ID: Coming to Your State Soon!

[The_Her3tiK]

Now doing experiments in this field are difficult if not impossible because the we are talking about events that happened in the past, causal forces in the past that lead to current structures.

But these experiments have been done. Early Earth environments have been artificially created and basic amino acid structures have formed in them. This shows that it is indeed possible for life to generate on its own, without the help of a supernatural deity. That is one of the greater issues with ID; there is no evidence suggesting that such a being had anything to do with life, beyond arguments such as the complexity of the eye is too great for mere chance. According to the theories of evolution, which have yet to receive even one of the many fatal blows ID has in the scientific community, an eye is perfectly capable of forming if it proves advantageous to the life form that evolves it.

 

[rocketman]

What "other" scientific ideas are currently not mentioned?

There are dissenting views from scientists on issues like global warming and cosmology and abiogenesis and so on, and they are not all religious. Kids deserve to know that and have a chance to discuss it. With this bill they can be discussed in a way that keeps a leash on both sides and doesn't interfere with their education.

You are kidding, right? ID does not have any scientific evidence, and any constructive counter-evidence to evolution is already welcomed by the scientific community.

I respectfully disagree with latter half of that sentence.

But, for the record, I believe God did it.

I'm glad we aree on something luna.

 

[lunamoth]

Currently SETI monitors radio and optical measurements whith the assumption that if they meet a certain criteria then that qualifies as evidence extraterrrestrial intelligence. The fact of the matter is that the criteria would merely narrow the odds, not prove conclusively that there was extraterrestrial intelligence. Michael Chrichton famously called SETI an unprovable religion.

Yes, but it still is a manner to collect evidence toward the goal of detecting Extraterrestrial life. What do you propose be done to test for God? Can God be put to the test? Would God be somehow under our power so that we could prove His existence?

Only if you are asserting that SETI's current criteria would prove extraterrestrial intelligence. Then, if we adopt those standards, we can say that an iron-clad example of irreducible complexity would prove ID 9not God btw). In reality of-course, it would only narrow the odds and not prove anything absolutely. But why is the idea of ID any less valuable for discussion as a supplemental topic than SETI? I can't even think of any fundamental differences between the two of them, frankly.

SETI is not 'proving' anything, it is collecting data which can be used to test a hypothesis. The "irreducible complexity" argument, besides being already largely undermined, is a God of the gaps argument. As the gaps get smaller, so does your god (or designer). It's a badly outdated theological argument, already rotting on the compost pile.

 

[rocketman]

But these experiments have been done.

Really? What are the finite limitations of mutation then?

Runlikethewind has hit the nail on the head.

Let's be serious here, so much is unkown about the past it's not funny. It's precisely because of this that we shouldn't completely shut ourselves off from other ideas. As long as they are given as ideas and not hard science and/or religion then why worry?

 

[lunamoth]

There are dissenting views from scientists on issues like global warming and cosmology and abiogenesis and so on, and they are not all religious. Kids deserve to know that and have a chance to discuss it. With this bill they can be discussed in a way that keeps a leash on both sides and doesn't interfere with their education.

I'm not sure how global warming got into this, but teachers are certainly already allowed to discuss any alternative theories they find useful to the scientific education of their students. This is smoke and mirrors you are talking about.

I respectfully disagree with latter half of that sentence.

And I am waiting for examples of alternative scientific theories that are being suppressed in the classroom.

I'm glad we aree on something luna.

Me too. :yes:

 

[rocketman]

Yes, but it still is a manner to collect evidence toward the goal of detecting Extraterrestrial life. What do you propose be done to test for God? Can God be put to the test? Would God be somehow under our power so that we could prove His existence?

I agree with you here about proving God. (But that is different than from proving a designer). Anyways, I'm simply pointing out that the idea of ID is useful when discussing things, including as a supplemental in a science classroom. Who's to say that ID won't come up with a proper test? Who's to say that we won't find a natural source of the signals SETI is looking for? SETI and ID are good examples of things kids want to discuss in a science class.The bill is all about teaching open-mindedness and critical thinking, but not at the expense of established science.

