Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Intelligent design hurts learning, expert says
(By Daniel Glaser, Lehigh University News, 4/20/2006)

The ongoing debate over intelligent design has caused problems for teaching science, said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, in her lecture on Monday at Packard Auditorium.

Intelligent design is the idea that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural selection, Scott said.

Some religious institutions are pushing for intelligent design to be taught in public schools, Scott said.

"The intelligent design model is based on what we do not know and not what we do know," Scott said. "Believers just make all of their conclusions based on the fact that evolution does not cut it. This is not good scientific process."

Intelligent design goes against the basic definitions of what defines science, primarily that all science must be testable, Scott said. She said that intelligent design has little science behind it.

"There are only two models of approach to how the Earth was made," Scott said. "All you need to do is not have scientific proof to back up evolution and automatically they say that intelligent design wins."

Two court cases were recently brought against two public schools that taught intelligent design rather than evolution, Scott said.

"The reason why we are having so many problems teaching evolution in the college is because it isn't taught in elementary school," Scott said. "If it is kept off standardized tests, then it will not be taught in the schools."

Scott said she thinks the problem stems from the elementary schools because it is rarely a controversy at the college level.

"It is taught matter-of-fact at colleges," Scott said. "If you go to any well-know institution in this country, public or private, you will see that it is taught matter of fact."

The problem with teaching intelligent design with evolution is that it undermines the theory of natural selection, Scott said.

Scott said some of intelligent design's good qualities are its ability to show the differences between provable and non-provable science.

"One thing we can thank intelligent design for is reminding us of the importance of science and letting us appreciate the outside of the box thinkers," Scott said. "Secondly, it reminds us to distinguish between science and a scientific theory."

But I accept as a fact of life that those who are sensitive on such an issue are prone to making sweeping statements of that nature in order to justify their being so ruthlessly taken advantage of

I assumed threaders would understand.

'Teach evolution as fact' says top scientist
(U-TV News, April 21, 2006)

Doctor Richard Pike, chief executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry, said that references to it being a "theory" should be abandoned. His comments were made amid a long-running row over claims that some of Tony Blair's flagship city academies teach creationism in science lessons.

Creationism includes a belief that all forms of life have always existed in their present form and that the world was formed in 4004 BC, rather than 4,600 million years ago as scientists believe.

Dr Pike said: "Above all, we should no longer talk of the theory of evolution as though it is `just an idea`.

"So well established is it, that it now warrants the designation of an immutable scientific law, and should be taught as such. It is on this basis that further dialogue should begin."

He added: "A wider understanding of the scientific basis of our existence will position all of us to address more effectively the major issues facing our planet.

"In this there is no role for `creationism` or `intelligent design`, and religious education must recognise the allegorical nature of much of its source material."

Earlier this month leading scientists from The Royal Society warned against the teaching of Christian theories such as creationism in school biology lessons.