Should ID be taught in public schools?

[Sunstone]

I wasn't steering UV towards any of their other material, Sunstone.

I said upfront that it was an ID site.

I was trying to help.

Nothing on the webpage I linked to was untoward.

If there is a better webpage for people who have doubts and aren't sure how to phrase their words then show me the link.

My apologies if I came across as rude.

 

[rojse]

I have yet to see anything remotely close to being described as "observing it happening" when it comes to evolution. I've seen a handful of graphs and world full of unexplained mysteries.

I would have to reply that you have not been searching at all if you say that.

 

[rocketman]

My apologies if I came across as rude.

Don't worry, you didn't.

In hindsight I should have added a warning about the rest of the site with my original link.

 

[Mike182]

I certainly agree the great arguments for and against the existence of god should be taught in philosophy and/or theology courses. But ID, as its being pushed in the States, is a different animal. It is essentially an attack on evolution. A dishonest attack at that.

So, for instance, ID is a non-falsifiable speculation posing as a scientific theory -- which is quite distinct, when you think about it, from, say, the teleological argument for the existence of deity.

I see. Over here in the UK we have little if any notion of a conservative religious backlash attacking evolution theory or science in general, it's just not something we see. Thusly, when I've been talking about Intelligent Design or talking about justifying an Intelligent Designer in this thread, I am only talking about inferences made from philosophical arguments about the characteristics of God and the nature of our surroundings.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Science is pompous. Scientists are so intelligent that they lack other skills kinda like in reverse of a blind man who has a increased sense of smell or hearing.

Take the big bang theory. This says it all. What made the big bang? It is a theory just as ID is a theory as well. As long as it is taught as a theory and not fact, anyone should be able to decide for themselves what unproven facts they wish to subscribe to or not.

Keeping certain theories out of text books is censorship plain and simple. It is equally as stupid for Christian schools not to teach about evolution as a theory.

 

[Sunstone]

Science is pompous. Scientists are so intelligent that they lack other skills kinda like in reverse of a blind man who has a increased sense of smell or hearing.

Take the big bang theory. This says it all. What made the big bang? It is a theory just as ID is a theory as well. As long as it is taught as a theory and not fact, anyone should be able to decide for themselves what unproven facts they wish to subscribe to or not.

Keeping certain theories out of text books is censorship plain and simple. It is equally as stupid for Christian schools not to teach about evolution as a theory.

Are you actually in favor of teaching a non-falsifiable speculation as if it were a scientific theory???

 

[fantome profane]

A well-thought out evaluation of the current condition.

One thing I would like to say, however, on behalf of creationists (of which I continue to include myself, and not, in my opinion, to be standing in contradiction to science yet).

Perhaps people would be more open to the theory of evolution as a science if it were not already so convinced that it was right. It seems to me to be common practice for proponents of evolution to act as if there IS no logical reason to doubt evolution. Well, excuse me if I don't respectfully disagree. If there is anything that is consistent about science, it is the mystery of science and the abundance of LACK of knowledge. We do our best, of course, to try to make sense of what we have gathered. So it is no wonder that the scientific community holds evolution as its best-effort.

HOWEVER, in my experience, I have found that the common man's belief in evolution to be nothing short of religious. There ARE criticisms of current evolution theory, and they are scientific (and in the scientific community!). The idea that there is no debate is an exercise in willful ignorance.

I agree that everything in science must be open to question. Nothing in science should be considered beyond criticism. And I also have observed some people defend evolution as if it were sacred truth. And this is wrong. But I also feel that it is a reaction to the dangerous nonsense of many of the attacks that are launched by creationists. Creationists are well known for taking what are legitimate scientific debates and misinterpreting them for their own ends. Gould himself talked about how he had to be extremely careful in his choice of words lest the creationist try to twist his meaning into an anti-scientific weapon, and they have done so many times.

There is considerable debate in the scientific community as to how evolution occurred, but the percentage of those in the scientific community who would debate that it did not happen at all is extremely small (a tiny fraction of one percent). Creationists often will confuse these two debates and deliberately try to manufacture a controversy in the scientific community that simply does not exist.

List of Scientists Rejecting Evolution - Do they really?

The very unfortunate irony is that the kind of ridiculous claims made by many creationists serve to stifle real scientific debate, not encourage it.

