Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Setanta wrote:

You demonstrate the profundity of your ignorance of the topic of this discussion right there. "Intelligent design" was cobbled together by the creationists immediately after the Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that creationism could not be taught in schools.

You did not cite a single "intelligent design" text to support your drivel, so, as i said, you get no points for more dipsomaniacal babbling.

I believe Spendius is correct and Setanta wrong on these points. While "Intelligent Design" or ID has come to have a certain specific reference to specific lawsuits and cant in both the contemporary public disputes over the matter and some of the discussions here, it is simply a fact that the idea of intelligent design and the term itself have a history that goes back to the Middle ages and beyond. As Setanta surely knows Thomas Aquinas' proofs by "The Uncaused cause" and "The proof by design" both relate directly to the proposition, and both are consistent with the distinction Spendius made between ID and creationism.

I do agree with Setanta that this argument has gone on long past the point at which we can expect any resolution or common understanding. Both sides are arguing past each other, and with little reference to what is being said.

the general platform of ignorance, fear, and superstion from which proponents of the non-scientific, anti-evolution bent mount their campaign.

It is not that there is no place for spirituality or metaphysics, it is that those who seek to overlay those concepts and their dependent constructs on science are just plain flat out wrong in the argument they choose to pick.

Is intelligent design theory a valid scientific alternative to evolutionary theory or is it only a religious view?

Is there a consensus in the scientific community one way or the other on this issue?

You do this thread no favor by bucking up Spendi,

Though unrelated to the current use of the term, the phrase "intelligent design" can be found in an 1847 issue of Scientific American, and in an address to the 1873 annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science by Paleyite botanist George James Allman:

Group urges rejection of science standards
(By Sarah Kessinger, Harris News Service, June 6, 2006)

TOPEKA - An advocacy group is urging local school boards to reject new science testing standards adopted by the state Board of Education.

A letter sent this week encourages Kansas' 300 school districts to follow the lead of Manhattan-Ogden public schools, where the local board unanimously voted to reject the state standards in April.

"The Kansas Board of Education standards are so flawed that they may be unconstitutional, and if endorsed by a local school district could lead to serious legal difficulties," Jack Krebs, president of a group of scientists and teachers known as Kansas Citizens for Science, wrote in the letter to superintendents.

State school board President Steve Abrams, who favors the new standards, said Monday he hadn't seen the letter and couldn't comment on it.

Asked whether districts could face problems if they didn't follow the standards, Abrams replied that there are no direct repercussions.

But school accreditation is based upon how well students do on state assessments that are based on the standards, he said.

Kansas made international headlines last year after the state board voted 6-4 to change science standards to allow supernatural explanations of natural phenomena and to support challenges of Darwin's theory of evolution.

The standards will determine state assessment content for high school students beginning in 2008.

Local districts, however, control what curriculum is taught in schools.

Soon after the state board's action, Manhattan-Ogden's school board began to study the changes upon the suggestion of scientists from the local Kansas State University campus.

The board determined the standards wouldn't prepare students "to deal with the world of higher education and employment that we see ahead of them," board President Randy Martin said.

"Our board looked at this and listened to people we know and respect, who had another point of view on the science standards," he said. "With the contacts they had in the state and around the country, we concluded that the state's science standards before the recent change were in the best interest of our students."

The board also extensively discussed that "many things in the world that should be taught to children aren't necessarily the responsibility of public schools," Martin said.

Supporters of the standards say they open science education to other theories. Opponents said they were an attempt to insert the biblical story of creation into the standards, violating the constitutional separation of church and state.

In other school districts on Monday, leaders emphasized that students need to be prepared to understand nationally accepted definitions of science.

Steve Parsons, Chanute superintendent, said his local school board so far hadn't shown interest in taking a position on the new state standards.

"We determine locally what we teach," he said. "We try to gear them to state standards but we are not limited to state standards."

At Hutchinson, Superintendent Wynona Winn said she had just received the letter, which she planned to pass on to the school board.

The district is taking the approach, she said, that "good science teachers are going to teach what they believe children ought to learn" regardless what the state does.

"I truly believe teachers work hard to prepare students for the next level and I truly believe we're going to do that."

Global economic trends, too, are fanning a renewed national interest in science education, Winn noted. The same happened in the late 1950s when the Soviets launched Sputnik and the United States realized it needed better science education to compete.

"I think the pressure to do that comes and goes," Winn said. "I think the fact that we're facing a great shortage of engineers in this country is waking folks up again. It ebbs and flows and ebbs and flows."

Martin at Manhattan said districts should determine what is best when it comes to science education for their local student body.

"I hope they'd be as deliberative as we were," he said, "and not just take a politically expedient route."

Quote:

Though unrelated to the current use of the term, the phrase "intelligent design" can be found in an 1847 issue of Scientific American, and in an address to the 1873 annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science by Paleyite botanist George James Allman:

Wikipedia.

And wande used the phrase without capitals.

It's quite funny really.

I was obviously asking what the current consensus is.

Local districts, however, control what curriculum is taught in schools.

The board also extensively discussed that "many things in the world that should be taught to children aren't necessarily the responsibility of public schools," Martin said.

Global economic trends, too, are fanning a renewed national interest in science education, Winn noted. The same happened in the late 1950s when the Soviets launched Sputnik and the United States realized it needed better science education to compete.

.... It is not that there is no place for spirituality or metaphysics, it is that those who seek to overlay those concepts and their dependent constructs on science are just plain flat out wrong in the argument they choose to pick. Spirituality and science need not be at odds, they are distinct, separate, and have no business the one relating to or attempting to define, describe, or contain the other.

Here I believe you have misrepresented the facts. There is indeed no place for spirituality, metaphysics, or any reference to a creator in our public school curricula, or even in the symbols and phrases used in its edifices and rituals. I believe it is the rather complete suppression of these things over the past few decades that has spawned the comtemporary dispute.

You are severely confused.