Intelligent Design Shot Down

[Ren]

Like people in this thread have mentioned, ID has no place in a science class. I really have no problem with it being taught, but teach it in a religious studies class where it belongs.

Stating ID as a valid scientific theory lowers your level of science to me. Saying that “the human eye is too complex to have evolved so it must have been created by a higher power” or the often touted “watch in a field” argument pretty much block you from evaluating things further. Its really say, “we have no idea how this happened, so we will assume this and not even bother to prove it because its beyond our comprehension.” Oh yeah, big leap forward for science, imagine what the world would be like if Newton opted to use God as his reason for gravity, ala “well, I have no idea why we don’t fly off the face of the planet into space, so I believe it is the hand of God holding us down,” or some such reason.

As for the ID vs Evolution debate, the biggest fighters are those that take a literal interpretation of the bible. To them evolution undermines Genesis and the whole universe in 7 days thing (because clearly an omnipotent being is constrained by something as limiting as time, really).

As earlier posted, the Catholic church has said Evolution and religion can be coexistent, b/c if evolution is right, who is to say it is not God’s guiding hand changing his creatures so that they may better survive?

For starters I believe in evolution, it is a sound scientific theory that is pretty damn accurate and has been proved to be true on many occasions. I also believe the universe was created by a higher power (please note I did not say God as in the christian deity).

The ID vs Evolution is really one of my favourite debates of all time. It gets better when you get people that refuse to acknowlege anything the other party is saying

[anon31651765]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
ID is not science.

Evolution is not perfect but it is scientific.

The big debate is about religion vs secularism.

Both have their place, but religion does not belong in science class.

I understand that Christianity has been under attack in schools but science class isn’t the place to fight the battles.

My public school first grader has recently learned about Ramadan, Kwanza and Hanukah but her only exposure to Christmas has been learning what other cultures call Santa.

No mention of Jesus yet they talked about Allah and Muhammed. Something is fucked up in our public schools.

The idiots in Dover picked the wrong subject to fight the battle.
[/quote]

Nice post Zeb.

I think the backlash against Christianity is certainly around. However, teaching every other culture except Christianity is kind of absurd.

On the other hand, I would say most people don’t need it explained to them, since the greater majority of people are either Christian or Catholic, and hear enough of it at home.

Don’t get me wrong here. I am some kind of spritual. You might call me a recovering Catholic, or maybe on some days even a regualar Catholic. And what I believe is that Intelligent Design is, for the most part, probably true. It allows for evolution and God to not be in direct opposition with each other, as opposed to creationsism or pure Darwinism.

However, teaching it in a science class is wrong, because it is not science. Science is based on trying to prove theories and observe things that go on in nature, that are consistently there. Evolution is scientific. Unfortunately, intelligent design is really little more real than the creationist myths that all cultures have, from Ancient Sumeria to Christianity. There is no PROOF, and never will be. So make religion an elective.

[sasquatch]

[quote]jnd wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
This has NOTHING to do with science.
Actually- this has EVERYTHING to do with science. Science is a process that helps us determine the answers to questions about all sorts of topics.

If you let a few wild-eyed wacknuts (who lied on the stand) decide what should be presented in a science class, then you might as well let them decide every ounce of your curriculum. These board members (all of whom were subsequently voted out of their positions) are NOT scientists. In fact, based on their statements, they do not even understand what science is.

[/quote]

wrong

my debate wasn’t whether or not ID is science, but that it’s exclusion has nothing to do with science. Can you see the difference.

I agree it is not science. DUH. That has never been debated by anyone. But because of it’s exclusion where do you teach it. This school board chose the wrong classroom, but don’t kid yourself, the fact that it can’t be taught in school is not because it is not science.

[sasquatch]

[quote]jnd wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
This has NOTHING to do with science. It has everything to do with the radical liberal jurists new interpretation of the constitution. Remember, it’s only been the past 35-40 years that this has been the ‘intent’ of the constitution.

Furthermore- the fact that you were so quick to jump to the conclusion that this judge was a “radical liberal jurist” indicates your position and yoru bias on this issue.[/quote]

wrong again
you’re nothing if not consistant in YOUR rush to judgement

I never even referred to ‘this judge.’ My comment was purely based on the interpretations of the constitution beginning 35-40 years ago–by radical leftist jurists who decided to re-intent(?) the constitution.

