Intelligent Design: It's place in schools...
 

I live in York, Pa (as you can see next to my name) Infamous Dover, Pa IS York.

My hometown is host to the stupidest educational decision I have heard in a very long time.

As most have heard, Dover recently decided that they will be teaching 'alternatives' to Evolution in their schools. This alternative is intelligent design, which will be taught through a book called "of Panda's and people"

Here is a very beautiful letter that was printed in my local paper on monday
I especially love how this man assumes that if you have a view different from him, you have to leave the country.

Anyways, gotta love it, don't ya? especially how ignorant people don't understand the meaning of the word 'theory'
Dumbasses like this equate theory with it's popular meaning of hypothesis, educated guess, or hunch.
The 'theory' is Darwinism, but the concept of of one species descending from another, is considered to be scientific fact.
The 'Theory" is a well substantiated naturalistic explanation for a related set of facts.
Other famous theories include, relativity, plate tectonics, and gravity.
The things that all modern science is based upon The tenets of all we know are, really, theories.

The ID nuts like to focus on having an alternate viewpoint. But I bet they would balk if I tried to also install the creation mythology of Greeks or the Hundu myth where the divine presence created the elements and dispelled the darkness. All Creation myths have as much validity as Intelligent design. All are based on just as much observable fact. (none)

If I had more time on my hands, I'd print up some pamphlets where I postulate that the present theory of gravity is wrong and that we are held on earth by the hand of a higher power who keeps us from floating off the planet. Then lobby to get it installed in the Physics program. I think it would be fun to see who would come out to bitch about that one.

Anyway, to answer my title, there is none. Not until the ID'ers can come back to us with some observable fact, keep it in the religion class.

I don't mind giving equal time to both theories, because they both have merit, but presenting it in this fashion is just the wrong way to go about it. Just give the kids the facts about each and let them decide for themselves, I see no problem with that. However, he could have sprung for a more scientific book than "Of Pandas and People."

See, I don't see a good reason to give this equal time. First, because only one is a theory, and that's Evolution. The other one is a quick and dirty story made up to satisfy creationists. ID has not gone through the scientific process whatsoever, it is not a theory, in the scientific sense. If you give it to the ID'ers, then you have to give it to the equally fruitcakey folks who think aliens deposited us on this planet and used the pyramids as intergallactic space hubs. (My Archaeology prof called them Pyramidiots)

There is no basis behind ID in science, only religion. The entire thing behind ID is that evolution couldn't do what it did, so let's chalk it up to a higher power doing it for nature.
That's just a cop out and in no way belongs in science.

it's no better than those who think Noah's flood happened.
Smart people: But where did enough water come from to cover all the earth?
Floodie: God made it happen.
Smart people: But how did all the plants come back after every square inch of land was covered by salt water for a prolonged period of time?
Floodie: God made it happen, he protected them all.
Smart people: what did all the large animals eat while they were on the ark?
Floodie: God provided.
This doesn't belong in my history book or geology book, neither does ID

ID is no less retarded.

No argument there, I believe in a combination of the two theories after doing just a little bit of background research for myself. There are scientists who give the ID theory some credence but don't automatically throw out evolution because ID just slam dunks on evolution and blows it out of the water. RRRiiighhhttttt..... Those scientists do leave the possibility of evolution open, as good scientists should, because there is a lot of evidence in support of it, but they also leave the possibility of ID open, as good scientists should. Like I said before, this guy is going about it in the wrong way. Back to the scientists though, there are a number of them out there that do find that the ID theory deserves some credence, not in the overwhelming amount that the Christian Fundies give it, but in combination with a micro-evolution and a little bit of macro-evolution thrown in there. The gentleman probably wouldn't like these guys to support his theory because they do differ with him, but I would prefer it, and I certainly think a lot of other people do, if these scientists would come out and lend the facts that they've uncovered and help the ID flourish as a scientific theory rather than the wild ideas of crazies.

My personal views, as I am Christian I believe are quite similar. I do believe God had a plan for all this to happen. But he let nature go through it's motions and left everything to create itself in the right way.
As teaching it goes, it doesn't belong in the discussion of the origin of species and I see ID where they say, well this eyeball couldn't have just developed, or cell division is naturally impossible and has to be helped along by the hand of God to be just appallingly stupid and an attempt to have humanity take giant steps backwards in education.

so by this logic, any proposition can become a scientific theory if it attracts a certain level of research?
how much?
and what do you do with this argument in a context already full of conservative thinktanks and industry lobbyists with vast amounts of unearmarked cash available that have already shown themselves more than willing to buy whatever level of "research" they require for publicity purposes?

you can build almost any crackpot theory into the premises of your "research" and find that research either confirms it or is dismissable as plagued by accident.

this is america. everything is for sale.

In Texas they teach both "equally". I like it that way.

