Thread: Teaching Intelligent Design

Why not ? Makes about as much sense and has about the same amount of basis as the more limited survival of the fittest. And you mischaracterize ID. For smoe it is just a different name for creationism but for the rest its far different.

Originally Posted by Hoplite

Unfortunately, the Intelligent Design movement (which is basically repackaged Creationism) has been somewhat successful in more rural areas of the US in getting the concept of ID introduced to primary education.

Can someone who believes in or supports the idea of ID explain or justify why it should be taught as a valid theory in a school?

I'm aware of many of the arguments, but most of them are very poor; they come from a lack of understanding of the subject matter or from subjective idealization and anthropomorphization.

I thought they succeded in making ID a religion [even though it's not]. If that's the case, how are they teaching it in public schools?

In any event, I don't see any harm in teaching ID alongside doctrinaire evolution. Education means education and not indoctrination, right?

With the caveat that I do not necessarily believe ID should be taught along side evolution (although it would be very open-minded of a school district to do so), very like evolution or any other attempt to explain events and processes around us, ID is an attempt to weave an intelligent designer into the explanation of how we got to where we are. My interest in intelligent design started several (as in "many") years ago when I read a short treatment of creationism by a fellow named John Warwick Montgomery. In the years since, he's branched further into a lot of different levels of explanations, so I have lost that earlier one but his criticism of evolution was something like:


The mathematical probability of a SINGLE CELL coming about by chance is 1/10340,000,000... I forget the real number, but it was inconceivably huge and it captured the essence of my concern about evolutionary theory (or such as I knew of it at that point). But he didn't stop there: After the astronomically huge chances against this single cell just happening, that same "lucky" cell had to live long enough to reproduce. BUT WAIT, there's more: That reproduced single cell, had to do the SAME THING... live long enough to reproduce. (side note: I was of the understanding that when a cell mutates like that, it forfeits the capacity to reproduce ... but that is an inconsequential objection, IMO). and THEN, future generations of that single mutated cell have to produce sequentially MORE mutations (all within a single line), to produce complexity and differentiation. Not to mention that nothing else in nature progresses from lesser complexity to greater complexity: We all ... and everything else all ... proceed from greater complexity to lesser complexity including eventual death and decay... "circle of life" notwithstanding, I can no longer accept the whole "something from nothing" hypothesis WITHOUT inserting someone or something that orchestrated it. SO, now, some of my ardent evolutionist friends are proclaiming that "matter is eternal:" Never had a beginning. Which really ticks me off: THEY are borrowing OUR term, now.

It simply boggled my mind all the chips that had to fall in JUST the right places for JUST the right amount of time and in JUST the right sequence for speciation to occur. Now, aside from "your" objection to the existence of a God, doesn't it seem it would take more faith to believe all that happened than it takes to simply assert "an intelligent designer did it?" I thought so at the time and continue to think so.

Now, the reason I don't necessarily harp on schools teaching it is, a large portion of our population has shut down any inquiry past evolution theory into the question of how we got here. You throw anything even remotely resembling "God" (such as the word "miracle," or "ID" or "creation" or a host of other words), and people wig out. I believe inter-species evolution is flawed. I believe "you" have to invent fillers for the holes and "you" have no evidence for that filler, but it fills the holes so "you" can continue to believe in inter-species evolution. I believe any mind that is really open to discovery will eventually come to recognize the need for a designer. The very concept of "theory" is that it isn't a stopping point (as many evolutionists have done: NOT that they stop looking for more evidence of inter-species evolution, mind you: But they have stopped inquiry into conflicting theories.

Originally Posted by darth omar

I thought they succeded in making ID a religion [even though it's not]. If that's the case, how are they teaching it in public schools?

In any event, I don't see any harm in teaching ID alongside doctrinaire evolution. Education means education and not indoctrination, right?

right

Originally Posted by darth omar

I thought they succeded in making ID a religion [even though it's not]. If that's the case, how are they teaching it in public schools?

In any event, I don't see any harm in teaching ID alongside doctrinaire evolution. Education means education and not indoctrination, right?

They can teach ID in a philosophical classroom setting, not in a science classroom. ID is not a scientific theory.

Originally Posted by Prince of Space

They can teach ID in a philosophical classroom setting, not in a science classroom. ID is not a scientific theory.

Well, given equivalent amounts of actual evidence ... neither is Evolution.

Originally Posted by Good1

Well, given equivalent amounts of actual evidence ... neither is Evolution.

Are you kidding? I would recommend you visit some museums and talk to some actual scientists. Possibly even read some books by some actual scientists.

It's the cornerstone of agriculture. It had better be taught in schools.

Here's how I think humans came to be.