Since that time it has somehow been interpreted that the intent of the constitution was to completely exclude anything religious on/in anything public or government.
Would you not conclude this to be a very radical interpretation of this document?

[jerryiii]

First off, I am not religious and disagree with most of Christianity. However, if we simply take an objective view of the world around us and the intricate detail and beauty of nature, it is apparent that there is some kind of intelligence involved. Even if you go back to the big bang, what is the source of the matter and energy that comprises the universe?

I guess what I’m trying to say is that intelligent design does not necessarily equal Christianity. Some of the most brilliant scientists of our time believed in some sort of intelligence.

[dcb]

Judge Brown delivered some strong words in his decision. He accused the former board members of “breathtaking inanity” and of lying under oath. Here’s the quote from an article in the Washington Post.

“A federal judge barred a Pennsylvania school district yesterday from mentioning “intelligent design” as an alternative to evolutionary theory in a scathing opinion that criticized local school board members for lying under oath and for their “breathtaking inanity” in trying to inject religion into science classes.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122000532.html?sub=AR

[sasquatch]

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
This has NOTHING to do with science. It has everything to do with the radical liberal jurists new interpretation of the constitution. Remember, it’s only been the past 35-40 years that this has been the ‘intent’ of the constitution.

Well, according to CNN:

Jones – an appointee of President Bush, who backs the teaching of intelligent design – defended his decision in personal terms.

“Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist court,” Jones writes.

“Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on intelligent design, who in combination drove the board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy,” he said.

This judge decided to follow the law as it currently stands, whether you agree with it or not, and decided to let the higher courts overturn the law should there be an appeal.

In order to buy into the concept of ID, you MUST believe in a supernatural entity. Evolution, on the other hand, has never EVER said that God does not exist. In fact, many scientists, theologians, and even the Catholic Church, have said that evolution and a belief in God are completely compatible. So, why the big push for ID? Why must ID be taught? Please explain this because I just don’t see the need for ID to be taught. [/quote]

Why wouldn’t you want to learn.

I’ve never said this is science.

I’ve never said this is the way it happened.

I never blamed this particular jurist for the decision.

It’s not a push, it’s an option. It is not science, but as I stated above, why not be able to offer it in a classroom as an idea?

You state right in your own post that he folloed precedent. RECENT precedent that is factually presented in my post.

This judge probably acted correctly given the fools on this board who tried to push it into a science room where it has no place. But as of now, there is no place that this can be taught–electively or otherwise–in a public school. And by the tone of your post, I’d guess you’d agree that that is correct.

This would be where we disagree.

[Solomon_Grundy]

I have more of an issue with Evolution being taught as a fact. What other theories are out there? Are they taught in school? Belief in Evolution is one thing?faith. I think there is more proof of Intelligent Design than there is for Evolution. Intelligent Design should be taught in school as another theory. I am not saying teach who you/they think created everything.

Teach both options as theories with supporting evidence or lack of. I wouldn?t care if they taught that we came from sexual relations between an alien and a monkey as long as it is taught as a theory. For the record there is not an American document (founding Document) that says that there is a separation of church and state. It is an impossibility. The basis of our government and courts are based on Christianity, like it or not.

I also don?t think that it is possible for a person to separate themselves from their core beliefs. Even if you are Atheist, Agnostic or practice Wicca, those beliefs that you have will permeate every decision that you make and in everything that you do.

A question for all no-Christians- Why is Christianity so vehemently apposed in America? Why not every other religion or ?faith??

Me Solomon Grundy

[MikeTheBear]

[quote]jerryiii wrote:
First off, I am not religious and disagree with most of Christianity. However, if we simply take an objective view of the world around us and the intricate detail and beauty of nature, it is apparent that there is some kind of intelligence involved. Even if you go back to the big bang, what is the source of the matter and energy that comprises the universe?

I guess what I’m trying to say is that intelligent design does not necessarily equal Christianity. Some of the most brilliant scientists of our time believed in some sort of intelligence.
[/quote]

I too am not religious and I agree with what you’re saying. However, after reading up on ID, I object to it not because it advances a particular religion but because it presents bad science and bad logical thinking. ID makes a big deal of the fact that evolution has gaps in it. Yes, it does. But a true scientist will perceive gaps as meaning that more research is needed. ID seems to say that because there are gaps, let’s interpret that as proof that there is a divine being. This is bad logic and bad science. Personally, I happen to believe that the complexity of the universe suggests that there is some type of divine primary mover that started it all. However, I recognize this as philosophy, not science.

