ARTelevision

Kadath, your appreciation is duly noted.

I did explain the exact reason(s) for my "about face" on the validity of the subject and also the sense I have that those with religious views deserve the same respect we typically offer to other groups/philosophies in my post #26 in this thread.

__________________
create evolution

Locobot

I think you mean the appendix and not the pancreas which most people find very useful.

Manx

Those with religious views do not deserve the same respect we typically offer to other groups/philosophies in all situations. Context is key. Should a religious belief on the nature of a chemical reaction receive the same degree of respect as an observable scientific analysis of the nature of the same chemical reaction? Most certainly not. Opinions have varying degrees of validity - they are not all equal - and they should therefore be treated differently, depending on the context.

Is it appropriate to mix a philosophical supposition (Intelligent Design) in with research born of scientific principles (Theory of Evolution), and thereby claim they are equal or even comparable or worse, competing? Most certainly not.

If I want to know the mechanism by which my DVD player works, I may or may not want to know the philosophy and artistic history of film - but assuredly, if my goal is to learn the mechanics of my DVD player, I will not achieve it by studying Eisenstein. ID is a fine philosophy to have if you so choose - but it has no place next to a non-philosophic description of the mechanism of biology.

If ever there were an apples to oranges comparison, ID to Evolution would be it.

ARTelevision

Reading my statement above out of context, it is possible to come to the conclusions Manx is responding to here. However, an in context reading of all my statements in this thread indicates I do not see ID as a "religious" philosophy but as a competing theory as potentially scientific as evolution. That has been my position here.

The comment(s) I make regarding religious views as deserving of the same respect we typically offer to other groups/philosophies has to do with my previous statements where I have made general observations that those who conflate ID and religious views are in error and also that the sort of respect shown those with religious views by many secularists in general and in this forum in particular is sorely lacking.

__________________
create evolution

Manx

It would only be appropriate to claim I have taken your statement out of context if you presume that I share your belief that there is a scientific basis for Intelligent Design. I do not share that belief. I see Intelligent Design as a philosophy, not a science. I see Evolution as a science, not a philosophy. Not only is it disingenous to compare and contrast the two, but it is potentially dangerous.

So although you may believe that those with religious views deserve the same respect afforded to scientists, that belief in this discussion is only based on your primary belief that Intelligent Design is scientific. If it is not scientific, as I contend and see no evidence to dispute, it is not disrespectful to dismiss it as an invalid comparison to a scientific theory.

And therefore I cannot possibly agree with your conclusion that respect towards those with religious views is sorely lacking by many secularists in general and in this forum in particular. If we're discussing apples and you show up with an orange that you think is an apple and demand a voice in the discussion, I'm going to turn my back on you. You might feel disrepected for it, but I could just as easily claim you disrespected me by attempting to subvert a discussion of apples by demanding the inclusion of your orange.

ARTelevision

I have no problem with your response.
My clarification has to do with the potential distortions of my intention to make two separate statements.

1. IMO, ID is not a religious construction. It simply asserts intelligence is an integral aspect of the material universe. It can and is be used by those with religious beliefs to buttress their position.

2. My general observation here is that those with religious views are not afforded due respect.

__________________
create evolution

Superbelt

1. It is absolutely religious at the heart as the entire tenet behind it requires a God power. That is religious. It is not being used correctly by those with religious beliefs because they fail at every turn to give it any substantiation. I called everyone out to provide me with anything that could be construed as material proof or a scientific method of testing the theory, as yet nothing. All ID can provide is faith, and faith is not science.

2. I am religious as well. I just know where religion belongs and where it does not. Religion (within the function of ID) has not earned a single whit of respect in the same sphere hereditary genetics occupies. ID advocates insist on pushing their philosophy there anyway so we have every right to come back with our righteous indignation at the affront.

ID has earned nothing to be included in science simply because it brings absolutely nothing to the table of science.

ARTelevision

We disagree, of course.

I urge those who have an interest in finding things out for themselves to research the various strands of Intelligent Design theory. As you know, I have no interest in convincing anyone of anything. I'm indicating there is much information available that is of a scientific nature in which intelligence is seen as an active structuring principle in the material world that does not posit it is a "spiritual" or godlike entity - simply a structuring force. Unless one has an agenda in which anything that can be associated with religious thinking must be refuted on principle, one will find intellectual stimulation in much ID info. I do not see ID as a threat to science or a dilution of educational value by referring to it in a classroom.

