Should Intelligent Design be taught in schools?

[MrFungus420]

I think intelligent design could be taught in schools but not as a science class. It should be taught as a humanities or philosophy class and should not be required.

That would be fine, or in something a comparative religion class.

I really believe that if taught in schools, it would hurt Christianity more than help it. Students would see that there is no evidence to support ID and when biology class shows them a theory that does have tons of evidence, they will choose evolution. It is probably in the best interest of ID supporters to not push it.

Ooooh, I never thought about that. Very good point! :bravo:

 

[MrFungus420]

So, how is it predictive? Furthermore, according to the definition from Wikipedia you posted, it is inherent to the definition of a theory.

Here are some examples (from: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html):

-Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).
-Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).
-Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
-Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).
-Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).
-Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).
-Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).

That is not a test, that is what they believe to be evidence, they have not tested to see if evolution exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
"Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks."

The evidence is an attempt to prove the theory not an attempt to disprove, therefore not an acceptable test. If it could survive such a test, it would be a proper theory. But it can't survive a test b/c it can't be tested.

Nope, it could be falsified. A few examples (from: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html ):

-a static fossil record;
-true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs);
-a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
-observations of organisms being created.

So, it is both predictive and falsifiable.

 

[Vandeervecken]

Well, there is much debate over whether evolution qualifies as a theory.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm

There is no debate whatsoever in the scientific community as to the validity of evolution as a theory. Sorry. That is simply a fact.

 

[hipsterdufus]

For example, look at the flu virus. The only reason that we need new flu shots every year is because of Evolution.

I heard that on the Colbert Report the other day in an interview with Kenneth Miller. Miller said that everyone who gets a flu shot should sign an affidavit stating that they must believe in evolution if they want the shot. (Tongue planted firmly in cheek, but true)

Here's a link:
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002773.html

 

[Engimo]

I heard that on the Colbert Report the other day in an interview with Kenneth Miller. Miller said that everyone who gets a flu shot should sign an affidavit stating that they must believe in evolution if they want the shot. (Tongue planted firmly in cheek, but true)

Here's a link:
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002773.html

That's fine with me. I find it tremendously hypocritical that Creationists and other religious people that reject the viability of science when it is talking about Evolution have no problem taking advantage of all of the beneficial advances that science has given us. You don't see Creationists rejecting Quantum Mechanics (which is the basis for all computing and modern electronics) or antibiotics, do you?

It's a very convenient rejection of the scientific method - only when they percieve it to conflict with their religious views.

 

[TopherC]

So you are trying to tell me, that you base the origin of all life on earth on some test on yeast (which the experiment is called an adaptation, not evolution) and enzymes?

I think in a way this is the amazing thing about science. Having a formal logical structure enables scientists to extrapolate from the mundane to the grandiose. So yes, tests like this do bear on the question of the origin of all life on Earth. I think that's the reason science has been so successful. These days physicists are refining (testing) theories at various extremes, in what might seem to be extravagantly mundane ways! Do I really care about the dynamics of how heavy mesons, things that hardly even exist in nature, decay after pico-, femto-, or even yoctoseconds? Yes, because this is the level at which various new physical theories are expected to diverge from each other.

Well, that's what's amazing about science. But I think it's also very misunderstood, as people debating ID in schools seem to put too much confidence in science. Science provides very powerful methods for disproving theories, but is incapable of proving anything. Even Newton's "Laws" (still called that today) were falsified. It took about 350 years, but it happened. (They are still extremely valuable since they are an excelent approximation in most cases and a great deal of knowledge exists on how to apply Newton's laws -- Lagrangian dynamics, Hamilton's method, the principle of least action -- these are some of the powerful calculational techniques developed from Newton's laws. But don't forget that they are not actually true.) The scientist most needs to be able to distance themself from their own valued ideas and theories. Because they must be as unbiased as possible when they put their own favorite theory on the chopping block and have at it.

So I agree with Alex's original post here, that ID could be taught in a different subject in school, but should not be taught by science teachers. At best it can be classified as an "interpretation" of evolutionary theory. I feel that in many, even most situations, teaching ID in school at all would not benefit those who support it. Like it or not, kids learn a great deal at home. And if ID is really a fundamental part of a particular religion, then it can definitely be taught in the church.

