Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

george-I suppose theres much to be said for divvying up schools because "one size does not fit all", however, the issue of Creationism and ID in science classes is not something that the schools have sought to inflict upon the consumers. Quite the opposite, the emboldened minority of Evangelicals and their "science" institutes (I quote the term because we are still, if youd believe the ICR and Discovery, debating atomic clocks and universal gravitation and , ultimately "c"), these minorities WANT the government to intercede on their behalfs to decree that science must be governed , not by "the scientific method" but by " authoriy without inspection".
That aint science, its dogma.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

If, in our public actions, we explicitly or implicitly assert that science is the only possible source of understanding, and that the march of science will necessarily provide answers to all questions including the origins of the universe, within the bounds of conventional theory, -- then we are violating both the fundamental principles of science and philosophy and the civil contract that calls for us to stop short of enforcing beliefs we do not know are true.

I take it you are also against teaching chemistry and physics in school? After all, they are only theories. Perhaps witchcraft and sorcery should get equal time. When we teach chemistry and physics, we are certainly implicitly asserting that they are the only proper way to understand those phenomena. Perhaps our chemistry, physics, biology, and medicine textbooks should carry the disclaimer that we do not wish to convey the idea that science is the proper way of viewing these phenomena.

Medical schools should probably be required to make it clear to the students that many responsible individuals believe that faith healing is a more proper way of addressing medical concerns. After all, is it not our responsibility to allow all viable viewpoints equal time?

0 Replies

Farmerman,

I oppose the politicization of school curricula through government action, whether it is advocated by evangelicals or secularists. The opposing poles of this dispute appear to me to be equally close minded and equally prone to offer exaggerated self-serving descriptions of the opposing side. (For one example, see Brandon's post above) Science consists of organized facts and verifiable theories that are continuously subject to verification. There really is no dispute at all between ID and modern biology or physics as long as the protagonists of both sides will acknowledge the limitations of the basic questions and the theories they espouse.

Brandon,

You quoted a part of my post, but your comments have nothing at all to do with any if the points I made. Perhaps you should read them again before you again snap your mind shut.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Farmerman,

I oppose the politicization of school curricula through government action, whether it is advocated by evangelicals or secularists. The opposing poles of this dispute appear to me to be equally close minded and equally prone to offer exaggerated self-serving descriptions of the opposing side. (For one example, see Brandon's post above) Science consists of organized facts and verifiable theories that are continuously subject to verification. There really is no dispute at all between ID and modern biology or physics as long as the protagonists of both sides will acknowledge the limitations of the basic questions and the theories they espouse.

Brandon,

You quoted a part of my post, but your comments have nothing at all to do with any if the points I made. Perhaps you should read them again before you again snap your mind shut.

Okay, give the parents vouchers, but my response is still appropriate to the comments of yours that it was in response to.

0 Replies

What comments of mine? There are no comments whatever that would suggest the adsurd conclusions you drew from thin air as far as I can see. It may suit your prejudices to assume that others who don't conform to something you like are anti science or some sort of primitive, but that is merely an expression of your own limitations. It is useful to read the words and understand their meaning before jumping to prefabricated conclusions.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

What comments of mine? There are no comments whatever that would suggest the adsurd conclusions you drew from thin air as far as I can see. It may suit your prejudices to assume that others who don't conform to something you like are anti science or some sort of primitive, but that is merely an expression of your own limitations. It is useful to read the words and understand their meaning before jumping to prefabricated conclusions.

No, you said that we should not let our schools assert that science is the proper way to study the origins of the cosmos without knowing it is so, and I countered by asking whether you wanted to remove the basic sciences from the curriculum or give them absurd disclaimers on the exact same basis. In fact, we do have enough information to assert that science is the correct way of dealing with matters of fact and the nature of the universe - e.g. we're having this discussion on the Internet, which utilizes science and technology - and it was your position that was an absurd throwback to pre-scientific thinking. If you want to either remove, give disclaimers for, or provide supernatural alternatives to evolution and cosmology, then your reasoning also applies to the basic sciences. Even, say, medicine, has the alernative of faith healing.