By "equally" I mean they cover each in the same way. Because there isn't much to Creationalism, other than everything is due to God, we dont spend more than one class period on it. Because Evolution is much more complex we spend about a week to a week and a half. I agree with this, keeps the bible-thumpers happy while it taught me a good depth of High School evolution.

superbelt,

i don't think you have a firm grasp of what intelligent design actually is. when you talk of people who are proponents of intelligent design balking at giving equal time to hindu or ancient greek religions you're comparing apples to oranges. ID is based on the possibility that the observable universe has so much order/structure/complexity that it is likely that an overarching intelligent force has guided its direction. the theory itself is unrelated to christianity except in that they both allow for the existence of a higher intelligence.

whether or not the universe has been directed in its development is unknowable either way at this point in history. there are compelling arguments to be made on both sides. while the answer remains unknowable, i think the practical way to educate our ourselves is to not make one side of the debate the only voice to be heard.

here's a FAQ on intelligent design

Do Texas schools go through other 'theories' of creation?
If not, why?

I don't understand why we can teach creationsim in schools, but we can't decorate for christmas or even call it christmas break. what gives?

We wouldn't want to offend anyone...

I have a theory that the universe is an atom on the peel of a very large orange.

I demand that my theory get equal time with Evolution and ID.

Any real scientist would leave the possibility of Manx's Theory of the Orange Peel Universe open and would welcome it in our schools.

Your theory doesn't explain anything as a means of creation though. You'll have to get working.

Having spent my K-12 years in Catholic school, I know plenty about Creation and ID.
From the faq: Darwin's Theory: A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory.

Neo-Darwinism: A theory of evolution that is a synthesis of Darwin's theory in terms of natural selection and modern population genetics.

So, ID is opposed to modern population genetics.

Genetics: The branch of biology that deals with heredity, especially the mechanisms of hereditary transmission and the variation of inherited characteristics among similar or related organisms.

ID is against the idea that the transmission of inherited characteristics among organisms cannot be governed by nature in and of itself but it is guided by God.

That, I'm sorry to say, is stupid. But only because we have actual concrete facts to back it up and ID has to resort to lying about hereditary genetics and saying, "God just did it (No further questions please)" to try and appear to be less than fallacious.

IMO, the current discourse regarding various "theories" of "intelligent design" contains some important concepts. I'm not opposed to offering info on the overall conception to students in an educational context when the theory of evolution is being discussed. It has some merit and can be the source of useful educational experiences.

The only thing I have to say on this subject is that some extremist Muslim governments teach nothing but the Koran in schools. We all know the result of that. You should not teach "faith"; faith is not learned. There is a reason it takes one period to teach Creationism: you are not learning anything. Someone is telling you something happened, with no dissection of why or how, as there can be none. There is no education in religion. I agree that ID does appear to be nothing more than an attempt to force science into Creationism. I myself take the view of a God inspired Big Bang and then more of a hands-off approach for the rest of time, but in school I learned science, and I experienced religion in church. I am happy with that distinction, and I think we should continue to pursue the ideal of separation of church and state, even if certain things (e.g.,Christmas as a national holiday) make that sort of futile.

The universe and everything in it was created when the cell on the orange was created.

My theory is a nice little perfect ball of explanation. It explains everything just as accurately as ID.

ID nevers asks the question: who created the Intelligent Designer? I see no reason that my theory needs to ask who created the orange. The orange just is.

It does not have merit as it cannot be measured and proven. We can trot out all the examples in the world like the divergent history of the Red fox and the Kit fox and the path they took from a common ancestor. We can provide proof throughout the centures of their gradual evolution and the answer we will always get back is that the Intelligent Design guided them towards that.

This kind of stuff will only succeed in confusing kids. Teachers jobs are to teach the truth, not give equal time to everything. We don't give equal time to the flat earthers, But we are practically giving equal time to Noah's flood carving the Grand Canyon in 40 days (Ain't that a kick in the scientific nuts?) link What's next?
If it is not supported by any rational evidence and has not gone through the process of a real theory, it shouldn't be allowed to stand next to something that has actually withstood the test of time and scrutiny.

Like I said, if we have rot our kids brains with ID in public schools, then rot them throughly by teaching Alien forcing the cultivation of earth and using pyramids as space beacons. Less than doing that is an obvious ruse to force religion in our schools.

Since something like 98% of the species that have ever existed on Earth have become extinct, what makes anyone think that if there is a designer that he/she/it is intelligent? I can understand if evolution is selecting species for extinction through natural selection but why would a designer want to discard or screw up so much of their work. Could just be an unintelligent alien kid mucking around. Of course maybe they will cover this in the new curriculum.

how do they both have merit?

to teach ID it would probably go like this: god (or 'the intelligent designer') created the universe and set everything in motion making things the way they are today. (total lesson time - 2 minutes, give or take question answering)

to teach evolution: natural selection, genetic drift, etc etc... here's the observable evidence backing this up. (total lesson time - could go really long depending on how indepth you want to make it)


the thing i find funny about ID is that doesn't ID negate free will? the major backers of ID seem to be fundamentalists, and they'll tell you that god gave us free will (and to use it to worship him or burn in hell :)), but the ID theory seems to oppose that.

