• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should ID be taught in public schools?

wvpeach

Member
The Ground State Energies of Carbon, Oxygen, Helium & Beryllium

In the years around 1980, Fred Hoyle discovered that the ground state energies of carbon, oxygen, helium and beryllium had to be within 4% of each other, or else the universe would not have enough carbon or oxygen for life to exist. (Ref. Hoyle, "The Universe: Past and Present Reflection", Annual Reviews of Astronomy... 20, '82, p.16). Realizing the unlikelihood of this situation just happening by itself, Hoyle (who was an anti-theist), declared that for all four of those life-essential elements to randomly hit within 4% of the same "bulls-eye", was so unlikely that it seemed like "a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology" (Ref. Hoyle, last citation, p.16).
THE PROBABILITY: For a single one of those elements to randomly "hit the bulls-eye" to within 4% accuracy of the target energy level, could be conservatively said to be one chance out of 10. ---However, to have the second element hit the same bulls-eye, is also one out of 10, ---and the chance that the two elements both hit it together, is the product of those probabilities (1 out of 10 times 1 out of 10), ---OR--- one chance out of 100. When we follow through for all four elements, using the same procedure of calculating the probability, the final result is: The chance that the ground state energies of all four elements would randomly hit the same energy level required (allowing life to exist), is one chance out of 10,000. ---(...since 1 chance out of 10x10x10x10 = 1 chance out of 10,000).

As explained in the article "A Mathematical Proof of Intelligent Design in Nature," if the probability of something happening by random processes is vanishingly small enough, such a random chance explanation for that event's occurrence is virtually ruled out as a reasonable possibility. In that same article, it was also explained that French mathematician Emile Borel set the probability of 1 chance out of 10^50 as having a statistical chance of zero that it could happen.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
wvpeach:

There is just as much chance that and intelligent designer exists as that the universe formed by random chance. We see design in things because that's how our minds work. We need to see patterns to form the complex ideas that we do.

You speak so much of the near impossibility of certain things happening by random chance, but you forget that an intelligent designer, or God, has just as little chance of existing as these things do of happening by random chance.

You are using a fallacy. "The chances are so small that this could possibly happen that it cannot be the case." You assume that because the chances of one thing are mathematically almost nil, that it must be this other. You have proved nothing. You explanation has the same chance that the one you argue against has, and doesn't even make as much sense.

There is a multi-state lottery around here called Powerball. It is huge, and payouts regularly get up to 8 figures. All of the people who have won have had about a 1 in 146,107,962 chance. I'd say those are pretty horrible odds. And yet, many people have defied those odds to win the jackpot. Just because something is unlikely to happen doesn't mean it can't happen.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Alright, peach is making a fine-tuning argument in favor of ID. First, I will note that this is not the central premise of ID, which is that some features of biological life is too complex to have resulted from evolution. Second, it's utter bunk. The odds of something happened that has already happened are exactly 100%. Therefore the odds of humans having evolved are exactly 100%. End of fine-tuning argument.

"To illustrate the vain conceit that the universe must be somehow pre-ordained for us, because we are so well-suited to live in it, he [Adams] mimed a wonderfully funny imitation of a puddle of water, fitting itself snugly into a depression in the ground, the depression uncannily being exactly the same shape as the puddle."
Douglas Adams[SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE]
Or, to put it differently, if you are looking forward, the odds of the universe being exactly as it is are astronomical. Looking backwards (which is how we are looking) they are exactly 100%.

Yesterday, the odds against me typing these words at this time on this keyboard were billions to one. As of now, they're 100%.

Any such bogus "odds" argument ignores one of the most basic and fundamental concepts in statistics.

It's not that universe was designed with us in mind; rather that we evolved to fit the universe we evolved in.
 

Jeremy Mason

Well-Known Member
Well that's fascinating, but what does it have to do with the subject of science education?

The OP is asking if ID should be taught in schools in the science vs religion DIR. I just thought evolution (science) and the book of Genesis (religion) have a common syntax and should be pointed out in schools rather than pitting the two POVs against each other.
 

