Should ID be taught in public schools?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Don't confuse the effort with the idea.

Good point. Similarly, don't confuse the idea with science.

 

[rocketman]

Good point. Similarly, don't confuse the idea with science.

An even better point.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Something in your words reminds me of when some people say that evolution is false because abiogenesis hasn't been proven. ID does not have to deal with the question of who the designer is, that's not what it's about.

If it wants to be science... i.e. if it wants to be falsifiable, it does.

The simple claim that evolution alone did not result in the history of life is a negative claim; it has no way to be measured, confirmed or refuted. For ID to enter the realm of science, it would need a positive claim; it would need to suggest an actual mechanism other than evolution: it needs some overarching hypothesis that takes the form "______ is responsible for the development of life on Earth", where that blank is filled with some actual thing; it's not enough to invoke some entity with completely indeterminate characteristics.

Evolution is made up of the mechanisms of natural selection, inheritability and random mutation. If you want to give some explanation for life that does not involve evolution, you need to suggest some other set of mechanisms, which means getting specific at some point.

This is very different from the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution. "Survival of the fittest" presupposes the existence of some population made up of more and less fit members. The wall between abiogenesis and evolution is not arbitrary; in contrast, the decision by the ID community to not officially specify any characteristics of the designer as some sort of quid pro quo with evolutionary science ("you don't have to show us yours, so we don't have to show you ours") is...

...and it's an artificial barrier that doesn't make any sense: any sort of entity (but don't call it God, right? ) that would be capable of getting a species over the "irreducible complexity" hump (if irreducible complexity were ever found to actually exist) would certainly have some sorts of characteristics. The fact that the ID community isn't interested in postulating on what the necessary characteristics for an intelligent designer would be and then formulating experiments to test for those characteristics tells me that there's no interest in ID for actual science.

 

[rocketman]

Hmmm. Well, I'm the first to admit that ID doesn't have a falsifiable hypothesis. But saying that they must postualte a specific designer is rubbish. When I think for example of Newtons famous quip "hypotheses non fingo" I am immediately reminded that we still don't know what causes gravity, though we do know what effects to look for. The trouble with ID is that they lack both the cause and the effect, but that doesn't mean that we must demand that they specify a designer any more than we can demand that TOE specifies abiogenesis. I think a reasonable person can understand the difference between the concept of design and the concept of a designer. They are certainly far from being one and the same.

 

[Autodidact]

I honestly wasn't aware that ID-proper required a supernatural creator. Perhaps you could show me where it does.

This is the standard response from them:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=565

According to them it doesn't; but one questions their sincerity on this point. I think they think it's better PR to include the possibility of a non-supernatural creator, such as a race of super-intelligent extra-terrestrials. However, no proponent of ID that I've heard of actually believes this. And of course, ID, being fundamentally un-scientific, has no way to explore the nature or mechanism of the purported creator.

Phillip Johnson, the modern impetus behind the movement, says that ID is in effect advocating for a religious view in the modern world.

 

[Autodidact]

It's not about terms. The idea is seperate from the people involved. By using the word 'option' you have all but admitted that the idea itself is agnostic, or 'nuetral' if people prefer that term. What individuals then do with it, whether they be theists or agnostics or whatever, is a seperate issue.

Yes and no. On the one hand, they deny the possibility of identifying the designer, so it's agnostic in that sense. On the other hand, they know that the designer is God, so it's theistic. That is, either it's inconsistent, or they're dishonest.

 

[idea]

I think there are a lot of things that should not be taught at schools – some things kids need to hear from their parents. Religious stuff, sex ed stuff, just keep it at home. There are enough things they need to be learning at school, let school worry about getting the basics in – reading writing arithmetic – before trying to put anything else in. School is a place to learn / prepare for a career, not a place for indoctrinating kids with agendas.

 

[rocketman]

Yes and no. On the one hand, they deny the possibility of identifying the designer, so it's agnostic in that sense. On the other hand, they know that the designer is God, so it's theistic. That is, either it's inconsistent, or they're dishonest.

Stop saying 'they'. You are still confusing the idea with the people for goodness sakes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hmmm. Well, I'm the first to admit that ID doesn't have a falsifiable hypothesis. But saying that they must postualte a specific designer is rubbish.

And I'm not saying that. I'm saying that by postulating that a designer exists and that this designer is capable of certain things, that this presumably implies various characteristics of that designer... perhaps the existence of an entity with these characteristics, or the existence of the characteristics themselves, can be tested for.

