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

[GostHacked]

Still waiting solid scientific hard evidence for ID.

[I Miss Trudeau]

It is a joke, man. Not even a good one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Making it remarkably similar to ID.

[GostHacked]

It is a joke, man. Not even a good one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Making it remarkably similar to ID.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Also another thing we can add if ID gets the go ahead. We were created by aliens. Being them more intelligent than us lowlife humans, they had the ability to help evolution along by tweaking the simian gene. ID leaves soo many options and posibilities of HOW (or WHY).

I wants SOLID evidence of ID not conjectures, beleifs ect. SOLID scientific evidence.

[Guest eureka]

I would like to see solid evidence of some more open minds. I don't think I have ever seen such insistence on the rightness of a particular view than this topic elicits.

As I have said a few times, if Einstein and Flew believe in Intelligent Design then I am not going to say categorically that it is not so.

It seems that Atheism brings out as dogmatic a stance as any religion.

[ssiguy]

I actually believe in Intelligent Design.

I put a lot of faith in science and do not believe that science and ones belief are neccessarily incompatible.

I happen to believe in a higher power which created all things. I don't believe there was a beginning of our universe but has simply always been, its just that that is too hard for many a scientist to grasp.

I don't believe that one day all there was was a little rock and then it for some unknown reason blew up and voila, a universe.

That said, those are MY beliefs. They should not be brought into the schools.

Belief systems/religion has absolutly no place in our school system.

It should be taught as strickly science and what we know to be true and what we think we know.

If kids or parents believe in something else that is their purogative but that is at home.

Religion and the public school system must NEVER meet.

[Tawasakm]

I would like to see solid evidence of some more open minds. I don't think I have ever seen such insistence on the rightness of a particular view than this topic elicits... It seems that Atheism brings out as dogmatic a stance as any religion.

I believe that you are missing the point Eureka. The debate is not over whether intelligent design is a 'possibility'. It is, rather, over whether or not it is appropriate to teach Intelligent Design as a valid scientific theory in school classrooms. Those who are being 'dogmatic' and 'closed minded' are not dismissing religion but are dismissing religion as science. There are comprehensive arguments in this thread demonstrating how this theory does not meet the necessary requirements to be taught as science. That is not being closed minded - that is merely demonstrating an understanding of the scientific method.

Anything that is not science does not belong in the science classroom. There is a scope outside of that classroom to explore such things and that, to my mind, is the appropriate venue.

[Guest eureka]

I have, Tawasakm, said earlier in the thread, that I do not accept the views of the religious fundamentalists on ID. I do find ot very difficult to not accept that there is a designer, though, whatever the force may be.

We poor humans suffer from an excess of hubris in our faith in our science much of which is constantly being turned on its head. Shpuld, for one example, string theory have been excluded from science class when it was only an hypothesis? It is not so very long ago that philosophers were debating whether existence itself was real.

What other place is there but a science class? ID cannot be taught but it certainly deserves to be mentioned and discussed. To say that it should be outside of the education system does not really address the issue. Most believers in ID, and I think I may be one, are not members of any formal religion; many are agnostics. So Church is not the place.

Frankly, I fail to see how ID is incompatible with science and there seems to be a growing community of scientists who embrace ID in some sense.

The constant refrain that there must be solid, empirical evidence grows old and tired. There are many things in science that were once devoid of any proof. There are many things that we struggling mammals will never prove or know. Possibly they belong to philosophy but that would only be for deep study. ID should not be taught in science because it cannot be taught: but, in my opinion, it must be mentioned, not as a competing theory, but as a probability for the beginnings.

[Tawasakm]

A thoughtful reply Eureka and thankyou.

I have, Tawasakm, said earlier in the thread, that I do not accept the views of the religious fundamentalists on ID.

Whether or not the theory is being advocated by religious fundamentalists or others does not, in my view, really alter the merits of its case. Either it has the requisite evidence or it does not.

We poor humans suffer from an excess of hubris in our faith in our science much of which is constantly being turned on its head.

This is a point I often encounter - most often, in my experience, from religious people. Rationally I find it somewhat weak that a person of faith would criticise perceived faith. I do not think you are approaching the issue from that perspective, however, rather I believe you to be looking at a possible flaw in the approach to science.

First of all I question your assertion that we place faith in science. If it was faith then science would stagnate since we would not question. Certainly it would not be 'turned on its head'. What many lament as 'blind faith' in the scientific method I regard to be instead a consistent and logical understanding, and acceptance, of a proven methodology. The very fact that scientific theories are disprovable with the gaining of new information (and the fact that new information is constantly being sought) removes all of the red lights which 'faith' raise for me. Science is for those with their eyes open who will question and look at evidence - the antithesis of faith.

