Should ID be taught in public schools?

[The Voice of Reason]

Just plain wrong. The title "intelligent design" automatically indicates a belief in an intelligent designer- a supernatural causation. Intelligent design = supernatural causation. Why is this difficult for creationists to see? We heathens have no trouble with it.

I see the disconnect, Alceste.

You are working under the mistaken assumption that the other side is being honest about what they understand.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

As I said in post 262.....God, gods, or aliens are an unknown....so why are we even dealing with this?????

The quote that was used earlier was that the "supernatural cannot be observed"....this goes for aliens, gods etc.....

If it is an unknown then how can anything be attributed?

The argument of ID being agnostic is not important due to the fact that the supposed God, gods and aliens are an unknown...

ID as well as creationism is about speculaion....it's certainly not about facts.

 

[Ben Masada]

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?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Tomspug,

I am of the opinion that ID should not be taught in public schools as neither should
Evolution. Unless both as theories. But even as theories, there is no need for those teachings to be included in the curriculum. But since sometimes it becomes almost impossible to prevent the subject from being brought to light, both should be outlined as theories. No one is sure of anything, and everything is up for speculations.

Ben

 

[Autodidact]

An idea can be agnostic. That's all I'm saying. I also used the word neutral earlier in this thread if you prefer that. Either way, it is possible for an agnostic to follow the idea. If the idea-proper demanded a supernatural causation then things would be different, but as the agnostic Schultz pointed out in that essay I quoted, it does not automatically follow that a supernatural casuation is required for the idea.

It can be, but this one isn't. ID doesn't assert that the identity of The Designer CANNOT be known, only that identifying Him is not part of ID itself. The definition of agnosticism is an assertion that the truth value of certain claims cannot be known.

 

[Autodidact]

As we all know, what really goes on with ID is that its proponents (other than two) all think they know exactly who The Designer is, but they prefer to maintain publicly that ID doesn't, so they can call it science instead of religion.

 

[Autodidact]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Tomspug,

I am of the opinion that ID should not be taught in public schools as neither should
Evolution. Unless both as theories. But even as theories, there is no need for those teachings to be included in the curriculum. But since sometimes it becomes almost impossible to prevent the subject from being brought to light, both should be outlined as theories. No one is sure of anything, and everything is up for speculations.

Ben

Should all scientific theories be excluded? Such as gravity, electro-magnetism, helio-centrism, relativity? Or is only this one to be excluded?

 

[rocketman]

It can be, ...

Yay.

...but this one isn't. ID doesn't assert that the identity of The Designer CANNOT be known, only that identifying Him is not part of ID itself. The definition of agnosticism is an assertion that the truth value of certain claims cannot be known.

I have no argument with that if that's what you mean by agnostic, in which case I need to find a better word (neutral?). I would point out however that you are clearly refering to stong-agnosticsm, wheras I was thinking more along the lines of soft or temporal-agnosticism when I use it as an adjective, as I think most people do when they use it as an adjective.

Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For example, I would still have to consider the following 'cannot' idea/statement by IDers to be agnostic:

"using present knowledge, identifying the designer cannot be done by science"

Therefore the idea is agnostic, but in the context of them claiming someone else may be able to answer it then I'm happy to concede it is only 'weakly' agnostic. It certainly does not demand allegience to a diety or otherwise.

And yes, I'm aware of the personal views of the bulk of IDers, but I think my point still stands up.

And I think I'm done for this thread, now that someone finally understands what I've been on about, even if you do disagree.

 

[Sunstone]

No one is sure of anything...

Although in one sense that is technically true, in another sense it is absurd to assert it as a reason for not teaching evolution.

 

[blackout]

Ok. So I have a very genuine question.

I went to a catholic highschool,
and was never taught any details about evolution whatsoever.
(unless I went to class stoned that day and forgot)

In what way would my life be better,
if someone had taught me about the theory of evolution?

 

[rojse]

Ok. So I have a very genuine question.

I went to a catholic highschool,
and was never taught any details about evolution whatsoever.
(unless I went to class stoned that day and forgot)

In what way would my life be better,
if someone had taught me about the theory of evolution?

Good question.

Having a naturalistic explanation for why there is such diversity in animals, at the very least, would allow you to be equipped with the idea that things that seem like they are ordered according to an over-arching design, might be explainable naturally.

Imagine that one of your theist high-school friends (or someone on RF) says to you: "There is no reasonable scientific explanation as to why this universe seems so ordered as to allow us to live. Therefore, God must exist."

Superficially, this seems to be a good explanation. But knowing evolution, and that things that are seemingly ordered can have a natural explanation, you reply "Just because there is no current scientific explanation for the organisation of our universe, does not mean there is no scientific explanation at all. Our natural ecology system seems to be ordered, and was once claimed to be a divine creation, but it's diversity can be explained through evolution. In the future, there might be scientific explanations that are the equivalent of evolution that explain why we live in a universe that seems so ordered as to allow us to live."

