Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Coolwhip wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Coolwhip wrote:
I for one never understood why they didn't teach me non-euclidean geometry as an alternative to that damn conformist euclidean geometry.

People always say all they care about is the science. Well, why is it that the same people usually never care about all the other sciences that have equally large holes in them? The only time ordinary people are concerned with science is if it confict with their world view. The ID movement is a matter of religion, not science.

Maybe religion or maybe not. Back before Erich Von Daniken's theories of ancient otherworldly alien invasions were pretty well debunked, everybody was talking about it and more than a few were true believers or at least hoping hard that it was all true. A belief in ID does not necessarily HAVE to presume existence of a supreme being but rather only beings more advanced than ourselves. Admittedly Von Daniken's theories didn't hold up. So far, ID hasn't been debunked.

But neither has ID been supported by anything other than perception and reason and that is why it is unsuitable in the science curriculum as anything more than one possible explanation for the holes in the scientific grids. Just my opinion.

While I may agree that students should be informed about controversial issues regarding any scientific theory. I do, however, not see any reason to offer ID as an alternative theory over the church of the flying spaghetti monster or the church of invisible pink unicorns. Seriously.

You're missing the point. Acknowledgment of ID as one theory that plugs the holes in the scinetific grid does not need to acknowledge or push any particular relgion or any religion at all. Neither the Bible nor the Qu'ran nor any other 'holy book' need be mentioned in any context. ID would not be offered as an alternative theory. But it would be appropriate to acknowledge it as an alternative theory that already exists.

In other words, though Real Life disagrees, I think most people of faith do not expect or even want ID to be taught as science because, at least within the scientific knowledge we have at this time, there is no scientific basis for it. It is fine to explain that there is no scientific basis for ID or any other theory including space aliens and flying spaghetti monsters but these are theories held by some or many people.

Telling the kids that there is no known scientific basis for ID is far different than telling the kids that there is no basis for ID, however. The science teacher can appropriately say the first. He or she has no business teaching the kids the second.

My suspicion is that science teachers have too often presumed to teach against ID and that has triggered a backlash of those Christians are are pushing to put ID into the curriculum.

My suggestion to fix it is for science teachers to stop attempting to meddle in the religious beliefs of their students.

0 Replies

I'm not completely sure I get what you're saying but you claim ID hasn't yet been debunked and you also say there is no scientific basis for it. That's the reason for it's success IMO, the fact that it fathoms so widely and is so vague in it's description.

Also, ID has disguised itself as science longer than science teachers have spoken against it.

0 Replies

The glaring fact that no-one is prepared to deal with my last two posts, nor any of the others which follow a similar line of reasoning, is quite sufficient proof, if any is needed, that anti-IDers are not ready for the scientific teaching of evolution theory. They are half-baked. It is like when people discuss meat cuisine without reference to the abbatoir or the rearing conditions. The nitty-gritty is ignored so that the discussion can go around in circles for ever and ever and be conducted in polite bourgeois language and such language is as far from the principles of evolution theory as it is possible to get.

By sheer dint of concentrated thought I have discovered two other members of the anti-ID coalition on the Miles Copeland principle of "Who gained?" The GDP -the Guild of Abortion Practitioners and the BCI- the birth control industry. These two members of the coalition are at loggerheads with the Welfare Industry and the Catch 'em and Cage'em wing which prospers from the result of promiscuous activity among the young and stupid.

0 Replies

Spendius: No one has even read your last two posts. Go to bed.

===
I have always admired Foxfyre's postings. She seeks the middle ground.

But I agreed with Coolwhip that, until there is some science to Creation Science, it cannot have any place in a Science Class.

Joe(Comparative Religious Beliefs, yes. Science, no.)Nation

0 Replies

There really can be no middle ground. Science is only a compilation of the evidence and laws that underpin it. There is no place for untestable and vague "hypotheses" that have no beginning point.

Quote:

My suggestion to fix it is for science teachers to stop attempting to meddle in the religious beliefs of their students.

Foxfyre has it all backwards. The IDers , once Creationism was beaten back by the USSC, have attempted to infiltrate the science curricula of the several states. Theyalmost succeeded in Ohio, and did succeed for a while in Kansas. In Pa, it wasnt the teaxhers who "tried to meddle in students religious beliefs" it was the schoolboard that attempted to insert ID principles into biology.
Lets at least get the orders of occurence right because it makes a huge difference as to who is meddling with whom.

0 Replies

Fm reveals more inconvenient truths for the IDers.

