Should ID be taught in public schools?

[Magic Man]

The problem with this statement is that a great many people, including theists, would be upset and offended to be told they are a subset of ID.

Why? I am quite sure that any theist I've met on here would have no problem with being labelled a subset of ID. It's not a bad thing, and I'm not quite sure why you would believe it to be. ID is a broad subject that covers a very general idea, one which is part of all forms of theism other than things like pantheism and panentheism (which tend not to be considered theism anyway).

This isn't hard. ID holds that some sort of intelligent designer created the universe. Different religions call it different things, but it's generally what we mean when we use the term "God".

 

[blackout]

As a Panenthiest I am inclined to the notion that The UniVerse is "imbued" with intelligence... intelligence is a part of what the UniVerse is (as we can observe in man... which is also a part of the UniVerse). I'm quite comfortable with the idea that the UniVerse develops and changes--evolves-- "with intelligence"... or in a Sentient manner.

Edit:
Just to add... I do not think this idea in anyway runs counter to the scientific findings of evolutionary theory.
If someone more knowledgable sees that it does, I would be interested to know why/how that is so.

 

[Yerda]

I'm quite comfortable with the idea that the UniVerse develops and changes--evolves-- "with intelligence"... or in a Sentient manner.

Do you think there is good reason to suppose it is the case, Violet?

 

[blackout]

Do you think there is good reason to suppose it is the case, Violet?

Well, lol, what is reasonable for me, may not be for you.

Really though, I appreciate the question, and I want to answer this thoughtfully,
so I shall have to come back later to post, when I can find some quiet time.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The problem with this statement is that a great many people, including theists, would be upset and offended to be told they are a subset of ID. You are focusing on the words and not the substance. The designer could also be flamboyant or artistic or whatever. Stop using a coincidence of words to imply a coincidence of substance. What I am trying to do here is not to split hairs as you say, but to point out that we need to be careful before we make sweeping declarations about other people's beliefs. That's all.

Look....that is not what I was trying to do here. ID seems to not want to name a specific creator or creators but allows for any and all of them to be considered a possibility as the one or ones who created it all...or some....

None of the religions on the planet...be they pagan, chirstian, muslim or jew would ever consider their god(s) not to be intelligent....and it it obvious that they attribute creation to them....thus they fall under the spectrum of ID. ID does not name names but religions do. Do all religions adhere to (ALL) of the theories of ID? Nope....but these religions are proponents of ID..(in that they believe their god or gods are the Intelligent Designer(s)).

It's without a doubt that ID makes it possible to consider the god of the bible as the IDer, as well as the gods of any other religion, aliens etc.....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

In broad strokes, if you presume a designer, you imply at least a few things:

- the designer exists
- the designer is capable of formulating the design
- the designer is capable of implementing the design

When we start looking at specific instances where a designer is invoked, we can start looking at specific characteristics: for example, genetic manipulation of a population of organisms or creation of some new organ from scratch would imply certain abilities on the part of the designer.

IC is based on the idea that evolution is physically incapable of creating certain traits. It's eminently reasonable to ask whether ID's alternative explanation would be any more physically capable of creating them.

Take the famous (and discredited) example of "irreducible complexity" that was used for quite some time: the bacterial flagellum. Certain ID proponents claimed that evolution would be incapable of creating it. The fact that this has been disproven aside, how possible is the alternative? Are there any physical limitations that would prevent some intelligent designer to round up a population of bacteria, somehow affix a flagellum, modify their genetic code, and then send them on their way... all without leaving any trace of this activity that can be detected by us? My gut feeling is that there probably are.

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).

But the thing is this: they can't. Ever.

At least in terms of irreducible complexity, the claim used is that some phenomenon could not have happened by any natural means that we know of. However, even if this were true, it would still allow several alternate explanations:

- the phenomenon was the deliberate action of an intelligent supernatural entity (i.e. ID).
- the phenomenon was the non-deliberate action of some not-necessarily-intelligent supernatural entity.
- the phenomenon happened by natural means that are, so far, unknown to us.

The only valid justification I can see for deeming some natural feature to be designed would be a sworn affadavit from God Himself to this affect, preferably accompanied by video footage of Him doing the design and creation.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... thereby eliminating the ID movement as a superfluous fraud.

What? And invalidate all those decades of hard work in dingy laboratories by all of those scientists?

This is heresy, I tell you!!

 

[fantome profane]

As a Panenthiest I am inclined to the notion that The UniVerse is "imbued" with intelligence... intelligence is a part of what the UniVerse is (as we can observe in man... which is also a part of the UniVerse). I'm quite comfortable with the idea that the UniVerse develops and changes--evolves-- "with intelligence"... or in a Sentient manner.

