Should ID be taught in public schools?

[rocketman]

Ahhhhh....I see what you mean.....but it is without a doubt that YECers....(ARE) proponents of ID.....

Good luck trying to convince them of that my friend.

 

[rocketman]

Because it's Biblical.

News to me. I'm calling this a red herring.

Here is some reading if anyone is interested.

Myth of the Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[rocketman]

The more I think about the existence of Dr. Danny Faulkner, the less I can figure out how he can accept literal Genesis and be a practicing astronomer.

He knows enough about his fields to know that they are not complete. He is open to the possibilities that there may one day be better explanations which might be more accomodating of his religious beliefs, but in the meantime that in no way interferes with his operation of the scientific method and his conduct as an academic. There is no conflict.

Does anyone know more about him?

I know that he is not afraid to pull his own kind into line:

"There are several problems with the creationist approach to the big bang however. First, it is obvious that in some papers creationists have improperly stated the big bang model...

Second, many creationists greatly overstate the case against the big bang...

A third problem is our lack of an alternative. Even if we succeed in destroying the big bang, do we have a model with which to replace it? ... "


Reading his entertaining smack-down of Hall's geocentrism shows that he has no tolerance for people who blatently deny scientific evidence.


Hardly the talk of someone who explicitely rejects all of science.

 

[rocketman]

Well there's also that well-known Satanic trick of putting stuff out there to trick the unsuspecting. Like how he planted dinosaur bones and made them look old, and only the YECs are onto his plot. They tried to warn us, but nobody listens.

:areyoucra

If you had been paying attention you would have read earlier in this thread that the very YEC person in question criticised this exact line of reasoning.

 

[camanintx]

The modern philosophy of ID is inherently agnostic. It makes no difference if the people behind it are theists, because that doesn't actually change what the philosophy is in isolation. It is impossible to seperate the agnosticism from the rest of ID.

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

 

[rocketman]

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

It doesn't make it otherwise either.

The idea itself is agnostic. Opinions about motivations are a seperate issue. You and the misinformed priest you quote seem to be confusing the idea-proper with everything else around it. One possible test of whether or not the philosophy is agnostic would be to see if any agnostics have taken up it's cause and have vigorously championed it. David Berlinski, Steve Fuller and Michael Denton spring to mind.

 

[painted wolf]

now if you listen to actual talks given by the IDers then you know who the 'designer' actually is.

wa:do

 

[blackout]

now if you listen to actual talks given by the IDers then you know who the 'designer' actually is.

wa:do

But that obviously, is not anyting anyone could "prove" or demonstrate.
Perhaps the Universe intelligently designs itself?
Afterall, intelligence is a part/an aspect of the universe.
(ie... existence)

I simply don't understand why the general concept of "intelligent design"
need be relagated to "religion".

But again, I know nothing specific of the subject,
and am just pontificating in generalities.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

One possible test of whether or not the philosophy is agnostic would be to see if any agnostics have taken up it's cause and have vigorously championed it. David Berlinski, Steve Fuller and Michael Denton spring to mind.

That is a terrible non-sequitur. Simply because an agnostic embraces it, does not, in any way, qualify it as being an agnostic philosophy.

I am an agnostic, and I dare say that the overwhelming majority of agnostics see ID for exactly what it is - a thinly veiled attempt to introduce creationism into US schools, by trying to pass it off as science. It is a sham - and a very poor one at that.

Not that it's important, but ID is also NOT a philosophy.

 

[rocketman]

That is a terrible non-sequitur. Simply because an agnostic embraces it, does not, in any way, qualify it as being an agnostic philosophy.

Sorry, I don't think you quite got my point. Let me ask a question: Could an agnostic who supports ID also support YEC? The asnwer is an emphatic no. That's becasue the idea of YEC implicitely requires a deity, whereas the idea of ID does not, even though it is used by theists as well as agnostics. An idea can be agnostic when it doesn't require a necessary theistc or atheistic element. Technically speaking, the idea of ID is agnostic in the literal sense of the word.

I am an agnostic, and I dare say that the overwhelming majority of agnostics see ID for exactly what it is - a thinly veiled attempt to introduce creationism into US schools, by trying to pass it off as science. It is a sham - and a very poor one at that.

A very large number of theists and atheists would agree with you and your fellow agnostic friends TVOR. But that's quite beside my point that the actual idea itself is agnostic.

Not that it's important, but ID is also NOT a philosophy.

As you wish: 'idea' then.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Good luck trying to convince them of that my friend.

I honesty don't know why you feel the need to split hairs here. YECers believe in ID and the other proponent of ID include YECers as proponents of ID....:sarcastic

Intelligent Design vs. Creationism - The Panda's Thumb

Here they give a nice little chart and it's pretty much spot on as to what I've been saying....


YECers without a doubt take a bible approach but they still are proponents of ID....

AiG’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement
"AiG supports the ID movement’s efforts to promote academic freedom and to question evolution."

The bottom line is that none of this should be taught in schools.

What some ID proponents believe.....
"Some unknown and unknowable “intelligence”, which we coincidentally happen to believe is God of the Bible."

 

[rocketman]

I honesty don't know why you feel the need to split hairs here. YECers believe in ID and the other proponent of ID include YECers as proponents of ID....:sarcastic

Intelligent Design vs. Creationism - The Panda's Thumb

Here they give a nice little chart and it's pretty much spot on as to what I've been saying....

That's a ridiculous attempt. They seem more interested in mockery and giving people a chuckle than anything.

