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

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear sharkman,

QUOTE(Yodeler @ Nov 11 2005, 07:39 PM)

Bullshit! He forgot about us!

Nope, we forgot about him.

Well said. Nietzsche said 'God is dead, and we killed him. ( I believe that was from "Thus Spake Zarathustra") I don't think Nietzsche was too far off. Nor do I think a 'supreme entity' would be prone to forgetfulness.

However, God would be quite old by now, perhaps he has Alzheimer's. A great line from a song by Tom Waits, (Heartattack and Vine) "Don't you know there ain't no Devil, there's just God when He's drunk".

[Yodeler]

Bullshit! He forgot about us!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope, we forgot about him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As good a bet as any, I guess.

Thanks.

[PocketRocket]

Bullshit! He forgot about us!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope, we forgot about him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What if He is actually She???

That would certainly explain the bad joke that the world seems to have become.

[Yodeler]

What if He is actually She???

That would certainly explain the bad joke that the world seems to have become.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've seen these explainations. But they generaly come only from painfully-shy guys, the ones who simply don't have the nerve to ask a woman out on a date, let alone talk to Her.

[Big Blue Machine]

I think that intelligent design should only be thought in private catholic schools. It only makes sense for it to be that way. I myself am a Catholic but I think that a public school not teach about God's ways, because most of the kids don't believe in him. Evolution in public schools and intelligent design in private ones.

[tml12]

I think that intelligent design should only be thought in private catholic schools. It only makes sense for it to be that way. I myself am a Catholic but I think that a public school not teach about God's ways, because most of the kids don't believe in him. Evolution in public schools and intelligent design in private ones.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As one who is also Catholic, I agree, but I will say that this is one issue which is very icky.

To many Christian conservatives, Darwin represents one who challenged the Bible and represents some sort of scientific atheism.

In other words, I don't think they will let it drop like that. What I can say is that I do believe the option should be available...but in private schools. It would be inappropriate to teach intelligent design in public schools.

[Big Blue Machine]

As Superintendant Chalmers would say "God has no place within these walls".

[I Miss Trudeau]

In other words, I don't think they will let it drop like that.  What I can say is that I do believe the option should be available...but in private schools.  It would be inappropriate to teach intelligent design in public schools.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't really have a problem with ID being taught in public schools, so long as its not in science class. There ought to be a philosophy/logic/current moral affairs course in high school...thats where it should be taught.

Even in a private school, there is no way that ID should be taught in the science classroom.

[PocketRocket]

How much is there to teach about ID????

Originally, I voted "no" in this poll, but upon further thought, I say what the hell, give them equal time as the theory merits.

When teaching ID, the whole course would basically consist of "Some believe that God (or someone) created man and all creatures in their current form. Proof of this is that we are in our current form, and couldn't simply have got this way by coincidence now could we???"

End of course.

I mean think about it, if ID is the be-all end-all argument, then it's cut and dried.

"We were created, as were all things we know".

There's nothing else to teach.

Next course, science....

"Now on to theory of evolution. Scientists believe that man and all currently living flora and fauna evolved, and this is how that works........"

So the entire ID "course" would take up about 3 minutes of class time.

If teacher then wants to go on to have a class debate regarding which theory holds water, well, based on empirical evidence, that would simply, in most cases, serve to shut down the whole ID argument.

[Clopin]

Anyone read the articles that came out a few days ago about the Vatican's position on creationism?

You can do a search on the Google News section for more articles.

They actually reject the notion as it is currently interpreted.

Sorry if it's already been brought up in the thread... did a quick search I didn't find anything on the topic.