__________________
create evolution

Superbelt

See, that is the problem that I believe you have. You don't see it as a threat to science.
I believe it is a threat to science simply because it is not science. Biology class is for biology, not philosophy.
It dilutes educational value because 1) it confuses the kids with something that the scientific community does not accept, something that provides no proof to substantiate itself 2) it takes time from the teachers actually teaching the kids science, it becomes an actual vacuum of education.

You said it yourself "I do not see ID as a threat to science" you classified ID outside of the sphere of science. I wasn't taught to high jump in English Class, or grammar in Pre-Calc for a reason.

ARTelevision

I do not see ID - when understood and pursued as a scientific investigation - as antithetical or a threat to the historical entity known as "science".

__________________
create evolution

anti fishstick

Thanks for the explanations on intelligent design here...
The article never explained the concept and just started talking about these completely biased opinions. I hate being spoonfed biased perspectives. I like being taught all sides and then figuring it out myself. I find this is more challenging and you take what you learn in a more substantial way.

It's interesting that he talks about our forefathers... Our forefathers were very much in favor of separation of church and state. The evangelical protestants of the 18th century thought that by bringing God/faith into the government, they were insulting the religion/God. They did not want to force anyone to believe in something they did not want to because they wanted to keep their religion authentic.

A lot has changed since then...

Religion has its place in politics but it should not be written into laws to govern entire people. If it's tought in school, it should be countered with other perspectives to challenge student's minds. They will probably learn much more about "intelligent design" this way.

__________________
And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.
~Anais Nin

Locobot

I could see discussion of ID being valuable in a classroom in a lesson about identifying pseudo-science, much the same way astrology is occasionally discussed. More than five minutes of science class time devoted to it would be a waste though.

Superbelt

No? Why?

Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Which goes hand in hand with
Scientific Method: The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

Intelligent Design: The theory of intelligent design holds 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.

ID is NOT "being pursued as a scientific investigation"
To date, there is no: empirical process, experimentation to prove or disprove, conclusion that validates

There sort of is: observation of phenomena, formation of a hypothesis
But...the observation is only answered as "God wills it" not by providing any evidence whatsoever. Their formation of a hypothesis is based completely in not believing that evolution can happen and that God just wills it.

That is not science! I will happily admit ID into scientific debate once it has fulfilled the scientific process. I believe it goes without saying that I won't be holding my breath though. Until then, we shouldn't be teaching our kids every crackpot 'theory' that is out there. We should be teaching them according to bedrocks of science that our entire intellectual world is based on.

I still come back to vestigal parts. It's something that, because of their inability to ever answer, should exclude them from all intelligent national discussion and definetley exclude them from being included in school curicullum.
To expand on the reptile eye parts that we have, there is one in particular The Parietal "Eye". This is a photosensitive organ that connects to the pineal body. It's only use is to discern between light and dark (purely movement based). It has a rudimentary retina and lense. It is a gray spot on the top of some lizard heads. It is this "eye" that makes some lizards instinctively run away when you try to swoop down from overhead to grab them. If you have them in your car, they will duck as you go beneath an underpass. This is important for a lizard as it makes them go nuts and run. They get the slightest speck of movement from an overhead bird that is too high for the human eye to even see at all.
Humans have one, too, but ours has no outlet at the top of our skull, we can't use it.
Why would God give us this eye, but then close our skull over it, making it useless to us?

Others:
Gills and corresponding arteries on human fetuses
Wisdom teeth are vestigal in europeans (and of descent) specifically because of our shorter jaw, and in many cases must be removed.
Among humans the sense of smell is incredibly underdeveloped, almost useless. But Aboriginals, all of them, are able to identify other people by their smell alone. Why can't I do that?

Moles have eyes that are covered in fur
Cows have six teats, two of which are vestigal (as undeveloped as the vestigal male nipples)

All of these things, including human appendix take resources from the animal to keep them running. It makes us horribly inefficient. Sometimes, like with the appendix and wisdom teeth, their mere presence is a serious risk to our life. Again, why include these parts if we don't need them? Why would the Designer bother to include them at all?

(Btw, thanks Locobot for correcting me on appendix)

Lebell

I am aware of scientists who support "intelligent design" (especially Fred Hoyle), but the fact remains that the only viable scientific theory we currently have for the creation of the universe/life is the Big Bang and Evolution.