 

[fantome profane]

Runlikethewind has hit the nail on the head.

Now I will grant that a high school biology class, for example, is not neccessarily the appropriate place to discuss these and other psuedo-scientific/failed sciences.

I agree as well.

 

[lunamoth]

I agree with you here about proving God. (But that is different than from proving a designer). Anyways, I'm simply pointing out that the idea of ID is useful when discussing things, including as a supplemental in a science classroom.

But exactly how is discussing ID useful in a science classroom? What specific thing would be taught that is not religious that is ID that is not currently taught? What is the idea of ID you think should be presented?

Who's to say that ID won't come up with a proper test?

And if it were to find a proper test, who would currently keep it out of the classroom? If it's a valid scientific theory, it's already allowed. You say it's not...but what specifically is being prohibited?

Who's to say that we won't find a natural source of the signals SETI is looking for? SETI and ID are good examples of things kids want to discuss in a science class.The bill is all about teaching open-mindedness and critical thinking, but not at the expense of established science.

SETi has a valid scientific approach, ID does not.

If I were currently teaching and any student asked about ID, I would be very happy to give them the assignment of reseaching and writing a paper on the scientific principles being tested by ID.

 

[rocketman]

I'm not sure how global warming got into this, but teachers are certainly already allowed to discuss any alternative theories they find useful to the scientific education of their students. This is smoke and mirrors you are talking about.

Global warming is mentioned in the bill itself. Anyway, my understanding is that if a teacher goes on too long about ID, climate change, etc in the current legal framework, he or she could get into strife if it is being perceived by parents/educators/school boards that he/she is promoting non-approved content. How much of a mention of these things is too much? It seems to me that it is better to have it in writing, at least that way everyone knows where they stand. That's what the bill is all about.

And I am waiting for examples of alternative scientific theories that are being suppressed in the classroom.

Ideas, not theories. The theories are protected by the bill. And teachers who want to discuss supplemental ideas will also be protected.

 

[The_Her3tiK]

Really? What are the finite limitations of mutation then?

Mutation is a completely random event, limited only by the different possible combinations of DNA. When the DNA does not form correctly in a developing life form, the resulting change in code makes itself known in the life form's physical attributes. If this attribute proves advantageous, and therefore allows the life form to survive long enough to reproduce, this mutation is passed on to its offspring, which will inherit said advantageous trait and so on. Therefore, the only limitations to mutation are essentially a limit to the possible combinations of DNA and the death of said mutated life forms before they can reproduce.

Let's be serious here, so much is unkown about the past it's not funny. It's precisely because of this that we shouldn't completely shut ourselves off from other ideas. As long as they are given as ideas and not hard science and/or religion then why worry?

The problem with these ideas is when they are taught in scientific institutions such as schools but contain no scientific validity. I agree that we cannot say for sure what happened before recorded history (hence my signature) but ID is a religiously driven argument that is meant to breathe new life into creationism. If you find this hard to believe, consider that the states pushing the hardest for ID as science are part of the bible belt. If that doesn't at least suggest that ID is religiously driven, I don't know what will.

 

[lunamoth]

Global warming is mentioned in the bill itself. Anyway, my understanding is that if a teacher goes on too long about ID, climate change, etc in the current legal framework, he or she could get into strife if it is being perceived by parents/educators/school boards that he/she is promoting non-approved content. How much of a mention of these things is too much? It seems to me that it is better to have it in writing, at least that way everyone knows where they stand. That's what the bill is all about.

Well, if the teacher is talking about the politics of global warming or the theology of ID, then she is not teaching science, which is what the class is about.

Ideas

, not theories. The theories are protected by the bill. And teachers who want to discuss supplemental ideas will also be protected.

But what is the idea? I can say in one sentence "and there are other ideas about how life came to be as we see it today, but they are not scientifically testable, such as the idea of a Designer, and these remain matters of faith." What is there to discuss?

