Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask

View Poll Results: Should ID be taught as Science

Voters
15. You may not vote on this poll
  • YES

    6 40.00%
  • NO

    7 46.67%
  • UNDECIDED

    2 13.33%
    Curlyben's Avatar
    Curlyben Posts: 18,512, Reputation: 1860
    BossMan
     
    #1

    Nov 21, 2005, 08:29 AM
    Intelligent Design & Evolution
    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 itís the best we have.
    ID has it place in Religious Studies NOT in science.


    Now I am looking for some reasoned arguments here NOT just opinionated mudslinging
    RickJ's Avatar
    RickJ Posts: 7,762, Reputation: 864
    Uber Member
     
    #2

    Nov 21, 2005, 09:16 AM
    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.
    ScottGem's Avatar
    ScottGem Posts: 64,966, Reputation: 6056
    Computer Expert and Renaissance Man
     
    #3

    Nov 21, 2005, 09:46 AM
    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 sufficient scientific evidence that current state of biological life on this planet evolved over the millennia. 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.

    Scott<>
    psi42's Avatar
    psi42 Posts: 599, Reputation: 13
    Senior Member
     
    #4

    Nov 21, 2005, 09:57 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by rickj
    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.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #5

    Nov 21, 2005, 10:23 AM
    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. :cool: :cool:
    Nez's Avatar
    Nez Posts: 557, Reputation: 51
    Senior Member
     
    #6

    Nov 21, 2005, 10:24 AM
    Beam me up Scotty
    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.
    ScottGem's Avatar
    ScottGem Posts: 64,966, Reputation: 6056
    Computer Expert and Renaissance Man
     
    #7

    Nov 21, 2005, 10:36 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by rickj
    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.

    Scott<>
    Curlyben's Avatar
    Curlyben Posts: 18,512, Reputation: 1860
    BossMan
     
    #8

    Nov 21, 2005, 12:40 PM
    Comment on Nez's post
    I agree especially with the likes of Aztecs and Egytian empires
    speedball1's Avatar
    speedball1 Posts: 29,301, Reputation: 1939
    Eternal Plumber
     
    #9

    Nov 21, 2005, 01:16 PM
    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
    RickJ's Avatar
    RickJ Posts: 7,762, Reputation: 864
    Uber Member
     
    #10

    Nov 21, 2005, 02:49 PM
    No one can show us proof of either, so adherants of either should not throw stones.
    SSchultz0956's Avatar
    SSchultz0956 Posts: 121, Reputation: 10
    Junior Member
     
    #11

    Nov 21, 2005, 04:16 PM
    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.
    Curlyben's Avatar
    Curlyben Posts: 18,512, Reputation: 1860
    BossMan
     
    #12

    Nov 21, 2005, 04:58 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by SSchultz0956
    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.
    Until you can back up what you are saying with some facts please please DON'T refer to ID as science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
    sci∑ence Audio pronunciation of "science" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
    n.

    1.
    1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
    2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
    3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
    2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
    3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
    4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
    SSchultz0956's Avatar
    SSchultz0956 Posts: 121, Reputation: 10
    Junior Member
     
    #13

    Nov 21, 2005, 05:01 PM
    ... the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 10 to the [40,000 exponent] to one [according to Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space,1981]. This is true, but highly misleading. DNA did not assemble purely by chance. It assembled by a combination of chance and the laws of physics. Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the short span of six billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to keep atoms and molecules together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life stuck to the surface of the earth.
    --Victor J. Stenger

    BTW scotty, I did this one with as little emotion as possible just for you!

    Here's one of the websites: (if this is being discussed in a week still, I'll post the others)http://www.origins.org/articles/thaxton_dnadesign.html

    I'll give a quick abstract:
    The main argument is based on two different kinds of order. This doctor and others I have read use this as a simple example:

    "Let's explain these two kinds of order in greater detail. As you travel through various parts of the United States, you may come across unusual rock formations. If you consult a tourists' guide, you will learn that such shapes result when more than one type of rock make up the formation. Because their mineral composition varies, some rocks are softer than others. Rain and wind erode the soft parts of the formation faster than the hard parts, leaving the harder sections protruding. In this way, the formation may take on an unlikely shape. It may even come to resemble a familiar object like a face.

    In other words, the formation may look as though it was deliberately carved. However, on closer inspection, say from a different angle, you notice the resemblance is only superficial. The shape invariably accords with what erosion can do, acting on the natural qualities of the rock (soft parts worn away, hard parts protruding). You therefore conclude the rock formed naturally. Natural forces suffice to account for the shape you see.

    Now let's illustrate a different kind of order. Say in your travels you visit Mount Rushmore. Here you find four faces on a granite cliff. These faces do not follow the natural composition of the rock: the chip marks{14} cut across both hard and soft sections. These shapes do not resemble anything you have seen resulting from erosion. In this case the shape of the rock is not the result of natural processes. Rather, you infer from uniform experience that an artisan has been at work. The four faces were intelligently imposed onto the material.

    None of us finds it difficult to distinguish between these two kinds of order, the one produced naturally and the other by intelligence. To come back to the argument from design, the question is: which kind of order do we find in nature?"

    Proponents for ID go on to say that the difference is between random and complex orders. E. Coli has enough "letters of sequence" in it's DNA to fill more books than in the largest library in the world, and if just one "letter" is off, than it isn't E. COli. Random structures need very little instructions. THey said it's like a book that says "i love you" over and over again. However, one complex structure has many instructions, it's like programing a computer.