Here is a much more professional attempt. It's one of the best I've seen (~approx 5.3mb)

http://nagt.org/files/nagt/jge/abstracts/Ross_v53n3p319.pdf

And I quote:

"Rhetorical value aside, such terms cause scientists and educators to assume that ID and YEC proponents (including students) adhere to the same systems of philosophy and theology. In fact, ID and YEC differ significantly. Failing to recognize distinctions between these and other teleological positions can create barriers to constructive discussion, not only in the classroom but also in policy-making public forums.."

"because YEC incorporates additional philosophical and theological claims that go beyond ID's minimal claims, the two are obviously not identical, or even strictly comparable."

AiG’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement
"AiG supports the ID movement’s efforts to promote academic freedom and to question evolution."

So. Even scientists do that. Now, reading on to the conclusion:

"Our friends in the IDM will hopefully understand that when we discuss these problems and issues, we do so not to discourage or obstruct, but simply to make it clear where we are coming from, why we do so, and why we neither count ourselves a part of this movement nor campaign against it."

There it is in black and white.

What some ID proponents believe.....
"Some unknown and unknowable “intelligence”, which we coincidentally happen to believe is God of the Bible."

Who are you quoting, besides yourself?

 

[rojse]

But just because science cannot "propose" (put forth) experiments to (theoretically) prove, disprove or support any particular concept/idea, it does not make that concept "a lesser concept" by default.

It actually does.

It only means that science does not have the tools to "measure/proof" it. Just because a theory cannot be elevated by scientific standards to the status of "scientific theory", it should not be "automatically" tossed out of the "possibilities" pool.

Certainly not, but that also means that it should not be treated on the same level as evolution.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

That's becasue the idea of YEC implicitely requires a deity, whereas the idea of ID does not, even though it is used by theists as well as agnostics.

I understand what you are saying. I can follow the distinction you are making between ID and the position taken by a YEC'er. I appreciate your position.

Let me help you understand mine, a little more clearly.

No matter how you spin it, ID is a completely unfalsifiable concept, which is nothing more than creationism, dressed in secular clothing.

You have gone to great lengths to quote a handful of scientists that embrace it, as a blatant appeal to authority. I don't care if Albert Einstein himself had been a devout proponent of ID - it still isn't science, it never will be science, and no amount of "spinning" can change that fact.

In my opinion, anyone that claims that the designer isn't the God of the Abrahamic faiths is simply lying, in an attempt to obscure their true intention.

 

[camanintx]

The idea itself is agnostic. Opinions about motivations are a seperate issue. You and the misinformed priest you quote seem to be confusing the idea-proper with everything else around it.

You aren't seriously suggesting that ID can propose any "natural" causes for design, are you? That would sort of go against the definition of the term. Now if a cause must be supernatural and intelligent, doesn't that pretty much qualify as theistic?

One possible test of whether or not the philosophy is agnostic would be to see if any agnostics have taken up it's cause and have vigorously championed it. David Berlinski, Steve Fuller and Michael Denton spring to mind.

All you appear to be testing is the human capacity for cognitive dissonance. Using your criteria, wouldn't religion itself would qualify as an agnostic idea since many agnostics hold religious beliefs?

 

[Magic Man]

It doesn't make it otherwise either.

The idea itself is agnostic.

Explain to me how the idea of intelligent design could possibly not include an intelligent designer.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Explain to me how the idea of intelligent design could possibly not include an intelligent designer.

Precisely.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Explain to me how the idea of intelligent design could possibly not include an intelligent designer.

That's exactly why intelligent design is a compelte failure. It's simply not logical to attribute "design" - which is impossible to argue in the first place - to an unknown designer.

 

[Autodidact]

When I say ID I am refering to the modern philosophy. You seem to have this confused with the two english words that go into its title. What you have there is a coincidence of words, not a coincidence of substance. This is an important point. The concept of apparant design has been around forever and a day. Such a concept almost always implied an intelligent designer, but it also implied a talented designer, an artistic designer and any other favourable adjective you care to add. Your argument based on the title alone does not work.

The modern philosophy of ID is inherently agnostic. It makes no difference if the people behind it are theists, because that doesn't actually change what the philosophy is in isolation. It is impossible to seperate the agnosticism from the rest of ID. If it were possible then there would have been no need for a new design philosophy in the first place. The problem with claiming that "all YECers subscribe to ID" is that such a statement makes no distinction between the apparant design aspect of ID and it's inherently agnostic standing. A far better phrase would be to say that YECers are sympathetic to the infered design elements of ID, natural theolgy etc.

The relationship between OEC, YEC and ID is like three points on a triangle. Each of the three contains at least one bullet to the head of it's opposite two points. Each point on the triangle connects back to the other two by way of some linkage, but each point cannot exist at another point, period; the points being forever held apart. This is why we need to be careful when making sweeping declarations about these three distinct movements.

Except when it comes to telling us what their opinion of ID is. Did you expect me to ask some random person off the street instead?

I'm not sure your 'either/or' argument will hold much water with thinking theists. By your reasoning, these people, indeed anyone, who believes in a miracle (eg: Jesus ressurection) that runs in opposition to the laws of physics in turn explicitely rejects science. Yeah right. I'm glad you're the one telling them.

I don't know what ID movement you're familiar with, but the one I know about is the same one described in wiki:

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3]

In particular, the argument is that there are features of living things that are too complex in specific ways to be explained by evolution or without resort to an intelligent designer, and that the universe is fine-tuned for life, revealing, as it were, a fine-tuner.

Hidden within the term "Intelligent Designer" is the option (actually, the closet assertion) that the designer is named Yahweh, and had a baby boy named Yeshua.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#cite_note-2

 

[Autodidact]

News to me. I'm calling this a red herring.

Here is some reading if anyone is interested.

Myth of the Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If it's a red herring, let's not pursue it.