 

[lunamoth]

It's been a good discussion rocketman, but now I've got to go make rice crispie treats and muffins for our church fellowship hour tomorrow.

see ya.

 

[rocketman]

But exactly how is discussing ID useful in a science classroom? What specific thing would be taught that is not religious that is ID that is not currently taught? What is the idea of ID you think should be presented?

The bill is about discussion, questioning, testing. It's what happens after they have been taught. Meyers essay is agood example of something they could discuss. Link.

And if it were to find a proper test, who would currently keep it out of the classroom? If it's a valid scientific theory, it's already allowed. You say it's not...but what specifically is being prohibited?

My point was that neither ID nor SETI have a 'proper' test. But I honestly don't know what the education/science system would do if ID found a proper test. Creationists hypothesised for decades that pseudogenes were functionally important and that the big-bang idea was flawed but few have given them any credit in light of new discoveries. But I do know what would happen if a natural source of SETI-wanted emissions were found: they would simply look for even more complex patterns to find ET. (I'm not anti-SETI btw).

SETi has a valid scientific approach, ID does not.

Why is SETI's approach 'valid'? They are looking for a galactic email that may never come. They don't really know what shape, form or language it might take (and let's be honest here), they don't have a proper test, just like ID.

If I were currently teaching and any student asked about ID, I would be very happy to give them the assignment of reseaching and writing a paper on the scientific principles being tested by ID.

Umm, sorry ma'am, my dog ate it........... hehe :cover:

It's been a good discussion rocketman, but now I've got to go make rice crispie treats and muffins for our church fellowship hour tomorrow.

see ya.

Ok. I have to go too. Cheers.

 

[rocketman]

Mutation is a completely random event, limited only by the different possible combinations of DNA.

So we agree that the process is finite. Excellent. That leaves open the possiblity that it may not have happened (ie: it's not a magic do-all power). More research is needed. For example, can we know if the limits were broad enough to allow for the necessary transitions between a particular older species and it's descendant? Obviously we'll probably never be able to answer such questions. Hence, the standard model requires assumptions (which is fine, that's all we've got). This is the kind of things kids want to be able to discuss at length........ And if they already can/do let's get it in writing so that the silly 'culture-wars' can become less of an hassle for education.

The problem with these ideas is when they are taught in scientific institutions such as schools but contain no scientific validity.

Who said ID was going to be taught as a science? ID objects to some parts of evolution (certainly not all of it). Why not bring it up as a discussion point? The bill allows that to happen without fear or favor. I still don't see how science education is threatened.

I really have to go now. Catcha' later.

 

[Da Troof]

I have mixed feeling about teaching ID. I am utterly opposed to censorship of any kind. (I even have a problem with censoring racist comments as happens in the UK).
On that basis ID should be taught in schools. However to suggest that ID is a valid interpretation of the world/universe that we see today is utterly wrong. It is also utterly wrong for ID to be taught in any science class because it is non-scientific.

ID should be taught as a social topic along these lines.

There are people in the world today who's religious beliefs are so threatened by the facts that:

1 evolution theory seems to provide an excellent explanation for the diversity of life on earth
2 physicists are getting closer to explaining how the universe came into being and developed into what we see today
3 Physicists, chemists and biologists are very close to explaining how life originated on earth

so they have tried to come up with an alternative explanation for the origins of the universe, life and it subsequent development (evolution) called ID. ID cannot be disproven or even discredited in a scientific sense because it is not a scientific theory. ID has to disregard nearly all scientific observation about life and the universe. Howvever there remains a infinitely small possibility that ID is correct and that everything we see in the universe is the result of design by a super-intelligence.

Pupils should be asked to consider why a small group of people should believe such an idea in the face of huge amounts of evidence to the contrary. They should be asked to examine the tactics used by IDists to promote their idea. They should study the way such ideas are used by politicians. Above all they should be encouraged to think about what belief in ID really means to them, their families, communities and the human race as a whole.

