familiar with the various ideas, how they came to be, and what we still need to explain.

Originally Posted by Good1

if the probability for each individual time remains approximately the same, then each time I play, I have a 1 chance in a million that I will win, regardless of how many times I play in a lifetime. I understand your mathematics, but I do not understand how that changes the probability of winning.

yes each time you play the chance is 1 in a million, but the chance that you will eventually win if you play 5 million times is 99.3%. hope that makes it more clear for you!

If the proponents of Intelligent Design want a space in the public market of ideas to sell their wares - they only have to do one thing. Produce something. Produce an insight into plant, animal or human biology that evolution has missed. Or come up with a technique or process or something that evolution couldn't see.

ID's problem in the World - is that all they produce is slick brochures, CDs, DVDs, tapes, books, newsletters & spokesmen. Spokesmen for a sterile doctrine that has yet to produce anything tangible that is even vaguely scientific. The other way to put this question - how many Nobel prizes does ID have to the credit of its proponents? How much scientific (as opposed to "op-eds", think pieces & other gassy maunderings) literature have working ID scientists published? Where can I find these writings, to review them & see if they pass the giggle test? How many peer-reviewed articles by ID proponents have been published in the scientific community? How have they been received?

ID has been around since 1989 - surely by now they should have more than a mere conceptual framework to work with.

ID also either A) Ignores the changing genetic environment of the present, including natural selection and bacterial and viral DNA splicing/recombination that occurs naturally, or B) Just claims that all of that was intended by the designer, who started life on earth.

For A), proof exists to discount it as a viable scientific theory.
For B), other than being an unprovable claim as to the origin of life, it just brings the same things to the table that Evolution already brought.

Darwin stayed away from statements about the origin of LIFE. He stuck to explaining the origin of SPECIES. Those are fundamentally different topics.

If aliens are the intelligent designers, then of course we would need proof of alien visitation 3.9 billion years ago in order to make it a viable scientific theory. Since we can't even prove alien life even exists, much less is traveling around the galaxy seeding planets with life, the theory of ID is not a scientific theory.

Fear of science has been around at least since Galileo got jugged by the Holy Father. The righties feed the fear because science undermines their basic premise that civil authority comes from God -- or at least shouldn't be questioned by tax-paying peons. Big Business is happy to humor the Bible thumpers who think Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs in return for the climate-change-is-a-hoax malarky designed to protect the profits of Big Oil and Dirty Coal.

On the non-fantasy side of things, there isn't much doubt that science has produced modern civilization and there are a lot of folks who are threatened and disoriented by modern civilization. Technology changed social mores big time after WWI and the result was Fundamentalism and the Scopes trial. Here it comes again! The Interwebs, cell phones, gay marriage, where will it all end if not in the Final Thunder?

Originally Posted by bg85

yes each time you play the chance is 1 in a million, but the chance that you will eventually win if you play 5 million times is 97.3%. hope that makes it more clear for you!

Restating your math doesn't make it more clear.

My chance of winning the first time I play, the 10,000th time I play, and the 5,000,000th time I play are all 1 in 1,000,000.

Originally Posted by Good1

Restating your math doesn't make it more clear.

My chance of winning the first time I play, the 10,000th time I play, and the 5,000,000th time I play are all 1 in 1,000,000.

lol RIGHT, but the chance of you winning at least once in those 5,000,000 games is 99.3%.

While true, it is also true that if you play 5 million times your chances of having won at least once are much higher than if you only play once.

Originally Posted by Good1

Restating your math doesn't make it more clear.

My chance of winning the first time I play, the 10,000th time I play, and the 5,000,000th time I play are all 1 in 1,000,000.

.... and the combined chance of winning when you calculate the total probability of winning after playing that many times is 99.3% (as an example).

The binomial distribution is the math that calculates such things:

Here's a link to a calculator for it:
Binomial Distribution: Probability Calculator

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

As long as the ideas can be subjected to the scientific method, I don't really care where the idea originated. We already know that the Bible has made claims that have been scientifically validated through the study of Archeology, for example.

Aha ... now we're getting somewhere.

now, what about those parts of evolutionary theory that cannot be observed or repeated?

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

No problem, the only parts I reject are the ones that we could not ever possibly test for. I'm not saying these things don't exist, I'm saying they're out of the realm of science.

Do you hold the same threshold for the parts of evolutionary theory that cannot be tested?

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

There could very much be a higher power behind the Universe as we know it, but that's not really in the hands of science to answer. Besides, I'm not even sure why religions would seek scientific validation of a God. Christianity, for example, relies on faith, but if you were to prove the existence of God, faith would not be necessary.

Completely agree. It is, therefore, not my job to convince anyone about the existence of God, per se. That, in fact, is the job of the Holy Spirit and, talk about BIG toes to step on!

I'm talking about those parts of Scripture that are not philosophy: As you note, archaeology has already proven many of those, now, known facts of history that were only reported in the Bible. At some point, and the point may well have been AFTER the discovery of some artifact that defied any other explanation, those doing the research had to abandon the preconceived notion that the Bible was only philosophy... that it (also) contained some usable facts about who came before us.

From that platform, I find it interesting to discuss the Flood of Noah: Science today claims it could not have happened, given the record they currently observe. BUT, what if they have simply not seen the evidence yet? O.K., O.k., sorry for the diversion ... not for this thread.

What I'm suggesting is that the same "grace" that is extended to the holes in evolution be extended to the holes in ID. Don't want to and can't prove the existence of God ... so leave Him (or "it") out of the issue. One of the recent cases (possibly the one in Texas, but I'm not certain) had blanched all mention of God or any deity from their curriculum that included both evolution and ID. I don't think they did justice to either one, but they at least held the door to inquiry open.

Originally Posted by bg85

lol RIGHT, but the chance of you winning at least once in those 5,000,000 games is 99.3%.

O.K., I've dug this hole ... I'll just sit here quietly in it.

Originally Posted by Good1

Do you hold the same threshold for the parts of evolutionary theory that cannot be tested?

That's the part creationists (and ID'ers) don't seem to get. Evolution HAS been tested time and time and time and time again for ~150 years, and it has been upheld in most of its significant aspects, which is amazing when you think about the fact that we didn't even know anything about DNA and cellular mechanisms until a hundred years later .... and evolution as a theory didn't have to be replaced then, in fact it became even MORE well-demonstrated as we learn more and more about genetics and biochemistry.