    ID doesn't contradict evolution, but rather they are bound together. Design precedes adaptation. THe design for DNA is such that after it's set in place, evolution will take it's place. WHen Darwin (who originally supported ID until the death of his daughter who was 9 years old) theorized evolution, he knew practically nothing if anything of DNA. THis one thing [DNA] demonstrate what design is. Evolution demonstrates the result of design.

    ID and Evolution must be taught side by side, it can be done in a secular way. ID doesn't make reference to GOD, just an organism that has progressed beyond us. It could be the result of man evolving in another galaxy to the point that they found ways of designing life. It could have been deity, or other things. As we can see there are many ways to look at ID.

    I personally support both. I do think they are tied together. Obviously, my belief is also that it wasn't some other type of organism but GOd who designed us. That part is the only non-secular part of the ID v. evolution theory.
    ScottGem's Avatar
    ScottGem Posts: 64,966, Reputation: 6056
    Computer Expert and Renaissance Man
     
    #14

    Nov 21, 2005, 05:10 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by rickj
    No one can show us proof of either, so adherants of either should not throw stones.
    That's not the point! Whether there is conclusive proof one way or the other isn't the issue. The issue is whether ID has any scientific basis so it could be taught as a science. I can't see how there can be ANY scientific evidence. If there was, it would have been found long ago. I said it before, ID can only be inferred by logic, not science. And then you have to believe in the logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by SSchultz0956
    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.
    Oh I have to see this. I'm sure it will be most amusing. Are any of those sources not from religious or creationists groups? I would doubt it.

    Scott<>
    SSchultz0956's Avatar
    SSchultz0956 Posts: 121, Reputation: 10
    Junior Member
     
    #15

    Nov 21, 2005, 05:13 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottGem
    That's not the point! Whether there is conclusive proof one way or the other isn't the issue. The issue is whether ID has any scientific basis so it could be taught as a science. I can't see how there can be ANY scientific evidence. If there was, it would have been found long ago. I said it before, ID can only be inferred by logic, not science. And then you have to believe in the logic.



    Oh I have to see this. I'm sure it will be most amusing. Are any of those sources not from religious or creationists groups? I would doubt it.

    Scott<>
    I don't know why you keep saying this, it's obvious that every study out there is PARTISAN!! It's either from the liberal or conseravtive media, or it's from the darwanists and creationists. THere is no middle ground now adays. Your open-mindedness is killing me. Actually... you are sounding awfully close-minded all of sudden scotty.
    SSchultz0956's Avatar
    SSchultz0956 Posts: 121, Reputation: 10
    Junior Member
     
    #16

    Nov 21, 2005, 05:15 PM
    QUESTION: If everything came from a single-celled organism, where did the design for the organism come from?
    RickJ's Avatar
    RickJ Posts: 7,762, Reputation: 864
    Uber Member
     
    #17

    Nov 21, 2005, 05:44 PM
    One says

    Whether this is "scientific" or not is a very important part of the point.

    The poll asks "should it be taught...".

    Well, it isn't taught at all. So isn't asking if it should be taught as a science, about as valid as asking if the wheels on submarines ought to be 12" or 16"?

    The theory that there is no God and that we can find a "natural" explanation for everything is at the root of most of what "is taught".

    ... so much of this is just word games.

    Science, not science. Who cares?

    Proof lacking, the real question is whether it's more reasonable to be for or against I.D.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #18

    Nov 21, 2005, 05:50 PM
    Since no one knows teach it all and discuss it,knowing its only a debate.TADA! :p
    jduke44's Avatar
    jduke44 Posts: 407, Reputation: 44
    Full Member
     
    #19

    Nov 21, 2005, 05:54 PM
    Comment on talaniman's post
    Nice! This sums it up
    ScottGem's Avatar
    ScottGem Posts: 64,966, Reputation: 6056
    Computer Expert and Renaissance Man
     
    #20

    Nov 21, 2005, 06:36 PM
    Is that according to Hoyle? (sorry couldn't resist). I've read previously what Hoyle had to say. But its nothing more than his opinion. There is no scientific basis for it. Personally I agree with him. Logically, the complexity of nature would suggest that natural laws just didn't happen by chance. But is there any scientific evidence to support it? No!

    As to the abstract, that says pretty much the same thing I've been saying. But I don't like the analogy. It assumes that there is some guiding hand that applied the forces of erosion to shape the natural formation. I don't believe that. I believe that the intelligent force setup the rules and forces by which erosion occurs, but that the results of erosion are by chance.

    Scott<>

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search


Check out some similar questions!

Evolution [ 9 Answers ]

As I understand it, according to Evolution Theory, in the vast passage of time in the past a species has gradually evolved (and will evolve in future) into another species when (1) the instinct to survive has "warned" a species that its survival was doomed through rise of some hostile element in...

Evolution [ 2 Answers ]

As I understand it, according to Evolution Theory, in the vast passage of time in the past a species has gradually evolved (and will evolve in future) into another species when (1) the instinct to survive has "warned" a species that its survival was doomed through rise of some hostile element in...

Human Evolution [ 29 Answers ]

If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes on this earth? Why didn't they evolve?

How would finding intelligent Life on other planets effect Religious beliefs? [ 62 Answers ]

This has been touched on in a few threads from time to time. I am interested to hear some different point of views on this. If we were to discover intelligent Life on another planet, how would that effect religious beliefs? Does it help to prove or disprove certain religions?

Intelligent design [ 2 Answers ]

Hey, I have a question . Please help me on it: Stephen jay Gould thought the best way to argue against intelligent design as the origin of modern flora and fauma was to focus on such oddities of nature as a whale fetus's developping and then dissolving a comlpete set for teeth, in contrast...


View more questions Search