I would like to take this time to issue a formal challenge to anyone here who thinks that teaching ID is valid.
Please provide me with some evidence to support ID. Anything.
Do not come at me with faith. Faith is not science, faith cannot be measured with physical tools. If you want to challenge Evolutionary Genetics, than you need hard science, for that is what Evolutionary Genetics is.

You may come with fossil records, you may come with tested, observable proof that various evolutionary traits and biological systems are not possible without a Creator.
I will repeat do not come at me with feelings, obscure ideas or faith. Do not give me a page of links. Give me links but cut and past all relevant data in your post as well.

I will wait patiently for all physical, scientific proof to be provided to me that will make ID a valid scientific theory to be taught alongside Darwinistic Evolution.

If you can't do that, what you are pushing is purely bunk and has no more place in the science programs of our schools than Greek Mythology.

it's nauseating how many people can't disentangle creationism and intelligent design.

the problem isn't a "how" problem... it's a "why" problem. neo-darwinists believes that the genetics developments of species are the results of random mutations or a purely competitive natural selection. intelligent design proposes that the developments have a consistency and complexity that makes an over-arching design the most plausible explanation.

in order to teach both, you don't have to run over facts or erase history. you don't have to ignore science, because they're both compatible with science. this spills over into the arrogance that pervades neo-darwinists... they think they understand the "how" and automatically assume that they know the "why". they know the mechanism... but simultaneously teach that the mechanism is an end in itself. they have themselves gone from teaching strictly science to injecting their own belief system on the data, the very thing they object to anyone else doing that doesn't subscribe to their "why".

my solutions:

solution A: don't even address the issue except from the standpoint of raw data and testable fact. this means that no implication is given either way when discussing whether life's progression is random or ordered.

solution B: teach the kids all the same factual data, but have a philosophy of science discussion about the idea that we have sprung up through physical chemical combinations alone or whether the universe's progression has intelligent structure.

the reason we don't disentangle creationism and intelligent design is because ID was essentially created and is being pushed in response to the fundamentalists inability to get creationism taught in school. i'm not sure, but i don't think ID was around before the 70's. it's just an attempt at getting the door for creationism into the classroom.

we have a good idea on the 'how.' it so far works very well with the evidence.

and we have a really good idea on the 'why' too. why do things evolve? competition. it happens at all levels (genetic, social, etc). we see bacteria become immune to antibiotics allowing them to better compete and survive. we see ancient countries imporving technology to better compete and outlast their neighbors. if you don't compete and adapt to the world around you, you become extinct.

look at professional sports. originally all they would do is practice, then practice and weightlift, then adding in good nutriotion, then supplements, and then steroids. athletes are doing what they must to compete in their contemporary environment.

it's a lot easier to see how competition is present in pretty much every aspect of life and use that as an explanation for evolution than 'some intelligent designer did it.' one we can see and verify, the other is just as plausible (has the same amount of evidence) as the boogie man being in closet.

now, if you mean 'why' as in 'why are we here?', well, i ask you, why does there have to be a reason? again, the simplest answer (and most likely one) is that we're here because we evolved through natural selection rather than 'the big guy in the sky put me here (directly or indirectly).'

edit: forgot about your solutions...

solution A is bad because that woudl be like teaching kids the alphabet but not teaching them how it all ties together.

solution B is bad because that discussion should be in a comparitive religions class where it isn't wasting valuable class room time. there's a lot of information to be learned in a biology class, other than talking about the ethics of science (like what to consider when designing an experiment), philosophy should be left out.

"Intelligent Design" is creationism repackaged and has no place in public schools.

Religion is as important as science, history, math, and language in school. I feel a comprehensive (all religions) religious course or courses would hurt no one and benifit most. HOWEVER, if we are teaching science, we should stick to scientific method - which disqualifies intelligent design and almost dismisses evolution as well (evolution is pretty frail as an explaination of the source of life). Science is things like biology, physics, astronomy, and psychology. Theoretical explaination of natural phenomena that has at least some basis in relative fact is what I consider to be science. As we are now, God (or any godlike or supreme supernatural being) is not explained in any way by science. Whether evolution is explained by science is debatable, but I think we can agree that we are a long way from having a general theory of supernatural benevolant phenomena.

To posit intelligent design, you simply have to posit that the universe contains intelligence. You could use humans as the example, but something like dolphins would be more obvious - since the intelligence of humans is somewhat dubious.

After that, you state with supporting evidence that intelligence is an integral aspect of the universe and not an evolutionary end-product.