0 Replies

george said

Quote:

The opposing poles of this dispute appear to me to be equally close minded and equally prone to offer exaggerated self-serving descriptions of the opposing side

As far as I know, there is no organization that is heavily funded and incorporated , merely to "take down" Creationism and ID. If you say that, from your position, you see that both sides are equally closed minded. I suggest that you take a more careful look at specific counter pronouncements that have probably already been made by the IDers on your veryown branch of science (I sense that you are an engineer or one in the physical sciences).(The favorite one now is that DNA conclusively shows design. That I find totally ignorant because one must become a bit more comfortable with the data and, having done so, one cannot possibly reach a "design" conclusion)

If IDers had even a single clump of evidence that suggested that the origin of life was nothing more than an opportunistic advance of organized chemicals, I would like to be so informed and shown any evidence. At present , we have a very good understanding of the eraly earth and (by chemical character of sediments and isotopic ratios) we pretty much have a good idea about the order in which life progresses.
The IDers, with nothing more than a silly argument that "complex order precludes evolution and random generation", have built an entire movement, and itsone that is totally absurd. I guess I can be counted among those intractible "close minded" ones because of my delight in seeing some data. Im the Apostle Thomas of the Archeozoic.
As I said before , and as many in this thread have stated, nothing stops anyone from including a comparison of ID with scienceNOW. If that is changed by governmental fiat, then it becomes part of the science curriculum mandated by the state. What will then be next? Shamanism?Phlogiston theory?.
Its all in the dataand evidence. The entire evolutionary synthesis is one built up as a forensic exercise. Its a murder scene in reverse. Its subject to the same rules of peer review and QA. The likes of Dr Humphries, Dembski and Mike Behe have taken observed phenom and have gone no further than to marvel at "complexity". They havent looked at how , say the protein involved in a flagellas rotation has been coopted by evolution to become a auto immune response trigger in higher animals. (even if a flagella popped into being in archean time, the chemical "gasoline" that makes it run has evolved myriads of other uses. To take something like a flagella and say its irreducibly complex is like arguing about the big bang, it will no doubt always be a debate because even back as far as 3.5 Billion years, we see flagella on archeobacters. Our side says , with equal lack of evidence, that flagella were evolved from spicules. I say, we may never know, but Irreducibly complex is a term that one uses when one throws up ones arms and summons a god to take credit. Now that too aint how science works. Some wag or grad student will take this problem to an exhaustive level of attempted proof, and will, by new data, or lack thereof, make our lack of understanding appear at a much higher level.

I guess we disagree, but Im not bitter about the whole exercise, while what you say about ID and science being fully compatible is basically correct, I wish to have my school systems science be kept value free and not imposed upon by creeping religiosity. I see this as a 4 year effort maybe more, depending upon the next administration. As such, it wont affectmy reserach areas but itll make it tough to communicate science to the people in our communities whose expertise may be in non science areas.

0 Replies

Could somebody direct me to Lola's posting of Richard Dawkins? TIA.

0 Replies

Farmerman,

You guessed right. I am an engineer, PhD Cal Tech (fluid mechanics): I know a good deal about physics, but less about chemistry and biology. I don't know enough about elementary biological forms to comment meaningfully on your specific observations about flagella and the like. I have read commentary by serious scientists who acknowledge there may be a need for something akin to 'inflation', as occurs in cosmological theory. in evolutionary models for the beginnings of life - in the first case an arbitrary suspension of physical models (laws) early in the life of the universe to account for an otherwise inexplicable initial expansion of space: in the second, something to account for the observed complexity of DNA and life forms that have evolved over the known life span of the earth. I do agree that any connection between these ideas is an intuitive thing - not scientific, and that, as it relates to biological models, is based on the "marvelling at complexity" to which you referred. (The problem of cosmological inflation, however, is a bit more intractable.)

I also agree with your metaphorical use of the forensic analysis of a murder scene. However, note that the object in this metaphorical process is to identify the murderer, the designer of the scene. Moreover the observable tuning of basic physical constants in the universe does give (me at least) a sense of purposeful design as I too marvel at the order and complexity that has evolved from it. Random variables don't seem to be enough.

For me the possibility of Intelligent Design of the universe does not conflict at all with science or the scientific method, and apparently we agree on that. The correct scientific assumption at the frontier of our knowledge and understanding should always be that continued experiment and analysis will unravel the next step in the mystery. That, however does not assure us that we will find a "scientific" explanation for the existence of things.

Let me reassure you that, in any school I would choose, science would be taught as science, not as theology. The two are distinct things and neither precludes the other. I am opposed to any doctrine that asserts otherwise. The problem for me is that the political debate has largely been trivialized by protagonists on both sides who would do exactly that. I am equally opposed to both extremes and, observing the folly in the public debate, am reluctant to see the government deciding any of this, or exercising any direct control of it through the heavy hand of educational bureaucracies and the courts.

I do enjoy your posts here : challenging, interesting, and informative.

0 Replies

Quote:

Let me reassure you that, in any school I would choose, science would be taught as science, not as theology.