Edit:
Just to add... I do not think this idea in anyway runs counter to the scientific findings of evolutionary theory.
If someone more knowledgable sees that it does, I would be interested to know why/how that is so.

I don’t think this idea runs contrary to any scientific findings. However I think it is also important to understand that this idea has no scientific support either. It is an untestable, unfalsifiable, and unscientific idea.

Now I don’t think this makes it a lesser idea. And I suspect that the unscientific nature of this idea will not bother you, nor should it. The problem lies with the I.D. movement that tries to present this idea as if it were science.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Well, the Christian fundamentalists have a frightening amount of influence in this country. Hell, they own the republican party.

And pigs can fly.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

And pigs can fly.

Trying to be sure I follow you, Sandy. Are you saying that the Republican party is not heavily influenced by the Christian fundamentalist movement?

 

[rocketman]

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.

Ok, if I ever see him I'll tell him that those truth-searching papers he writes for credible scientific journals count for nothing. He won't get away with this.

 

[rocketman]

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:

You have just made the same mistake that the ID crowd make, you just assigned the quality of intelligent-design (or in your case non-intelligent design) to a pattern; unwittingly of-course.

A more correct analysis would tell us that the pattern is neither intelligently nor unintelligently designed, for it is not designed at all, at least as far as science is concerned.

Apparant design/misdesign is something we all see. But let's not confuse this with genuine design/misdesign. It's not an easy habit to break, but its only fair that if IDers cannot say 'design' then others cannot say 'bad design'. You can't have it both ways.

 

[rocketman]

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.

As I've said I don't support the assertion that ID has a falsifiable hypothesis. Nevertheless (but in that context) it needs to be said that in this case design can indeed be handled seperately from designer. In the field of archaeology for example, one can find techniques and methods for identifying the existence of design quite seperately from knowing anything about a designer. As for ID, of-course, their definition of design is the problem, but it does not follow that they must specify a designer, even if they did have an umistakeable example of 'intelligent design', whatever that may be.

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.

I think a better idea would be for the ID movement to simply come out and say that they don't have a falsifiable hypothesis. In any case they would continue looking for one, but it would kill dead any suggestion that ID should get equal billing in a science classroom, and end a lot of time-wasting arguments.

 

[rocketman]

No, because I didn't respond to you before. This is my first response to you.

I think you did. Post #176. You quoted me and then asked a question. Wouldn't that constitute a response? If the question wasn't related to the quote why include the quote? Forgive me if I have you confused with someone else.

Therefore, if you believe in ID, then you believe in some sort of "God", and therefore you are not agnostic.

Except of course for the prominent agnostic members of the movement. Your argument is silly beyond belief.

 

[rocketman]

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.

Ok, so you can't show me where ID-proper requires a supernatural creator. Instead you want me to accept that the word intelligent in big red letters means supernatural.

I can tell you that genetic engineering is possible, but it is not carried out by anyone supernatural. I can tell you that under ID the designer is not by necessity responsible for the origination of all of the building blocks (what you call 'everything'). And they have never made an appeal to the supernatural in their claims about ID.

 

[rocketman]

Do all religions adhere to (ALL) of the theories of ID? Nope....but these religions are proponents of ID..(in that they believe their god or gods are the Intelligent Designer(s)).

(Emphasis mine) There is a glimmer of hope present with that there sentence, that you are at least attempting to make the distinction. Keep up the good work.

 

[rocketman]

I don’t think this idea runs contrary to any scientific findings. However I think it is also important to understand that this idea has no scientific support either. It is an untestable, unfalsifiable, and unscientific idea.

Now I don’t think this makes it a lesser idea. And I suspect that the unscientific nature of this idea will not bother you, nor should it. The problem lies with the I.D. movement that tries to present this idea as if it were science.

Very nice care and attention there towards the other person, especially when holding their sympathy with an idea quite apart from any nasty movement.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I've said I don't support the assertion that ID has a falsifiable hypothesis. Nevertheless (but in that context) it needs to be said that in this case design can indeed be handled seperately from designer. In the field of archaeology for example, one can find techniques and methods for identifying the existence of design quite seperately from knowing anything about a designer.

I have never heard of such a thing in archaeology. Could you give us an example?

I think a better idea would be for the ID movement to simply come out and say that they don't have a falsifiable hypothesis. In any case they would continue looking for one, but it would kill dead any suggestion that ID should get equal billing in a science classroom, and end a lot of time-wasting arguments.

It would also run counter to the whole point of ID (i.e. to undermine teaching of evolution in public schools as part of a political and religious agenda), so I'm not holding out much hope for it ever happening.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

...In any case they would continue looking for one, ...

You give them too much credit. No such search has been (or is being) conducted.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Your argument is silly beyond belief.

There is definitely a silly argument being put forth here.