While I myself believe in the "intelligent design" of life, i.e. that there is a Creator ultimately responsible, there is no way to prove or disprove that God a) exists and b) used these methods to create what we know.

Therefore it has no place in the science classroom.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

ARTelevision

In any event, I see pursuing it as an intellectual necessity and a scientific pursuit at its core. It is a natural development that issues from the study of intelligence, consciousness, and our perception of organization in the universe. It is an attempt to discover the role intelligence may play in the actual ordering and structuring of existence and our experience.

I have no personal interest in religion or in the politicalization of such questions. Therefore, I'll be researching ID as a scientific and philosophical pursuit and posting these ideas in the Tilted Philosophy Forum soon. Thanks and please carry on...

__________________
create evolution

flstf

I can see teaching that there may be a designer/creator in a philosophy class. After all almost every one of us is curious where and how the universe came to be.

But if I understand the ID proponents correctly, they are postulating that this designer/creator is taking an active role in how life is evolving. You know, design an eye here, create a brain there, etc.. because these things are too complicated to have evolved without the designer's personal touch along the way. And they want to teach this involvement in science class. IMHO, this is just too much of a stretch to teach as a science.

However we do think we know through science that things are evolving whether they were started by a designer/creator or not. It is the study of this evolution which should be taught in science class. If there are holes in the evolutionary chain or things look to be overly complicated, just point them out along with the fact that we don't understand everything yet. I see no need to fill that void with an active designer as part of science class.

Yakk

What is the testable fact that the claim 'intelligence is an integral aspect of the universe, and not an evolutionary end-product' produces?

I really can't see it.


(edit: Image is a link to the hosting website)

My problem with ID is teaching non-science in the science curriculum. If those with religious views want to reduce science teaching in the classroom, and add in religious teaching, let them say it.

If they want to ridicule some of the stupid things that secularists do, let them do it.

ID is as scientific as Odinism. Odinism simply asserts that Odin is an integral part of the material universe.

So, you are saying that secularists should give as much respect to people of religious views as they recieve from people of religious views?

Heh.

Actually, you can have scientific theories that rely on the existance of a God. So long as they are the 'simplest explaination' and provide falsifiable statements of fact to verify them. 'simplest explaination' is being used somewhat technically.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

ARTelevision

Thanks for your comments. I'll be carrying on the portion of this that interests me most in the Tilted Philosophy Forum as soon as I get an opportunity.

__________________
create evolution

bingle

This is a myth, unfortunately, propagated by our unwillingness to hurt people's feelings. But some things are just wrong, and science feels very strongly about that. Being a scientist does not mean you're equally open to all theories, it means you accept proof as presented without undue bias. Unfortunately, the theory of evolution has a lot more study and proof behind it than "intelligent design". In fact, aside from some philosophical problems, wishful thinking, and traditional legends, intelligent design has NO evidence supporting it.

Scientists would not be good scientists if they equally accepted the theory of gravity and a theory that proposed tiny elves hold us to the earth. Although both of those theories might exist, one is superior to the other, and you really don't need to consider both on the same footing. In fact, doing so would make you a *bad* scientist.

Bingle

Ilow

As far as i can tell, no proponent of ID has addressed the fact that if ID is so damn intelligent, then why have so many species become extinct. If in fact they admit that the species existed at all, I suppose they would say "it was god's will" or something equally lame. Really the whole ID principle appears to be haphazzardly cobbled together ans is filled with generous amounts of "we don't know, so it must have been god." IMO unless further research and other information is provided to support ID, it would probably be a waste of time in a philosophy class, let alone a science class. Save it for the theology classes.

__________________
"Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about"
--Sam Harris

Superbelt

We have left this thread open for two days now, so far noone has even tried to answer any of the questions asked. There have been at least 6 people who have taken the time in this thread to show support for ID, but not to rationalize it. Why?

Yakk

The case for teaching ID isn't a rational one. It is a case of rationalization.

You shouldn't expect rational arguements in support of it. That isn't what the ID philosophy is about.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Orpheus

Evolution is as much a theory as is the idea that the Earth revolves around the sun.

Evolution is evident at molecular levels of our existence. To teach anything else in a science class is a waste of time. Read Richard Dawkins, a biologist from Oxford, for more information.