At the same time, a good science teacher will place emphasis on the scientific process. It should be made clear that evolution, like any other theory, has not been "proven." It has been quite successful in many ways, and it even has a few challenges. I think there are still gaps in the archaeological record which could be viewed as new places to gather data and help test the theory. And modeling the predicted rate of evolution is a difficult work in progress.

Finally, while the scientific process can sound very straight-forward, it rarely is. Falsification requires reproduceable tests, because experimental techniques can be rightly criticized. Also forming predictions based on the theory is not always easy, and brings room for debate. I imagine that's particularly true of evolution.

 

[Peralin]

It seems to me that the answer to this question is very simple. Before anything is typed into a science book, this question should be asked: Is it supported by scientific research? The answer should be a "yes", or it should not be in a science book.

And ID is not supported by science. I have no idea why so many peoplebelieve in it. It is as much supported by science as is the ancient Greek creation story, or the Native Americans' creation stories. The only evidence for ID is the Bible. So why would i be taught in a science class?

However, I'd have no problem including it in a World Religions class or Philosophy class, as Alex said. But becuase it is not supported by science, it should not be taught in a science course.

 

[Gardener]

Perhaps I am a bit of a semanticist at heart, but I don't think I.D. should be *taought*. That particular word involves a degree of sanctioning IMO. I don't see any reason why it cannot be discussed, however, and as long as it isn't paraded about as science. Seems to me, though, that if such ideas are discussed at all, they are almost better suited for a physics/cosmology course if discussioned in conjunction with the sciences, or else in a philosophy/theology type course.

As far as those who think that science and religion are irreconcilable, I would say this is a product of hubris as well as limited imagination. Who is to say that scientists are not revealing the mechanisms by which God operates? Why do people create their God in such a limited way? Seems to me that any God capable of creating the heavens and Earth could also fiddle about with the resulting creations, and so there is no reason for evolution to be incompatable with science.

From the standpoint of science, I would also ask whether those who are most strident in their opinions that there is no room for any discussion as to intelligent design might be a bit closed minded as well. Is the thought of God so threatening to the foundations of science that any mention must be expunged from the classroom? In this, I would ask those who insist there is no God to prove God does not exist and to use scientific methods to do so. One can certainly make claims there is no evidence that God exists, but that is a far different matter than proving God does not exist.

Seems to me that classrooms should be avenues through which minds are opened rather than closed, and from either side of the debate there are those who would close rather than open. Throughout history there have always been boundries demarking the line between our understanding of the physical universe and our concepts of its creation, and as we gain understanding of physical universe, the line shift accordingly. By the same token, we need to acknowlege that there *is* a line between what we understand and what we do not understand and be open to the notion that we cannot claim to know that which we do not yet know. IMO, The question "does God Exist" is just as applicable in discussions of science as it is philosophy or theology because of these boundries.

 

[Gardener]

Perhaps I am a bit of a semanticist at heart, but I don't think I.D. should be *taught*. That particular word involves a degree of sanctioning IMO. I don't see any reason why it cannot be discussed, however, and as long as it isn't paraded about as science. Seems to me, though, that if such ideas are discussed at all, they are almost better suited for a physics/cosmology course if discussioned in conjunction with the sciences, or else in a philosophy/theology type course.

As far as those who think that science and religion are irreconcilable, I would say this is a product of hubris as well as limited imagination. Who is to say that scientists are not revealing the mechanisms by which God operates? Why do people create their God in such a limited way? Seems to me that any God capable of creating the heavens and Earth could also fiddle about with the resulting creations, and so there is no reason for evolution to be incompatable with religion.

From the standpoint of science, I would also ask whether those who are most strident in their opinions that there is no room for any discussion as to intelligent design might be a bit closed minded as well. Is the thought of God so threatening to the foundations of science that any mention must be expunged from the classroom? In this, I would ask those who insist there is no God to prove God does not exist and to use scientific methods to do so. One can certainly make claims there is no evidence that God exists, but that is a far different matter than proving God does not exist.

