Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Foxfyre,

Science HAS discredited the ID hypothesis that some are attempting to insinuate into science class. It is entirely appropriate for science teachers to tell this to their students.

Foxfyre wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Spendi, you've mentioned the 'psychosomatic' issue a number of times. I agree that religious faith is a positive influence on children and helps to give them a strong sense of personal worth and a more positive outlook on life in general. I am guessing that should a comprehensive study be conducted, it would show that children with strong religious faith get into trouble less than other children, are less violent, commit fewer anti-social acts, and are generally happier. I personally think that it was specifically when God was declared unwelcome in the school systems that we began to see increased violence and for the first time ever parents worried about their kids being seriously assaulted or molested or gunned down in the classrooms and hallways.

But none of that matters in this debate that must be judged on First Amendment establishment clause criteria. It is inappropriate, even illegal, to teach ID in science class. It is equally inappropriate, even illegal, to teach against ID in science class. It is appropriate and constructive for the teacher to allow both ID and Darwin to coexist peacefully in science class.

How exactly is it illegal to teach "against ID in science class" ?

And how is it appropriate to let the two coexist in science class when one (ID) has absolutely ZERO scientific credibility?

To teach against ID is to teach Atheism which is a violation of the establishment cause. To allow the two to coexist peacefully in science class does not presume that ID will be taught in science class. I have stated and restated and restated ad nauseum now that it is inappropriate, even illegal, to teach ID in science class. It is correct to say that ID cannot be taught as science, because it isn't. It is perfectly fine for the teacher to explain that to the student. But for the same reason, ie that ID cannot be proved with science, it also cannot be falsified with science and it would be incorrect, as well as illegal, to tell a student that ID has ZERO credibility. To allow ID

To teach "against" ID is not the same as teaching Atheism - especially if the proponents of ID keep insisting that ID is not religious.

I have not said that ID is not 'religious'. I have said that ID does not necessarily have to include a concept of a supreme being as testified by Plato, Aristotle, and Buddhism. Therefore to teach against it is almost always going to be teaching against a religious belief. Is there another word that would define that other than Atheism?

Quote:

Teaching "against" ID is perfectly reasonable the same way we teach "against" the idea that the sum of two even numbers is an odd number. We have every reason to doubt it, it has no evidence to support it. Teaching "against" ID is to teach in favor or logic and reason. The fact that ID cannot be falsified does not protect it from scientific scrutiny or attack. We can craft all sorts of claims that cannot possible be refuted because their basis is of magic or dreams - that does not immunize them - especially if they claim to explain a situation for which we do have massive amounts of evidence and data.

It can be clearly demonstrated that adding two numbers representing equal value cannot produce an odd number. But you can add two groups of uneven quantities and arrive at an odd number of the quantities but not an odd number of groups. In other words, math is verifiable and falsifiable and can depending on what the numbers represent. You cannot use any known science or any other means to verify or falsify ID. Therefore to teach against it is not only the teacher's personal opinion and effort to indoctrinate students with a particular dogma, but it is a violation of the establishment clause.

You forget that mathematics is largely theory in itself. Besides, the point remains. We will always be able to come up with complete nonsense but claim is it not falsifiable and therefore should be taught as an alternative solution. It's crap.

Oh, and science is not required to be PC or religion sensitive. It speaks truth, regardless of the impact it could have on religion. Perhaps you think we should teach that the sun revolves around the earth?

Sure. You can say you saw little green men from Mars this morning and there is absolutely zero means to verify or discredit your statement. The only criteria that can be used is implausibility based on logistics coupled with lack of confirmation or anybody else's experiences. But a scientist would keep an open mind on the possibilities in what you claim to have seen and would add your report to others, should others report the same phenomenon.

Should you insist that the sun revolves around the Earth, however, we do have scientific means to discredit your opinion on that.

Science has absolutely zero means of discrediting ID, however, and therefore it is not a matter of PC to not attempt to do that. It is simply good science.

I think any person who would close his/her mind to any concept for which s/he has no scientific criteria or empirical evidence to draw from cannot rightfully claim to be a scientist. At best s/he will be a parrot

Are you familiar with the case of the flagellum? It was touted by an ID scientist as absolute proof of an irreducably complex structure. Then, there was another scientists who showed the smaller pieces of that structure in use in other organisms.

The problem I see with your rebuttal to my statement is that there aren't any "reports of phenomenon" to add these to. There are religious beliefs with ABSOLUTELY NO OBSERVATIONS to lend them credit.

wandeljw wrote:

Foxfyre,

Science HAS discredited the ID hypothesis that some are attempting to insinuate into science class. It is entirely appropriate for science teachers to tell this to their students.

Really? Can you give me the short version in layman's terms of how science managed to do that?

Science HAS discredited the ID hypothesis that some are attempting to insinuate into science class. It is entirely appropriate for science teachers to tell this to their students.

