God's 'Intelligent Design' in Classroom? Why Not?

[mirror]

God's 'Intelligent Design' in the Classroom? Why Not?

Why I don't agree we should teach evolution, pure and simple.

You know, you have to keep asking yourself, what will those anti-evolutionists come up with next?

And here it is.

This is the latest rage in America "the so-called “evolution vs. intelligent design controversy.”

I agree with the author with this article. It is better to teach ID in the schools so that it can be debunked rather than let the religious community control the debate.

Smart guy, this Mr Persky.

[Freshinit]

Intelligent design lies in the natural tendencies of mother nature and any living creatures encompassing it.

[BHS]

Intelligent design lies in the natural tendencies of mother nature and any living creatures encompassing it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wha?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Freshinit,

Intelligent design lies in the natural tendencies of mother nature and any living creatures encompassing it.

Quite the opposite, really, 'mother nature' tends to selfishness, not benevolence. Self-preservation would be the second-least 'intelligent design'.

[mirror]

Intelligent Design

New, improved Creationism

Unless you’ve spent the summer roughing it in a cabin on the shores of Lake Erie, you probably already know that “evolution vs. intelligent design” is the latest installment in America’s running cultural war between religious fundamentalists and most of the rest of us, the secular humanists. It’s been going on, along with the debates on abortion and gay rights, for years, going all the way back to the Scopes Trial in 1925 when Clarence Darrow defended a Tennessee high school science teacher who was teaching evolution.

In the half-century or so after the Scopes trial, the creationists largely lost the battle to evolutionary theory. But in the last decade, with born-again American religious revivalism and the rise of “social conservatism,” the debate has taken a new turn. The faith-based creationists have been supplanted by a more scientifically-minded force that claims that whatever the truths of evolution, there’s also evidence of intelligent design in the universe, and if there is, it, too, ought to be taught in schools. The intelligent design people are careful not to claim that the intelligent design is necessarily the work of God.

In fact, people like Jay Richards of the Discovery Institute are very careful, and don’t want to be too tainted by association with religious crazies (even though most of their funding comes from said fundamentalist fanatics). “Intelligent design isn’t the same as traditional creationism,” says Richards. “Intelligent design theory is just saying more or less what Deepak Chopra said, that there’s evidence of purpose and design in the universe… It’s not a creation theory and it’s certainly not a religiously-based argument. It’s based on the evidence of science. And so the debate is different interpretations of science.”[Most of the scientists, on the other hand, deny that there is a controversy at all, deny that there’s scientific evidence of intelligent design, claim that “intelligent design” is just a thin new cover for old-fashioned “creationism,” and assert that all this fol-de-ra has no place in science classes and, anyway, science teachers should stick to teaching science. Rather than debating intelligent design, they prefer to simply invoke the authority of “science” to deny that there’s anything to debate. Which is pretty much what Prof. Barbara Forrest said on the Larry King show.

----------------------------------------

Why leave it to the preachers?

I think scientists and science teachers are making a big strategic mistake if they turn their backs on the “controversy.” I don’t want the only place where intelligent design is discussed (dissected, and debunked) to be those stadium-sized fundamentalist churches where we can be sure that creationists will connect the very few dots that lead from ID to God. The schools are among the few institutional settings where there’s a possibility that superstition, pseudo-science, and wacky beliefs can be exposed. And science teachers are among the people who are capable of doing that. I think it’s lame for scientists to whine, We just know about science and can’t say anything about anything else. Scientists are just as much intellectuals as the rest of us intellectuals, and if they don’t know about the possible implications of evolutionary theory on other kinds of belief, well, they ought to learn.

Given the failure to dispel ignorance so far, I think we have to do better. One of the possible ways of doing better, in science as well as in philosophy classes, is to “teach the controversy.” Hell, I’d rather have us teach the controversy than have them teach it. Otherwise, I think we teachers are rightly accused of elitism and of keeping our heads in the clouds which hover just above our ivory towers.

As for the Blue Jays, it would be only a cheap shot for me to point out that they’re possible evidence that the universe isn’t entirely intelligently designed.

[moderateamericain]

Heres a revolutionary idea, why not teach both and let the kids make up their own minds?

[Black Dog]

Heres a revolutionary idea,  why not teach both and let the kids make up their own minds?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because science is not about opinions (why not teach the theory that the earth is flat and let kids make up their own minds?). It's about, well, science. The only time ID should be mentioned in the science classroom is in context of a lecture entitled: "Why Intelligent Design is horsesh*t".

If you wanna talk about it in comparative religion or philosophy class, fine. But leave science class for the stuff that actually has science to back it up.