Seems to me that classrooms should be avenues through which minds are opened rather than closed, and from either side of the debate there are those who would close rather than open. Throughout history there have always been boundries demarking the line between our understanding of the physical universe and our concepts of its creation, and as we gain understanding of physical universe, the line shift accordingly. By the same token, we need to acknowlege that there *is* a line between what we understand and what we do not understand and be open to the notion that we cannot claim to know that which we do not yet know. IMO, The question "does God Exist" is just as applicable in discussions of science as it is philosophy or theology because of these boundries.

sorry -- couldn't figure out how to edit. This is the edited version.

 

[MrFungus420]

From the standpoint of science, I would also ask whether those who are most strident in their opinions that there is no room for any discussion as to intelligent design might be a bit closed minded as well.

Why would you call it closed minded? There is no evidence to support ID. There is no evidence to support the existence of a god. There is nothing about creationism/ID to put it outside the realm of a religious story.

Is the thought of God so threatening to the foundations of science that any mention must be expunged from the classroom?

If the class is about religion or mythology, then the mention of a god is valid. If the class is a science class, then the gods have no part of it.

In this, I would ask those who insist there is no God to prove God does not exist and to use scientific methods to do so. One can certainly make claims there is no evidence that God exists, but that is a far different matter than proving God does not exist.

True enough, but which is the more logical position, the one saying that something exists for which there is no evidence, or the position saying that the belief in something for which there is no evidence is wrong?

Seems to me that classrooms should be avenues through which minds are opened rather than closed, and from either side of the debate there are those who would close rather than open. Throughout history there have always been boundries demarking the line between our understanding of the physical universe and our concepts of its creation, and as we gain understanding of physical universe, the line shift accordingly. By the same token, we need to acknowlege that there *is* a line between what we understand and what we do not understand and be open to the notion that we cannot claim to know that which we do not yet know.

And that is the position of science. It is the position of IDers/creationists that they know the answer to everything

IMO, The question "does God Exist" is just as applicable in discussions of science as it is philosophy or theology because of these boundries.

Why? As I've said, there is no evidence to support the existence of a god. Do you also think that Sant Claus, unicorns and leprechauns should be discussed in science as well?

 

[Vandeervecken]

That's fine with me. I find it tremendously hypocritical that Creationists and other religious people that reject the viability of science when it is talking about Evolution have no problem taking advantage of all of the beneficial advances that science has given us. You don't see Creationists rejecting Quantum Mechanics (which is the basis for all computing and modern electronics) or antibiotics, do you?

It's a very convenient rejection of the scientific method - only when they percieve it to conflict with their religious views.

I've never met a deeply religious person who wasn't a huge flaming hypocrite frankly.

 

[robin]

If God botherers believe 'Thou Shall not Lie' then they shouldn't want to see ID taught.

 

[Vandeervecken]

It is simple, this is a power game, truth has nothing to do with it. The Christian Fascisti will control all three branches of the federal government once Alito is sat. Now they wish to start control from the grass roots up. Woe and beware to those not in the approved religion.

 

[oracle25]

Why would you call it closed minded? There is no evidence to support ID. There is no evidence to support the existence of a god. There is nothing about creationism/ID to put it outside the realm of a religious story.

Actually there is no evidence to support evolution. The only theory which makes any sense at all id ID.

If the class is about religion or mythology, then the mention of a god is valid. If the class is a science class, then the gods have no part of it.

Science does not make sense without a designer. Therefore, discussion on some sort of higher power should be a required course in all scientific studies.

True enough, but which is the more logical position, the one saying that something exists for which there is no evidence, or the position saying that the belief in something for which there is no evidence is wrong?

Both are illogical (and virtually the same). If you mean that there is no evidence that God exists, than I would have to agree with you. Because science studies nature and God is outside of nature we cannot detect God. However, we can see evidence of his work in EVERYTHING in the universe.

And that is the position of science. It is the position of IDers/creationists that they know the answer to everything

No. We claim to know someone who knows everything.

Why? As I've said, there is no evidence to support the existence of a god. Do you also think that Sant Claus, unicorns and leprechauns should be discussed in science as well?

This is an intellectually vacant statement.

 

[oracle25]

I find it proposterous that christians are trying to get scientific recognition of God in the first place. Not only is impossible to prove anything scientific in regards to the presence of God (and any acknowledgement of God in science would be bastardizing the science, barring, of course, some sort of babbelfish), but it is also contradictory to our religious beliefs. Christianity is about faith, so trying to prove God's existance shouldn't be a concern.