Joe(at the end of the day facts, not beliefs, will stand)Nation

0 Replies

Coolwhip wrote:

I'm not completely sure I get what you're saying but you claim ID hasn't yet been debunked and you also say there is no scientific basis for it. That's the reason for it's success IMO, the fact that it fathoms so widely and is so vague in it's description.

Also, ID has disguised itself as science longer than science teachers have spoken against it.

Of course ID hasn't been debunked. And we don't know if there is a scientific basis for it. All we know is that at this time we don't have the science to support it. Or debunk it. There is scientific basis supporting evolution whether or not we are interpreting the science accurate. Any scientist worth his salt however will acknowledge that evolution cannot explain a lot of things that ID can explain whether or not one accepts ID.

So, it is quite simple. It is not appropriate to teach ID as science because we do not have the science to do that. It is appropriate to teach evolution as science because we do have the science to do that. And it is appropriate to acknowledge that ID is one theory for phenomena that evolution cannot explain. It is not appropriate for a science teacher to presume to deny ID when he has no basis for doing that other than he might not wish to believe it.

0 Replies

fm, ID has a beginning point; it's called the bible.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

There really can be no middle ground. Science is only a compilation of the evidence and laws that underpin it. There is no place for untestable and vague "hypotheses" that have no beginning point.
Quote:
My suggestion to fix it is for science teachers to stop attempting to meddle in the religious beliefs of their students.

Foxfyre has it all backwards. The IDers , once Creationism was beaten back by the USSC, have attempted to infiltrate the science curricula of the several states. Theyalmost succeeded in Ohio, and did succeed for a while in Kansas. In Pa, it wasnt the teaxhers who "tried to meddle in students religious beliefs" it was the schoolboard that attempted to insert ID principles into biology.
Lets at least get the orders of occurence right because it makes a huge difference as to who is meddling with whom.

I don't have it backwards at all since my goal here is not to demonize either pro-evolutionists or IDers but to state a case for why ID can be acknowledged without teaching it as science or without inserting any form of religion into the curriculum.

I think if the teachers would do that, school boards would be less inclined to force ID principles into anything.

I would strongly and actively object to my child's school teaching ID as science. And I would strongly and actively object to my child's school teaching that there is no such thing as ID.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I would strongly and actively object to my child's school teaching ID as science. And I would strongly and actively object to my child's school teaching that there is no such thing as ID.

I agree that the science teachers should not be teaching that there is no such thing as ID.

However, I disagree that science teachers should be required to mention ID in a science class. In my HS biology classes we were tought that evolution has holes and outstanding questions (and so does gravity for that matter). It should be left there; with science admiting that not all the questions have been answered....and then stop there, no ID mention whatsoever.

0 Replies

Fox wrote: "...but to state a case for why ID can be acknowledged without teaching it as science or without inserting any form of religion into the curriculum."

Exactly how does one teach ID without religion? And what do they teach about ID? What is the curriculum?

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I would strongly and actively object to my child's school teaching ID as science. And I would strongly and actively object to my child's school teaching that there is no such thing as ID.

I agree that the science teachers should not be teaching that there is no such thing as ID.

However, I disagree that science teachers should be required to mention ID in a science class. In my HS biology classes we were tought that evolution has holes and outstanding questions (and so does gravity for that matter). It should be left there; with science admiting that not all the questions have been answered....and then stop there, no ID mention whatsoever.

I haven't said science teachers should be required to mention ID in class. I only said it would not be inappropriate for a science teacher to mention that ID was one theory explaining how things happen the way things happen. I would have no problem with the teacher saying that he or she doesn't teach ID, however, as there is no known way to teach it scientifically and this is science class. That should satisfy any student who might bring it up.

In my opinion, your HS biology teachers did it okay, but it would not violate the principle if they mentioned ID as one way those holes are explained but we just can't prove it scientifically. I grew up in the Bible belt where teachers were frequently pushed on that point and that is pretty much how they handled it. Teachers then neither violated the beliefs or values of their students nor pushed any form of religious, social, or political doctrine unless lectures on good grooming and good manners would fall into that. Smile

And because it was handled properly and with sensitivity, I can't remember teaching Creationism in the public schools ever being an issue. And we all got a good grounding in Darwin.

0 Replies

Go ahead, teach ID... in a theology class. Teaching it in a science class is not acceptable.

T
K
O

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Fox wrote: "...but to state a case for why ID can be acknowledged without teaching it as science or without inserting any form of religion into the curriculum."

