Intellegent Design?
- Thread starter Mooseman
- Start date
E
evan d
Guest
"Intellegent Design"
Define please.
Define please.
C
Chaos Turtle
Guest
Sure, we should teach intelligent design in science class...just like we should teach that maggots come from rotting meat, emotions are created by the heart, and that Earth is of course at the center of the whole freakin universe.
Yes I am sarcastic.
Perhaps when there is some physical evidence of this intelligent designer that even approaches in magnitude the abundance of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, there may be a place for it.
Some may like to point out how evolution is just a "theory" and that the evidence is lacking or somehow unconvincing. I urge those folks to familiarize themselves with the scientific definition of "theory" as well as the truth (not apologist propaganda) about the fossil record and the overwhelming and undeniable* facts of evolution.
It's the 21st century for crying out loud! Get. With. The. Program.
Peace.
(*Assuming one doesn't get one's "facts" from storybooks.)
Yes I am sarcastic.
Perhaps when there is some physical evidence of this intelligent designer that even approaches in magnitude the abundance of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, there may be a place for it.
Some may like to point out how evolution is just a "theory" and that the evidence is lacking or somehow unconvincing. I urge those folks to familiarize themselves with the scientific definition of "theory" as well as the truth (not apologist propaganda) about the fossil record and the overwhelming and undeniable* facts of evolution.
It's the 21st century for crying out loud! Get. With. The. Program.
Peace.
(*Assuming one doesn't get one's "facts" from storybooks.)
Mooseman
Isengar Tussle
Not just that God did it, but that evolution of man is impossible and the Earth is only about 10,000 years old, yadda, yadda, yadda.......TomB said:
That God exists is a matter of faith, but I have studied mathematics and if God did design the universe (I believe so), it is an amazingly complex system.
To say that the universe was not created by the properties that man has discovered over the centuries, but instead was done in 6 days and by defying those very same properties, is an insult to God and man's intellegence.....
But, that is just my opinion.
Chaos, is it possible that God created mankind through the process of evolution?
E
evan d
Guest
No, becuase evolution cannot in and of it self create life, but rather modifify it to fit it surrondings. However, an evolution of sorts could create life in a way, becuase whatever was existing that did not create life would not be sustained, but if it did create life it could be continued.Mooseman said:
All of the bible people who want their own religous ideas to be thought should send their children to a private school that matches thier views. I spent a year a jesuit highschool, and be a atheist of sorts does not go very easily.
One last bit about religous views being taught in a classroom. Will it not insult those of a different belief and, Seperation Of Church and State (even though that is not in the constitution).
Oversoul
The Tentacled One
There are a number of problems with maintstream theories in biology, and those issues need to be discussed. There are a lot of unexplained areas, and I don't expect this to change. Knowing what was going on a billion years ago is tough, if it's even possible. Scientists might be making a lot of mistakes, especially when you keep going further back in time. That's expected. So, if tomorrow, new studies cause the aquatic ape theory to become mainstream, I won't be all shocked that what they taught me in high school was wrong. Theories are our best explanations for describing the phenomena that we observe. They don't have to be perfect. And if schools are teaching the wrong theory, by mistake, it's unfortunate, but probably unavoidable.
By contrast, IDT is not a theory. It doesn't observe information, form hypothoses, test these hypothoses, etc. It makes an assertion as to what happened, and then rejects data that does not fit with its paradigm. This is not scientific.
By contrast, IDT is not a theory. It doesn't observe information, form hypothoses, test these hypothoses, etc. It makes an assertion as to what happened, and then rejects data that does not fit with its paradigm. This is not scientific.
C
Chaos Turtle
Guest
Mooseman, consider evan's and Oversoul's responses to be my own. Except for a very minor nitpick with evan's word choice in the evolution definition, I agree entirely with both. (I would switch a few words around and use "adapt" rather than "modify.")
D
DÛke
Guest
...
There are moments in which it is equally difficult refuting the idea of God, just as much there are moments in which believing in it is absurd.
You want an evidence of an intelligent designer? Is this wanting of evidence coming from a "scientific" point of view?
The paradox with science is this - the more it seems to prove one thing, it manages to prove the opposite. Take the idea of God, for our example. Science can't provide the evidence for it, right? And, scientifically speaking, to simply even suggest than man came from "nothing" or simply "evolved" from nothing is illogical - it's unscientific.
