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.

OK now time for some back up to my position:
Overview 1
Overview 2
Dover Legal Case 1
Dover Lagal Case 2
The Vaticans Response
Sweet Irony
Comment

Now I am looking for some reasoned arguments here NOT just opinionated mudslinging

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 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<>

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.

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:

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.

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<>

I agree especially with the likes of Aztecs and Egytian empires

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

No one can show us proof of either, so adherants of either should not throw stones.

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.

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.

---

... 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.

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<>

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.

QUESTION: If everything came from a single-celled organism, where did the design for the organism come from?

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.

Since no one knows teach it all and discuss it,knowing its only a debate.TADA! :p

Nice! This sums it up

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<>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Since no one knows teach it all and discuss it,knowing its only a debate.TADA!! :p

---

There is no debate.

This is about a few people making a lot of noise.

Everyone seems to be missing the point. It doesn't matter what you believe. What matters is that you can recognize what is science and what is not.

If it doesn't utilize the scientific method, it is not science.

In a science class, you do not "discuss" things that are not science. You discuss science. Intelligent design is not science. Therefore, you shouldn't discuss intelligent design in a science class.

All _real_ scientists, regardless of their personal beliefs, know that creationism is not science. If you think creationism is science, then you are not a scientist.
As a side note, if you regularly use the phrase "just a theory" or don't know the difference between a theory, a fact, and a hypothesis, you aren't a scientist either.

In other words, people who actually know what they are talking about know that creationism has no place in a science class.

I feel like I am repeating myself over and over and you guys don't seem to get it. I don't care what you believe, I care about science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickj

Science, not science. Who cares?

---

Because it is important to teach children the difference between the scientific method and faith. If you cloud the distinction, and teach intelligent design as science, you are going to undermine human progress for the last three hundred years.

And, on top of that, do you honestly think real universities are going to accept "Creationist Biology" as a prerequisite for college-level life science classes? You'd have to be out of your mind if you think this sort of thing will prepare children for medical school.


psi42

I believe in God and everything all around us is his Will.My understanding of Him will come as I grow to understand the universe around me.If I had to wait for science to explain all that is unknown I would be lost.So the best I can do is Believe and pray for guidance and understanding.I'll keep living and learning. :cool: :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

If I had to wait for science to explain all that is unknown I would be lost.

---

Some of us like that feeling. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SSchultz0956

QUESTION: If everything came from a single-celled organism, where did the design for the organism come from?

---

Lets put that another way:

Which came first the chicken or the egg ?

I agree with scott and the psi42, ID can't be taught as a science because you use logic in trying to explain it instead of cold hard facts, and any kind of science has studies that have been done to prove it or at least create theories. And psi is totally right when saying if it doesn't use the scientific method then it isn't science, so all in all, is ID a science no, could it be taught sure, would it be interesting, who knows?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wizzkid89

...ID can't be taught as a science because you use logic in trying to explain it instead of cold hard facts...

---

I'm not quite sure I can grasp the idea that flew through my mind right now, but I'll say what I can and you try to clarify it for me.

Mathematics is a science (at least it's in Science part of this forum). There are "things" in mathematics that do not exist (well, most of mathematics is just ideas), but you can explain them. You make axioms and use logic to explain some imaginary "objects" you just "created" (which could once be used to calculate something that physicians could use to create something). Does it make mathematics un-scientific? I know that you could call those "proofs" you make about such objects (that come from logical thinking) "cold hard facts", but those "facts" are based on axioms - if you change axioms, you change the "facts". If you change what you believe in, you can change the logical order of thinking that comes from such beliefs.

This post is so confusing and it has nothing to do with ID, I know, but I just don't agree with the quoted text.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

If I had to wait for science to explain all that is unknown I would be lost.

---

I bet you don't know how a nuclear reactor works or a hydroelectric power plant but yet you can still use the electricity all around you. All this is provided to you through the benefits of science. You aren't lost really, you just don't need to understand that part in order to live your life. If you are trying to understand everything around you then how do you make it through a day?

You are correct.I found at a young age I could function in this world by accepting certain things for what they are and use them.even though this is a confusing post I still believe that it is important to debate the concept of ID.To be honest Why can't God be a superscientist who designed all things to work just as they appear to us?We are just to dumb(or not smart enough)to figure it out. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Why can't God be a superscientist who designed all things

---

This is the main problem with ID is that it is getting confused with Creationism.

So where does FAITH come it to all this?

As has been previously posted, the start of life on Earth could be due to an alien "seed" brought here from another planet. Why does there have to be any supreme being involved at all ?