Sententia

Well-Known Member
Why do people think they can assign probabilities to something of which they know nothing about?

Hehe... I find people argue vehemently and emotionly about subjects they really know nothing about it. I once had a theory that the less someone knows about something they believe in the more vehemently they will argue in support of it. I think I disproved it once though....
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
The OP is asking if ID should be taught in schools in the science vs religion DIR. I just thought evolution (science) and the book of Genesis (religion) have a common syntax and should be pointed out in schools rather than pitting the two POVs against each other.

where is the supposed connection between the Genesis myth and ToE?
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
The more you know, the smarter you are.

I think the point is that ID should not be taught as true. It should be taught as a possibility believed by some. You can say evolution shouldn't be taught as true either, but it's not. It's taught as the best explanation we have due to the evidence at hand.

Your statement here is true. In this case, though, you not only should know the two theories, but you should also know how each one was thought up.
 

blackout

Violet.
I think the point is that ID should not be taught as true. It should be taught as a possibility believed by some. You can say evolution shouldn't be taught as true either, but it's not. It's taught as the best explanation we have due to the evidence at hand.

Your statement here is true. In this case, though, you not only should know the two theories, but you should also know how each one was thought up.

I think that was what I was trying to say.
Good job ball head!
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
The more you know, the smarter you are.

Great so we know what the ToE side has to offer. We know that this theory is testable. How is ID testable? As I can tell, ID is pure speculation with no way of validating the claims made.

You are, as well as others and some one else here....assigning what you know as "Intelligence" to an unknown. if you "can't know it" then how do you know it's intelligent or otherwise?
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
The OP is asking if ID should be taught in schools in the science vs religion DIR. I just thought evolution (science) and the book of Genesis (religion) have a common syntax and should be pointed out in schools rather than pitting the two POVs against each other.

Well, so does the Egyptian Book of the Dead, but that doesn't mean it should be taught in school. Why would a public school want to teach religion?
 

blackout

Violet.
If a thing is a curent cultural issue,
I think that gives cause for discussion.

If the Egyptian Book of the Dead
is not directly connected to any current social issue,
then it would be just another of any millions of things
a person might choose to look into.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
If a thing is a curent cultural issue,
I think that gives cause for discussion.

If the Egyptian Book of the Dead
is not directly connected to any current social issue,
then it would be just another of any millions of things
a person might choose to look into.

Ultra: ID proponents are proposing that ID be taught, not in a current events class, but in introductory Biology classes, as though it were actually an established Biological theory.
 

blackout

Violet.
Ultra: ID proponents are proposing that ID be taught, not in a current events class, but in introductory Biology classes, as though it were actually an established Biological theory.

Obviously if a thing is not "science",
it should not be taught as if it is.

I am not arguing this,
and never did.

Still I wonder,
if a couple of days can't be set aside
to just DISCUSS the whole issue
in science class...
WHERE then is the proper place to discuss it?

I really don't know?
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Obviously if a thing is not "science",
it should not be taught as if it is.

I am not arguing this,
and never did.

Still I wonder,
if a couple of days can't be set aside
to just DISCUSS the whole issue
in science class...
WHERE then is the proper place to discuss it?

I really don't know?

If I were a science teacher, and discussed it in science class, it would be as an example of pseudo-science. I don't think this is what the ID proponents have in mind.

If you're going to get into areas of scientific controversy, aren't there a lot of other more immediately compelling ones, like say global warming? Why this one in particular?
 

blackout

Violet.
If I were a science teacher, and discussed it in science class, it would be as an example of pseudo-science. I don't think this is what the ID proponents have in mind.

If you're going to get into areas of scientific controversy, aren't there a lot of other more immediately compelling ones, like say global warming? Why this one in particular?

Well, I'm just in here responding to this thread in particular. :D

And I really don't know why! haha non science person that I am.

I hope I have not been an annoyance.

(these discussions help me tie up some loose ends in my mind there though.
So it's good.)
 
Top