You say "man" came to be by the course of evolution? Ok. And how did this "course" begin? More critically, where did this course first found its genesis...?
The theory of evolution does not negate the question of our origin - neither biologically, nor...spiritually. At the end, the question will remain - from where? It resonates loud and clear...endlessly...seemingly without an answer.
To hold on to the idea of evolution, or to any idea alone as the saving grace of our existence, as if it saves one from the absurdities of existence, of faith, of creation...is not only mislead, but in fact, unscientific - it's only dogmatic, fanatical, and blind to the bigger questions and the more extreme possibilities.
Do I believe in God? That's not a question I want to answer here or today. But I have to add that...scientifically...God is plausible - if by God I mean some force which ignites the first sparks that "evolved" into what has become and what has unbecome. What is this spark, what is this touch of creation? That...is the question...and it's entirely a scientific one, not exclusively a spiritual or a philosophical one.
At the end, science teaches us that...it is unable to provide answers for the most pressing questions, and it never will. It simply fancies subjective theories by connecting the dots (the "facts") in a subject manner. Some of us can connect the dots a little differently, and see a reality that science, for the most part, chooses to neglect. Science is our psychological fear of uncertainty and the unknown - this is why we hold on to it so tightly, it gives us something to grasp, however falsely, however self-deceptively. The truly scientific mind realizes that science fails us more often than it saves us. Eienstein was more spiritual than a mere "scientist." The same with Newton.
Human faith, human desire and passion...here...become our only answers and the only grounds on which we can truly stand, and who knows, perhaps...reach back to the hand that first gave us this life which we now, not so humbly, call "ours"...
There are moments in which it is equally difficult refuting the idea of God, just as much there are moments in which believing in it is absurd.
But why do we require evidence to believe in something? Surely you believe in things - like love - which are not only intangible and lacking when it comes to this "evidence," but are also essentially mad when thought about.
You want an evidence of an intelligent designer? Is this wanting of evidence coming from a "scientific" point of view?
The paradox with science is this - the more it seems to prove one thing, it manages to prove the opposite. Take the idea of God, for our example. Science can't provide the evidence for it, right? And, scientifically speaking, to simply even suggest than man came from "nothing" or simply "evolved" from nothing is illogical - it's unscientific.
You say "man" came to be by the course of evolution? Ok. And how did this "course" begin? More critically, where did this course first found its genesis...?
The theory of evolution does not negate the question of our origin - neither biologically, nor...spiritually. At the end, the question will remain - from where? It resonates loud and clear...endlessly...seemingly without an answer.
To hold on to the idea of evolution, or to any idea alone as the saving grace of our existence, as if it saves one from the absurdities of existence, of faith, of creation...is not only mislead, but in fact, unscientific - it's only dogmatic, fanatical, and blind to the bigger questions and the more extreme possibilities.
Do I believe in God? That's not a question I want to answer here or today. But I have to add that...scientifically...God is plausible - if by God I mean some force which ignites the first sparks that "evolved" into what has become and what has unbecome. What is this spark, what is this touch of creation? That...is the question...and it's entirely a scientific one, not exclusively a spiritual or a philosophical one.
At the end, science teaches us that...it is unable to provide answers for the most pressing questions, and it never will. It simply fancies subjective theories by connecting the dots (the "facts") in a subject manner. Some of us can connect the dots a little differently, and see a reality that science, for the most part, chooses to neglect. Science is our psychological fear of uncertainty and the unknown - this is why we hold on to it so tightly, it gives us something to grasp, however falsely, however self-deceptively. The truly scientific mind realizes that science fails us more often than it saves us. Eienstein was more spiritual than a mere "scientist." The same with Newton.
Human faith, human desire and passion...here...become our only answers and the only grounds on which we can truly stand, and who knows, perhaps...reach back to the hand that first gave us this life which we now, not so humbly, call "ours"...
D
DarthFerret
Guest
Ok, first of, I think all of you here know that I am a christian, and do believe in God.