Were you aware of the criticisms of carbon-dating? Of course, if the ideas of the Cretaceous and Jurassic are so ingrained in your understanding of the universe, maybe you can understand exactly what a Christian goes through when they are told that Jesus never existed...

Like I said in science it is important to question everything. And personally I don’t think this concept should be limited to science but that we should try to extend it to all aspects of our lives.

 

[fantome profane]

Talk about pedantic overeaction.

Better pedantic than negligent in my duties.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Science is pompous...

You lost me right there.

Science has no personality, and thus, no traits. This is like saying "my car is jealous". Utter nonsense.

 

[Charlotte,NC Humanist]

I am in agreement with what seems to be prevailing opinion above that if I.D. is taught in public school ,it should not be taught in science classes.

My preference is that it be taught in classes on religion. I realize the danger to freethought in
schools in smaller communities throughout the U.S. where such classes will be likely used to promote a fundamentalist Christian evangelical view point. However, I perceive I.D. as one of the religious rights "Wedge Issues". If taught in religion classes, there would be opportunity
also to expose youngsters to other religious viewpoints including the views, for example, of the church of the "flying spaghetti monster". at least the kids would have opportunity, via the 'reverse wedge' use to see how unrealistic biblical and religious concepts can be IF "spin" ( read apologetics ) is not used in attempted justification of them.

 

[gnomon]

What, if anything, does the modern Intelligent Design concept offer in any course worth discussion.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

why do we? inferring that A God created the universe does not infer that every story of creation is true. It just infers that one of them could be true. what i'm trying to say is that, it justifies a creationist belief, but it doesn't give an account or justification to an account of exactly how the creation happened.

Well do we have a census of pagans that have been involved in this ID movement? So far I have seen christians, some jews ands some muslims on board with the idea of it being taught in the classrooms but haven't heard of any pagans, satanist, wiccans etc. joining the fight.

One of the biggest problems I have is that since I've only seen these groups promoting it I haven't seen either of them re-arranginging their teachings to their congregations to include (gods - aliens) as being the possible creator. I believe they want their mythologies taught in schools as if it is a fact. What's going to happen when it is allowed then these same people began to feel the heat from their kids as to what they will or won't believe. They will begin to blame the system for teaching polytheism.....


You know what....let them.....Just let them.........Since they want it in the schools SOOOO bad just let them have it.......Their wants will be their own down fall when little Johnny or little Susy starts questioning their parents faith and challenging their religious dogma and crediting other possibilities of creation to what their parents regard as false gods.....Lets see what these proponents do.

Creation Science

How Do Dinosaurs Fit With the Bible?
"The Bible tells us that God created all of the land animals on the sixth day of creation. As dinosaurs were land animals, they must have been made on this day, alongside Adam and Eve, who were also created on Day Six (Genesis 1:24-31). If God designed and created dinosaurs, they would have been fully functional, designed to do what they were created for, and would have been 100% dinosaur. This fits exactly with the evidence from the fossil record".

WHAAAAATTTTTT......???????????

no, i can see them proselytising for their own God over the others - so what's new?

Well who else other than the theist of the big three are fighting for creationism to be taught in public schools? Are pagans, wiccans, satanist etc.....joining the fight or is it just the big three? So far that I can see it's primarily the christian and some jews (Ben Stein) fighting for it.

like i said, ID doesn't give justification to any account or mythology, so i disagree with you here.

Sure it does....

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sherlock01.htm
"The alternative is clear. The massive amount of change required by evolution and the existence of ‘The Triple Whammy’ to prevent such change taking place, demonstrates that the only possible way our world and its inhabitants could have come into being, is by ‘outside interference’ from some source of intelligence and power beyond anything we could imagine: our Creator-God. This is not merely superstition or blind religious faith, but is based on sound scientific, mathematical and logical observation"

i agree that many people do use it to try and push their mythology as fact, but the truth is they have no justification for this.

So what justification is there for it to be taught? If all have their mythology that they believe as fact....and as we have clearly seen over time...none of them have really been able to produce said facts then what business do we have teaching any of this to our kids? If it's going to be in the college level as a theology...mythology class then fine...but as a science to be taught to public school kids is nonsense...


again...

IMO......