To say that it should be outside of the education system does not really address the issue.

I believe that the concensus has been that it may well have a place in the education system but not in the science classroom

Frankly, I fail to see how ID is incompatible with science and there seems to be a growing community of scientists who embrace ID in some sense.

In it is current format it is incompatible because, as has been explained, it is not a proper scientific theory and does not have any empirical evidence.

The constant refrain that there must be solid, empirical evidence grows old and tired. There are many things in science that were once devoid of any proof.

I personally find this to be an absolutely astonishing comment. You find the idea that scientific theories must have empirical evidence before being taught to students to be 'old and tired'? I hardly know where to start with this one... In fact it is probably better for me not to. I will restrict myself to saying that empirical evidence is an essential part of scientific research etc. Without 'tired and old empirical evidence' there is no science.

There are many things that we struggling mammals will never prove or know.

And there are many ways to find 'answers' to the things that we will never know. It is also true that science does not provide answers to many questions. That doesn't mean that something else should be shoved into the gaps just to make it complete. If science does not have the answer to a question then all that can be taught in a science classroom is that 'science currently has no answer to this question'. That could be expanded upon as students look at various ways science may have attempted and failed to answer the question. It doesn't mean that I can tell them the world was created by the Horrible Farting Double Headed Thunder Lizard from Galaxy Five. If there is no evidence then it has no place in a class room where you are teaching (or should be) the basics of science, scientific research and the scientific method. Any decent education system covers more areas then science and, in my opinion, the theory of intelligent design belongs somewhere else in the system - if it belongs anywhere.

[newbie]

What other place is there but a science class? ID cannot be taught but it certainly deserves to be mentioned and discussed. To say that it should be outside of the education system does not really address the issue. Most believers in ID, and I think I may be one, are not members of any formal religion; many are agnostics. So Church is not the place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know eureka. I don't think our schools should be the catch all for everything. Pretty soon there would be atheism classes, and of course all the other religions would want their voices heard. I don't mind having evening classes to discuss these "faith" topics, but I feel they just can't be within the present curriculum. Some would argue that's what universities are for.

[I Miss Trudeau]

I have, Tawasakm, said earlier in the thread, that I do not accept the views of the religious fundamentalists on ID. I do find ot very difficult to not accept that there is a designer, though, whatever the force may be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd be interested in hearing your reasons for that belief. I'm willing to bet that they are remarkably similar to scientific methodology. Or rather, based on the understanding that we all got of science from our high school experience.

We poor humans suffer from an excess of hubris in our faith in our science much of which is constantly being turned on its head.

If it makes you feel better, I reject the notion that science offers us a "true" account of reality.

Shpuld, for one example, string theory have been excluded from science class when it was only an hypothesis?

No. String theory was always a scientific hypothesis, in that it offered explanations for the phenomena that we observe, though admittedly in purely mathmatical terms. In short, it made statements that could be rendered false via inductive logic. ID does no such thing.

It is not so very long ago that philosophers were debating whether existence itself was real.

Some still are.

What other place is there but a science class? ID cannot be taught but it certainly deserves to be mentioned and discussed. To say that it should be outside of the education system does not really address the issue. Most believers in ID, and I think I may be one, are not members of any formal religion; many are agnostics. So Church is not the place.

Which is why I suggested a mandatory high school philosophy course, focused on logic and current issues.

Frankly, I fail to see how ID is incompatible with science and there seems to be a growing community of scientists who embrace ID in some sense.

Its not incompatible so much as it is outside the sphere of science. Even if one could decisively prove that some supreme being created the universe, it wouldn't alter science in any way. In fact, it would be an entirely useless piece of knowledge.

ID should not be taught in science because it cannot be taught: but, in my opinion, it must be mentioned, not as a competing theory, but as a probability for the beginnings.

Fine. On the first day of every high school science class, the teacher should stand up and say, "Some people believe that a supreme being created the universe and everything in it. Some people also believe that Elvis is still alive. Now, back to science."

[Guest eureka]

This reminds me of what used to cause me mental stress. How can there be nothing and how can there be something.

Now, I don't even let myself think about it for that way lies madness.

Anybody else want to weigh in. It is now becoming interesting instead of the dismissal of supporters of ID as cranks.

IMT, how can this be considered in a philosophy class when pholosophy does not enter the school curriculum? There is no avenue for discussion other than churches for those who do not want to go to church for free discussion. Which is why I bring those of Antony Flew's persuasion into this.