That being said, I think that if you have two opposing theories, they should both be taught. Since evolution is based in physical science, the physical proofs should be brought to bear. And because one of the tenents of most christianity (it is up to you to believe it or not) is that God created humans to worship him out of faith, and if there is physical unrefutable proof of God, there is no real faith. Faith is defined as believing without proof.
Therefore (wow this is pretty short huh), I think both theories should be taught, but care should be taken to not lend personal weight to either, but to state the basics of each and let the inidividual believe what he/she wishes to.
This would work in a perfect world. But our world is not perfect, so the actual answer to your original question.... I do not know if teaching about an "intelligent designer" is a good idea, but I think it is definately something to look at and ponder seriously before totally discarding it.
That being said, I think that if you have two opposing theories, they should both be taught. Since evolution is based in physical science, the physical proofs should be brought to bear. And because one of the tenents of most christianity (it is up to you to believe it or not) is that God created humans to worship him out of faith, and if there is physical unrefutable proof of God, there is no real faith. Faith is defined as believing without proof.
Therefore (wow this is pretty short huh), I think both theories should be taught, but care should be taken to not lend personal weight to either, but to state the basics of each and let the inidividual believe what he/she wishes to.
This would work in a perfect world. But our world is not perfect, so the actual answer to your original question.... I do not know if teaching about an "intelligent designer" is a good idea, but I think it is definately something to look at and ponder seriously before totally discarding it.
C
Chaos Turtle
Guest
Ineresting aside, DÛke, but a little off the subject. We are discussing whether the intelligent design hypothesis should be taught along with evolutionary theory in American public schools.
It would be like teaching that there are only four basic elements in chemistry class, or that we were invaded in the past by space aliens in world history. Sure there are a lot of people who belive these things, but they ain't science.
If there was a class for teaching conjecture based upon the religious beliefs of a segment of the population, but no scientific evidence, that would be a good class for teaching intelligent design.
It would be like teaching that there are only four basic elements in chemistry class, or that we were invaded in the past by space aliens in world history. Sure there are a lot of people who belive these things, but they ain't science.
If there was a class for teaching conjecture based upon the religious beliefs of a segment of the population, but no scientific evidence, that would be a good class for teaching intelligent design.
D
DÛke
Guest
That doesn't look like you're discussing "whether the intelligent design hypothesis should be taught along with evolutionary theory in American public schools." It only looks like you're spinning off some dogmatic, unscientific opinion about some "evolutionary" theory that is, if you care to do some recent research, filled with gaps and holes. I wish I had the list of serious modern scientists of this day of age who have abandoned the hypothesis of evolution - it's a piece of interesting naivete in history, believable more so because it tries to negate the possibilities of Creation (Darwin himself, in The Origin of Species, said that one of his main goals was to "disprove" the idea of God - it wasn't pure, objective "science" that led him to even thinking what he did think, but distress of the truth; psychologically speaking, his theory is a simple revenge against the idea of God and Creation, and not "science"). "Evolution" - it's not believed because it is "supported" (do some up to date research please), it's not believed because it's a "fact," it's believed so that the real questions don't have to be asked, and the real truths - whatever they may be - would never be taught or brought to light. One more mind-numbing mechanism brought to you by the name of science...
But, religious men aren't the only ones who decieve themselves in the matters of faith and of truth. Scientific, "objective" men decieve themselves even more. I don't even need to provide examples, at this point - the thread speaks for itself...
C
Chaos Turtle
Guest
What dogmatic, unscientific opinion is it that you think I have? Sorry my glib response has thrown you so far off the mark. I've offered no opinion as to whether the intelligent design hypothesis is true or will ever be scientifically demonstrated as such. In fact, it's something I think about quite a lot. One might even say that I struggle with it.
But it's not science. It's philosophical conjecture. Or, if you would, pseudoscience.
I'm aware of the list of "serious modern scientists" who claim to reject the Darwinian -- "neo-Darwinian" actually, in their terms -- notions of evolution. What a list it is, too! 100 scientists (now up to more than 300 at last count) signed a statement for the Discovery Institute that they are "skeptical" that random mutation and natural selection account for the biological complexity and diversity we see in nature. (Not all of them are intelligent design advocates, it should be pointed out.)
But. Three hundred out of how many? These hundreds make up a tiny percentage of the "serious modern scientists" who actually understand evolutionary theory. It should be noted however, that the Discovery Institute itself does not advocate the teaching of intelligent design in schools. On this point, I find my opinions and those of the Discovery Institute in accord.
Perhaps some day, these scientists will find the evidence they are looking for. In much the same way that the idea that the universe had a beginning was once thought to be ludicrous, there is some possibility that there will be found evidence of intelligent design. Perhaps one day, we'll discover that unicorns really do exist. In the meantime, I prefer to keep my science scientific and my imagination imaginative. And when I hear hoofbeats, I might like to imagine unicorns, but I will expect to see horses.
So, to once again answer the question, no I do not think intelligent design should be taught in school science classes. You want to teach that evolutionary theory does not yet explain this planet's biological complexity and diversity? Fine. You want to teach that the unknown can be explained by a mysterious and unknown intelligence? That's fine too; but don't do it in a science class, because it's not science.
But it's not science. It's philosophical conjecture. Or, if you would, pseudoscience.
I'm aware of the list of "serious modern scientists" who claim to reject the Darwinian -- "neo-Darwinian" actually, in their terms -- notions of evolution. What a list it is, too! 100 scientists (now up to more than 300 at last count) signed a statement for the Discovery Institute that they are "skeptical" that random mutation and natural selection account for the biological complexity and diversity we see in nature. (Not all of them are intelligent design advocates, it should be pointed out.)
But. Three hundred out of how many? These hundreds make up a tiny percentage of the "serious modern scientists" who actually understand evolutionary theory. It should be noted however, that the Discovery Institute itself does not advocate the teaching of intelligent design in schools. On this point, I find my opinions and those of the Discovery Institute in accord.
Perhaps some day, these scientists will find the evidence they are looking for. In much the same way that the idea that the universe had a beginning was once thought to be ludicrous, there is some possibility that there will be found evidence of intelligent design. Perhaps one day, we'll discover that unicorns really do exist. In the meantime, I prefer to keep my science scientific and my imagination imaginative. And when I hear hoofbeats, I might like to imagine unicorns, but I will expect to see horses.
So, to once again answer the question, no I do not think intelligent design should be taught in school science classes. You want to teach that evolutionary theory does not yet explain this planet's biological complexity and diversity? Fine. You want to teach that the unknown can be explained by a mysterious and unknown intelligence? That's fine too; but don't do it in a science class, because it's not science.
D
DÛke
Guest
I would have figured that some things are easier to grasp, but I guess not. Let me state as simply as possible: state facts, or restating them, does not answer anything.
If people look at Evolution for answers, which they do, they're being stupid. What does the theory of Evolution really say? It doesn't say anything. It claims to provide facts and weaves them into theories. That is it. Does it say why? Not really.
If you're looking at science for answers, for facts, for "reality," then you're neglecting a serious part of what facts and truths are.
Science doesn't tell us why, it just shows a picture of something. Like: "here's a picture of a X." It's up to us to say what this X is, what it means, what it implies. That said, everything becomes subjective from that point onwards - which means, it loses the precious "scientific approach" that it claims to have.
All science is subjective, as subjective as art - science is art: the art of connecting the dots.
Now, a moneky will surely connect the dots a different way than, say, a lion...
So to answer the question at hand. No, ID should not be taught in schools as science, but neither should the theory of evolution, or any theory of science, for that matter. It all has a mind-numbing effect, as we can clearly see here - and it stops the wheels from turning. No one wants to think anymore. So what do they do now? They do science. Now I realize a mind-numbed and mind-numbing world is what most of you dream of, but that's not my dream...
If people look at Evolution for answers, which they do, they're being stupid. What does the theory of Evolution really say? It doesn't say anything. It claims to provide facts and weaves them into theories. That is it. Does it say why? Not really.
If you're looking at science for answers, for facts, for "reality," then you're neglecting a serious part of what facts and truths are.
Science doesn't tell us why, it just shows a picture of something. Like: "here's a picture of a X." It's up to us to say what this X is, what it means, what it implies. That said, everything becomes subjective from that point onwards - which means, it loses the precious "scientific approach" that it claims to have.
All science is subjective, as subjective as art - science is art: the art of connecting the dots.
Now, a moneky will surely connect the dots a different way than, say, a lion...
So to answer the question at hand. No, ID should not be taught in schools as science, but neither should the theory of evolution, or any theory of science, for that matter. It all has a mind-numbing effect, as we can clearly see here - and it stops the wheels from turning. No one wants to think anymore. So what do they do now? They do science. Now I realize a mind-numbed and mind-numbing world is what most of you dream of, but that's not my dream...
C
Chaos Turtle
Guest
So do we agree? Or disagree?
You and me both brother.
D
DÛke
Guest
Science is a practical application, no? That implies several things:
1. That "the impractical" is sometimes (unconsciously) pushed away into the realm of the "unscientific" in a violent and derogatory manner, leaving no room for Truth, but only a shard of Truth that cannot engulf the entire scope of existence.
2. Being "practical" as such necessarily leads to the mind-numbing effect of which I speak. It's natural for human beings to take for granted what becomes practical to them. Essentially, what becomes practical becomes mind-numbing. Science is mind-numbing. On a research, ambitious, curious level, I have no doubt that there are some people out there who truly think scientifically; on a casual and social level, however, science is nothing more than a new God, worshiped even more so blindly than once upon a time God was worshiped. The masses sway from one idolatry to the next.
3. Science is a tool, indeed - more so a tool than some conquest on the "search for Truth." It has many applications - the most prominent and yet subtle one is to deaden the minds of the majorities and provide easy, practical, marketed answers to those who not only refuse to think, but cannot think even if they tried.
All in all - there has yet to be a reason for us to be "practical" in our dealings with life. In fact, life is anything but practical. This is why science, fundamentally, numbs life and not "saves" it or enhances it.
Science is the end of man, the replacement of man. But that's a long subject to begin here.
So I'm out...
1. That "the impractical" is sometimes (unconsciously) pushed away into the realm of the "unscientific" in a violent and derogatory manner, leaving no room for Truth, but only a shard of Truth that cannot engulf the entire scope of existence.
2. Being "practical" as such necessarily leads to the mind-numbing effect of which I speak. It's natural for human beings to take for granted what becomes practical to them. Essentially, what becomes practical becomes mind-numbing. Science is mind-numbing. On a research, ambitious, curious level, I have no doubt that there are some people out there who truly think scientifically; on a casual and social level, however, science is nothing more than a new God, worshiped even more so blindly than once upon a time God was worshiped. The masses sway from one idolatry to the next.
3. Science is a tool, indeed - more so a tool than some conquest on the "search for Truth." It has many applications - the most prominent and yet subtle one is to deaden the minds of the majorities and provide easy, practical, marketed answers to those who not only refuse to think, but cannot think even if they tried.
All in all - there has yet to be a reason for us to be "practical" in our dealings with life. In fact, life is anything but practical. This is why science, fundamentally, numbs life and not "saves" it or enhances it.
Science is the end of man, the replacement of man. But that's a long subject to begin here.
So I'm out...
E
evan d
Guest
Sorry to have to bring this back up, but there was a thread a while ago about Duke being a liberal, and I must say that it seems to me that the liberals positition is subjective and not based on facts.
Oversoul
The Tentacled One
I've had to mull over this one for a while. It coincided completely with what I have observed. I've even known people who overtly embody this concept. And yet I never really noticed it until I saw it in writing. That is frustrating. But I understand now what you mean.DÛke said:
People don't just "forget" that scientific theories are tools (as I stated before). They reject such a concept because it is comfort and security (or practicality, as you point out) they are interested in, and not truth.
While none of this surprises me, it does irk me that I did not understand it earlier...
E
EricBess
Guest
You know, I've actually had a conversation recently that has a lot in common with this thread...Basically, the question was proposed of "What is a miracle?" And effectively, the answer is that a miracle is an occurance that takes place based on scientific principles that the observer doesn't fully understand.
Would anyone argue that the birth of a child was anything less than a miracle? And by the same token, would anyone argue that the birth (and shall we add development) of a child wasn't based on scientific principles? The fact of the matter is that there is a lot we don't understand about how an egg and a sperm interact over the course of 9 months to create a child, and yet we accept it because we don't really have a choice, do we? The evidence that it works is pretty undeniable.