I'm not about to quote long and detailed articles here. You want "evidence" that ID has some intellectual and even scientific merit - go research it. It's clear that many have not done that. You put "Intelligent Design" into a search engine and read up on it. I'm not responsible for your self-education.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

(if you don't like the source - it is reprinted from
Natural History magazine)

This link has some merit and certainly also has some educational value. I would have no problem at all in presenting materials such as this - or many of the other things you will find in your research of this topic - in the same lessons in which I would teach the theory of evolution.

What is becoming increasingly clear to me is the intolerance of those with views that differ from pure secularists by the secularists themselves. And I am tiring of the invective, derision, and bald disrespect that seems to be acceptable whan discussing any topic that may be related to those who have religious views.

As you know, I have no interest in religion myself, but the sort of derision and intolerance shown by its opponents is moving me toward a position in which I am ready to begin actively defending those with religious beliefs against those who seem to think it necessary to carry on a campaign of insult against them.

That's about all I have to say on this subject matter...

No, it's not creationism repackaged. There is a long history of scientists who've been convinced that intelligence is a root aspect of the universe:

.....

The Intelligent Universe
By William F. Hamilton III

Introduction: The present day concept we hold of the Universe is far beyond anything the early Greek Philosophers such as Aristotle had in mind. In ancient geocentric views of the Universe, the earth held a primary position and the stars and planets (wanderers) of the heavens were just lights in a celestial sphere. There was no concept of a galaxy, supergalaxy, or cluster or supercluster in those ancient days. So the first thing we know about our Universe today is that we have a greatly enhanced concept of its size and its complexity. There are many more objects in our Universe than dreamt of by our ancient ancestors.

As concepts in Cosmology improve, our understanding of the origin of our Universe and life in the Universe at large increase. When we consider our stature as humans, we may feel overwhelmed by the immensity of not just the visible universe, but the prospect of multiple universes. We then proceed from big U to little u. The prevailing scenario for the creation of the universe in Cosmology is called Inflation. This model developed by Alan Guth of M.I.T. goes beyond the Big Bang. Essentially, Guth says that in the initial stages of creation the universe underwent a period of rapid inflation as if a balloon were expanded by a helium pump. There are up to 50 variations of this theory with little prospect of proving any one of them except by extremely delicate measurements made by instrumented satellites.

Not only are theories of the creation of our universe being contemplated by cosmologists, but also theories on the creation of many universes. These new theories seem to reflect an older idea that perhaps there was no beginning and no end to the creation of universes. That several universes may exist is a conclusion reached both in the world of macrophysics and microphysics, the world descrtibed by quantum theory.

In the philosophy of science books have been written about the Anthropic Principle. This principle states that if any of the physical constants were to vary from the fine-tuned values we have determined for them that life in the universe would be impossible. It is reasoned that the properties of our universe are special and conducive to life. Speculation has ensued on why this may be so.

Finally we come to the gist of our thesis. The late Fred Hoyle, who died recently at age 86, will be remembered as one of the most distinguished and controversial scientists of the 20th century. Soon after the end of the second world war he became widely known both by scientists and the public as one of the originators of a new theory of the universe. He was a fluent writer and speaker and became the main expositor of this new theory of the steady state, or continuous creation, according to which the universe had existed for an infinite past time and would continue infinitely into the future, as opposed to what Hoyle styled the "big bang" theory.

Hoyle wrote a seminal book he titled The Intelligent Universe. He made many controversial statements in his book that raised the ire of the scientific community, but he was never one to shy away from a good argument and he engaged his critics with challenges that were impossible to ignore.

Central to the debate is whether life in the universe is a matter of accident, whether unguided events led to the evolution of all forms of life on earth. Hoyle concludes that random events and chance occurrences are insufficient to account for the complexity of living organisms and that a cosmic control system exists, that there is a hierarchy of intelligences beyond human up to a limit we call God. This was a most disturbing statement to make as a scientist and a former atheist.

According to Hoyle, “Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect DELIBERATE... It is therefore, almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences.. even to the limit of God."



He also said, “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein... I am at a loss to understand biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious."

And further, “I don't know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty in understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The 'others' are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles... It is quite otherwise, however, with the modern miracle workers, who are always to be found living in the twilight fringes of thermodynamics."

Hoyle continues these thoughts in the book titled The Mathematics of Evolution. In this he uses mathematics to reveal the constraints imposed on any Darwinian theory of evolution. Again critics attacked his work and even called his conclusions wrong.

Was Hoyle wrong or do we live in an intelligent universe, not one governed solely by blind chance?

The newest discoveries indicate that the expansion of our universe is accelerating and that our universe is filled with a mysterious dark energy and an equally mysterious quantity of dark matter.