[I Miss Trudeau]

This reminds me of what used to cause me mental stress. How can there be nothing and how can there be something.

Now, I don't even let myself think about it for that way lies madness.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Go read some Heidegger. When he convinces you that nothing is in fact something, you'll be thrown into fits of apoplexy.

IMT, how can this be considered in a philosophy class when pholosophy does not enter the school curriculum?

Well it would need to be added. There are, however, one or two schools in Edmonton that have philosophy as an option available to students. They're hamstringed by the apparently wide spread belief that public schools ought to be as educationally relativistic as possible, however.

[Slavik44]

I have, Tawasakm, said earlier in the thread, that I do not accept the views of the religious fundamentalists on ID. I do find ot very difficult to not accept that there is a designer, though, whatever the force may be.

We poor humans suffer from an excess of hubris in our faith in our science much of which is constantly being turned on its head. Shpuld, for one example, string theory have been excluded from science class when it was only an hypothesis? It is not so very long ago that philosophers were debating whether existence itself was real.

What other place is there but a science class? ID cannot be taught but it certainly deserves to be mentioned and discussed. To say that it should be outside of the education system does not really address the issue. Most believers in ID, and I think I may be one, are not members of any formal religion; many are agnostics. So Church is not the place.

Frankly, I fail to see how ID is incompatible with science and there seems to be a growing community of scientists who embrace ID in some sense.

The constant refrain that there must be solid, empirical evidence grows old and tired. There are many things in science that were once devoid of any proof. There are many things that we struggling mammals will never prove or know. Possibly they belong to philosophy but that would only be for deep study. ID should not be taught in science because it cannot be taught: but, in my opinion, it must be mentioned, not as a competing theory, but as a probability for the beginnings.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think most people here no that I do belive in some form of intellegint design, and if you don't, you do now. But I also belive that Intellegint design is not at a stage where it can be taught in the classroom. ID in its current state is like evolution before darwin. Many people theororized it but no one could really grasp it or explain the intrecacies or mechanisims of it. Likewise I.D is in its infant stages, it doesn;t have a repreoire that we can teach or learn, until we can gather more teach then in the begining God created the heavens and the Earth, it cannot be taught in a science classroom, even if it could be plausible, it is useless as a science because in its current state it is unfalsiable, all we can rely on is God comming to the earth again to tell us, listen fuckers I created you, this is how I did it. That isn't something we can take seriously, that is not to say we cannot seriously belive it, but it is to say that it is in its infancy, we don't allow 2 week old babies to go to school, and we shouldn't allow the equivalent in theories.

We didn't teach evolution in school for a very long time, until it gained some legitimizing factors and acceptance. Likewise we should somehow attempt to get some stock behind intellegint design, if we are to one day truthfully talk about its presence in a science class room. I suppose in this sense God has given I.D theororists (the few that exist) a gift, millions of people willing to waste hours critisizing their information, and that is where I.D belongs, using the gift it has been given, and answering such critisicms if or once it gets past that stage, then we can talk about I.D in the class room. But we should not allow ideology and ideoluges to control what goes on in the classroom.

Simply put we shouldn;t teach I.D in the classroom, because it is not at a stage where it can be taught. It is not at a stage where it can be truly reviewed or viewed in an empiracal sense. There is no law that says that it cannot be debated in the class room, I remember some of my friends were in a class in my highschool school and they spent one class debating evolution, the big bang, and intellegint design, such things do happen in the class, and they are not prohibited. But for a teacher to stand up and teach intelligent design, I say simply it is not at that stage yet, it needs to be first devloped outside the class room, to an acceptable standard.

[Black Dog]

Simply put we shouldn;t teach I.D in the classroom, because it is not at a stage where it can be taught. It is not at a stage where it can be truly reviewed or viewed in an empiracal sense. There is no law that says that it cannot be debated in the class room, I remember some of my friends were in a class in my highschool school and they spent one class debating evolution, the big bang, and intellegint design, such things do happen in the class, and they are not prohibited. But for a teacher to stand up and teach intelligent design, I say simply it is not at that stage yet, it needs to be first devloped outside the class room, to an acceptable standard.

But ID is not "at a stage" where it cannot be scientifically tested: it can never be scientifically tested. Unles sthey can come up with soem evidence showing an actual designer, it wil remain a "god in the gaps" theory. Put another way: things that may appear to be by design are not evidence of a designer. You can't base a theory on an unprovable inference.

