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

[Guest eureka]

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.

Ah! Nostalgia!

[Riverwind]

If you try to avoid answering the question by saying that you believe that science will never answer all of the questions  ,,,to answer all..note re all all means all ..i wont avoid that one..my answer is

You need to learn how to format your posts - they are impossible to understand.

[szkw1]

What on earth is wrong with teaching both theories? If ID is so wrong then there is nothing to fear by presenting it.

Couldn't there be ID behind evolution?

Some of us don't see God, or a creator in terms of some big honcho in the sky.

I see us as a bunch of sea monkeys in a cosmic jar created in the imagination of some intergalactic space worm.

[Riverwind]

What on earth is wrong with teaching both theories?  If ID is so wrong then there is nothing to fear by presenting it.

Creationism is not a useful scientific theory since it teaches us nothing about how the world works or why it is the way it is. That is why it does not belong in science class. Creationism would not belong in science class even if there was absolute proof that we are all the spawn of the giant flying spaghetti monster because making guesses about the motivations of gods is a not a science - it is theology.

[szkw1]

What on earth is wrong with teaching both theories? If ID is so wrong then there is nothing to fear by presenting it.

Creationism is not a useful scientific theory since it teaches us nothing about how the world works or why it is the way it is. That is why it does not belong in science class. Creationism would not belong in science class even if there was absolute proof that we are all the spawn of the giant flying spaghetti monster because making guesses about the motivations of gods is a not a science - it is theology.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[/quote

... and evolution with its gaping holes explains everything?

Ok Mr Scientist, how does evolution explain the start of life on this planet?

I am waitng with excitement for your answer.

I am not picking on you as I had the same thinking when I was 30 years younger. The funny thing is that the longer you live the more theories you hear. Then out of the blue you realise that none have the answer and that life is a mystery and you realise that ID has its merits.

[Riverwind]

... and evolution with its gaping holes explains everything? Ok Mr Scientist, how does evolution explain the start of life on this planet? I am waitng with excitement for your answer.

Evolution does not explain everything that we observe in the fossil record, however, the evolutionary theory is an extremely useful tool in many ways. Disease researchers use evolution to explain and _predict_ how and why anti-biotic resistance organisms appear.

In other words, evolution is a useful theory because it allows us to make predictions. ID is a useless theory and not scientific because it does not allow us to predict anything.

Let's put it another way, a child is taught evolution will learn something that could help him/her discover a cure for AIDs in the future. A child that is taught ID would likely grow up believing that AIDs can be cured by tarot cards and astrology. A child that is taught both would just be confused and would have to be untaught the 'creationism' nonsense in university before they could go on and accomplish anything significant in the sciences.

[BHS]

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."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will agree with you that modern science has a view of the natural world that is more intellectually rigorous than anything religion can provide. The rest of that paragraph is debatable. People came down from the trees and built churches long before anything like what we know to be "science" appeared in the world. And as religion has taken a crucial role in the hierarchal structure of every society that ever existed in pre-modern times you can't deny religion's civilizing force. Indeed, in that light, you'd be hard pressed name any human achievement that wasn't made possible by religion, to some extent.

I agree that ID should not be taught as part of the science curriculum. And I doubt it would last as a movement if it were only permitted to be taught as a religious topic.

That being said, I don't think that even the most ardent ID supporter would use his ID beliefs in an engineering capacity. Your funny little quip quote seems to imply that a person's knowledge of biology is crucial in how good they are with math, and how they put mathematical knowledge to use. It also implies that people with strong, even zany religious beliefs can't be trusted to contribute to intellectually rigorous scientific study. If you believe that, you might want to read a biography of Sir Isaac Newton.

[Guest eureka]

Good respnse, BHS. Right on the money!

[cybercoma]

Why is society so horribly uneducated that there is even a discussion about this matter?

[!!!]

PA court rejects ID

Intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.

Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they ordered that its biology curriculum must include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said.

Reading a few bits of the decision, I would even go as far to say ID got pwned.

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

...

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

...

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

link