[jonah]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[jonah]

science connot proove nor disproove..intelligent this internet can barly hold the dna..rna code held in a few tiny strands cyance has but recently decoded ..science cant create it can methodically study results and not learn a thing until that one time of nothing finally doesnt ...ask the scientist ..and i have to make any creature ..any..look at the fruitfly...40.000 times and yet only ...FRUIT>>>FLYS noy one house fly not even a mite ..aflea ..you trust science ..what of the one who made sure ..SCISCAM scilie deceit is not ..OR has EVER been any thing to do with healing ..

tell me does wood burn...no it cannot..think as wood as a cylender of gas ..add heat and the gas is released..this gas is smoke this ..smoke burns ..ther wood provide the fuel it is not the fuel

put gas into a cylinder ..silence says these ..active things inside the container wizzing..thats their word ..arround inside ..hear how it really works god toll me so it must be true ..but please correct things you can proove of science

gravity is because of a black hole ..its throat is blocked by a huge chunk of hyper dense dust..gods word not mine i imagen some thing the size of worm wood

the big bang was preceeded of the big colaps ..the reason..celestial cause was that ihell is allways expanding ..as the tennents there moove ever further away from each other..heaven however is ever shrinking as the love draws closer..we are yet in the phase of human fullfilment that man must trust man ..that we draw together befor the black hole burps..2012?..shes still not telling ..but ive said too much the web is refusung further revs ..and gods giving me hell for not resting ..on my sabbeth ..but he wont tell me how ..any way you guys better get science that is more true than what all of the suns iof god told you befor god takes his sabbath ,,how long we been tellen ya one thousand years for man is but a day for our father beyond name ..who need no son for who is not a sun of the father..ps bout the big bang ask your scanentists what e=mc2==when all the entire creation enjoins as a speck of dust untill yet again hell expands with a silence..all the mass distorts time times measure is inside that ..science dot the only that god recalls of the bit after the oneness..the deep was as water ..the speed was so fast light ciled up into strings and there yet again was the dust ..get science to make its own dust ..rebutal any one..of love intruth to the light that is the most yet serves even the least..ps if we so\rt it out god said he would take the days rest hear, ..if not when the only peace rests we got science who needs god right.. we are all sent to learn and teach each of our fellow greated..ew will be one again or keep going infinnatly to no.th.i..n....g

I think that intelligent design should only be thought in private catholic schools. It only makes sense for it to be that way. I myself am a Catholic but I think that a public school not teach about God's ways, because most of the kids don't believe in him. Evolution in public schools and intelligent design in private ones.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As one who is also Catholic, I agree, but I will say that this is one issue which is very icky.

To many Christian conservatives, Darwin represents one who challenged the Bible and represents some sort of scientific atheism.

In other words, I don't think they will let it drop like that. What I can say is that I do believe the option should be available...but in private schools. It would be inappropriate to teach intelligent design in public schools.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[PocketRocket]

science connot proove nor disproove.............ew will be one again or keep going infinnatly to no.th.i..n....g

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does ANYONE have ANY idea what the hell THAT was all about????

[jonah]

Anyone read the articles that came out a few days ago about the Vatican's position on creationism?

You can do a search on the Google News section for more articles.

They actually reject the notion as it is currently interpreted.

Sorry if it's already been brought up in the thread... did a quick search I didn't find anything on the topic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Riverwind]

science connot proove nor disproove..intelligent this internet can barly hold the dna..rna code held in a few tiny strands cyance has but recently decoded

Question: if at some point in the future science is able to explain all of these mysteries would you be willing to discard your views on intelligent design?

If you try to avoid answering the question by saying that you believe that science will never answer all of the questions or if you say no then you have proven why intelligent design is a religious philosophy not a science.

Intelligent design (a.k.a. Creationsism) is not a science because its adherents would never accept any alternative explanation no matter how much evidence exists.

[sharkman]

Intelligent design (a.k.a. Creationsism) is not a science because its adherents would never accept any alternative explanation no matter how much evidence exists.

However, the evolutionists would never accept any alternative explanation that involved God no matter how much evidence was produced.

Sparhawk, I've notice that when your comments appear on my page, they are often missing the initial few words. I don't know if anyone else has this odd occurance, but would you mind starting your comments on a new line instead of right after the person you are quoting? I'm hoping this will allow the missing link, ah...words(heh heh a little evolution humor!) to appear.

And Jonah, I have a request for you as well. Please use periods. I couldn't follow your train of thought very well. Some of us have a more limited linear way of thinking and sentence structure helps us.

[szkw1]

I believe that both THEORIES should be taught as neither has been proved nor disproved. I think if the word GOD was removed from the theory of intelligent design it would be more acceptable to many. BTW ID does not necessarily follow the literal interpretation of what is written in Genisis.