Not being able to prove the existance of God has no bearing on wether or not we can see evidence of him in creation.

God also commands us to study his world, he created it for us, to show us his power.

Faith is primary, but science is something he created, so he does not conflict with it.

I can't stand christians who reject science. I am very religious, and I believe that science is a way to further understand God's creation. Ignoring how the world works claiming that it doesn't jive with the bible is ridiculous.

This is interesting coming from a person who is doing that very thing!

 

[oracle25]

If God botherers believe 'Thou Shall not Lie' then they shouldn't want to see ID taught.

An unsubstantiated straw man argument.

 

[HTColeman]

I think in a way this is the amazing thing about science. Having a formal logical structure enables scientists to extrapolate from the mundane to the grandiose. So yes, tests like this do bear on the question of the origin of all life on Earth. I think that's the reason science has been so successful. These days physicists are refining (testing) theories at various extremes, in what might seem to be extravagantly mundane ways! Do I really care about the dynamics of how heavy mesons, things that hardly even exist in nature, decay after pico-, femto-, or even yoctoseconds? Yes, because this is the level at which various new physical theories are expected to diverge from each other.

Well, that's what's amazing about science. But I think it's also very misunderstood, as people debating ID in schools seem to put too much confidence in science. Science provides very powerful methods for disproving theories, but is incapable of proving anything. Even Newton's "Laws" (still called that today) were falsified. It took about 350 years, but it happened. (They are still extremely valuable since they are an excelent approximation in most cases and a great deal of knowledge exists on how to apply Newton's laws -- Lagrangian dynamics, Hamilton's method, the principle of least action -- these are some of the powerful calculational techniques developed from Newton's laws. But don't forget that they are not actually true.) The scientist most needs to be able to distance themself from their own valued ideas and theories. Because they must be as unbiased as possible when they put their own favorite theory on the chopping block and have at it.

I can respect that, honestly, I think we would have to agree to disagree at that point. But I can understand your point of view.

So I agree with Alex's original post here, that ID could be taught in a different subject in school, but should not be taught by science teachers. At best it can be classified as an "interpretation" of evolutionary theory. I feel that in many, even most situations, teaching ID in school at all would not benefit those who support it. Like it or not, kids learn a great deal at home. And if ID is really a fundamental part of a particular religion, then it can definitely be taught in the church.

At the same time, a good science teacher will place emphasis on the scientific process. It should be made clear that evolution, like any other theory, has not been "proven." It has been quite successful in many ways, and it even has a few challenges. I think there are still gaps in the archaeological record which could be viewed as new places to gather data and help test the theory. And modeling the predicted rate of evolution is a difficult work in progress.

Finally, while the scientific process can sound very straight-forward, it rarely is. Falsification requires reproduceable tests, because experimental techniques can be rightly criticized. Also forming predictions based on the theory is not always easy, and brings room for debate. I imagine that's particularly true of evolution.

I don't think ID should be taught in schools, however to that same point, I don't think evolution should be taught as fact (as it often is). It is a theory and it may or may not be right. When it all boils down, one must have a degree of belief in evolution. It is not like gravity, and should not be taught as such.

That's fine with me. I find it tremendously hypocritical that Creationists and other religious people that reject the viability of science when it is talking about Evolution have no problem taking advantage of all of the beneficial advances that science has given us. You don't see Creationists rejecting Quantum Mechanics (which is the basis for all computing and modern electronics) or antibiotics, do you?

It's a very convenient rejection of the scientific method - only when they percieve it to conflict with their religious views.

I am responding to this not b/c of my religious beliefs, but because I hate stereotypes. Is it hypocritical for someone who votes democrat to agree with something Bush says? No, and in the same way it is not hypocritical to be a Christian and to believe in some, or even the majority of scientific views. I mean think about it, you (most likely) believe in some of the same things Christians believe in, don't steal, don't murder, children respect your parents, the golden rule, etc. Is that hypocritical? Or just common sense?

 

[Engimo]

Actually there is no evidence to support evolution. The only theory which makes any sense at all id ID.

Oracle, I honestly cannot continue this mockery of a debate. You are willfully ignorant and dogmatically adherent to your support of something that can, at best, be considered a marginal pseudoscience. In light of all evidence and with a total disregard of the consensus of the entire scientific community, you maintain claims ("Evolution has no evidence") that can be disproven in about 10 seconds of research.