Quite apart from this, the idea of evolution has also influenced religious beliefs (particularly deism), which postulated that God might create the universe, but set internal laws in order for it to work without intervention.

Are these reasonable answers?

 

[Jeremy Mason]

This sums it up for me.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...lution-only-opposed-significant-amount-3.html

 

[Magic Man]

And I'm sorry to say it shows. Well, don't say that I didn't show you where an agnostic, who is not an IDer (ie: not biased for them), wrote an essay that explains why the designer doesn't necessarily have to be "God'.

What I was saying is that I'd love to talk to an agnostic who believes in ID. Apparently, your example is not that, and I also can't talk to him about it. Also, you don't hav to call the designer "God", but then you're just being dishonest. You can call that designer whatever you want, but it's your version of "God".

Right, so according to your reasoning, all those scientists working on folding space theories, string theories and so on are conducting a study of the supernatural. (!)

What? How hard is this to understand? If something that wasn't part of our universe (because our universe didn't exist yet) created our universe, then that something is by definition supernatural.

The idea-proper does allows for a completely unspecified extra dimesnional causation, which in turn allows for an agnostic person to follow ID if they wish, not that they would find a falsifiable hypothesis present.

You're still using the term "idea-proper". Why? ID is ID. There is no improper or proper version. It's fine if you don't specify exactly what that causation is, but, in subscribing to ID, you are saying that it is at least intelligent. At that point, it conforms to the definition of a God. An agnostic can believe that some extra-dimensional being created our particular universe, but then it's not really ID they're talking about. It's a subset of it, just like Christianity is.

No it doesn't. Only our universe. And with the larger emphasis on biology.

No, now you're talking about a subset of the general belief. The whole idea behind ID is that it explains who everything came to be. The idea is that nothing could work the way it does or be as complex as it is without some design involved. So, the ultimate cause of everything must be an intelligent designer. That would include anything that was complex enough to then create this universe.

 

[Autodidact]

Yay.

I have no argument with that if that's what you mean by agnostic,

That's the common meaning.

Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable.

[wiki] ID does not hold this view, so is not agnostic.

in which case I need to find a better word (neutral?).

Yes, you do.

I would point out however that you are clearly refering to stong-agnosticsm, wheras I was thinking more along the lines of soft or temporal-agnosticism when I use it as an adjective, as I think most people do when they use it as an adjective.

Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ID does not hold any type of agnostic view. Virtually every proponent of ID is a religionist, and the great majority of them are Christian. ID does not hold that we don't know whether there is a God, or even who that God is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

For example, I would still have to consider the following 'cannot' idea/statement by IDers to be agnostic:

"using present knowledge, identifying the designer cannot be done by science"

I bolded the important words. ID is not agnostic; it is anti-scientific. It holds that science cannot answer certain questions, and one needs to resort to (their) religion to do that. This is not agnosticism; it is anti-sciencism, and shows exactly why it should not be taught as science. Because it isn't.

And we know that it's disingenuous as well. The reason that God cannot be detected by science is that for scientific (which, for me, means for all) purposes He does not exist.

Therefore the idea is agnostic, but in the context of them claiming someone else may be able to answer it then I'm happy to concede it is only 'weakly' agnostic. It certainly does not demand allegience to a diety or otherwise.

No, it is not. It may be nuetral, but not in any way agnostic.

And yes, I'm aware of the personal views of the bulk of IDers, but I think my point still stands up.

No, it doesn't.

And I think I'm done for this thread, now that someone finally understands what I've been on about, even if you do disagree.

Yes, I do.

 

[Autodidact]

Ok. So I have a very genuine question.

I went to a catholic highschool,
and was never taught any details about evolution whatsoever.
(unless I went to class stoned that day and forgot)

In what way would my life be better,
if someone had taught me about the theory of evolution?

You would know the explanation for the diversity of species on the planet, and why it looks so nifty. btw, this happens to be one of the greatest scientific advances of all time, which creationists are asking us to throw in the trash.

The purpose of science is to advance our knowledge.

Speaking for myself, it has helped me to understand many other things about how the world, including people, works.

 

[Autodidact]

This sums it up for me.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...lution-only-opposed-significant-amount-3.html

Sorry, don't want to plow through an entire separate thread. What sums it up for you?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Sorry, don't want to plow through an entire separate thread. What sums it up for you?

Well I clicked the link he provided and was wondering the same thing....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I stil hold that "God"....gods, aliens are an unknown so it makes no sense to attribute intellegience or anything else to an unknown. We can't teach speculation and hold that the speculation if fact simply because we have no way of testing it. We can't teach kids...it's true because I say it is...or it's true because that's what I read in this religious book. If that's what some want to teach then continue to do it in the church etc....but not in our public schools.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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

The statement was that they "owned" the Republican party. A conclusion not based on evidence.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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:

But have you tasted one yet?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

The statement was that they "owned" the Republican party. A conclusion not based on evidence.

I don't want to speak for Father Heathen, but I thought it was pretty obvious that he was speaking metaphorically.