However, the case at hand (in pa Court, it shall be Kitzmiller et al v Dover (Pa) School Board. The concept of ID demands a place on the science curriculum. AND, as a kicker, many of the concepts thatID ers would rather not discuss, such as the evolution of multi function proteins, or multi genes coding for post adaptive phenotypes will be at conflict with one system or the other.
The problem with ID is that its not a well hidden religious worldview. All of the big wigs of ID profess their devout beliefs. If it were true that this was merely a scientific discussion among peers, Id have no problem. However, the G word enters within the discourse. As far as Im concerned , the SUpreme court has ruled on this ( I hope youve seen that amicus brief that I mentioned a number of pages or threads back-The amicus brief was by 72 Nobel Laureates who reasoned that Creationism was , by definition a religion based worldview, and , with the exception of Rhenquist and Scalia, the court agrred).The ID movement is staffed by the same guys. Instead of Gish we have Dempski and Behe. Their desires are the same.
If ID were to stop at the origins of life, Id have no more argument with Mike Behe than I would with Fred Hoyle and his "panspermia" hypothesis. However , ID does not stop at the moment of creation, it continues well into the zone wherein we have much data and forensic evidence.
Complexity may be difficult to accept , but as IDers are fond to recount, certain functional morphologies are so complex , they could only have been created by an intelligence. Real SCience sez hogwash.
Instead we see that, within the fossil record, there were many solutions offered up in a basic body plan that never made "the cut" into the mid Cambrian.We have evidence that a basic body style in the preCambrian was pentamerally symmetric and trialaterally symmetric In fact, most of the major fauna that ultimately made it to the present didnt even exist until into the Late Permian. There is good strong evidence that organisms appeared in a step wise fashion, often with many solutions for their new Classes. Most of these solutions just failed because of inability to adapt to rapidly changing conditions(opening oceans, colliding continents, increase of O2 as a contaminant, vulcanism 100 times more active than today,early Ice Ages due to closing oceans). In fact, of all animals that ever lived 99.999% are extinct. Only a thin line of those who successfully adapt to the environment at a specific time get to pass on their own bauplan.
Dawkins called it a "blind Watchmaker" Ive recently heard a more appropriate term to a supposed Creator. Its a blind short order cook. The environment of the planet, through geologic time, has been anything but stable and the appearance of animals and plants mirrors the environments really well. We see evolution in operation easily. Anyone can see the evidence in many species and entire clades. Of course there are gaps. But the number of gaps get resolved with time. Ten years ago, they were clamoring that wed never understand birds or whales. Well, surprise, Fossil evidence and DNA studies into feather development , for example has pretty much closed the noose on birds (of course the IDers scream "No NO it aint so"), and the fossil record has been enriched with intermediiate evidence about whales just in the last 12 years and to the present. If I were a good IDer , Id say "Now, instead of 1 gap between end members, you have 6 or 8 because these are not intermediates".

Im not aware of any examples of science being closed minded in this area. IDers use the reasoning of science against the scientists(or try to) There is a thread going on about bird evolution being "abandoned by science". This is a lie by a well funded (VERY WELL FUNDED) organization thats merely pumping a worldview that cannot be substantiated past "Start" .
Eg= The debate about bird evolution is still going on between the "birds are feathered dinosaurs and Birds and dinosaurs came from a common ancestor, or even Dinosaurs arose from birds" These are not scientists dumping evolution for "something else". Its a series of arguments that have been crafted to interpret the evidence. That is something that the IDers have not done at all. They re trying to spin it in their "literature" and websites for their believers that their side is winning, when its not the cae at all.Each day that paleo and molecular biologists work, the foundation of evolution, Darwins theory, gets stronger.
While I agree that ID has no argument with Darwin about the "beginning of life", cause Darwin said nothing . ID is attempting, by rather poor (data-free) science to take and occupy territory that reasonable science has already won.

0 Replies

When high school biology teachers in Dover, Pennsylvania were ordered to read a statement on intelligent design, this was their response:

Quote:

Date: January 6, 2005
Re: Reading Statement on Intelligent Design
We have individually reviewed the statement you presented yesterday for presentation to our students at the beginning of the Biology unit dealing with evolution. You have indicated that students may "opt-out" of this portion of the class and that they will be excused and monitored by an administrator. We respectfully exercise our right to "opt-out" of the statement portion of the class. We will relinquish the classroom to an administrator and we will monitor our own students. This request is based upon our considered opinion that reading the statement violates our responsibilities as professional educators as set forth in the Code of Professional Practice and Conduct for Educators promulgated by the Professional Standards and Practices Commission and found at 22 Pa. Code section 235.1 et.seq. As noted in the introductory paragraph of the Code, section 235.2 (a): "Generally, the responsibility for professional conduct rests with the individual professional educator." Further, the Code provides in section 235.2 (b): "This chapter makes explicit the values of the education profession. When individuals become educators in this Commonwealth, they make a moral commitment to uphold these values."
Central to the teaching act and our ethical obligation is the solemn responsibility to teach the truth. Section 235.10 (2) guides our relationships with students and provides that "The professional educator may not Knowingly and intentionally misrepresent subject matter or curriculum."
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT BIOLOGY. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT AN ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC THEORY.
I believe that if I as the classroom teacher read the required statement, my students will inevitably (and understandably) believe that Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory, perhaps on par with the theory of evolution. That is not true. To refer the students to "Of Pandas and People" as if it is a scientific resource breaches my ethical obligation to provide them with scientific knowledge that is supported by recognized scientific proof or theory.
Reading the statement places us in violation of the following ethical obligations. Section 235.3 of the Code requires Professional educators to develop "sound educational policy" and obligates us "to implement that policy." Section 235.3 (b) makes it explicit that "Professional educators recognize their primary responsibility to the student and the development of the student's potential. Central to that development is the professional educator's valuing the pursuit of truth; devotion to excellence; acquisition of knowledge; and democratic principles."
The same section goes on to provide: "Educators encourage and support the use of resources that best serve the interests and needs of students. Within the context of professional experience, the educator and the student together explore the challenge and the dignity of the human experience." Section 235.4 (b) (2) provides: "Professional educators shall be prepared, and legally certified, in their areas of assignment. Educators may not be assigned or willingly accept assignments they are not certified to fulfill." Section 235.5(b) (8) provides: "Professional educators shall be open-minded, knowledgeable and use appropriate judgment and communication skills when responding to an issue within the educational environment." Section 235.4 (b) (10) provides: "Professional educators shall exert reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions which interfere with learning or are harmful to the student's health and safety."

0 Replies

Woot! Go biology teachers! I was wondering when the bio teachers were going to riot over this...

0 Replies

Wonderful. Someone needs to put those Luddites in their place. Here is just a little more:

Article

0 Replies

gotta love em. I never caught this in the paper. Thanks, that goes in my little pack of stuff. Do you have the citation ??

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

gotta love em. I never caught this in the paper. Thanks, that goes in my little pack of stuff. Do you have the citation ??

Not sure what you mean. That is the Web link.

0 Replies

FM: here are the citations from the page Brandon linked:

Maldonado, Joseph (2005). "Dover teachers want out." York Daily Record, January 7, 2005.

Raffaele, Martha (2005). "District Loosens 'Intelligent Design' Rule." Associated Press, January 7, 2005.

Dover Area School District (2004). Press Release for Biology Curriculum. December 14, 2004.

Dover Area School District (2004). Biology Curriculum (pdf format). November 2004.

If you will go to that page, these sources are also linked. Good work, gentlemen.

0 Replies

Brando, sorry, I didnt see your link. I have the NCSE stuff and I suppose that their repackaging of the York Newspaper was accurate. Many times these kinds of "agenda" journals(even those I can agree with) will condense and cut the original articles.

Sometimes I can be an incredible dope

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Many times these kinds of "agenda" journals(even those I can agree with) will condense and cut the original articles.

I am also reluctant to use things from advocacy group websites (even if I agree with them). Has there ever been a thread about what type of sources are best to use?

0 Replies

Wandeljw-When its an opinion article, it is what it is. I just have to remember that, even the NCSE is a "biased" organization (Im a member and I admit that its bias is mostly in favor of good science , but once in a while Eugenie goes off from frustration).

Theres never been a thread, but I began a seminar course for our grad students about geologic literature and "original sourceing" and QA. Usually when someones done with their theses or dissertations, IMHO, we slip back into our own sloppy practices. I use a lot of USGS and other Fed Agency data (Canadian Ministries also, since about 75% of my work is in N America) Even these agencies documents have a big disclaimer in the front that lets everyone know whether or not the document that they paid for has been QA'd.

0 Replies

Time Magazine: When Life Exploded
Read this article dated back in 1996.

If you want to read from official time magazine website, you must be a member, since it's article in the past edition. But if you want to read from other sources, try:

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/origins/life_explosion.html

The subject of macroevolution has been a subject of debate for long. Macroevolution is never scientific, microevolution is scientific. You must be able to prove it in the lab to be called scientific. Macroevolution can't be proven in the lab.

Since the article from Time, macroevolution has been viewed differently. Stephen Jay Gould, one prominent scientists, proposed a theory called "punctuated equilibria", whereby species don't evolve over a long period of time (Darwinism macroevolution view), but rather make a sudden changes. He said that new species appears all at once and "fully formed."

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know