[mirror]

BD

I agree.

Persky, who is philosophy instructor, agrees as well.

I think the three of us all agree it is bunk.

Persky's point is he'd rather have it discussed in his philosophy class so that he has some control over the process, and it can be debunked there, as opposed to NOT letting it be discussed in the schools, and only in churches, where it will be strictly brainwashing, with no opportunity to challenge it or to debunk it at all.

He raises a valid argument.

[moderateamericain]

Heres a revolutionary idea,  why not teach both and let the kids make up their own minds?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fair enough, but i still see no harm in saying "A certain sect of society believe that........"

hmm for some reason it didnt quote what BD wrote in response to my intial post.

[mirror]

Heres a revolutionary idea,  why not teach both and let the kids make up their own minds?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fair enough, but i still see no harm in saying "A certain sect of society believe that........"

hmm for some reason it didnt quote what BD wrote in response to my intial post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

An analogy for why ID should not be brought into the realm of science is the recent Katrina hurricane and global warming. Scientists have been saying for years that the water is getting warmer but global warming, at least up until recently, has been disregarded by the current US Administration. It is possible if the scientists had been allowed to do their scientific work unimpeded by the business community, the government would have been more receptive to have provided safer arrangements for the poor people in the gulf region.

[newbie]

An analogy for why ID should not be brought into the realm of science is the recent Katrina hurricane and global warming. Scientists have been saying for years that the water is getting warmer but global warming, at least up until recently, has been disregarded by the current US Administration. It is possible if the scientists had been allowed to do their scientific work unimpeded by the business community, the government would have been more receptive to have provided safer arrangements for the poor people in the gulf region.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And in fact Katrina was predicted by Scientific American (Oct. 2001) and National Georgraphic (Oct. 2004). Great analogy mirror.

[August1991]

Because science is not about opinions (why not teach the theory that the earth is flat and let kids make up their own minds?). It's about, well, science. The only time ID should be mentioned in the science classroom is in context of a lecture entitled: "Why Intelligent Design is horsesh*t".

Exactly.

If teachers spent all their time teaching stuff that was wrong so that kids could form an opinion that it was wrong, school would be even more boring than it already is.

The irony in this is that anyone who spends a bit of time learning about modern cosmology - theories about the first few instants after the creation of the universe -comes away with a sublime sense of existence. Intelligent Design is not a requirement for a belief in God and, for those with faith, it probably detracts from an appreciation of God's powers.

----

Anyway, religion is usually just politics by another name.

[Guest eureka]

comes away with a sublime sense of existence. Intelligent Design is not a requirement for a belief in God and, for those with faith, it probably detracts from an appreciation of God's powers.

Am I missing your meaning here, August. I would have thought that a belief in God was a belief in Intelligent Design.

As fo ID being "bunk," and a couple of philosophers saying that, Flew now believes in Intelligent Design. Einstein believed in Intelligent Design. Surely that means that there is a little possibility that the rest of us should not dismiss it out of hand.

I think it would be highly irresponsible to leave it out of school.

You may not be able to teach it as science but I fail to see why science teachers should not refer to the belief of many that there was a Designer behind the Big Bang.

[Black Dog]

You may not be able to teach it as science but I fail to see why science teachers should not refer to the belief of many that there was a Designer behind the Big Bang.

Because science class isn't the place to discuss theology or mythology. There are seperate classes for that. ID and its varients are fundamentally unscientific because they are untestable, thereofre they don't belong in science class. Period.

[WordsAreDead]

Because science is not about opinions (why not teach the theory that the earth is flat and let kids make up their own minds?). It's about, well, science. The only time ID should be mentioned in the science classroom is in context of a lecture entitled: "Why Intelligent Design is horsesh*t".

If you wanna talk about it in comparative religion or philosophy class, fine. But leave science class for the stuff that actually has science to back it up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Beautiful. I agree 100%.

That's like telling a 10 year-old: "Well, the earth either revolves around the sun, orrrrrrr, the sun and everything else revolves around the earth... It's up to you really..."

[Guest eureka]

I don't agree with that at all, BD. Would you have said that the idea that the earth is round or that the earth revolves around the Sun could not be mentioned in a classroom some hundreds of years ago.

Or that evolution could not be speculated on before Darwin: and I don't mean Charles.

[WordsAreDead]

I don't agree with that at all, BD. Would you have said that the idea that the earth is round or that the earth revolves around the Sun could not be mentioned in a classroom some hundreds of years ago.