When I think for example of Newtons famous quip "hypotheses non fingo" I am immediately reminded that we still don't know what causes gravity, though we do know what effects to look for.

You don't need to know what makes gravity work to recognize that it does work and make some intelligent inferences about it. Still, as you alluded to, you can look for effects and compare these to your predictions. ID doesn't have even this.

The trouble with ID is that they lack both the cause and the effect,

Which is only a small trouble.

but that doesn't mean that we must demand that they specify a designer any more than we can demand that TOE specifies abiogenesis. I think a reasonable person can understand the difference between the concept of design and the concept of a designer. They are certainly far from being one and the same.

But just as, for example, evolution implies a mechanism for inheritance of traits, design implies a designer.

As an analogy, take continental drift: in the beginning, it had trouble gaining acceptance because no plausible mechanism could be suggested to explain it. However, as the mechanism for continental drift became known (i.e. plate tectonics, including elements like subduction and sea floor spreading), continental drift was accepted to the point where now, it's taken as a certainty for all practical purposes.

Asking the ID community for a mechanism that would allow their fanciful claims to actually happen isn't out of keeping for normal scientific inquiry.

Also, I should point out that evolution doesn't require abiogenesis. It makes no difference whatsoever to the theory of evolution if the first seeds of life on Earth arose spontaneously, were placed here deliberately by God, were accidentally dropped by aliens, or anything else. All that evolution assumes is that rudimentary life came to exist on Earth somehow.

If abiogenesis were proven false, evolution would still be a viable theory. However, if the existence of an intelligent designer were proven false, ID would lose its entire foundation.

 

[Willamena]

Well, I'm the first to admit that ID doesn't have a falsifiable hypothesis.

Hardly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Stop saying 'they'. You are still confusing the idea with the people for goodness sakes.

And it seems like you're confusing a political and religious tactic for honest scientific inquiry.

 

[rocketman]

And I'm not saying that. I'm saying that by postulating that a designer exists and that this designer is capable of certain things, that this presumably implies various characteristics of that designer... perhaps the existence of an entity with these characteristics, or the existence of the characteristics themselves, can be tested for.

I hear you but I think that design can be seperate from a designer. I would say that it does not follow that one must specify the designer at all. One may find design and never find the designer. You may infer a thing or two about it, but the inferences may not be plenty.

If we ever find the cause of gravity it may turn out to be something completely different than what we infered from the characteristics of it's effects. It wouldn't be the first time in science that it has happened. Not that ID is science yet.

Which is only a small trouble.

Yeah, minor bump in the road!:cover:

Asking the ID community for a mechanism that would allow their fanciful claims to actually happen isn't out of keeping for normal scientific inquiry.

I couldn't agree more.

Also, I should point out that evolution doesn't require abiogenesis.

Right. But with my analogy I was thinking more along the lines that the explanation and observation of evolution does not require the explanation and observation of abiogenesis. Which is also what I'm saying about design and designers. (assuming they ever get a proper test for design, oops, there's that speedbump again).

 

[rocketman]

Hardly.

Well, I don't believe ID has a falsifiable hypothesis. Simple as that.

 

[rocketman]

And it seems like you're confusing a political and religious tactic for honest scientific inquiry.

I'm not. I disagreed with a description another member put forward about a particular religious group, that's all. I'm not advocating ID.

I must apologise to all and sundry for veering us across multiple lanes of oncoming topics, but at least there was a fair bit of ID scrutiny involved.

 

[Sententia]

I'm not really sure it should. I honestly don't know much about arguments for ID, but it seems, on the surface, to simply desire to insert a religious perspective alongside a scientific one.

I understand the concept, that everything did not come from nothing, necessarily from something. But should that be taught alongside evolution? They are not really related. If anything, it is an idea that belongs in either philosophy or some more complicated science like quantum physics. Doesn't intelligent design accept evolution? Wouldn't it then be unnecessary to teach it as an alternative to evolution?

Honestly, I don't think it is a school's responsibility to make children aware of religious beliefs. That's why we have religion. If parents are so upset about this stuff, that's what bible schools are for, right? We do have private schools.

Intelligent Design isn't science, in my opinion. It is a perspective on science. Should students be made aware that this perspective exists? I'm not sure. What do you think? We teach the histories of religions in schools, don't we? Comparative religions?

