Intelligent Design

[Killfile]

So G.W. Bush came out and said that he thinks teaching Intelligent Design along side Evolution is a good thing for our public school systems. Since there aren't any threads ongoing right now that I find terribly interesting, I'll toss this out and let ya'll mull it over.

If you want to know what I have to say about it, I've got a blog entry posted on my website (linked below) which is excerpted here.

To see the hand of God in the evolution of Man is not, in and of itself, a flawed belief structure. Creation is a wonderful and varied thing, and those that see the spark of the divine in it are truly blessed – but that spark is not of the natural world, and science is ultimately the study of what is natural. We can no more teach Intelligent Design in our classrooms than we can teach that Unicorns frolic in our forests or that ghosts float through the ether. Admittedly these examples are fantastical, but the invisible man in the sky that created human intelligence is also fantastical. More to the point – if human intelligence is too complex to have occurred spontaneously, what spontaneous occurrence created the intelligence that created man?

More is available here, but that's the general gist of it.

What do you guys/gals think?

[psi29a]

I first read the phrase "Turtles All the Way Down" in a book by Stephen Hawking. According to the story, a bigname scientist was giving a lecture on astronomy. After the lecture, an elderly lady came up and told the scientist that he had it all wrong. 'The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist asked "And what is the turtle standing on?"

To which the lady triumphantly replied: "You're very clever, young man, but it's no use -- it's turtles all the way down."

What does this have to do with the parent of the thread? Think about how people explain things they don't understand, and then try to make excuses for those explanations.

If they want to teach Creationism, then it should be tought from all school of thought: Islamic, Chrisitian, Hindu, and etc.

Now I also think this is bad because Evolution doesn't address 'creation' but rather what happens over time (namely death). So, how can evolution be replaced or given a substitute. Creationism is clearly not even on the same page as evolution. It deals with how we got here. Not with what we have 'evolved' to.

[Killfile]

I first read the phrase "Turtles All the Way Down" in a book by Stephen Hawking. According to the story, a bigname scientist was giving a lecture on astronomy. After the lecture, an elderly lady came up and told the scientist that he had it all wrong. 'The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist asked "And what is the turtle standing on?"

Well, ID proponents would say that their viewpoint doesn't rule out the possibility of a giant turtle - if that's what you want to believe in. Are you coming out in favor of the turtle hypothesis or are you just pointing out the willingness of most people to bend the laws of reason to uphold a belief?

What people believe is one thing -- I'm more worried about what our legislatures tell our teachers to cover in Biology.

[LordMune]

I'm with psi here- Creationism should include all creation myths, and be taught under the heading of "Religion".

Stuff like this pisses me off to no end.

[MrFelony]

why dont they just have several different classes and have the parents mark off which one they woudl like to send their kids too...cause it would be to expensive and i doubt anyone would give a rats ass about norse or greek creation stories...no offense. but the one class to teach creation and one to teach evolution seems fine with me...

[Killfile]

but the one class to teach creation and one to teach evolution seems fine with me...

Ok, so separate classes for creationism and evolution with no bias given by the school system as far as funding per pupil, class size, etc. The school system is legally bound to make sure that the classes cover the same material otherwise, but, beyond the division of the student body, remain equal in every way.

Separate.... but equal. That sounds constitutional to me.

[Necromancer]

To see the hand of God in the evolution of Man is not, in and of itself, a flawed belief structure.

He just read to much Berserk and wants to see the "Godhand".

[LordMune]

norse [...]creation stories...

Don't knock it 'till you've tried it. Giant cows and shit.

[MrFelony]

heh i wasnt knocking it personally, but just on the behalf of the people or arkansas. and this is different that race, church and state are seperate issues, so if religious issues are to be taught, then it should be seperate. or they could just make it even MORE complicated by having an evolution, creation, and a combined class

[Shade]

I don't live in the US so it doesn't apply to me but I can't say that I like the idea. *Is a man of science*
In Australia (Well my state anyway) Religion is a subject you can choose if you want to take it. I like it like that so everyones happy. No one is being forced to do it but it's still there for those that want to take that class.

[dos.azn]

anything george bush does, i disagree with, no matter the case

[Eldo]

I don't live in the US so it doesn't apply to me but I can't say that I like the idea. *Is a man of science*
In Australia (Well my state anyway) Religion is a subject you can choose if you want to take it. I like it like that so everyones happy. No one is being forced to do it but it's still there for those that want to take that class.

I'm atheist, I'm going to hell and I have no voice in religious debates by default, so I've been told.

Heh.

[dos.azn]

now why eldo that isnt a nice way to put it

[TheDarkness]

i think it is a bad idea to teach religion or anything related in school all together.... We had a class like that... it focused on all the forms of religion in the world and the ethics that came with them. Worst class i've ever had.

Anyway why should you teach something that has been proven to be wrong.... I mean we also don't get math with a teacher that claims that 1 + 1 = 5. This just isn't right.

[isse-pisse-päron-pung]

It's not just about that, what if you come to for example a buddhist country and don't know their traditions, manners and stuff, wouldn't that be very impolite? thats what I would think at least. Not every country acts like the western countries.