Intelligent Design: A new cavalry has rushed to the rescue and calls its thesis, “Intelligent Design”. This new movement, starting with life sciences, has further raised the ire of conventional scientists. Critics of this rising tide of advocates allege that those who back this concept are just the old Christian Creationist in a new suit of clothes. However, Hoyle was no Creationist, and neither is Dr. Richard Thompson who prefers Eastern Religious Philosophy to that of Western. Also, advocates of ID say they are not Creationists in the old sense of the term and only wish to present an alternate paradigm for understanding life in the universe.

Who are these leading advocates of Intelligent Design? One is William A. Dembski, a philosopher and logician and Michael Behe, a very insightful biochemist. These two have been prolific in writing on this subject and are heavily criticized by the Darwinists who will not accept Intelligent Design as science.

Dembski describes the theory behind ID in an abstract: “For the scientific community intelligent design represents creationism's latest grasp at scientific legitimacy. Accordingly, intelligent design is viewed as yet another ill-conceived attempt by creationists to straightjacket science within a religious ideology. But in fact intelligent design can be formulated as a scientific theory having empirical consequences and devoid of religious commitments. Intelligent design can be unpacked as a theory of information. Within such a theory, information becomes a reliable indicator of design as well as a proper object for scientific investigation. In my paper I shall (1) show how information can be reliably detected and measured, and (2) formulate a conservation law that governs the origin and flow of information. My broad conclusion is that information is not reducible to natural causes, and that the origin of information is best sought in intelligent causes. Intelligent design thereby becomes a theory for detecting and measuring information, explaining its origin, and tracing its flow.

Information Theory: This brings us to other considerations that have been proposed for a universe that is rich in information. Cyberneticist David Foster also wrote a book he titled The Intelligent Universe, but his concept was the universe as data, as a cybernetic entity. Some of his concepts were simplistic and speculative, but he paved the way for more sophisticated theories of a cybernetic universe. These tentative theories see the universe as information and the information is processed according to instructions as one finds in a computer program. These theories may imply the hidden existence of a programmer. We have had God as an Architect, a Dreamer, a Mathematician, an Engineer, and a Programmer. All of this seems rational, but scientists prefer the non-invocation of intelligent agents in the process of creation.

Mathematics: We would not have science without mathematics. Quantities, measurements, equations, and formulas give us exactness in science. Probability theory has been used to demonstrate the improbability of a universe by accident, notably by Albert Einstein. The internal harmony of universal processes can be analyzed with the aid of mathematics.

PI: The recurrent use of this mathematical ratio throughout physics and all natural sciences gives us one of the fundamental bases of all dynamic processes.

PHI: The Golden Section, the Fibonacci sequence has been found throughout the biological world and was a proportion most revered by the Greeks as it is found in nature and replicated in architecture and the arts.

E: The relationships of the natural logarithms are also found in many physical equations.

The Fine Structure Constant: designated as α = 0.007297352533(27) is one of those ubiquitous numbers found throughout microphysics.

There are so many special numbers and equations that show up in theories of the physical world that it is a marvel that we can use the predictive power of mathematics to forecast the future.

Consciousness: The last great frontier. We know of its existence in living entities, but its source and nature remains a scientific mystery. The pundits of the East say that all reality is based on consciousness.

Though all the galaxies emerge from him, He is without form and unconditioned.
(Tejabindu Up. 6, p. 239)

The Eastern view of consciousness is that it is the Supreme Reality, and though we live in a world of form and condition, it itself remains without form or condition and projects all that we witness. The western view is that consciousness is restricted to organisms, with the human as the highest expression of consciousness. New ideas treat consciousness as universal and omnipresent.

Attempts are being made to construct a science of consciousness which calls on many disciplines. A recent conference on consciousness studies lists these subjects:

Philosophy: conceptual foundations, ontology, explanation, self, intentionality, mental causation, reality, free will
Neuroscience: neural correlates of consciousness, neuropsychology, vision, motor control, blindsight, anesthetic and psychoactive drugs, binding/integration
Cognitive Science and Psychology: implicit processes, attention, metacognition, memory, language, emotion, sleep, cognitive models, artificial intelligence, animal consciousness.

Physical and Biological Sciences: quantum theory, space and time, evolution, biophysics, medicine, computational theory, quantum computation and information, life
Phenomenology and Culture: first-person methods, religion and contemplative studies, anthropology, transpersonal psychology, hypnosis, parapsychology, aesthetics

That such a basic subject calls upon our most developed sciences and progressive minds gives us an idea on how we are evolving toward a greater understanding of our role in the universe.

The Holographic Paradigm: The concept of the universe as a giant hologram containing both matter and consciousness as a single field will, I am sure, excite anyone who has asked the question, 'What is reality?' This book may answer that question once and for all."
-- Fred Alan Wolf, Ph.D., author of Takiing the Quantum Leap

London physicist David Bohm, a former protégé of Einstein's and one of the world's most respected quantum physicists, and Stanford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram, one of the architects of our modern understanding of the brain -- believe that the universe itself may be a giant hologram, quite literally a kind of image or construct created, at least in part, by the human mind. This remarkable new way of looking at the universe explains not only many of the unsolved puzzles of physics, but also such mysterious occurrences as telepathy, out-of-body and near-death experiences, "lucid" dreams, and even religious and mystical experiences such as feelings of cosmic unity and miraculous healings.