Anybody here care to reconcile Intelligent Design with Free Choice? Since design implies intent, what is the intent behind free choice?

ARTelevision

The most sensible refutations of ID here have been made by good people who dispute ID as demonstrable by scientific methodology.

However, there have been many rational positions posted by ID proponents. Saying that is not the case is untrue.

__________________
create evolution

guthmund

Yep, that just about sums it up.

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

ARTelevision

The problem arises when one is completely proscribed from even mentioning the existence of current dispute about a subject. I have had long experience in both public schools and in colleges and university settings. Some things simply need to be stated in a sentence or two, such as: "There exists a number of people, even scientists, who dispute that evolution is the final word in the explanation of the origin of species. There is some research going on that attempts to validate their claims. But in this classroom, we will focus on the generally accepted scientific theory."

That's what I would say in a college class. But in a high school, for example - because public school allows only officially, politically, and legally sanctioned instruction - I would not say this.

As far as I am concerned, it is intellectually dishonest not to mention the existence of potentially competing theories that have some (emerging) basis in science.

__________________
create evolution

Fourtyrulz

See, the problem with most people is that the term theory to them seems to mean some kind of whimsical idea that someone randomly thought of. No, this isn't the truth. A scientific theory is tested using scientific postulates and the scientific method, it IS testable and it is NOT some idea casually spewn about by "godless" scientists.

Christianity being true might be one thing, we might never find out, but Christianity being fact is something no one will ever EVER be able to prove.

MSD

I have no problem with ID, crationism, and whatever else they want to talk about being addressed in schools. I have researched numerous theories, however, and I see no reason for any other than Evolution/Natural Selection being taught as fact.

KMA-628

I would say this could've been a typo, but based on your previous post, I am already aware of your thoughts on this subject.

You guys realize that "creationism" as a concept is not exclusive to Christianity, don't you? EVERY SINGLE RELIGION on this planet has the human race being created by a "God" or "gods". Geez, it is probably one of the oldest theories on this planet.

You (the collective you) do realize that there are many, many comments on this thread that could be taken as intolerant. How can you criticize something as intolerant while being intolerant?

Also, you guys need to stop spouting that Evolution is the only "true" theory. Hell, even people within the evolution community can't agree on some aspects of it. There are still questions regarding evolution that are still unanswered and will mostly likely remain unanswered for a long, long time.

Also, I mentioned this before, but no one responded, so I repeat.

Why must ID and evolution be at odds with each other? I actually believe in both. I think that an evolutionary process was put in place, but that is was put in place by a creator.

Just as evolution isn't 100% factual as would like to be believed here, you can neither prove nor disprove my theory.

/time for me to change the channel

Manx

I don't see anything wrong with intolerance of intolerance.

You've just hit the nail on the head!

There are still unanswered questions about the details of evolution. This leads to investigation.

There are no unanswered questions about Intelligent Design. This leads to nothing useful.

Fourtyrulz

All I was trying to get across was that Christianity might be true, but there's no way science could ever prove or disprove it. It wasn't a matter of my opinion. What's with the hostility?

I just spent the whole last semester of college studying the evolution of the creation myth throughout western civilization. PM me if you truly want to argue. Besides, creationism is not something against personally, I just don't see it's place in a SCIENCE classroom. And no where else in the free world do you see the fallacy of Creation "Science" being taught in schools. Europe dismisses even the thought of it being taught as science.

Because in science there's something called empiricism and the scientific method, and for ID to be taught in a science classroom using neither foundation is, well....unscientific.

Edit: Just changed some wordings

ARTelevision

There has been a lot of overstatement by people saying things like the theory of evolution is a fact. A scientific theory is not a fact. It is an interpretation and explanation that fits facts and observations and that can be used to make predictions. When a theory no longer fits observable, experimentally verifiable, and predictable phenomena (such as Newtonian gravitation giving way to Einsteinian relativity theory, the replacement of both - within the quantum realm - by more inclusive theories, etc.), it is discarded.

I'm all for teaching science. I'm not at all for overstatement - especially when something is being used as a political hammer.

__________________
create evolution

KMA-628

Now....try reading the rest of my statement that you were attempting to respond to.

Here, let me help, written by me:

Now, if you had read what I wrote and responded to what I wrote you would see that I was talking about the two "theories" working together hand in hand, not the idea of teaching two separae theories at the same time or whatever you thought you were responding to.