[Riverwind]

I believe that both THEORIES should be taught as neither has been proved nor disproved.  I think if the word GOD was removed from the theory of intelligent design it would be more acceptable to many.  BTW ID does not necessarily follow the literal interpretation of what is written in Genisis.

ID is not a scientific theory since it explains nothing useful (if you don't understand it then it must be God's will). It is just a big excuse that stiffles true scientific inquiry into why the universe is the way it is.

[szkw1]

ID is not a scientific theory since it explains nothing useful (if you don't understand it then it must be God's will). It is just a big excuse that stiffles true scientific inquiry into why the universe is the way it is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are forgetting the first principle of scientific thinking which is KEEP AN OPEN MIND.

You are putting too much faith in science. Many scientific theories work most of the time but there are often exceptions that don't fit in. In other words, science is the modern humans' way of trying to figure out something that none of us truly understand. It far from being an exacting art as there are huge gaps in our knowledge. Even Stephen Hawkin has changed his mind on theories that he once espoused.

If you can offer me solid proof that ID does not exist then I will retract everything I have said but until then I will adhere to the first rule of scientific thinking.

[Riverwind]

If you can offer me solid proof that ID does not exist then I will retract everything I have said but until then I will adhere to the first rule of scientific thinking.

You are missing the entire point of scientific enquiry: to better understand why the world is the way it is and allow us to make useful predictions about what could happen in the future. For example, evolution may have its flaws but is principles are being applied in medical research today and help understand the behavoir of micro-organisms.

Creationism (a.k.a ID) has absolutely nothing useful to add to our scientific knowledge because, by definition, we cannot predict what a creator may do in the future.

Personally, I have no problem with accepting the idea that a creator may exist, however, whether or not the creator exists is irrelevant as far as scientific equiry is concerned. Scientific enquiry should only concern itself with thing that can be explained without using the 'god-must-have-done-it' cop out.

[Black Dog]

You are putting too much faith in science. Many scientific theories work most of the time but there are often exceptions that don't fit in. In other words, science is the modern humans' way of trying to figure out something that none of us truly understand. It far from being an exacting art as there are huge gaps in our knowledge. Even Stephen Hawkin has changed his mind on theories that he once espoused.

That's what's great about science. It's open to change, theories can be reformulated or even rejected as new evidence come sto light. However, ID doesn't offer any evidence. It puts forward a hypothesis using only the unavoidable shortcomings of evolutionary theory as its evidence. In other words, ID advocates bring nothing new to the table, and offer nothing but a critique of the current body of scientific knowledge. And that's just not science. (Also: wot Rocket said.)

As to "science is the modern humans' way of trying to figure out something that none of us truly understand", well, duh. As a method of inquiry about the world and universe it's batting average is way better than religon's.

[szkw1]

. As a method of inquiry about the world and universe it's batting average is way better than religon's.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Prove it. But don't forget I said that both theories should be taught.

[Riverwind]

Prove it.  But don't forget I said that both theories should be taught.

Teach creationism in Sunday school - problem solved.

Please please provide some evidence that creationism adds to scientific knowledge. What problems can we solve in the world today with ID?

I have already given you an example of why evolution is relevant and adds to scientific knowledge.

[Black Dog]

Prove it. But don't forget I said that both theories should be taught.

Um....science's supermacy over religion in terms of explaining the natural world and bettering human lives is pretty much self evident. Without science we'd still be squatting in tree branches, throwing our crap at each other and wondering why the thunder god was angry everytime we saw soem lightning. I'd be hard pressed to name any human achievment that was made possible by religion.

And both should not be taught because ID is not a theory.

Edit: just came across a great line on the subject of teaching ID in schools (and really, when we're talking ID, we're really talking a kind of creationism):

"I’m sure all the aerospace companies are just salivating at the prospect of hiring someone who’ll believe the bible over his calculator, and I for one can’t wait to ride in one of the planes they design."

[Black Dog]

"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be...If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

Who said this? Why, it was a chap named George Coyne, chief astronomer for that bastion of secular liberal thinking known as the Vatican.