Intelligent Design Legit or No

[Kmack]

A lot of attention is being paid recently to the idea of intelligent design (concept where some sort of higher being must have been involved in the course of life on Earth), do you think that it is a legitimate theory whose supporters genuinly feel is a valid teaching tool to give our children before they head into a global marketplace? or do you think that it is simply a last ditch effort to shove God into our public schools, a last desperate gasp from the christians to poison the minds of our youth because they see that they are losing the overall battle?

as you can tell I think it is the latter.

 

[The Mullinator]

Considering you need "scientists" to make something into a "science" and scientists almost unanamously say that Intelligent design isn't a "science" then I have to say that you can't force it into becomming a legitimate theory.

A lot of people will often say that evolution is only a theory and therefor can't be accepted. However there is something I read in a national geographic article on this very subject that I have to say really got to me.

This isn't an exact quote since I don't have the magazine with me but it goes something like this:
"Evolution may only be a theory, however the idea that the earth revolves around the sun is also only a theory."

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

It's more of a cop-out than anything else. Though I have to say -- at least IDers are more sane than young-world creationists, claiming that man existed at the same time as dinosaurs, denying the evidence of light from stars billions of light-years away, and throwing fossil carbon dating (and dating with other isotopes) out the window.

I mean, come on people. Anything involving the use of the term "half-life" deserves more credit than that, am I right?

 

[Ikerous]

claiming that man existed at the same time as dinosaurs, denying the evidence of light from stars billions of light-years away, and throwing fossil carbon dating (and dating with other isotopes) out the window.

I fail to see where they're wrong ^_^

 

[clarky003]

its odd to speculate about what created our universe.. thats where ID theories have their roots, evolution is an observation of a process which can be acredited to, but what drives evolution... It's clear to see that there is some kind of adaptive base program in the universe.

Saying god created it isnt really helpful, its not objective to understanding a process so it's irrelevant to science, and irrelevant to physical application, so for that reason ID shouldnt be in science.

However science is venturing to the boundaries of the quantum realm, understanding that there are virtual element's at the heart of the processes that keep matter 'working' if you will. They cant be seen, but can be detected through observation of the effects they produce... therefore logically there is somthing there, totally invisible.. interfacing with our physical universe.

The only time Science will be able to truely address the source at a deeper understanding is when we discover a working unified field theory, and as can be seen there is too much contradiction between present theories to allow that. Our science is not sufficient enough to either deny or accept ID theories, because in mainstream it hasnt reached that level of understanding, when it does thats when it will truely matter, because then we have some solid evidence on roughly what is creating our universe.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

No to ID and Creationism. Yes to God.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[kirovman]

Damn i read that as natural selection for some reason (I'm crazy!) and voted yes. Change that to a no.

I however think it should be taught (in Religious Education, NOT science class). But people should be aware the theory exists.

There was something in New Scientist discreditting Intelligent Design recently.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

There was something in New Scientist discreditting Intelligent Design recently.

They do it in most issues, its a good read. And then you've got the awesome pages at the back when they discredit pseudoscience in humorous ways.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[kirovman]

They do it in most issues, its a good read. And then you've got the awesome pages at the back when they discredit pseudoscience in humorous ways.

-Angry Lawyer

Sounds like what I like best. I should probably join the patent office.

 

[Raziaar]

Its really parents who should teach their kids about religion, not schools. Unless I guess they are religious instituted schools(which I would never like to go to). I never learned about religion in schools, and instead learned it from my parents, and I think thats the way it should be. Religion should be taught in schools, but only about the history of the religions and how they pertain to history, not their actual beliefs. I mean, you can talk about the history of christianity or buddhism or islam, etc etc, and go into the facts of how they believe in god, and perhaps how he created the universe, but don't tout it as fact. Let the kids decide for themselves.

Religion has a place in school only as far as the fact that its a very interesting and vital subject about history over time, as religion has played a huge role in history.

 

[gh0st]

no, its religion masked as science. religion doesnt belong in public schools. that said, i think students should be taught all applicable theories of evolution/creation etc.

 

[Ennui]

Intelligent design is utter and complete bullshit. It's not even a disguised way to talk about creationism. It's got absolutely no grounds and shouldn't be treated as a scientific theory any more than flying spaghetti monsterism. I shit more believable things out of my ass than intelligent design and they're easier to offer evidence for as well.

 

[Absinthe]

I shit more believable things out of my ass than intelligent design and they're easier to offer evidence for as well.

Well, the brown floating log is visible. You can smell it, you can see it interacting with the water, and you could taste it if you wanted to.

If you shat out some kind of metaphysical dookie, then there's a problem...

BTW I voted no.

 

[jonbob]

At the end of a day, a scientific theory must be falsifiable: one must be able to prove it wrong given good evidence. Evolution is science because concievably I could prove it wrong if I somehow discovered an extraterrestrial race that have been tinkering for the past few billion years.

ID cannot be proven or discredited; every piece of evidence found which contradicts it can be put down as being put there by The Designer to confound or test the observer. It's the theoretical equivalent of a parent no, 'because I say so.'