Till we know for sure all we can do is talk and one idea is as good as another so call it anything you want its just an opinion not science. :cool:

Here's something thought provoking and ridiculous at the same time (more ridiculous than provocative):

It was stated earlier that logic can't be prove science. Humor me. Let's say there is no such thing as gravity. This sounds ridiculous to all of us including me. What if, however, there was no such gravity, what if everything in the universe was constantly doubling in size. It's stupid, I know, but just think about it for a second. What if the rate of speed of things dropping is just the rate at which things grow. It's not true, but think what if certain things in science we and everybody in the world accepts, but isn't true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SSchultz0956

Here's something thought provoking and rediculous at the same time (more rediculous than provocative):

It was stated earlier that logic can't be prove science. Humor me. Let's say there is no such thing as gravity. This sounds rediculous to all of us including me. What if, however, there was no such gravity, what if everything in the universe was constantly doubling in size. It's stupid, i know, but just think about it for a second. What if the rate of speed of things dropping is just the rate at which things grow. It's not true, but think what if certain things in science we and everybody in the world accepts, but isn't true.

---

Your arguments are facetious. The point is gravity is a physical law provable extremely easy. Try jumping and see if you stay in the air. Physics is a science because physical laws can be proven using establish experimentation. There is no amount of experimentation that can prove ID. The closest you can come is trying to prove a negative. You can prove that the odds of the complexity of DNA occurring by chance is extremely high, but you can't prove its impossible. That would be trying to prove a negative.

Scott<>

Hi,
I am reminded of the joke about the Law of Gravity.
A small boy said in class, "if there wasn't a Law, then there would be no Gravity".

If there weren't laws against "church and state", then there would be Intelligent Design, taught in any subject area a school board chooses. But, according to the following quote, it's becoming "outlawed": From Nov. 5, 2005:

"by Amy Worden
Philadelphia Inquirer

Intelligent design will soon be history in Dover Area High School science classes, following an election that is reverberating around the country.

Voters on Tuesday ousted eight of the nine members of the school board, currently defendants in the first lawsuit over the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. Replacing them is a bipartisan slate of "pro-evolution" candidates who say intelligent design, with its biblical leanings, has no place in the high school biology curriculum.

The victory for Darwin's theory, the undisputed foundation of modern biology, in the York County school district came on the same day the Kansas State Board of Education approved public school science standards that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.

"The Dover election is a real shot across the bow to school boards anticipating passing these policies," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, a group dedicated to defending evolution."

Faith is again, out the window in public schools, for the time being. Deciding which subject area to teach ID is somewhat mute now. History has a way of repeating itself, and eventually will reappear.

That's American democracy at work. Although the article seemed a little biased.

Thank you for your points Fred.

As I have said all along, I don't think that the teaching of ID is a problem.
The problem is which subject to teach it in !

As the Dover farce has shown, if they had recommended it be taught as Religious Studies, there wouldn't of been a problem. As they insisted as teaching it as science that is how the out cry started and to insist on taking their case to court as well has annoyed a lot of people.

As normal, if a contensious subject is handle with tact then you will succeed, otherwise it is doomed to failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fredg

Faith is again, out the window in public schools, for the time being. Deciding which subject area to teach ID is somewhat mute now. History has a way of repeating itself, and eventually will reappear.

---

Your hypocrisy is showing again, Fred. You have previously supported the will of the majority. Well that's what happened in Dover. As Need said, "democracy at work".

Faith SHOULD be out in PUBLIC schools. Faith is a religious subject, it should be taught in religious institutions and/or in the home.

And I think you meant "moot", though "mute", is what I hope the proponents of ID as a science become.

Scott<>

Hi,
It would be nice, for a change, to read something from ScottGem without his usual condemnation of a personal nature.
"Water off a duck's back" is the term. Or, should I say a Turkey's back?
Happy Thanksgiving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fredg

Hi,
It would be nice, for a change, to read something from ScottGem without his usual condemnation of a personal nature.
"Water off a duck's back" is the term. Or, should I say a Turkey's back?
Happy Thanksgiving.

---

Fred, Fred, Fred, We have been over this so many times before.
I've mentioned several times about your penchant for false generalizations. The fact is that my responses rarely include a "condemnation of a personal nature". But sometimes, when a comment is so off the wall, its hard
To condemn what one has written without condemning the person writing it. But I try to restrict my comments to what was actually said.

And your writings here WERE hypocritical. On the one hand you have supported the will of the majority, but when that majority will is exercised you complain about it because it doesn't fit your desires.

Scott<>

Probably should put this elsewhere,but as I "know" most of the other members who have responded to this thread,I thought you might like to view this link (with apologies to Curlyben for "wrecking" his original post),to Carl Sagan.Even here in the UK,years after his death,he is still respected amongst the scientific community.As a kid,here in the UK, I remember watching many interesting programs that he hosted for the BBC:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/sagan.html

His views on alien civillisations,time travel,plus many others,are interesting to read.There's even an audio link,to the right of the page,so you can hear the great man's thoughts yourselves.You'l need to have RealAudio installed to hear Mr Sagan.
At the bottom of the page are more useful links,to more wonders of life,the universe,etc. :D

No worries Nez, an excellent post.
Doesn't really address the point I'm trying to make, but opens other avenues of discussion.
As I mentioned earlier, why does the 'designer' have to be God, in any form.

I love the Hitchhickers Guide explanation of the Great Green Arcleseizure (sp) and sneezing the whole universe into existence ;)