Or that evolution could not be speculated on before Darwin: and I don't mean Charles.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The point is that ID is not based in any empirical knowledge at all, it is a purely supernatural concept. Therefore, it is not testable, not provable, and should certainly not be taught in our schools.

[I Miss Trudeau]

I don't agree with that at all, BD. Would you have said that the idea that the earth is round or that the earth revolves around the Sun could not be mentioned in a classroom some hundreds of years ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even "some hundreds of years ago," the empirical evidence indicated a roughly spherical earth in a heliocentric system. Your point seems to be that we should once again permit theology to muddy the scientific waters.

[mirror]

I don't agree with that at all, BD. Would you have said that the idea that the earth is round or that the earth revolves around the Sun could not be mentioned in a classroom some hundreds of years ago.

Or that evolution could not be speculated on before Darwin: and I don't mean Charles.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The point is that ID is not based in any empirical knowledge at all, it is a purely supernatural concept. Therefore, it is not testable, not provable, and should certainly not be taught in our schools.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As Persky the author of the initial article pointed out, and the reason for the article, we are losing the battle to the fundamentalists. Therefore to have some control over the discussion he suggests we do teach it in the schools, but not as part of the science curriculum. I agree with him.

[I Miss Trudeau]

As Persky the author of the initial article pointed out, and the reason for the article, we are losing the battle to the fundamentalists. Therefore to have some control over the discussion he suggests we do teach it in the schools, but not as part of the science curriculum. I agree with him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whats needed is a mandatory high school philosophy course, focusing on logic and issues in current events. That way, this BS can be dragged out, thoroughly (andfairly) destroyed, and put to rest for good. Of course, this all assumes that the education system wants to encourage critical thinking which is simply not the case.

[WordsAreDead]

Whats needed is a mandatory high school philosophy course, focusing on logic and issues in current events. That way, this BS can be dragged out, thoroughly (andfairly) destroyed, and put to rest for good. Of course, this all assumes that the education system wants to encourage critical thinking which is simply not the case.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, that would be an excellent idea, however, the school board would never let it happen.

[Guest eureka]

My view has nothing to do with theology except to recognize thar there is no way of proving the existence or non-existence of God or some creative intelligence.That there was some indication or belief tht the Earth was not flat hundreds of years ago does not contradict the fact that there was no empirical evidence at all for evolution without Design. Yet, there came a time when evolution began to be taught in limited ways without evidence other than the theory and that the Earth was circular came to be believed long before any empirical evidence was available.

Science that cannot defend itself against faith is not strong science and nothing in science negates the possibility of Intelligent Design.

As I said earlier, if Flew and Einstein believe, then I see nothing other than discomfort with the notion that we are not ourselves Gods to try to laugh the faith out of existence.

[Melanie_]

I don't think Intelligent Design belongs in a science curriculum, but it can be in a philosophy class - I like IMTs idea of a mandatory course on this - my 16 year old committed athiest would love the opportunity to discuss these topics in class.

If you are going to present Intelligent Design, what else must also be presented alongside it? If we teach one abstract, mythological based theory, we must teach them all, with as much credence given to each. Lay out the points of ID, along with the Christian version of Creation, the Greek mythology version, heck, throw in Tolkien's version as well. Let them explore why humans have created so many different explanations for our origins. Giving kids the opportunity to really think things through and formulate their own convictions at this age is of just as much value to them as reading Hamlet or mastering trigonometry.

[Black Dog]

As Persky the author of the initial article pointed out, and the reason for the article, we are losing the battle to the fundamentalists. Therefore to have some control over the discussion he suggests we do teach it in the schools, but not as part of the science curriculum. I agree with him.

I don't, for the simple reason that we are not losing the battele over evolution. Evolution is still accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community and, as such will continue to be taught. I don't believe we need to throw these people a bon eeither, as they wil not accept any compromise.

Science that cannot defend itself against faith is not strong science and nothing in science negates the possibility of Intelligent Design.

Sure it does: by showing the natural processes of evolution are responsible for the development of life, science negates a supernatural designer. And while science cannot conlusivly disprove the esistence of such a being, science cannot prove such a thing does exist (which is why ID and other theories are merely "God in the gaps" arguments: untestable and therefore, unscientific).

[B. Max]

The fact is there is no proof what soever for evolution and it still remains a theory.

On the other hand we have the written word of our history. To dismiss it is no different than someone two thousand years from now dismissing what happened yesterday.

Atheists/evolutionist what have you argue that life was all an accident. The problem is there would have to have been to many accidents and not only can they not explain the beginning of human or animal life, on top of all that there is the problem of all plant life. Where did the first seed come from.