Borrowing ideas from holographic photography, the *hologram* is Bohm's favorite metaphor for conveying the structure of the Implicate Order. Holography relies upon wave interference. If two wavelengths of light are of differing frequencies, they will interfere with each other and create a pattern. "Because a hologram is recording detail down to the wavelength of light itself, it is also a dense *information* storage." Bohm notes that the hologram clearly reveals how a "total content--in principle extending over the whole of space and time--is enfolded in the movement of waves (electromagnetic and other kinds) in any given region." The hologram illustrates how "information about the entire holographed scene is enfolded into every part of the film." It resembles the Implicate Order in the sense that every point on the film is "completely determined by the overall configuration of the interference patterns." Even a tiny chunk of the holographic film will reveal the unfolded form of an entire three-dimensional object.

Proceeding from his holographic analogy, Bohm proposes a new order--the Implicate Order where "everything is enfolded into everything." This is in contrast to the explicate order where things are unfolded. Bohm puts it thus:

"The actual order (the Implicate Order) itself has been recorded in the complex movement of electromagnetic fields, in the form of light waves. Such movement of light waves is present everywhere and in principle enfolds the entire universe of space and time in each region. This enfoldment and unfoldment takes place not only in the movement of the electromagnetic field but also in that of other fields (electronic, protonic, etc.). These fields obey quantum-mechanical laws, implying the properties of discontinuity and non-locality. The totality of the movement of enfoldment and unfoldment may go immensely beyond what has revealed itself to our observations. We call this totality by the name *holomovement.*"

Bohm believes that *the Implicate Order has to be extended into a multidimensional reality;* in other words, the holomovement endlessly enfolds and unfolds into infinite dimensionality. Within this milieu there are independent sub-totalities (such as physical elements and human entities) with relative autonomy. The layers of the Implicate Order can go deeper and deeper to the ultimately unknown. It is this "unknown and indescribable totality" that Bohm calls the holomovement. The holomovement is the "fundamental ground of all matter."

Finally, the manifest world is part of what Bohm refers to as the "explicate order." It is secondary, derivative; it "flows out of the law of the Implicate Order." Within the Implicate Order, there is a "totality of forms that have an approximate kind of recurrence (changing), stability, and separability." It is these forms, according to Bohm, that make up our manifest world. (12)

Bohm’s implicate order also led Bohm to consider a super-intelligent agent as a causative force in the universe.

Some see the vision of a Cosmic Mind who has created, and is creating a manifold reality based on pure thought that manifests itself as order and energy, as a universe.

Cosmic Evolution: All evolution, whether particulate, galactic, biological, or mental is part of one virtually infinite progression and unfolding of an intelligent consciousness as a universe full of life. That this evolution may be charted, and studied at this stage in our sciences is remarkable and is probably one of the foremost studies that we could undertake. Science has previously left out of its purview subjects of spiritual interest such life after death or reincarnation or a search for moral and ethical laws beyond the purely mundane physical. The restrictive, reductionist approach to science is undergoing transformation with new holistic approaches and incursions into off-limit territories. Perhaps we will see the dawning of a new understanding of existence before the human race rushes to its ultimate extinction.

Oh, its been a good day here at the TFP!.

First, I start chuckling over Shakran's comment in the "In America?" thread (i.e. the one about Kerry signs on UsTwo's lawn).

And then Art throws out a good one, thanks, I had a good guffaw on this one too.



Anyway, what about both, working together? What if a part of Intelligent Design included an evolutionary process? Why must the two be separate and against each other.

Also, the same problem with ID also applies to Evolution. What started the ball rolling? Neither theory can answer that question. If a "God" created the universe, who created "God". If we started from an explosion or whatever, who created the stuff that lead to explosion. It didn't come from nowhere.

Both theories lead to this ultimate question that cannot be answered. Sure, one contains scientific data to show proof of the process, but nobody knows who created the first little atom that started the whole thing.

I honestly believe that neither can be taught as absolute proofs, since both lack fundamental evidence regarding the origin.

In other words, there is no proof to truly teach "where we came from". It is a leap of faith regardless of the position.

KMA-628, absolutely. I think they both are valuable and meritorious views. I'm interested in a pluralistic solution as well.

.............
I don't want to get into a debate about sources here - or even "evidence". My point in quoting that piece was that there is something worth at least researching regarding ID before one just does a knee-jerk dismissal of the subject. And that's what is bothering me about all this. There is a trend toward simply dismissing - as pure lunacy - anything that can be associated with religious thought. This is more narrow-minded and antithetical to respectful discourse than a lot of what we consider as such when discussing many other groups of people and/or philosophical positions. I'm not going to just sit by and watch this poor trend continue.