You cannot be reasoned with.

 

[oracle25]

It is simple, this is a power game, truth has nothing to do with it. The Christian Fascisti will control all three branches of the federal government once Alito is sat. Now they wish to start control from the grass roots up. Woe and beware to those not in the approved religion.

Yeah, if that were true we would have killed you guys off 140 years ago.

 

[oracle25]

Oracle, I honestly cannot continue this mockery of a debate. You are willfully ignorant and dogmatically adherent to your support of something that can, at best, be considered a marginal pseudoscience. In light of all evidence and with a total disregard of the consensus of the entire scientific community, you maintain claims ("Evolution has no evidence") that can be disproven in about 10 seconds of research.

You cannot be reasoned with.

Bold words from sombody who believes flu shots are evidence of evolution.

 

[Engimo]

I don't think ID should be taught in schools, however to that same point, I don't think evolution should be taught as fact (as it often is). It is a theory and it may or may not be right. When it all boils down, one must have a degree of belief in evolution. It is not like gravity, and should not be taught as such.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a scientific "theory" actually is. The statement that something is "just" a theory is meaningless in science.

I am responding to this not b/c of my religious beliefs, but because I hate stereotypes. Is it hypocritical for someone who votes democrat to agree with something Bush says? No, and in the same way it is not hypocritical to be a Christian and to believe in some, or even the majority of scientific views. I mean think about it, you (most likely) believe in some of the same things Christians believe in, don't steal, don't murder, children respect your parents, the golden rule, etc. Is that hypocritical? Or just common sense?

What? The issue I take with people that do this is that they pick and choose in their acceptance of the scientific method. The scientific method has decided that Evolution is a viable theory, so why do many Christians reject this? It is because it conflicts with their religious views, but they have no problem accepting the same scientific method when it comes to conclusions that do not challenge their faith or provides advances that better their lives.

Obviously not all Christians are like this, but many are. It is this sort of "Rainy Day Scientist" mentality that bothers me.

 

[Engimo]

Bold words from sombody who believes flu shots are evidence of evolution.

Flu shots are evidence of Evolution. Ask any biologist worth his/her salt. Like I said, nothing will convince you, so it is not even worth arguing.

 

[oracle25]

Flu shots are evidence of Evolution. Ask any biologist worth his/her salt. Like I said, nothing will convince you, so it is not even worth arguing.

I know of no biologist who seriously thinks that flu shots are evidence of anything other than adaption (I don't even think Richard Dawkins makes such claims).

In fact it is YOU who cannot be reasoned with. If I didn't think this topic were so important I would end it altogether. You have yet too show me one example of new DNA being formed in an organism, this is the only way something can evolve. Every single Micro-biologist recognizes this fact.

The only real reason you don't want ID design taught in schools is because you are scared of it. You are scared that students might actually become intelligent thinkers rather than just people who regurgitate evolutionary dogma

 

[Alex]

Actually there is no evidence to support evolution. The only theory which makes any sense at all id ID.

Provide information to back up this statement. What evidence is their to support ID?

 

[Engimo]

I know of no biologist who seriously thinks that flu shots are evidence of anything other than adaption (I don't even think Richard Dawkins makes such claims).

In fact it is YOU who cannot be reasoned with. If I didn't think this topic were so important I would end it altogether. You have yet too show me one example of new DNA being formed in an organism, this is the only way something can evolve. Every single Micro-biologist recognizes this fact.

The only real reason you don't want ID design taught in schools is because you are scared of it. You are scared that students might actually become intelligent thinkers rather than just people who regurgitate evolutionary dogma

Yes, I'm scared of blatant falsehoods. Even though I've provided ample evidence of the creation of DNA before, I'll do it again. Google scholar is wonderful! You're welcome to look for yourself, There are tens of thousands of papers on this very subject.

Anyways. Through gene duplication, we can have the creation of new DNA and the creation of beneficial mutations. There are different types of mutations, including ones that actually insert new DNA base-pairs into the genetic coding of an organism. As you can see, there are many methods by which new DNA would be added to the genome, and about 5 minutes of research would have shown you this.