YouTube - ‪Family Guy: Evolution and Creationism‬‏

Originally Posted by darth omar

I thought they succeded in making ID a religion [even though it's not]. If that's the case, how are they teaching it in public schools?

In any event, I don't see any harm in teaching ID alongside doctrinaire evolution. Education means education and not indoctrination, right?

If one is going to teach myths as science, why not teach the other myths? The Sun crosses the sky in the back of a god's chariot? There was a great flood and all of the animals were saved in pairs by a guy named Noah.

It just makes our students laughing stocks in the rest of the world, Also, Because of the lack of time to study real science, these students are no longer even remotely competitive with the students in India and China.

Originally Posted by daddio

Why not ? Makes about as much sense and has about the same amount of basis as the more limited survival of the fittest. And you mischaracterize ID. For smoe it is just a different name for creationism but for the rest its far different.

When you follow ID up the chain, it turns into Creationism.

"The world was designed."
"By who?"
"An intelligent designer"
"Who was that designer?"
"God."

Goddidit is still goddidit regardless of how many steps you have to take to get there.

Originally Posted by darth omar

I thought they succeded in making ID a religion [even though it's not]. If that's the case, how are they teaching it in public schools?

Ask the Dover Area School District board.

In any event, I don't see any harm in teaching ID alongside doctrinaire evolution. Education means education and not indoctrination, right?

Then should we teach palmistry alongside anatomy and astrology alongside astronomy?

Originally Posted by Good1

The mathematical probability of a SINGLE CELL coming about by chance is 1/10340,000,000... I forget the real number, but it was inconceivably huge and it captured the essence of my concern about evolutionary theory (or such as I knew of it at that point). But he didn't stop there: After the astronomically huge chances against this single cell just happening, that same "lucky" cell had to live long enough to reproduce. BUT WAIT, there's more: That reproduced single cell, had to do the SAME THING... live long enough to reproduce. (side note: I was of the understanding that when a cell mutates like that, it forfeits the capacity to reproduce ... but that is an inconsequential objection, IMO). and THEN, future generations of that single mutated cell have to produce sequentially MORE mutations (all within a single line), to produce complexity and differentiation. Not to mention that nothing else in nature progresses from lesser complexity to greater complexity: We all ... and everything else all ... proceed from greater complexity to lesser complexity including eventual death and decay... "circle of life" notwithstanding, I can no longer accept the whole "something from nothing" hypothesis WITHOUT inserting someone or something that orchestrated it. SO, now, some of my ardent evolutionist friends are proclaiming that "matter is eternal:" Never had a beginning. Which really ticks me off: THEY are borrowing OUR term, now.

The mathematical argument is a non-starter argument.

thunderf00t did a great video on the subject and explains it far better than I can
YouTube - ‪Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 8).‬‏

Now, the reason I don't necessarily harp on schools teaching it is, a large portion of our population has shut down any inquiry past evolution theory into the question of how we got here. You throw anything even remotely resembling "God" (such as the word "miracle," or "ID" or "creation" or a host of other words), and people wig out. I believe inter-species evolution is flawed. I believe "you" have to invent fillers for the holes and "you" have no evidence for that filler, but it fills the holes so "you" can continue to believe in inter-species evolution. I believe any mind that is really open to discovery will eventually come to recognize the need for a designer. The very concept of "theory" is that it isn't a stopping point (as many evolutionists have done: NOT that they stop looking for more evidence of inter-species evolution, mind you: But they have stopped inquiry into conflicting theories.

The problem is that evolution is the single best theory we have that currently explains the diversity of life. Volumes of our biological and medical science rest on the idea that evolution is true and if it were false, the science simply wouldnt function. We've been studying this for hundreds of years and so far the only theory that can withstand the most amount of scrutiny by the scientific community is the idea of evolution.

I think it's flat wrong to say no one is interested in disproving evolution, especially considering the accolades that would be heaped on you for single-handedly un-seating double-digit percent of our knowledge on the biological world. Science applauds people who refine theories and argue bad ones away. It does not applaud people who start with an idea then look to fill in whatever is unexplained with something that is ultimately un-provable or un-testable.

Originally Posted by Good1

Well, given equivalent amounts of actual evidence ... neither is Evolution.

Important questions like this can only be answered through comprehensive research done by true scholars. Maybe Sarah Palin should weigh in on this; her tremendous knowledge on a wide range of subjects combined with a powerful intellect would add invaluable perspective to this issue.

Originally Posted by Hoplite

When you follow ID up the chain, it turns into Creationism.

"The world was designed."
"By who?"
"An intelligent designer"
"Who was that designer?"
"God."

Goddidit is still goddidit regardless of how many steps you have to take to get there.

"God did it through evolution," is far different than "God did it with Playdo."

The former is what I think of when people bring up ID. The latter is what I think of when people bring up Creationism.