[Slavik44]

Simply put we shouldn;t teach I.D in the classroom, because it is not at a stage where it can be taught. It is not at a stage where it can be truly reviewed or viewed in an empiracal sense. There is no law that says that it cannot be debated in the class room, I remember some of my friends were in a class in my highschool school and they spent one class debating evolution, the big bang, and intellegint design, such things do happen in the class, and they are not prohibited. But for a teacher to stand up and teach intelligent design, I say simply it is not at that stage yet, it needs to be first devloped outside the class room, to an acceptable standard.

But ID is not "at a stage" where it cannot be scientifically tested: it can never be scientifically tested. Unles sthey can come up with soem evidence showing an actual designer, it wil remain a "god in the gaps" theory. Put another way: things that may appear to be by design are not evidence of a designer. You can't base a theory on an unprovable inference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

and if you read my post as a whole you would have noticted...

"even if it could be plausible, it is useless as a science because in its current state it is unfalsiable, all we can rely on is God comming to the earth again to tell us, listen fuckers I created you"

I never in my post guranteed that it would get out of that stage, I just described what it would need to do, to get out of it, wether or not it can is another question. I could sit back and describe what I would need to do to play in the NHL, but that doens't mean I said one day I will play in the NHL.

[Melanie_]

Here's the latest from Pat Robertson about the fate of those who oppose teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_...rtson_evolution

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson warned residents of a rural Pennsylvania town Thursday that disaster may strike there because they "voted God out of your city" by ousting school board members who favored teaching intelligent design.

"God is tolerant and loving, but we can't keep sticking our finger in his eye forever," Robertson said. "If they have future problems in Dover, I recommend they call on Charles Darwin. Maybe he can help them."

Do you think Robertson does his cause more harm than good?

[Guest eureka]

I believe Kansas has now passed legislation to make evolution be taught as a theory.

[Shakeyhands]

Here's the latest from Pat Robertson about the fate of those who oppose teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_...rtson_evolution

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson warned residents of a rural Pennsylvania town Thursday that disaster may strike there because they "voted God out of your city" by ousting school board members who favored teaching intelligent design.

"God is tolerant and loving, but we can't keep sticking our finger in his eye forever," Robertson said. "If they have future problems in Dover, I recommend they call on Charles Darwin. Maybe he can help them."

Do you think Robertson does his cause more harm than good?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pat Robertson and his ilk prey on those so dazzled with with fear of the afterlife (?) that they are incapable of thinking for themselves. It never ceases to amaze me that people actually donate millions and millions of dollars to this guy. It really is pretty amazing. He is a schyster in the tradition of PT Barnum.

[PocketRocket]

I got a chuckle from a reader-reply letter in Time magazine yesterday.

It said something to the effect of "Those who advocate the theory of intelligent design need only to look around at what's happening in the world to debunk their thoughts".

Rather apt, I thought.

[Yodeler]

I got a chuckle from a reader-reply letter in Time magazine yesterday.

It said something to the effect of "Those who advocate the theory of intelligent design need only to look around at what's happening in the world to debunk their thoughts".

Rather apt, I thought.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When I look around I see evidence of intelligent design everywhere.

We are only one animal out of millions and millions that occupy this planet.

Maybe God just forgot us.

[sharkman]

Nah, God gave us freedom to choose whatever path we would follow. The world as you see it is a result of those choices. He lets us reap the results of our choices and actions.

Robertson, as usual, has it wrong. God will not punish the poeple of whatever town (dover?) based on their voting on creationism. He lets people live with the results of their decisions. They want creation out of the classroom, it'll be out of the classroom.

The bigger picture is a strategy among some in the U.S. to do away with any mention of God or Christianity whatsoever. Their country was started by pilgrims fleeing religious persecution in England, and now they are doing much the same to traditional religious types.

Decisions that have more immediate results include the permissive attitudes toward pornography, abortions, and homosexuality. These have changed the landscape of America (and Canada) far more drastically than ID in the classroom ever would.

[GostHacked]

http://templeofpolemic.proboards42.com/ind...read=1130126466

Interesting article about ID vs Evolution. I throw this article in the 'ID does not belong in the classroom.' Long article but the source is origionaly a writer for Esquire.

But like he said, the faithful will just disregard this as blasphemous huckleypoo.

[sharkman]

Any writer from Esquire is hardly a good source for objectivity! He's obviously a talented liberal writer who looks down his nose at middle america, as they have been doing for decades. And intellectual arrogence is hardly reason enough to decide an issue.

[Yodeler]

Nah, God gave us freedom to choose whatever path we would follow. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bullshit! He forgot about us!

[sharkman]

Bullshit! He forgot about us!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope, we forgot about him.