 

[Autodidact]

"All of modern science" is an enormously vast and diverse phenomenon. While I agree with your statement to a point I think you should adjust it to suit the reality of the situation. The reality is that YECers accept all of the basic laws of particle physics, chemistry, wave theory, quantum mechanics, gravity, observed evolution etc etc. Where they stand in contradiction to (some, nowhere near all) of modern science is when they disagree with assumptions and interpretaions of what may have happened in the past.

No, they don't. For starters, to reject radiocarbon dating, they have to reject most of physics. They also reject the entire basic premise that there is enough regularity in nature that we can extrapolate the past from the present. They label this "uniformitarianism" and reject it, because of course as soon as you do that you realize that the world is quite old and there has never been a global flood. So they say, for example, "Oh yeah, right now there's not enough water to flood the whole planet, but things could have been completely different in any number of ways, so that could have happened 4000 years ago." They also fundamentally reject the principle of methodological naturalism, which is necessary for any science to be possible. They explicity reject all of modern Geology, Cosmology, Paleontology, Archeology, Anthropology, Astronomy and Biology. That's a lot of science to throw away.

They do not dispute, say for example, that a certain number may show up on an instrument that is measuring K-Ar radiometric decay. But they will ask what causes anomolous readings, they may ask why one type of dating gives very different results compared to another, and they will often ask if the assumptions on which the instrument are calibrated are true, with the response being of-course that the assumptions that are used by modern science relating to the distant past are 'warranted'. They are allowed to question things: that hardly puts them in contradiction of "virtually all of modern science." I'm talking about the sane majority, not the crazy fringe.

They don't just question it, they reject it. That's makes about as much sense as saying that because two different scales come up with weights that differ by an ounce, it is impossible to weigh things.

At any rate, one can be an old-earth creationist and probably have no more issues with 'modern' science than some scientists themselves do with their differing opinions.

It depends on how much of science you reject in your creationism.

 

[Autodidact]

First thank you (camanantx & 9-10ths)
for explaining the nuance of the word "theory" to me
as it applies to science.

But now I wonder.....
Is there ANY way that science could test the *theory that the Universe is intelligent?
(and designed itself intelligently?)

(Rocketman, I'm not clicking unknown links right now,
but will check yours out at a later date.)

No, I don't believe so. At least I can't, and I've never had an ID proponent, come up with a theoretical way to falsify the proposition that an all-powerful but mysterious entity magicked the universe or any part of it into existence.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, for me, the UniVerse itself IS "God".
How could you ever begin to test or prove that it intelligently designs itself, or not?

I can't think of any way. I don't think this is a falsifiable proposition, rather an attitude toward the universe. btw, I used to believe the same. I don't have any problem with this view, I think it's basically atheism + reverence, which is fine by me.

 

[Autodidact]

Science is pompous. Scientists are so intelligent that they lack other skills kinda like in reverse of a blind man who has a increased sense of smell or hearing.

Bigoted much? Unwarranted blanket attacks against entire groups of people your speciality?

Take the big bang theory. This says it all.

What says it all?

What made the big bang?

Anybody's guess.

It is a theory just as ID is a theory as well.

No, you're wrong. Big Bang is verifiable and falsifiable; ID is not.

As long as it is taught as a theory and not fact, anyone should be able to decide for themselves what unproven facts they wish to subscribe to or not.

Again, you clearly do not understand the meaning of the word "theory" in the context of science. Gravity is a theory. So is electromagnetism. For that matter, so is the idea that the earth is round. It's a scientific theory--just like evolution. ID is not, principally because it makes no predictions, does not explain why the world is specifically as it is and not some other way (has no real explanatory power) and is not falsifiable.

Keeping certain theories out of text books is censorship plain and simple. It is equally as stupid for Christian schools not to teach about evolution as a theory.

ID is not a theory. Period. If you believe it is; you're simply mistaken. I am more than willing to discuss it at length and I believe I can persuade you that is the case. The first step is to understand what a scientific theory is--and is not.

 

[blackout]

All excellent points by Dirty Penguin.:bow:

In an earlier post I stated as a Panenthiest
that it would be a question of demonstrating scientifically
that the Universe Designs itself Intelligently.