Exactly how does one teach ID without religion? And what do they teach about ID? What is the curriculum?

Magic man did it. Any questions?

0 Replies

Joe (I don't listen to the other side's arguments) wrote-

Quote:

Spendius: No one has even read your last two posts.

Now there's a scientific statement from an anti-IDer. That's a general guide, even at the infantile level, to how anti-IDers would educate the kids. A self-flattering personal belief turned into an assertion and presented as a fact.

Joe wrote-

Quote:

I have always admired Foxfyre's postings. She seeks the middle ground.

fm wrote-

Quote:

There really can be no middle ground.

Obviously.

fm wrote-

Quote:

Foxfyre has it all backwards.

I think Joe that you might be slightly out of your depth. As is to be expected if you bury your head in the sand on seeing posts coming from the only member on this thread who opposes anti-ID on it. You should be a cheer leader Joe. It is self evident that you have no place in a scientific discussion. You put out personal beliefs as facts ( and one proved wrong on these last two pages) and you have split the anti-ID camp on a fundamental issue.

fm is right. There is no middle ground. Confucius he say "he who sits in middle of road gets run over by traffic going in both directions". You're trolling goodstyle. Not that I'm bothered mind you but you really ought to "know yourself" before you start guiding the education of 50 million kids.

And then you opine, obviously not having read much else,-

Quote:

Fm reveals more inconvenient truths for the IDers.

He revealed some inconvenient truths for you Joe. You have stuck your nose into a 3 year long discussion very little of which you have bothered to study. You're a heckler and what you blurted can be heard leaning on any bar in the land or in 5th grade classroom discussions.

Quote:

Joe(at the end of the day facts, not beliefs, will stand)Nation

You're a pompous ass who likes to make pompous noises.

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

It is not appropriate to teach ID as science because we do not have the science to do that.

That's been said on here about a hundred times in one form or another and by me.

Quote:

It is appropriate to teach evolution as science because we do have the science to do that.

It is only appropriate to teach the pretty bits and if you don't teach all of it, which you won't, your lacuna, like the stripper's thong, highlights what you're hiding. Do you not understand this point Foxy? It has been a key component of my argument for three years and has never been answered nor was it addressed at Dover. It is actually undiscussable in the presence of ladies and men with sensitive dispositions which is why in posh dinner parties the ladies withdraw to arrange their daughter trading after the coffee.

I don't like to say this Foxy but whether you know it or not you are scoring own goals which is why the anti-IDers love you and why they don't love me. I score goals for our side.

Quote:

I don't have it backwards at all since my goal here is not to demonize either pro-evolutionists

There you go. My purpose is to demonize them on the grounds that the consequences of their triumph would reduce us to a third world status. If they won the argument the undiscussable lacuna would then arrive centre stage.

Quote:

I would strongly and actively object to my child's school teaching ID as science. And I would strongly and actively object to my child's school teaching that there is no such thing as ID.

Mere words. They have no relation to thousands of classrooms in which human beings are interacting.

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

fm, ID has a beginning point; it's called the bible.

That's not true either. And if you can't or won't read Spengler you are never going to know why but if you can't read Spengler you are not in any fit position to be guiding the education of 50 million kids and you are certainly not if you won't read it. I doubt you have even read The Bible as well. You are proceeding on bits of it you have picked up here and there and which suited your purposes.

fm wrote-

Quote:

Lets at least get the orders of occurence right because it makes a huge difference as to who is meddling with whom.

Well fm- I have identified what I think are the main components of the anti-ID coalition for you.

map wrote-

Quote:

It should be left there; with science admiting that not all the questions have been answered....and then stop there, no ID mention whatsoever.

You might need to include in your ban movies, comics, books and possibly conversations. The school does not exist in isolation in the same way that a chemical reaction might seem to do.

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

Exactly how does one teach ID without religion? And what do they teach about ID? What is the curriculum?

You simply remove atheists from the classroom in the same way that you have removed them from the presidential candidate's list. It occurs by osmosis if you do that. There is no curriculum. And it's getting a bit sad my keeping having to repeat it. The Soviets removed religionists from the classroom as did Mao and the N. Koreans do. The cult of the "Great Leader" requires it. Communism requires it.

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

That should satisfy any student who might bring it up.

That's a facile opinion. What if it doesn't. Then you have the teacher stuttering and being discredited in front of the other students. Some of these students have IQs above 120 and are on the internet and just love ridiculing teachers.

TKO wrote-

Quote:

Teaching it in a science class is not acceptable.