[dos.azn]

christians and any other type of religion most probably will never get along

[Skullkracker]

The current 1 "good idea" vote is from me.
Why?
first of all, it is really important to remember our Christian heritage...even from the aspect of science.
it is important to note that ther had to be a change of perspective in order for any kind of scientific observation of the natural world to start.
<-- as long as the world was believed to be to complicated to study or was full of taboos no real natural science was possible.

second one: the idea of intelligent design is more real than some scientific theories that are taught at schools nowadays. The paradigm of evolution and the Big Bang theory do have their flaws, still they are the only explainations taught to the newer generations. Their freedom in choosing what they believe in is thus limited.

sidenote:
if people weren't stubbornly looking away from God they would be able to notice Him...through really simple things as well, such as the world around us

[psi29a]

Eh, it isn't like I'm stubbornly looking away, it is that I don't care if a God exists. I have better things to worry about, like making the world a better place.

If there is a God, then I'll be happy and content with the rest of eternity with Ghandi in hell because I think it is WRONG that a person that spends so much of their life doing good that they should be tormented.

If he doesn't exist, then well then, guess I don't have to worry about what to do for eternity since I have a limited life span. Just be happy and enjoy life.

Back on topic, perhaps a more secular approach would be best. As my man Asimov once said:

Creationist make it sound as though a ‘theory’ is something you dreamnt up after being drunk all night.

For those who don't know what Intelligent Design is:
http://tinyurl.com/b5mxc

For those that want to know the controversy:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... lution.htm

[Skullkracker]

Eh, it isn't like I'm stubbornly looking away, it is that I don't care if a God exists. I have better things to worry about

where does that thought worry you?

[Necromancer]

I don't live in the US so it doesn't apply to me but I can't say that I like the idea. *Is a man of science*
In Australia (Well my state anyway) Religion is a subject you can choose if you want to take it. I like it like that so everyones happy. No one is being forced to do it but it's still there for those that want to take that class.

In german schools you are able to dismiss religion as well but you've got to take part in an alternative subject.

Subjects that cross religion always force the believe of some people on others. That's wrong if you ask me.

[psi29a]

Eh, it isn't like I'm stubbornly looking away, it is that I don't care if a God exists. I have better things to worry about

where does that thought worry you?

It doesn't worry me, I was saying that I have other things that occupy my time that I value more than debating the existence of God. As in, I could care less if God exists or not. However, I do care that people respect others way of life.

The argument put forth by Killfile is that Intelligent Design is meant to be a 'theory', a secular 'theory' that tries to promote the idea of a creator, be it Allah, God, etc. So by wrapping in that some divine presence 'created' life, it gives the notion that it is a viable scientific theory that can be taught in schools.

The problem is that movement for ID in public schools is mostly funded by Christians as a way to subplant the theory of evolution. It is trying to mimic the style of the scientific process. It isn't a theory however, because in the end... the hypothesis can not verified as true OR false. This means that ID isn't a theory at all, by a way to educate the public's children on the 'idea' of a Creator under the guise of science.

Now this is great, but I don't want MY tax money funding this. I want MY tax money to fund science, math, linguistics, and arts. If they want to learn about world outside of that, they can goto church and talk to their parents.

[dos.azn]

interesting thread this has become

[Killfile]

Wow - ya'll have really run with this. Since Psi is restating my position - I should probably do it myself to avoid interpretation problems.

Science is the study of the natural world aided by the use of the scientific process, which involves supposition, testing, and conclusion. If tests do not bear out the hypothesis, we change the hypothesis to accommodate the results of the tests.

Evolution is a scientific theory - it makes predictions as to what we should find in the fossil record. If we find other things in the fossil record we are forced to reevaluate the evolutionary hypothesis. Before we go trashing the word "theory" remember that gravity is a theory and so is nuclear fission. The population of Hiroshima saw exactly how much of a half-assed guess a "theory" can be 60 years ago yesterday.

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. It examines, not the natural world, but the supernatural world. You can't, by definition, deal with the supernatural through the scientific method. That doesn't mean that the supernatural doesn't exist, just that we can't test for it. Given that fundamental reality, I.D. isn't a scientific theory and thus shouldn't be taught in a Science class.

Point of fact -- if you COULD test for the "creator" supposed by the ID argument, that would make that creator him/her/itself natural. If we suppose that creator to have intelligence then that intelligence itself must be naturally occurring or supernaturally created. By the ID argument, all natural intelligences have a supernatural intelligence as an ancestor - and by consequence, the entire ID argument falls back into the realm of the supernatural.... oh dear, I've gone cross-eyed.

If we want to teach creation stories we should do it in a comparative religions class. As hate crimes against Muslims are up, both in the United States and in the UK, it would seem that more and more of our populace could stand to learn more about the religions of the world. If there's a place for a religious creation story in our public schools that's where it is.

[MrFelony]

i think it is a bad idea to teach religion or anything related in school all together.... We had a class like that... it focused on all the forms of religion in the world and the ethics that came with them. Worst class i've ever had.

Anyway why should you teach something that has been proven to be wrong.... I mean we also don't get math with a teacher that claims that 1 + 1 = 5. This just isn't right.

shut up...you're proven wrong remark just pissed me off even though i proabably am taking it outa context. you cant prove jack shit about religion.

[isse-pisse-päron-pung]

Thats the point about religion. The facts aren't needed it's belief that is needed.

Anyway I don't care about religion much either. As Buddah said: The thing we call religion isn't about pleasing a god(s) it's just a guideline for ourselfs in order to know how to live a good life.

the point was; Don't go around and figure about things like is there an after life etc. Instead you should just worry about your own life cause you only live for a set amount of years. :0

wiseguy words imo