We aren't talking about ANY religious beliefs however. We are talking about people who have observed unexplainable phenomena in nature and the universe and have reasoned that it is so improbable that such things happened by chance that there is cause to believe that there is some kind of intelligence behind these things. Many millions, using the same kinds of criteria, have come to that same conclusion.

If that many scientists came to a same conclusion through observation of phenomenon, it wouldn't even be questioned whether or not their conclusion could be tested. Most IDers aren't asking for ID to be science. however, and most do not believe it is. It is fine for the science teacher to tell the kids that ID is not science if the kids ask about it. It is not fine for the teacher to presume to tell the kids that there is no basis for ID.

Foxfyre wrote:

wandeljw wrote:

Foxfyre,

Science HAS discredited the ID hypothesis that some are attempting to insinuate into science class. It is entirely appropriate for science teachers to tell this to their students.

Really? Can you give me the short version in layman's terms of how science managed to do that?

Easily. ID is based not on any evidence itself, but rather the lack of evidence/knowledge for evolution. It's nothing more than a gap-filler - and a poor one at that. The "best" (and I use that term loosely) support for ID comes from the idea of irreducible complexity.

Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the argument of irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". These examples are said to demonstrate that modern biological forms could not have evolved naturally. Critics consider that most, or all, of the examples were based on misunderstandings of the workings of the biological systems in question, and consider the low quality of these examples excellent evidence for the argument from ignorance. Irreducible complexity is generally dismissed by the scientific community; it is often referred to as pseudoscience.

The flagella of certain bacteria constitute a molecular motor requiring the interaction of about 40 complex protein parts, and the absence of any one of these proteins causes the flagella to fail to function. Behe holds that the flagellum "engine" is irreducibly complex because if we try to reduce its complexity by positing an earlier and simpler stage of its evolutionary development, we get an organism which functions improperly.

Mainstream scientists regard this argument as having been largely disproved in the light of fairly recent research. They point out that the basal body of the flagella has been found to be similar to the Type III secretory system (TTSS), a needle-like structure that pathogenic germs such as Salmonella and Yersinia pestis use to inject toxins into living eucaryote cells. The needle's base has many elements in common with the flagellum, but it is missing most of the proteins that make a flagellum work. Thus, this system seems to negate the claim that taking away any of the flagellum's parts would render it useless. This has caused Kenneth Miller to note that, "The parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex system actually have functions of their own."

There is little in science that has not produced something beneficial to humankind even if it is nothing more than wonder and imagination and desire to learn more. The anti-religionists on the thread seem to focus more on trying to convince the pro-IDers that Darwin is for real.

Well, at least most of us IDers do accept Darwin as the real deal and absolutely want it taught to our kids. We want it taught as the only scientific concept that we have to explain origins of the species. When you preach Darwin, you're preaching to the choir.

What we don't want is for Darwin to be taught as if Darwin is all that there will ever be to know or that Darwin somehow cancels out any concept of ID. Both approaches are very bad science and should be objectionable to all thinking people.

That one theory is really all ID had to offer. It was its only hope of something that resembles "proof". If you have other theories, please provide them.

As for the comments on incorrect scientific theories... The difference is just that - when there is evidence to the contrary in science, we start looking for answers and re-evaluate the theory.

Otherwise, to continue to say that ID doesn't exist because YOU say so, is just as lame as anybody else saying that

USAFHokie80 wrote:

That one theory is really all ID had to offer. It was its only hope of something that resembles "proof". If you have other theories, please provide them.

As for the comments on incorrect scientific theories... The difference is just that - when there is evidence to the contrary in science, we start looking for answers and re-evaluate the theory.

Most IDers do not presume to present or argue ID as science, however, and we have no 'theories' other than what we observe and evaluate with logic and reason. Now if you have any scientific theory or know of any generally accepted rules or scientific processes that can discredit ID as a general concept, let's hear it. Otherwise, to continue to say that ID doesn't exist because YOU say so, is just as lame as anybody else saying that.

Thats not what Hokie says and you are guilty of purposely distorting the topic at hand.

ABSOLUTELY NO OBSERVATIONS

USAFHokie80 wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Spendi, you've mentioned the 'psychosomatic' issue a number of times. I agree that religious faith is a positive influence on children and helps to give them a strong sense of personal worth and a more positive outlook on life in general. I am guessing that should a comprehensive study be conducted, it would show that children with strong religious faith get into trouble less than other children, are less violent, commit fewer anti-social acts, and are generally happier. I personally think that it was specifically when God was declared unwelcome in the school systems that we began to see increased violence and for the first time ever parents worried about their kids being seriously assaulted or molested or gunned down in the classrooms and hallways.

But none of that matters in this debate that must be judged on First Amendment establishment clause criteria. It is inappropriate, even illegal, to teach ID in science class. It is equally inappropriate, even illegal, to teach against ID in science class. It is appropriate and constructive for the teacher to allow both ID and Darwin to coexist peacefully in science class.


How exactly is it illegal to teach "against ID in science class" ?