The fact of that matter is that "science" isn't necessarily about truth. Darwin's theory of evolution is just that, a theory. There is likely a lot of truth in the theory and there is certainly evidence to support it. But at the same time, there are a lot of places where Darwin's theory falls short. Where did it start? for example...In order to evolve into something, there must have been something to evolve from...
What we call science it an attempt by man to understand things that were previously not understood. A great example is electricity. Take a flashlight back in time to the beginning of the 19th century or earlier and see if it wouldn't be considered a miracle. And yet we know that there are sound scientific principles upon which it works because our understanding of electricity as a whole has progressed to the level that may be considered knowledge rather than theory.
As much evidence as there is to support the theory of evolution, the fact remains that we simply don't have a knowledge, only a theory with some evidence to back it up. If you argue that it is the level of evidence which sets it apart from "Intelligent Design", then I am willing to listen to your argument (I respect what Oversoul said in his first post, for example. I put "Intelligent Design" in quotes because I agree with the basis of what they say, just not necessarily the way they say it). I would argue that the very fact that there is anything to evolve in the first place can be construed as evidence of "Intelligent Design" (I believe in the science of a creator, but don't have any more means to test my hypothosis - short of prayer, but that's another issue - than Christopher Columbus had of testing any hypothosis regarding how the flashlight works). On that point we can agree to disagree if you like, but the point is that if you are going to teach theories in public schools, it should be clear that they are theories and not knowledges, and one way to do that is to teach alternate theories as well...
The fact that they want to teach "Intelligent Design" in schools doesn't bother me near as much as the fact that many proponants of teaching evolution in schools seem to forget that the aren't teaching proven issues, but theories backed by evidence.
Having said all that, Mooseman pointed out that the supposition of a creator does not rule out the posibility of evolution. evan rejects this by saying that evolution cannot create life, but doesn't account for how life started, nor does he take into account the fact that if the building blocks of life were put into motion by a creator who understood the science behind them, then the "theories" become compatible after all...
Would anyone argue that the birth of a child was anything less than a miracle? And by the same token, would anyone argue that the birth (and shall we add development) of a child wasn't based on scientific principles? The fact of the matter is that there is a lot we don't understand about how an egg and a sperm interact over the course of 9 months to create a child, and yet we accept it because we don't really have a choice, do we? The evidence that it works is pretty undeniable.
The fact of that matter is that "science" isn't necessarily about truth. Darwin's theory of evolution is just that, a theory. There is likely a lot of truth in the theory and there is certainly evidence to support it. But at the same time, there are a lot of places where Darwin's theory falls short. Where did it start? for example...In order to evolve into something, there must have been something to evolve from...
What we call science it an attempt by man to understand things that were previously not understood. A great example is electricity. Take a flashlight back in time to the beginning of the 19th century or earlier and see if it wouldn't be considered a miracle. And yet we know that there are sound scientific principles upon which it works because our understanding of electricity as a whole has progressed to the level that may be considered knowledge rather than theory.
As much evidence as there is to support the theory of evolution, the fact remains that we simply don't have a knowledge, only a theory with some evidence to back it up. If you argue that it is the level of evidence which sets it apart from "Intelligent Design", then I am willing to listen to your argument (I respect what Oversoul said in his first post, for example. I put "Intelligent Design" in quotes because I agree with the basis of what they say, just not necessarily the way they say it). I would argue that the very fact that there is anything to evolve in the first place can be construed as evidence of "Intelligent Design" (I believe in the science of a creator, but don't have any more means to test my hypothosis - short of prayer, but that's another issue - than Christopher Columbus had of testing any hypothosis regarding how the flashlight works). On that point we can agree to disagree if you like, but the point is that if you are going to teach theories in public schools, it should be clear that they are theories and not knowledges, and one way to do that is to teach alternate theories as well...
The fact that they want to teach "Intelligent Design" in schools doesn't bother me near as much as the fact that many proponants of teaching evolution in schools seem to forget that the aren't teaching proven issues, but theories backed by evidence.
Having said all that, Mooseman pointed out that the supposition of a creator does not rule out the posibility of evolution. evan rejects this by saying that evolution cannot create life, but doesn't account for how life started, nor does he take into account the fact that if the building blocks of life were put into motion by a creator who understood the science behind them, then the "theories" become compatible after all...