Of course it should not be. Its odd... look at america from a world wide perspective... How does ID make us more competitive?

Why teach religion at all? You tired of america existing as a country? Just make more sheeple that forget what the real world is like... Vote McCain and send everyone to private schools or home school them... You know best. :help:

 

[fantome profane]

So, much to his credit, he is trying to find an explanation for his theistic beliefs that does not in turn violate his scientific and academic instincts.

I can understand why you might feel this does him credit, but I certainly don’t. From what you describe he is trying to rationalize his personal religious theistic dogma. This is not what science is about. Science should be about the search for truth, not the search for rationalizations. In science if the evidence does not support the thesis, you change the thesis. If you are unwilling to do this you don’t deserve the title of scientist.

This talk of subscribing to ID can be offensive to many YEC theists, in fact it is offensive to many theists, regardless of the infered design overlap. That's all I'm on about.

I have no doubt that many people would be offended. But that does not make the fact any less true. YEC is a subset of I.D. The reasoning behind this statement has been explained multiple times in this thread, and you have done absolutely nothing to counter that reasoning or to provide any reasons for thinking otherwise. What you have done is provide your own and other peoples feeling that they don’t like this fact. While I would like to be respectful of peoples feelings, they don’t alter the reality of the situation.

To put it all another way, if I may mention some political parties from your great nation, it occurs to me that over the years that both sides of politics over there have occasionally found themselves with policies that were at one time or another part of the platform of the opposite side. So from that I could well say that, for example, "all democrats subscribe to republicanism", couldn't I? Somehow I don't think it would be received as intended. If you really want to say that "all YECers subscribe to ID' then fine, but at least I tried.

And Republican politicians would be considered a subset of politicians. And the fact that many Democrat politicians are former Republican politicians does not alter that fact.

It seems to me that you are the one confusing the idea with the people.

 

[Alceste]

I hear you but I think that design can be seperate from a designer. I would say that it does not follow that one must specify the designer at all.

I disagree with you here - a "design" without a "designer" is just a pattern. ID does more than just imply a designer - it claims the supposedly unidentified "designer" has a characteristic: intelligence.

Something I find hard to believe looking at something like this:

IMO, "Intelligent Design" qualifies as religious propaganda (rather than an "idea" or a "theory") precisely because proponents of ID bend over backwards trying to convince people it has nothing to do with religion or religious belief.

Your assertion that ID is "agnostic" is a good example of the culture of deceit within the ID community. You present it as if an agnostic simply can't make up their minds which god created the earth, or whether it might have been aliens - therefore agnosticism fits perfectly with ID. In fact, an agnostic does not know whether or not belief in a supernatural intelligence of any kind is justifiable. It's not a choice of "which", but "whether or not". Therefore agnosticism is in direct conflict with ID, which requires as a starting point an unquestioning belief in some form of supernatural (ie. capable of purposefully designing the whole of creation) intelligence.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I hear you but I think that design can be seperate from a designer. I would say that it does not follow that one must specify the designer at all.

As soon as you use the term design versus, e.g., characteristics, you imply the verb and the agency carrying out the action. This becomes even more apparent when the term is qualified. What you've done here is simply (albeit perhaps unintentionally) replicate the deceit of the ID movement.

If you still disagree, there is a rather obvious solution; we can simply replace the phrase "Intelligent Design" with "understandable characteristics" and acknowledge that the study of these characteristics is precisely what science is all about, thereby eliminating the ID movement as a superfluous fraud.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't understand your question.

You originally wrote:

"Just because those behind ID choose not to explicity identify the designer doesn't make the theory agnostic."

The opposite opinion of which would be:

"Just because those behind ID choose not to explicity identify the designer doesn't make the theory non-agnostic"

Which is what I meant when I replied to you:

"It doesn't make it otherwise either."

Makes sense now?

No, because I didn't respond to you before. This is my first response to you. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but my point is that it is not agnostic. There is an inherent implication in ID that there is some intelligent designer, in other words "God". Therefore, if you believe in ID, then you believe in some sort of "God", and therefore you are not agnostic.

Make sense now?

 

[Magic Man]

I honestly wasn't aware that ID-proper required a supernatural creator. Perhaps you could show me where it does.

Here's where it does: Intelligent design. The name itself tells you there is some sort of creator behind everything. That's the whole point of it. Maybe you could show me where it doesn't automatically imply a supernatural creator.