I will not have the Manx Theory of the Orange Peel Universe (MTOPU) taking time away from the right and proper teaching of Norse Creation Theory (NCT). "For those of you not familliar with this venerable theory of creation, it states that the world as we see it is made up of the fragments of the dead giant Ymir--his blood forms the oceans, his shattered bones the mountains and rocks, his skullcap the sky above, and levitating fragments of his brain tissue form the clouds." MTOPU limits our universe to part of a giant orange while there is clear and observable evidence of Ymir's remains all around us. So called "theories" of faith-based Intelligent Design and science-based Evolution do not account for what is obviously a Ymir-based universe.

ID is different than Creationism. ID is different than Darwinism.

ID adds another postulate (an intelligent designer) to a theory (natural evolution). There isn't any testable (testable = an assertion that can be proven false by new evidence) need for that postulate to be added. By good old occam, you cut the postulate unless it is needed.

We know random chance can and does cause evolutionary behaviour in complex systems, and that random chance is acting on life forms. Additional evolutionary agents should be dismissed until you can prove that the existing agents are insufficient.

You can't just show that an intelligent designer is consistent with your evolutionary model -- as noted above, an orange creating reality is consistent with the evolutionary model. You need to show, in a falsifiable way, that random chance is insufficient.

And, given the strength of the 'random-chance' model, you need a really really really strong case to provide another postulate.

After you pull that off, you need to show that there aren't other sources for evolutionary pressure that make fewer assumptions than an intelligent designer -- you need to show, in a falsifiable way, that intelligent design is the best explaination. And you need to hold up testable (falsifiable) predictions that intelligent design supports.

Given the nebulousness of the intelligent design arguement, it basically completely lacks testable (falsifiable) predictions. The best it does is generating a flurry of weak attacks on the random-chance based evolution (that eye's couldn't form in the time allotted, etc).

And that is why Intelligent Design doesn't belong in a Science class. Feel free to place it in Philosophy or Religious studies or even Social Studies.

Good point Yakk, there could be an intelligent designer, just as there could be magical pixie dust, or unicorn farts, or a farsical big bang (how big could this bang be?), or a dancing ogre which would explain the beginning of the universe. But we know that we inhabit, and evolution takes place on, the corpse of the giant Ymir.

Artelevision, the article you posted had blatant falsehoods throughout the first ten paragraphs, I refuse to take it seriously or finish reading it. Are you sure it isn't a piece of satire lampooning Intelligent Design? I had much more respect for ID before I started reading that. I also have a difficult time believing this "Hoyle" has any kind of science background seeing as how he doesn't at all use a scientific discourse even when he is apparently trying to sway scientists.

If the town wants to include another view in addition to evolution, I don't see why anyone outside that town should try to stop them. But that letter is blatantly inflamatory.

Does ID parallel the Anthropic principle?

The problem with ID is that it isn't any more scientific than creationism. Science classes in public schools need to focus on actual science. There is ZERO evidence for an intelligent being "designing" this world, or anything in it.

Richard Dawkins wrote that relying on intelligent design to explain complex biological organisms was "a pathetic cop-out of [one's] responsibilities as a scientist." I agree. To quote Stephen Jay Gould, "science can work only with naturalistic explanations; it can neither affirm nor deny other types of actors (like God) in other spheres (the moral realm, for example)." Just because we cannot yet explain everything in this world does not mean that we should assume intelligent interference.

And why assume that this "intelligence" is God? Why not aliens? Is there proof somewhere that God had a hand in creating the functioning eye but not superpowerful aliens from outerspace?

No. There isn't. And until there is, keep creationism AND ID way the hell far away from public schools.

As to the insistence that ID somehow provides a "why" that is needed:

"Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparantly purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker)."

I went to a Catholic elementary school and high school, and whil we may have touched on genesis and the creation a bit any time we were in science class it was all about evolution, natural selection, etc... you know.. SCIENCE. I dont see creationism/ID having any part in public schools whatsoever. The whole point of a public school is education for EVERYONE. If a parent wants their child to learn creationism/ID that is what sunday school is for or catholic school. They could even *gasp* go to church/temple. I'm sure you'll get your fill with the 3 minute explaination that ID/Creationism consists of.

Mojo_PeiPei, there are strong correlations between some ID concepts and the Anthropic principle, yes.

Locobot, on Fred Hoyle:

The late Sir Fred Hoyle, a world-renowned astronomer, is acknowledged to have been one of the most creative scientists of the 20th century. He has held the position of Plumian Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University, and was also the founder of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge. He was an Honorary Fellow of both Emmanuel College and St. John's College Cambridge and an Honorary Professor at Cardiff University of Wales. He was best known for his seminal contributions to the theory of the structure of stars and on the origin of the chemical elements in stars. He was a joint proponent of the Steady-State model of the Universe, and in collaboration with Chandra Wickramasinghe he pioneered the modern theory of panspermia. Amongst the numerous awards and distinctions bestowed on him are the UN Kalinga Prize, 1968, the Royal Medal of the Royal Society and the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society. In 1997 he was awarded the highly prestigious Crafoord Prize by the Swedish Academy in recognition of outstanding basic research in fields not covered by the Nobel prize. He was a Fellow of the Royal Society and a Foreign Associate of the US National Academy of Sciences. He published over 40 books, including technical science, popular science and science fiction.