I read this and I am just amazed, neither evolution nor Christian Creation(or any religious creation theory) are 100% fact and provable, both require a little bit of faith in the theory for it to work.

If faith wasn't require with evolution, how then do we get from nothing to something?

Anyway, I know where you stand, discussing this would be frivilous: PM not sent

flstf

I'm not sure if teaching how we got from nothing to something should be emphasized in science class. Just a few minutes explaining that most scientists currently believe there was a big bang because the galaxies appear to be moving away from each other. I think the teaching of evolution should begin in earnest after the appearance of lifeforms on our planet.

Fourtyrulz

This subject has been debated by philosophers for thousands of years, Faith vs Reason and using reason to justify faith. Today, Evolution vs Creationism is just another embodiment of that argument. The simple fact is though, if you want your children to learn science in a science classroom teach them evolution. Send your kids to Sunday school, a mosque, or your local madrasa if you want them to the wonderful joys of creation "science."

Like I said above: I don't care if you believe in evolution or creation, but if you want to teach our kids what science IS NOT then bring on the bibles and let them know all about how god created man. While you're at it, have them read a little bit of Leviticus to know exactly what god wants from his people...his creation. Shit, take a poll "How many of you are uncircumsized?", tell the ones raising their hands that they are going to eternal damnation. Don't believe me...read it. It's called the Covenant with Abraham. Wait a sec, that's just the CHRISTIAN creation myth. Let us not forget creation myths of thousands upon thousands of other religions found in the entire world. Let us spend the year teaching them those myths...now hold on...the sign on the door no longer says science....


...But theology.

Manx

That's the question that incites ALL quests for knowledge.

Why look for the building blocks of a electron? An Intelligent Designer made it from nothing. End of digging for answers.

Why look for the building blocks of an atom? An Intelligent Designer made it from nothing. End of digging for answers.

Why look for the building blocks of a molecule? An Intelligent Designer made it from nothing. End of digging for answers.

Why look for the building blocks of tissue?

Etc. etc. etc.

ID answers all the questions we do not have answers for. It is a philosophy that removes the necessity of the quest for knowledge from the equation. It has not basis or place in science.

KnifeMissile

Actually, I believe that you are the one that doesn't understand the word "theory."
At the risk of lending these creationists credibility, the word "theory" means exactly the same thing in science as it does in English. It is a common misconception that scientists use the word "theory" to mean "scientific fact." They don't.
Sometimes, scientists need to refer to ideas that appear to be observable facts, in that these ideas always appear to be true. Scientists call these ideas "laws."

There are no theories, or even laws, that scientists will not abandon if they ever contradict (new) observation. ARTelevision has already stated this in post #32 but he didn't quote the original context so I have repeated this, here.

Now, as far as the thread topic goes, Intelligent Design is not (as many have already shown) testable and is, therefore, by definition, not science. As such, I would hope to never find this taught in any science class. However, this isn't to say that it can't be taught in school. There are a myriad of high school classes (at least, there are in my country) and who's to say that Intelligent Design can't be taught in, say, Religious Studies? Or maybe Social Studies? Somewhere appropriate...

Fourtyrulz

This is right on, and the same works for all kinds of sciences: history, psychology, even math. It is also one thing that advocates for Intelligent Design have yet to present to the scientific community, proof that they are wrong. Sure, go to any creation "science" page and find "facts" that show evolution doesn't exist, but science has proved those to be almost all of them faked (how much of a "science" is that?) and certainly all of them have proven false.

Read my above posts for more in that same vein.

__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

Superbelt

I don't see what you have said that makes what I said wrong.

Scientific theory: a statement that postulates ordered relationships among natural phenomena.; scientific theories must be falsifiable.

Falsible, something ID is NOT. That's why it belongs in religion class or philosophy, not biology and other science courses.

And like I said; relativity, plate tectonics, and gravity are all just theories.
Modern Science is based on a bunch of theories. We can't call them all fact or law because we don't know every single detail and it is very had to prove something for every single set of physical circumstances. That said, we have evolution, plate tectonics and gravity nailed down enough that we can broadly call them science fact even though it is not technically true.

flstf

But that is not what I understand the ID community is trying to get into the classroom, like I wrote previously in post 56: