At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
Ok I know that this is a contentious issue, but I believe that it needs to be talked about.
This has been mentioned in other threads, but I thought that it was time for a thread of its own.
The main problem that I have is how can Intelligent Design (ID) be taught as a SCIENCE when it is based TOTALLY on faith?
At least Evolution is a Theory and until it is disproved or updated it’s the best we have.
ID has it place in Religious Studies NOT in science.
I do not believe ID is a matter of faith at all. Where there is a design, there is a designer.
I think it not a matter of faith to recognize design in our universe, our planet -and even in a single cell.
Evolution is rightfully called the Theory of Evolution. It is a Theory. As is ID.
I am convinced that some evolution does occur, but frankly, I think that it takes far more faith for someone to believe that life rose up out of a primordial soup then became man, than I do that some intellegent being designed it.
And if we take "fll blown" evolution to it's logical conclusion, then we must deny a 1st cause altogether - which contradicts what we're taught about the Conservation of Matter and Energy.
Very complicated; all of it. Far more science than faith.
Either way, Evolution and ID are both Theories...so no way to answer the poll the way it's worded, in my opinion.
I've spoken of this before and a key issue is how you define Intelligent Design. In the Wikipedia link that Ben provides, it defines intelligent design as an opposition to natural selection. It seems to assume that the designer is still tinkering with its design. That definition of ID is purely a religious one and has no business being taught as a science.
However, the second link refers to William Paley's theory, that the complexity of an object infers an intelligent designer. This theory comes closer to my own views on this issue.
I believe in intelligent design. As a deist, I believe that an intelligent force created the universe, setting up certain natural laws of physics and biology. But I also believe in evolution and natural selection. I do not see how these two beliefs come into conflict. There is a complex set of relations and natural laws that clearly exist in our universe. But there is also sufficent scientific evidence that current state of biological life on this planet evolved over the millenia. But where is the conflict? If an intelligent force created these natural laws, why isn't evolution one of them? Why couldn't the designer have set things up to see how the world would evolve based on the rules that were instituted?
So, the real answer depends on HOW you teach ID. Unfortunately, most of those who promote it do so as a religious argument to support the existence of a god and, more importantly as a way to disprove Darwin. In my view there is no scientific basis for such a teaching so I have to vote No on the poll. But if ID is taught as a way to explain the complexity of the universe, as a adjunct to the science behind natural selection, then I would go along with it.
Evolution is rightfully called the Theory of Evolution. It is a Theory.
So is gravity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickj
As is ID.
No, it is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickj
And if we take "fll blown" evolution to it's logical conclusion, then we must deny a 1st cause altogether - which contradicts what we're taught about the Conservation of Matter and Energy.
....Could you go into greater detail about that....?
The original question was whether Intelligent Design should be taught as science. Whether you believe in it or not, you have to accept that since Intelligent Design was not developed using the scientific method, it is not science. If you do not use the scientific method, it is not science. If it's not science, it shouldn't be taught in a science class. It's that simple.
Teach religion in church, that is what church is for.
If nobody knows for sure what happened way back when most humans will fill in the blanks and then find all sorts of reasons to support whatever position they choose.Are any of these ideas scientific fact ?No,but the court of public opinion acts like it tho'.In lue of facts any opinion will do.The way I see it ID,creation ,evolution do not contradict each other,and they can only be looked on as somebodies opinion,to be shared and debated by all.
One of our greatest astronomer's,Sir Fred Hoyle,who coined the phrase,"The Big Bang",advocated the "steady state" theory - that the universe had no beginning but new galaxies were formed as others moved apart.
Sir Fred also rejected Darwin's theory of evolution, putting forward the so-called Panspermia Theory, which suggests that life, or the building blocks of life, could be carried to planets by comets or drifting interstellar dust particles.He believed it had all been arranged by a super-intelligent civilisation who wished to seed our planet.
Personally,you only have to look at a new born baby,as I did when witnessing the birth of my now five year old son,to see how wonderful,and amazing life is.To say we are here by "luck",in my opinion,is nonsense.And by the way,I am agnostic in my belief.
Either way, Evolution and ID are both Theories...so no way to answer the poll the way it's worded, in my opinion.
Theory:
the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
There is only one fact that supports ID in any of its forms. That fact is the complexity of nature. But its still a question of belief that such complexity has to be the result of an intelligent being. Ergo, ID cannot be a Theory since it doesn't stem from the analysis of a set of interrelating facts. Evolution, on the contrary, does have a number of interrelating facts; fossil evidence, biolgical similiarites between species, etc. These facts are what led Darwin to his theory to explain those facts.
ID cannot be taught as a science since there is absolutely no scientific basis for it. It is simply a belief based on logic, not fact.
Intelligent Design is nothing less then warmed over creationism. Another end run by the religious right to introduce religion in the class room. Another oxymoron that died before it got off the launching pad is creation science.
All involve a creator and guess who that is? Having absolutely no way to prove any of their claims the religionists attempt to attack science. But that proves rather difficult since science is based of facts and intelligent design/creationism/ creation science is based on faith and belief. And as much as the religionists protest, faith and belief can never be , and never can become knowledge. I'll debate knowledge against belief any day of the year. And in case any body missed it I'm a atheist. Cheers, Tom
I have a lot of sources downloaded at school showing how ID is a science. It has been proven through DNA and it's complexity and design. Unfortunately this week is a holiday week and i have no school and am going home. So i can't give them to you, i'll look for them though.
Linear Mode