From the Cardiff University, UK, web site.

Art, my favorite thing about you is how can do a total aboutface in less than twenty minutes and not even comment on it. You have absolutely no qualms about changing your mind. Also, your willingness to jump wholeheartedly into a cause that has absolutely no importance to you.

We don't have to give equal time to defending the holocaust. Why? It is blatantly wrong and everyone knows it (And that is the extent of my comparison) Similarly science blows IDiots out of the water. (hehe, that's my funny)

Here is something that completely destroys ID.
Vestigal parts.

Why did the Intelligent Designer give us other vestigals like a Pancreas that serves absolutely no purpose? Why did IDer give us parts of our brain that record no activity? Why did that IDer give us a vestigal tail? Why do we have gills, when we are young fetuses? Why do we lose those gills as we develop in the womb?

The human eye. Human eyes are INCREDIBLY complex. Our eyes have parts that we don't even use. Parts that correlate to reptile eyes that are developed to pick up movement very well. Our eyes don't have every little piece in them anymore for those parts to work. WHY, would an Intelligent Designer put those parts in our eyes? Why not simplify a very complex organ that is prone to severe breakdown and defects specifically because of how complex it is?

Why do our bodies have so many parts that correspond directly to lower order animals, and are completely useless to us when an intellient Designer focused our development? Wouldn't he just simplify everything for perfections sake? Why make it imperfect at all?
The Human eye could be so much more simpler if the Designer just focused everything into the most efficient combination. Why didn't ID do it?

I know what the ID answer is. Because the Intelligent Designer wanted to do it that way. (The all purpose cop out) That all powerful Designer just decided, hey it'll be fun this eon to create a world of fragile, redundant creatures and see how much they get fucked up per generation.

We can't win against that because it relies on your personal belief that the unmeasurable aspect of your fake theory .

The Intelligent Designer is a sick kid in a biology class testing out fruit fly generations and seeing how messed up he can make the descendents. Apparently. Cool.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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)

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.

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...

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.

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.

http://angryflower.com/goinaf.gif
(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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Yep, that just about sums it up. :thumbsup:

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

I suspect you both are actually agreeing with one another or, at least in my opinion, only partially correct.

A scientific theory, while not fact, certainly carries more weight than the common usage of the word "theory" in the US. People often use it to signify an idea based on assumptions or even facts, but it's a very loosely held notion as compared to a scientific theory which, as already been pointed out by numerous people, is based on observable and testible facts.

What superbelt then went on to state, if I read him correctly, is that evolution from one organism to another clearly happens and is not in dispute by any scientist. That is, "micro"-evolution is scientific fact.
The "theory of evolution" is often understood to be scientific speculation on the origin of the human species. That is indeed theory, based on scientific facts, one of which is micro-evolution. Of course, as of yet we have no factual basis to conclude that species evolve into different species. We have things like fossil records and concepts like vestigial apparatii to point us to that conclusion, but so far no one that I have ever read claims to have directly observed evolution of one species into a new species.



ART: if you're still here, the disclaimer you posted up above regarding a number of scientists disputing the accuracy of evolution in regards to the origin of our species is pretty much verbatim of what was told to my school's biology class years ago.

Why not just skip the whole mess and not teach the theory of evolution. It would make both sides happy the stark raving athesists and the bible thumpers. If the children get curious they can go to the library or ask their parents.

Easy as that.

What would be the point of that? The kids would learn nothing then, and the only people it would maybe please would be the religious right. Politics should never overrule science, as you're suggesting in this case.

Well since evolution is taught in most biology classes or some sort of science class there is plenty to be learned. Since both sides seem fit to debate this topic to death it seems useless. Kind of trying to convince something that their wrong over the internet.

It is really a useless debate once you lay down what exactly is science and what is not. Beyond that the argument gets way too deep in theology and politics.


Words are words, spoken or written, books or radio, internet or phonecall.

Well, I tell ya. If I went into a church, and they started teaching me algebra, I'd get annoyed. That's not what people are there for. They're there to learn about the bible.


If I go into school, I'm not there to learn about the bible. I'm there to learn other stuff.

If you're so desperate for your kid to learn about creationism or intelligent design, teach him yourself or better yet, find out if your clergy is teaching it. If they are, great. They're doing their job. If they're not, it's not the school's responsibility to make up for their failure.

------------------------------------------------------------------------>%
End of Thread :D