The whole idea of "Inteligent Design"
(even if it could be scientifically demonstrated)
certainly then begs the question...
Just WHO is (are) this (these) Inteligent Designer(s)?!

This may not be a road so many ID advocates want to go down.
But that is my own speculation.

 

[Mike182]

Well do we have a census of pagans that have been involved in this ID movement? So far I have seen christians, some jews ands some muslims on board with the idea of it being taught in the classrooms but haven't heard of any pagans, satanist, wiccans etc. joining the fight.

do i not count as a Pagan then?

One of the biggest problems I have is that since I've only seen these groups promoting it I haven't seen either of them re-arranginging their teachings to their congregations to include (gods - aliens) as being the possible creator.

inferring an Intelligent Designer does give justification to a plurality of religious descriptions of and stories about that designer, this doesn't mean all religions should have to be open to a plurality of beliefs and mythologies.

I believe they want their mythologies taught in schools as if it is a fact. What's going to happen when it is allowed then these same people began to feel the heat from their kids as to what they will or won't believe. They will begin to blame the system for teaching polytheism.....

You know what....let them.....Just let them.........Since they want it in the schools SOOOO bad just let them have it.......Their wants will be their own down fall when little Johnny or little Susy starts questioning their parents faith and challenging their religious dogma and crediting other possibilities of creation to what their parents regard as false gods.....Lets see what these proponents do.

maybe that is a big problem over in America, but in the UK this is largely unheard of... i can't really comment.

Creation Science

How Do Dinosaurs Fit With the Bible?
"The Bible tells us that God created all of the land animals on the sixth day of creation. As dinosaurs were land animals, they must have been made on this day, alongside Adam and Eve, who were also created on Day Six (Genesis 1:24-31). If God designed and created dinosaurs, they would have been fully functional, designed to do what they were created for, and would have been 100% dinosaur. This fits exactly with the evidence from the fossil record".

WHAAAAATTTTTT......???????????

it's not my job to defend this dribble, but to defend my own position, i will say that this goes beyond the inferences that establishing an Intelligent Designer can possibly permit - which goes hand in hand with why i say ID does not justify any account or mythology which i will address in the next paragraph.

Sure it does....

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sherlock01.htm
"The alternative is clear. The massive amount of change required by evolution and the existence of ‘The Triple Whammy’ to prevent such change taking place, demonstrates that the only possible way our world and its inhabitants could have come into being, is by ‘outside interference’ from some source of intelligence and power beyond anything we could imagine: our Creator-God. This is not merely superstition or blind religious faith, but is based on sound scientific, mathematical and logical observation"

yes, this is the only extent to which we can make conclusions from ID. ID does not support 6-day creationism, the adam and eve story, or any other creation myth that has ever been conceived of. if you will observe, the above quoted paragraph is not actually an account of how creation happened, so it doesn't justify any story about the creation, it only postulates that it was all created at some point by some means.

So what justification is there for it to be taught? If all have their mythology that they believe as fact....and as we have clearly seen over time...none of them have really been able to produce said facts then what business do we have teaching any of this to our kids? If it's going to be in the college level as a theology...mythology class then fine...but as a science to be taught to public school kids is nonsense...

i don't think anyone in this thread has been arguing for it to be taught in a science class, and you have already said you can understand it being taught in a theology class, i don't see the need to expand on this.


again...

IMO......

 

[blackout]

Just a question?

In schools, what courses/subjects include/focus on
speculative/introspective discussions
of what the possible nature(s) of reality and possibility might be?

You know... like "Star Trek" type concepts.

Ponderings and "what if's" about the nature of life & "reality",
and all we don't really know about it?

But not from a "religious" or "scientific" "framework".

 

[rocketman]

Well do we have a census of pagans that have been involved in this ID movement?

How Do Dinosaurs Fit With the Bible?
"The Bible tells us that God created all of the land animals on the sixth day of creation. As dinosaurs were land animals, they must have been made on this day, alongside Adam and Eve, who were also created on Day Six (Genesis 1:24-31). If God designed and created dinosaurs, they would have been fully functional, designed to do what they were created for, and would have been 100% dinosaur. This fits exactly with the evidence from the fossil record".

WHAAAAATTTTTT......???????????

This is poor research on your part. The ID crowd don't argue for a young earth. You have them mixed up with YECers.