From CNN, here is what Dover will do after the ruling:

“The new school board president, Bernadette Reinking, said the board wants to place intelligent design in an elective social studies class instead.”

Finally, a government official with a brain. This is totally appropriate and is where the ID theory belongs. Good solution by Ms. Reinking that I would encourage other school districts to follow.

[Lockwood]

[quote]Massif wrote:
Lockwood,

1. Please don’t compare ID to poetry (especially E A Poe).

2. Saying that we are ignorant if we don’t want ID taught as a science is absolute monkeyshit and you know it.

3. Many of us have already said that we arne’t against ID being taught in a religious or even a philosophy class, but it isn’t science and doesn’t belong in a science classroom.

4. Quoting the Bible as to why ID is a science does not work. Sorry.[/quote]

-I’m not certain if you take offense to an analogy that I used, simply to explain a point, and thus you’re religiously offended, or rather you find some divinity in the writings of Poe…which, although also one of personal favorites in poetry, would be just weird.

-Interpretation is a two-way street: I apologize that you misinterpretted what I wrote, however, if you go back and re-read my comments w/ less of a defensive attitude, I believe you’ll agree that nowhere did I say that anyone is ignorant for not believing in ID. I only presented two opposing sides of an argument, and made reference to the possibility of the two being more intertwined as opposed to being so radically divergent.

-How do you explain wave-particle duality? Einstein, himself, refused to believe it to his death; though, other scientists supported the theory’s complexity by the fact that we simply need to have faith in the calculations. Try to prove that light functions as a wave, and not as a particle, and you’ll find that to be true; perform a test to prove that light functions as a particle, and you’ll also find that to be true. Yet, we teach wave-particle duality in all science classes, though, it’s admittedly not definitively scientific.
I use this as an example, b/c it seems so many people so quickly support the “ID is not a science” rationale, and thus, in doing so, add credibility to the notion that everything else taught in science classes is scientifically sound.

• I didn’t quote the Bible to use such as some sort of ID supporting rationale. Though, yes, why couldn’t historic writings be used to support such? We use prehistoric artifacts and findings everyday to explain the science of our pre-historic ancestors, so why is it that you oppose the use of a writing that’s over 6000 years old as somehow not as acceptable to support a hypothesis as is the drawings found on an Aztec pottery?

Again, I can’t stress that what I wrote was neither to incite further argument, but rather to provoke thought that sometimes the answers don’t have to be so modernized down to simpleton ‘black or white’ but rather only looking at both sides can we fully appreciate the totality of the issue.

[Lockwood]

[quote]Harry Flashman wrote:
Quoting Lockwood

‘As a Christian and a student of the hard sciences’

You’re lying.

No student of any type of science,unless it’s some fukwit religious science would say that sulPHer (not sulfer) is a gas when in fact it’s a yellow solid.

Yes, SO2 (sulpher dioxide)was a component of the early atmosphere,but amongst many others.

Do you think that your (false) claim of a science background makes your scriptural ranting any more palatable to those who don’t really understand the issues here?

Please read anything by Richard Dawkins,he writes well,he speaks sense and he is right.[/quote]

My biggest complaint against forums and the internet: People get a false sense of security, akin to when they’re driving behind the wheel of their car. My point is this, you’d be far better served keeping your responses less emotional, and thus not so beligerantly toward someone w/ whom you clearly don’t know.

Now, I’ll try and answer your questions.

• Your overly-bold statement that I am “lying”: This is what I was referring to, in the above. As a bit of advice, lose the juvenile approach to a discussion, and you’ll find that it serves you well as you get older.

-I don’t mean to patronize you, but you just “corrected” my correct spelling of Sulfur, w/ an incorrect spelling.
-To your point about sufur as a solid, you’re correct - in its most common natural state, sulfur is present as S8 (i.e. brimstone), though sufur is, in fact, a non-metal. Just take a look at your periodic table.

-I’m not certain your point, here. Neon gas, one of the nobel gases, is also believed to have been very prevelant in our early atmosphere, and thus, would explain why it is still present in our atmosphere w/in detectable levels…but, you kind of missed my point of explain Sulfur and brimstone - when brimstone burns, sulfur appears in its gaseous form.

