Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Our overwhelming dominance of the earth gives the lie to this assertion even from a narrow biological perspective.

Moreover the inclusion of this notion, phrased as it is, in a section presumably explaining the common evolutionary origin of all species, goes well beyond what is required to make that point, suggesting an additional motive for indoctrination on the part of the author. The lady from Coibb county (a prosperous suburban area North of Atlanta) may well be on tpo something.

[quote="blatham']"Humans are fundamentally not exceptional because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species," she read from one during an interview.

"That offends me," she said. "That has no business being in a science textbook. That's religion."

I think she is. I can remember a semester of ecology in our biology classes. We came away with the crystal clear understanding that mankind is a parasite on the rest of the Earth's ecology, and that the planet would be better off if there were just 400 million humans instead of 4 billion. Even without ID, biology classes can be full of value judgments that have no legitimate place in a science curriculum.

You think it optimal if the new bio industries take on scientists who have made it through their university science training with no single ethical discussions on the consequences of the new technologies coming down the pike? Come on thomas.

In the first place if the "Humans are fumdamentally not exceptional....' bit was included in some high school text book, I would excise it on scientific grounds alone. Our overwhelming dominance of the earth gives the lie to this assertion even from a narrow biological perspective.

The consequences of new technologies may well be an interesting addition to that philosophy curriculum. But they don't belong in a science class any more than "intelligent design" does.

it turned out that the ACLU had, during the case, quietly entered into evidence the various "editions" of this very book.

Such divisions are arbitrary thomas. If it ought to be taught, that is, if students will be better educated as a result of learning the matter, then which classroom it is taught in is irrelevant so long as it is taught according to those criteria you and I would have in place. And it ought to be taught in the proper context which makes it relevant to the student (eg relevance by subject as in this case).

blatham wrote:

Such divisions are arbitrary thomas. If it ought to be taught, that is, if students will be better educated as a result of learning the matter, then which classroom it is taught in is irrelevant so long as it is taught according to those criteria you and I would have in place. And it ought to be taught in the proper context which makes it relevant to the student (eg relevance by subject as in this case).

In that case, why not teach in a biology class that there may be a god, and that evolution may be his way of creating? That's what George suggested at a much earlier point in this thread. If memory serves, you were strongly opposed to his idea. But now that you're claiming the distinction between biology and philosophy is arbitrary, what principled argument have you left for opposing George's suggestion?

You get the difference there, thomas?

The best reason to object to bringing god into classrooms is, of course, particularism--you will inevitably favor one theistic view over all others, no matter the effort to make it neutral. Thereafter, however, the inability to demonstrate either the existence of a diety nor the validity of an assertion that that were a creation is the best reason not to drag superstition into classrooms--regardless of the subject.

If not, I'll add this. Merely consider all the related things one will teach in "science" education as children come up through their learning development. There will be characters and red rubber balls and onto stories of, say, Madame Currie and then into the lab. The lab teacher may well pass on an anecdote about him accidently blowing up a beaker (story as safety warning). He may pass on other stories of his excitement for the science he teaches or of other scientists (story as means to develop interest in students for the subject matter), etc etc. Learning isn't anything like a pristine transfer of contextless datoids.

Come on now -- I'm sure we can eventually work out our similarities and reach a mutually satisfactory disagreement.

georgeob1 wrote:

In the first place if the "Humans are fumdamentally not exceptional....' bit was included in some high school text book, I would excise it on scientific grounds alone. Our overwhelming dominance of the earth gives the lie to this assertion even from a narrow biological perspective. Moreover the inclusion of this notion, phrased as it is, in a section presumably explaining the common evolutionary origin of all species, goes well beyond what is required to make that point, suggesting an additional motive for indoctrination on the part of the author. The lady from Coibb county (a prosperous suburban area North of Atlanta) may well be on tpo something.

You are being purposefully obtuse on this point, george. thomas as well. The "specialness" of humans is a fundamental premise in traditional christian theology. Humans have souls, rabbits don't, monkeys don't. etc etc. Please don't suggest this lady is aiming for precision in the language of science. She is aiming at turning back or discounting a Darwinian account of the origins of species because that doesn't match her literal interpretation of genesis and her related theology.

"Our overwhelming dominance" is laughable, george. No biologist would agree with you, even limiting to this infinitesimaly teenie sliver of time you are speaking of - how many humans were alive on the planet in the late Neolithic, a mere 10 or 12 thousand years ago? How many beetles are there in the first three inches of soil in your county? Cockroaches remain essentially unchanged over 50 million years and we won't outlast them. Bacteria, viruses.