 

[McBell]

The bill is about discussion, questioning, testing. It's what happens after they have been taught. Meyers essay is agood example of something they could discuss. Link.

From the "About Us" page of your linked site:

Started in 1996, the Center for Science and Culture is a Discovery Institute program which:

• supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory;
• supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design;
• supports research by scientists and scholars in the social sciences and humanities exploring the impact of scientific materialism on culture.
• encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, including the theory's scientific weaknesses as well is its strengths.

 

[The_Her3tiK]

So we agree that the process is finite. Excellent. That leaves open the possiblity that it may not have happened (ie: it's not a magic do-all power).

Of course it may not have happened, but consider how many variations of DNA have come about with only for different compounds. We share over 99% of our genetic code with other humans, and look what that remaining percentage has generated alone. Chimpanzees differ by only about 3% from our entire species. Therefore, the fact that there are only so many combinations is nearly irrelevant to the likelihood of evolution happening of its own accord.

Who said ID was going to be taught as a science?

The fact that its to be taught alongside science that is the issue. Many of the ID supporters I know wish the two methods to be taught as equal possibilities, therefore suggesting that they believe it to be science. At least, that is the case with the supporters I know personally.

ID objects to some parts of evolution (certainly not all of it). Why not bring it up as a discussion point? The bill allows that to happen without fear or favor. I still don't see how science education is threatened.

ID objects to the idea that evolution was spontaneous and could occur without a "designer's" influence. This designer, in order to avoid the issue of who created the aliens that created us, would have to be supernatural in origin. Science and the supernatural are not subjects that can be mixed, much as the entirety of the ID/evolution/creationism debate proves every time somebody brings it up. When the two are mixed, both will obviously try to come out on top. So far, neither side has pushed hard enough to do so in a decisive matter, but when it does chances are that the opposing side will be eliminated from society, or at the very least brought to an almost cult-like status as far as its following is concerned. Obviously, in a nation that is over 54% certain that Christianity is true (and yes, I realize they are not officially the ones pushing for ID), such support that a god-like deity is responsible for life as we know it would be devastating to the pursuit of knowledge.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

*Sigh* None.

From the proposed act (again): "..shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion"

Ok....here we go......

Stick to it man.....ID has always been a position coming from the religious...specifically (christian/muslim/jew).....

You, so far that I know of, have been the only one to insert an "alien creator" theory here....and as some one said...."who created the aliens".....

Sounds like more unscientific theories full of holes.....

If you persist to push ID but have no idea of who the IDer is then what you have is pure speculation.....

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Ok....here we go......

Stick to it man.....ID has always been a position coming from the religious...specifically (christian/muslim/jew).....

You, so far that I know of, have been the only one to insert an "alien creator" theory here....and as some one said...."who created the aliens".....

Sounds like more unscientific theories full of holes.....

If you persist to push ID but have no idea of who the IDer is then what you have is pure speculation.....

"An "alien creator" theory"? Sounds like typical atheistic bias.

 

[rocketman]

If you persist to push ID but have no idea of who the IDer is then what you have is pure speculation.....

I really don't know what you are on about old friend. I have already said in this thread that I hope no one teaches ID in the classroom as a science unless/until it becomes one. I have also pointed out that the bill keeps a leash on things so they don't get too far out of hand. It's a smart idea, to formalise how far these things can go, but I see now that few people actually understand the consequences of this bill outside of the context of their own bias (my opinion). No one has put up a serious reason supporting a 'yes' position with regards to the OP which also fits in with what the bill actually provides for, so I'll ask you the question, again: if the kids still have to demonstrate that they understand the theory of evolution before all else (they do) then how is it that supplemental discussions (time permitting) of other concepts that focus on legitimate weaknesses in standard models and thus encourage a bit of 'outside the box' critical thinking ever going to threaten science education? I actually hope it passes, so I can drop back in here at a future date and reflect on how everyone was in a worry over nothing.