-Again, I don’t know to smile at your emotionally charged response or to feel empathy in your approach - you undermine your entire response to my link by your not validating what you believe is my having some false scientific background. Unlike you, or many others on forums, I never behind some fake username. That’s not to say that the graduate degree I hold makes me an expert in the area, by any means. Though, that wasn’t my point. My only point to the discussion was to offer two opposing views of an obviously very highly charged topic.

-I am familiar w/ Dawkins; he’s very much in line w/ all evolutionary biologists and, if you were to have read what I wrote as opposed to making assumptions, you’d have realized that I present both sides to the debate; In fact, I believe in the co-existance of both. Besides, and maybe you need to learn this now as opposed to later, but science is a matter of probabilities based upon hypothesis’ that can either be validated or refuted w/in a specified degree of significance. Since nothing is fact, we rely on significance and repeatability. And, since, no scientist has EVER been able to prove what preceeded the Big Bang, all I’m trying to pose is that in such an inability to disprove an hypothesis, one cannot say that such a hypothesis is not science.

[MikeTheBear]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
My public school first grader has recently learned about Ramadan, Kwanza and Hanukah but her only exposure to Christmas has been learning what other cultures call Santa.

No mention of Jesus yet they talked about Allah and Muhammed. Something is fucked up in our public schools.[/quote]

I agree with the principle that if a school is going to teach about world religions it should teach about ALL religions, including Christianity. However, I think there is a benign explanation of why Ramadan, Kwanza and Hanukah received more attention in your daughter’s school than Christmas – it’s because Christmas is such a big part of our society. I would be surprised if there were many people living in the US, regardless of religious background, who did not have a basic understanding of what Christmas was about. I’ve known atheists who celebrated Christmas because, well, it was Christmas. I once knew a Jewish family who put up a Christmas tree just for the heck of it. While it may not be the best thing to cut short teaching about Christmas, I think it’s pretty harmless given our society.

[Marmadogg]

[quote]Solomon Grundy wrote:
A question for all no-Christians- Why is Christianity so vehemently apposed in America? Why not every other religion or ?faith??[/quote]

Christianity is not vehemently apposed.

Put down Gibson book for one second.

The number of sheeple on this site is amazing!

[Wreckless]

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Show me the absolute scientific evidence of evolution.
Why would people be so afraid of offering another ‘unprovable’ option?

This has NOTHING to do with science. It has everything to do with the radical liberal jurists new interpretation of the constitution. Remember, it’s only been the past 35-40 years that this has been the ‘intent’ of the constitution.[/quote]
First: science isn’t “discussed” in schools. It’s tought.
There’s no discussion between equal partners. One of them is the teacher, and he has studied for a couple of years and learned from the experience of thousands and thousands of scientists out there.
So he knows what the “concensus” is and he teaches this to “the others”. They are called students.
Now the scientific community can discuss the “concensus” amongst themselves, but the students are not to participate in this discussion.

This is not fair you say?

Let me give you an example. You’re teaching a bunch of six-year olds. You teach them that 2+2=4. One of them starts “discussing” this and they finally vote that you’re wrong. Cool eh?

Second
Some people believe that evolution is on an island in science. You can simply take it out and replace it with creationism and you still have a working “machine” called science. This is not the case.
Evolution is linked with:
Bioligy (why are some animals similar)
Chemistry (why is DNA in similar animals more similar)
Geology (Fosiles)
To name only the most important.
This leads to the concensus about evolution.

Would you care to take a swing at it with creationism?

[Wreckless]

[quote]Solomon Grundy wrote:
…
I think there is more proof of Intelligent Design than there is for Evolution. Intelligent Design should be taught in school as another theory. I am not saying teach who you/they think created everything.
…
A question for all no-Christians- Why is Christianity so vehemently apposed in America? Why not every other religion or ?faith??

Me Solomon Grundy
[/quote]

You think? You seem to believe in creationism and you THINK there’s more proof for it than for evolution.
Me personally, I would prefer to look these things up thoroughly before make such statements.

Rest assured Solomon, when the Buddhist or Muslims want to impose their view of creation in schools, they’ll be confronted with equally stiff oppositon.

[sasquatch]

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
Show me the absolute scientific evidence of evolution.
Why would people be so afraid of offering another ‘unprovable’ option?

