I noticed that a Humanist in another thread made a statement that led me to believe that he did not equate "intelligent design" with religion. This is a subject that probably should get more serious & widespread discussion than it does. What do you think?

jillianleab

Sorry, Gal, I didn't mean to threadjack with my follow up to tom!

But to get on to your post, the reason ID and Creationism aren't taught in science classes is because they aren't science. When you break either one of them down to the very core, you get "god did it". Maybe lesson plans for each of them could contain scientific elements (look how complex, etc), but the end result is "god did it" or, "an intelligent designer did it." That sort of answer isn't science - it's not testable, it's not repeatable, it's not observable. If we allow that to be presented in a science class, we have to add "designer did it" to everything; photosynthesis, human biology, ocean currents, etc. Science classes are supposed to teach things that are scientific and provable; ID and Creationism are not provable (unless the designer appears and says, Hey, it was me, watch this!), they are speculation. Evolution is something we are still gathering evidence on. Some day it might become a scientific law, where we have every last piece of the puzzle, no questions asked. BUT, that still won't disprove the possibility of an intelligent designer - there is no way we can ever know for an absolute fact there was or was not a designer. Since it can't be proven or disproven it can't be science.

Now, if Creationism and ID were to be taught in elective courses, there's no problem. Maybe a religious studies course, or even an alternative science-type course which discusses similar supernatural ideas. I'd even have no problem with that - but as far as either being taught in the core science class which also discusses gravity, photosynthesis, ocean currents, archeology, animal biology, human biology, etc... it just doesn't fit the mold.

I don't object to the teaching of ID in a science class because I'm an atheist, I object to it because it isn't science. But the other part of the problem is that most of the people pushing for ID are pushing for the disguised-creationism ID I mentioned in my first post. It's not a push for "designer did it" it's a push for "Christian god did it". I hope you see the difference, and see how that does have a religious doctrine attached to it.

tomder55

correct .
These are theories ;not dogmatic fact and should be taught as such .



ID does not answer the questions in a scientific manner .At best it postulates an untestable hypothesis. So I would not have it taught in a science class.

But it is doctrinaire to conclude ID expalines the origins of life or the universe .It is also doctinaire if Evolution is taught as fact instead of theory.
I am one who thinks that ID or creationism is correct .But it is not science because as a hypothesis it is not testable . The problem has been that the current scientific theories are taught as fact . That is where the correction should be made .

templelane

In scientific terminology a theory is actually better than a fact and a law. Facts and laws are dime a dozen a theory is something that gathers all the facts and laws together to offer an explanation.

For example
F = mg is a law but it is only a part of gravitational theory.

The reason you can never say a scientific theory has been proven is because that is a mathematical term.

I can't prove that chairs exist. I can take photos of chairs, weigh them , characterise them and then talk to carpenters, I can make a chair. I can study the molecular components of the chair. But I cannot prove they exist. It is merely a theory that chairs exist.

Basically half the time in these debates two different languages are being spoken. It is like me trying to argue that there is no line in the bible that says:

Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. [Matthew 7:120].


Because I am sitting with a Spanish copy of the bible (not being able to speak or translate Spanish). And then arguing that I cannot find that line in the bible.

I can answer the OPoriginal question along the same line as facts and theories. ID is only part of other religions and is not a religion itself. Like laws are parts of theories but are not theories themselves.

tomder55

then evolution and Darwinism are in fact not theories but hypothesis' because the obvious flaws and gaps make them far from "better than fact "

NeedKarma

Galveston1

There's an awful lot about evolution that cannot be tested. When you retreat millions of years into the past, there is no way you can test anything. ID does indeed give an answer to many of the gaps in evolution THEORY. And when I was in science class many years ago, evolution was taught as fact, which cannot be backed up. I am offended when my grandchildren are taught ideas as fact without any mention of the countering ideas. The idea that Biblical accounts are fiction has been proven wrong many times, but evolutionists never give up, do you? My original statement that ID has no particular deity, no doctrine, no church/synagogue/mosque, etc., proves it to be non-religious, or if you will not accept that, non-sectarian. Without ID there are simply NO answers to many pertinent questions, and there will likely never be any if we have to rely on the imaginations of men.

templelane

Evolution has been tested and continues to be tested. Every time a new genome is sequenced you are testing evolution. The predictions made by evolutionary theory have continuously been proven correct by palaeontology, physiology, genetics, biochemistry, molecular biology, I could go on. Doesn't it seem a tad coincidental that all these separate tests of evolution come together with a cohesive argument.

The countering ideas are not taught because they fail to conform to the scientific method. As soon as they do they will be taught. Intelligent design and creationist are philosophies not science.

jillianleab

Thanks for clearing that up, Tom; that's what I figured you meant.


ID gives an answer to the gaps in evolution, but tell me, how would you prove ID is right? How do you prove "designer did it"? You can't. You actually, literally, physically, can't. Evolution, on the other hand, can be proven through fossil records; we just haven't found them all yet. But it can actually be proven. ID and Creationism can't be proven. You can't prove "god" or "designer" in a lab; no matter what science ever comes up with, it will not disprove "god" or "designer" either. I really think that's key; proving evolution, or teaching evolution, doesn't disprove the existence of god. But "god" or "designer" don't belong in a science class. Let the school teach evolution, then when your grandkids get home, tell them the designer of your choice is behind it - it's possible to believe in both. Or, advocate for an alternative course, as I suggested in my other post.

The problem is also that in your post, you mention "biblical accounts" which means (I assume) you think ID should be taught as "Christian god did it", right? That's a big problem. There is less evidence that "Christian god did it" than there is that "designer did it". Your statement also associates a doctrine, a deity, and a church with ID, which proves it (at least your version) to be religious.

I'm asking you honestly, not trying to pick a fight, or be a jerk, but honestly - how would you prove ID? How do you prove there is a designer? How do you test it? Repeat it? If you can't do those things, it's not science. That's not an insult, really, I hope you don't take it that way. ID is not science because it can't be proven or disproven. I also ask you to think of the definition of science - what is science? What makes something scientific? What elements must it have to make it science and not philosophy? Does ID meet those requirements?

The fundamental difference between ID (not creationism disguised ID) and evolution is ID says an intelligent force is guiding everything, or set everything up. Evolution makes no claim on an intelligent force; it doesn't discount it, or require it. You can have it both ways; you can say we crawled out of the primordial ooze and evolved into humans as we are today AND STILL believe in a designer.

tomder55

Bingo ....there is no inherent conflict in the two positions

inthebox

"That sort of answer isn't science - it's not testable, it's not repeatable"


Just on the basis of moleclar biology alone how can you say that observed scientific fact

for example:

- clotting cascade
- dna tanscription to protein translation
- the krebs cycle


proves evolution?


Is their some lab some where that has repeated the "evolution" of these processes?



THINK about dna, all the enzymes, nucleotides, the cell the nucleus - all the factors that have to go into replication and translation. Tie that in with ribosomes, mrna, trna, amino acids [ left handed only ] that act in a coordinated manner to form just one polypeptide that has to undergo post translational editing. These are the facts.


How does random chance, natural selection [ how can you know or reproduce primordial conditions?], and genetic mutations explain this? Remember you have to have the whole process and parts in the proper place in order for gene duplication, crossover, mutations to take place.

Is evolution that is the religion. Faith in the unseen.