Deconstructed that means TKO is an anti-IDer and we already know that.

I'm sorry I missed you out Coolwhip but

Quote:

Magic man did it

Is not a proposition unless you mean Jesus.

BTW- I have explained a few times the derivation of my username so it would bore any readers I have to go through it again. I'm not satisfied with your explanation of your's though. Not absolutely I mean.

0 Replies

maporche said

Quote:

and then stop there, no ID mention whatsoever.

and ci said

Quote:

Exactly how does one teach ID without religion? And what do they teach about ID? What is the curriculum

Thats about the most cogent presentation of the "Why not ID in some form" argument. Its clearly a default to religion and thats always been bogus science . It may give a bunch of people the warm and fuzzies that theyve left the door open, but leaving the door open allows some really daft explanations indoors.

The Flying Spaghetti MOnster was whipped up as a joke to give an actual silly example of religion based "Science" gone amuk. Its poor form to make rationale arguments against the religious establishments whose budgets are bigger than most 3rd world countries. Its amazing that, in all the sectarian universities out there, the CAtholic U's seem to have it most together. They walk on eggs to make certain that their theologies conform to the stages where science stands now.
I remember that wed pray in HS chemistry class for enlightenment on the subject, not to understand how the great Chemist in the Sky brought all these molecules together. Because brother francis always said that, "one day, science will unlock the seceret of life and that fact should never diminish your belief in God"
The proponents of ID as anything worth consideration are being pushed to the wall. SCience (of ID) cannot evidence its own being, however science CAN and IS showing that the pronouncements of ID theory are just false. (In the last 10 years, about all of the concepts of Irreducible complexity have been neatly shot down and the developers of the hypothesis have been sent scurrying back to their drawing boards). Thats another of the inconvenient truths that have been studied to death, and most of these have been accomplished without breking a big sweat.
So why even mention that such a thing as ID exists aand give it some undeserved credibility by mere inference.
We dont study "ethers" and "phlogiston" and "vis plastica " , so why bother with ID except as another interesting node in our history when this nation was all knotted up with Evangelism almost to the bottlenecking of our kids educations.

I often assign books by Ruse or "History of scientific thought" to let students,if they dont already know, understand how many of these false concepts were products of their times techno base. "Vis plastica" was popular when everyone knew that dragons existed and they left their bones(except some churches stated that these were the works of the devil trying to muddle our minds) and phlogiston and ethers came to be powerful, yet misunderstood forces that underlay the forces visible to us. (Sort of like a version of 'dark matter' for their age).
ID, is popular now because we are in a tech transition to where the micro level and the mega macro level seem to be governed by the same forces and ID nicely ties these together at their ends. I dont deny that ID isnt a nice concept , yet, its time is even now slowly slipping away as it nothing further it can lean on to establish its own credibility. WIshing that complexity is evidence enough, is just not good enough to a bunch of hard ass biologists working on the evolution of drug resistance.

0 Replies

The problem, Foxfyre, is that ID is not a scientific theory. It can't be used to plug whatever gaps are claimed to exist because science doesn't work that way. Science doesn't say "We don't know so let's make up something really good." There has to be evidence to fill those gaps. Science says "This is what we have found to be true so far, we're not done yet." ID says "T'was an intelligent designer what done all this and that's all you need to know." You want to teach American children that?

And, by the way, if you start filling gaps with bunkum you stop looking for the actual evidence. That is no way to move science forward as history has shown again and again and again. (If the Chinese had continued their scientific expeditions of 1421 ... .)

And any science teacher alluding to ID would face the following questions:
How many Designers?
One? One Thousand? Three Designers and their Faithful Flying Dog, Skip?
How much was designed and how much evolved?
All designed?
Just the really hard parts?
Just us homos?
Was Homo Erectus a failed design?
Neanderthals? What apple did they eat in the Garden?
Did the Designer screw up by creating viruses?
And why make moths when you have so many butterflies?

Joe(the teacher might start longing to be a math instructor)Nation

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

TKO wrote-

Quote:
Teaching it in a science class is not acceptable.

Deconstructed that means TKO is an anti-IDer and we already know that.

That's a cop out.

What's wrong with ID being a part of a mythology or theology course?

Direct question. Direct answer please.

T
K
O

0 Replies

you want a direct answer (or any answer ) from spendy, please dont be disappointed when the post arrives. Spendi is the "Scatman".

0 Replies

Yet another nail in the ID coffin is that the "theory" can be used to predict absolutely nothing.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know