This has NOTHING to do with science. It has everything to do with the radical liberal jurists new interpretation of the constitution. Remember, it’s only been the past 35-40 years that this has been the ‘intent’ of the constitution.
First: science isn’t “discussed” in schools. It’s tought.
There’s no discussion between equal partners. One of them is the teacher, and he has studied for a couple of years and learned from the experience of thousands and thousands of scientists out there.
So he knows what the “concensus” is and he teaches this to “the others”. They are called students.
Now the scientific community can discuss the “concensus” amongst themselves, but the students are not to participate in this discussion.

This is not fair you say?

Let me give you an example. You’re teaching a bunch of six-year olds. You teach them that 2+2=4. One of them starts “discussing” this and they finally vote that you’re wrong. Cool eh?

Second
Some people believe that evolution is on an island in science. You can simply take it out and replace it with creationism and you still have a working “machine” called science. This is not the case.
Evolution is linked with:
Bioligy (why are some animals similar)
Chemistry (why is DNA in similar animals more similar)
Geology (Fosiles)
To name only the most important.
This leads to the concensus about evolution.

Would you care to take a swing at it with creationism?
[/quote]

This might be the biggest bunch of crap I’ve seen posted in some time

So as high school students you can’t teach/discuss theory. I’m not talking 6 yr. olds. I mean really your whole #1 is the dumbest thing I’ve read.

How about this swing. Absolutes aren’t nor should they be the only thing TAUGHT in schools. What about parachial schools where religion is taught on a daily basis? What about philosophy?..

How aboout instead of trying to sound smart you say something smart.
Or better yet, apply it to the thread and directly to my posts, not some tangent you thought sounded good at the time.

Your closed-mindness is overwhelming. Now we should only accept your view on evolution. Once again the lack of accepting others views and explanations for things that are truly unexplainable is telling.

God bless you–sorry

DNA bless you

[sasquatch]

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Solomon Grundy wrote:
…
I think there is more proof of Intelligent Design than there is for Evolution. Intelligent Design should be taught in school as another theory. I am not saying teach who you/they think created everything.
…
A question for all no-Christians- Why is Christianity so vehemently apposed in America? Why not every other religion or ?faith??

Me Solomon Grundy

You think? You seem to believe in creationism and you THINK there’s more proof for it than for evolution.
Me personally, I would prefer to look these things up thoroughly before make such statements.

Rest assured Solomon, when the Buddhist or Muslims want to impose their view of creation in schools, they’ll be confronted with equally stiff oppositon.[/quote]

Another nice try hotshot

Nobody–except you–has used the word imposed. That in itself would be a problem. We are merely asking why you would be opposed to an elective class that explored different options wrt the CREATION of the universe as it stands.

The budhists,Muslims, and Chritians can help you with your anger and your desire to impose your will on others.

[sasquatch]

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Solomon Grundy wrote:
A question for all no-Christians- Why is Christianity so vehemently apposed in America? Why not every other religion or ?faith??

Christianity is not vehemently apposed.

Put down Gibson book for one second.

The number of sheeple on this site is amazing!

[/quote]

You’re one of the biggest ‘sheeple’ on this site.

I don’t even have to read your posts anymore. I look at the title of the thread and if I see your name I can anticipate your response.

Just like I did this time

Merry Christmas

[jsbrook]

[quote]Massif wrote:
I just wanted to clarify that I don’t have any problem with religion being taught in schools as an elective subject. I do have a problem with this subject being taught as a science subject.

I also think that there are far more interesting things that could be taught in a religion class, rather than spending a semester concentrating on a Christian alternative to evolution.[/quote]

I agree. Whether it’s true or not, it ain’t science. I have no problem with religion in schools. But not couched as science.

[vroom]

You are sounding pretty touchy feely and emotional Sasquatch. Are you sure you aren’t a liberal?

School very rarely teaches us to question the teacher and assume they are wrong.

There are some courses where you can take a viewpoint against standard opinion and support it, and that is okay, but not very many. You have to be very advanced to suggest new theories outside of the humanities, and perhaps inside that area as well.

Science is the process of examining the universe to determine how things work in terms of finding out enough to make predictions or even duplicate things.

Religion is not.

Can the physical universe be the result of some creation event? Sure, but based on the physical behaviors of the world around us, however they came to be, science explores how the universe unfolds or has unfolded around us.

Can the physical behaviors of the universe be ascribable to some omnipotent being? Sure, but that doesn’t change our ability to interact with those laws and to determine how they appear to work.

You or anyone else are free to believe whatever you want, but you don’t unilaterially get to change the English language so that religion qualifies as science.