And how is it appropriate to let the two coexist in science class when one (ID) has absolutely ZERO scientific credibility?


To teach against ID is to teach Atheism which is a violation of the establishment cause. To allow the two to coexist peacefully in science class does not presume that ID will be taught in science class. I have stated and restated and restated ad nauseum now that it is inappropriate, even illegal, to teach ID in science class. It is correct to say that ID cannot be taught as science, because it isn't. It is perfectly fine for the teacher to explain that to the student. But for the same reason, ie that ID cannot be proved with science, it also cannot be falsified with science and it would be incorrect, as well as illegal, to tell a student that ID has ZERO credibility. To allow ID


To teach "against" ID is not the same as teaching Atheism - especially if the proponents of ID keep insisting that ID is not religious.


I have not said that ID is not 'religious'. I have said that ID does not necessarily have to include a concept of a supreme being as testified by Plato, Aristotle, and Buddhism. Therefore to teach against it is almost always going to be teaching against a religious belief. Is there another word that would define that other than Atheism?

Quote:
Teaching "against" ID is perfectly reasonable the same way we teach "against" the idea that the sum of two even numbers is an odd number. We have every reason to doubt it, it has no evidence to support it. Teaching "against" ID is to teach in favor or logic and reason. The fact that ID cannot be falsified does not protect it from scientific scrutiny or attack. We can craft all sorts of claims that cannot possible be refuted because their basis is of magic or dreams - that does not immunize them - especially if they claim to explain a situation for which we do have massive amounts of evidence and data.


It can be clearly demonstrated that adding two numbers representing equal value cannot produce an odd number. But you can add two groups of uneven quantities and arrive at an odd number of the quantities but not an odd number of groups. In other words, math is verifiable and falsifiable and can depending on what the numbers represent. You cannot use any known science or any other means to verify or falsify ID. Therefore to teach against it is not only the teacher's personal opinion and effort to indoctrinate students with a particular dogma, but it is a violation of the establishment clause.


You forget that mathematics is largely theory in itself. Besides, the point remains. We will always be able to come up with complete nonsense but claim is it not falsifiable and therefore should be taught as an alternative solution. It's crap.

Oh, and science is not required to be PC or religion sensitive. It speaks truth, regardless of the impact it could have on religion. Perhaps you think we should teach that the sun revolves around the earth?


Sure. You can say you saw little green men from Mars this morning and there is absolutely zero means to verify or discredit your statement. The only criteria that can be used is implausibility based on logistics coupled with lack of confirmation or anybody else's experiences. But a scientist would keep an open mind on the possibilities in what you claim to have seen and would add your report to others, should others report the same phenomenon.

Should you insist that the sun revolves around the Earth, however, we do have scientific means to discredit your opinion on that.

Science has absolutely zero means of discrediting ID, however, and therefore it is not a matter of PC to not attempt to do that. It is simply good science.

I think any person who would close his/her mind to any concept for which s/he has no scientific criteria or empirical evidence to draw from cannot rightfully claim to be a scientist. At best s/he will be a parrot


Are you familiar with the case of the flagellum? It was touted by an ID scientist as absolute proof of an irreducably complex structure. Then, there was another scientists who showed the smaller pieces of that structure in use in other organisms.

The problem I see with your rebuttal to my statement is that there aren't any "reports of phenomenon" to add these to. There are religious beliefs with ABSOLUTELY NO OBSERVATIONS to lend them credit.


We aren't talking about ANY religious beliefs however. We are talking about people who have observed unexplainable phenomena in nature and the universe and have reasoned that it is so improbable that such things happened by chance that there is cause to believe that there is some kind of intelligence behind these things. Many millions, using the same kinds of criteria, have come to that same conclusion.

If that many scientists came to a same conclusion through observation of phenomenon, it wouldn't even be questioned whether or not their conclusion could be tested. Most IDers aren't asking for ID to be science. however, and most do not believe it is. It is fine for the science teacher to tell the kids that ID is not science if the kids ask about it. It is not fine for the teacher to presume to tell the kids that there is no basis for ID.

Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the argument of irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".

Foxfyre wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

That one theory is really all ID had to offer. It was its only hope of something that resembles "proof". If you have other theories, please provide them.

As for the comments on incorrect scientific theories... The difference is just that - when there is evidence to the contrary in science, we start looking for answers and re-evaluate the theory.

Most IDers do not presume to present or argue ID as science, however, and we have no 'theories' other than what we observe and evaluate with logic and reason. Now if you have any scientific theory or know of any generally accepted rules or scientific processes that can discredit ID as a general concept, let's hear it. Otherwise, to continue to say that ID doesn't exist because YOU say so, is just as lame as anybody else saying that.

You keep saying "most IDers" this and that. Though, from everything I've read, you are a minority among them.

Anyway, statements like your last demonstrate the problem best. It is not up to me or anyone else to disprove your "theory" but for you to prove that it is valid. You've got the process backwards.