 

[Raeven0]

...In the minority again...

 

[Absinthe]

...In the minority again...

Make a switch to the winning team.

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

...In the minority again...

Eh, what can you expect from the members of a gaming community.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

This wikipedia article sums up scientific opinion on everything wrong with ID.

It's like my new favorite site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Subscribe to New Scientist. They regularly pwn ID.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[qckbeam]

Subscribe to New Scientist. They regularly pwn ID.

-Angry Lawyer

Oh yesh....oh yesh!

 

[Solaris]

New Scientist = Nerd Pr0n

 

[Angry Lawyer]

New Scientist = Nerd Pr0n

Lies. I read it, and I get plenty of sechs.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[kirovman]

Lies. I read it, and I get plenty of sechs.

Seconded.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Wait, there is trouble with the poll.

IDers already have the right to 'teach' it in public.
The question is whether it's valid enough to end up in secular schools.

 

[diluted]

"Intelligent design" has every right to be taught... in a theology class. It's not science and never will be, thus has no right to be taught in a science class.

 

[Solaris]

Lies. I read it, and I get plenty of sechs.

-Angry Lawyer

OHHH STRING THEORY, HARDER!!! HARDER!!! uhhhhhhhhhhh.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

OHH! POLITICS FORUM! HOW I LOVE IGNORING EVERYONE ELSE'S IDEAS AND JUST PUMPING OUT BULLSHIT ABOUT ALL PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN GOD BEING RETARDED! SO WET!

-Angry Lawyer

 

[kirovman]

OHH! POLITICS FORUM! HOW I LOVE IGNORING EVERYONE ELSE'S IDEAS AND JUST PUMPING OUT BULLSHIT ABOUT ALL PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN GOD BEING RETARDED! SO WET!

-Angry Lawyer

Seconded.

Because I can.

 

[SidewinderX]

I saw something on PBS a few monthes ago that made sense to me.

Right now, intelligent design has no room to be taught in a science class. It's a theory. If people want to spend time reasearching it and developing the theory, they have the right to.

But they shouldn't teach it as science until it's proven to be science.

They likened it to general relativity... That theory has been around for a century. But you didn't see it in schools a few years after Einstein wrote about it.

(Don't get me wrong... I'm not comparing the two in a factual basis, I'm sure that ID is total bullshit... just the school thing)

 

[Raeven0]

God doesn't have to put a disclaimer in the front of his textbook(s) saying that his perception of the universe is constantly changing as he discovers new things.

Really, now. When I read crap like that in scientific texts it makes me want to throw the book away.

Might perhaps be why I prefer mathematics to science.

 

[Apos]

that said, i think students should be taught all applicable theories of evolution/creation etc.

Which are? Can you list them please? Do you even know what you are talking about or are you simply parroting some conservative talking point you heard somewhere?

I repeat my standing challenge to any creationist: I'll debate you anywhere, anywhen on the overwhelming scientific evidence for common descent as history and evolution as the process that explains it.

 

[kirovman]

Heh, I know you'll like this, Angry Lawyer. I just got my Institute of Physics subscription magazine.

Front page:

Intelligent Design: The Moose that could fly.

It compares intelligent design arguements with that of a man who chased a moose to the peak of a mountain, which then vanished. He argued the Moose must have flown, because what else could have caused it to disappear?


It also states: Gaps in the human understanding do not tell us anything about God.

The concluding statement of the article is this: "Argumentatively speaking, therefore, an intelligent designer is a flying moose."

Seems not only New Scientist are arguing against Intelligent Design, it's every science publication.

 

[Absinthe]

Seems not only New Scientist are arguing against Intelligent Design, it's every science publication.

There just might be something to that. ID'ers should get a clue.

 

[Tr0n]

If say I believe god started the big bang...which I do...is that ID? Or what?

I'm confused to this whole ID thing.

 

[Raziaar]

Which are? Can you list them please? Do you even know what you are talking about or are you simply parroting some conservative talking point you heard somewhere?

I repeat my standing challenge to any creationist: I'll debate you anywhere, anywhen on the overwhelming scientific evidence for common descent as history and evolution as the process that explains it.

What are you talking about dude? Lots of religions have theories of how the world was created.

So why are you insulting his post? I don't get it. He was saying that the theories should be taught, likely not as fact, but as just that... theories. I don't think religion should fall back and not be taught at all in schools. It should be taught, but more on an understanding level rather than a spiritual level. Religions have impacted this world greatly, and none of their beliefs should be forgotten.

That being said, I agree with him on the fact that students should study on the history of all religious beliefs regarding how the world was formed and created. You can't just rewrite education to include only the last hundred or two hundred years worth of information.

 

[Absinthe]

Raziaar, the problem is that when you start saying that you need to teach all theories (and ID certainly is not, at least not in any scientific sense), then where is the line drawn? Need I point out the flying spaghetti monster?

I could come up with a billion ideas explaining life and the inception of the human species - all of them nonsense and unsubstantiated. If ID were to be taught as theory in education, would you give equal time to all of mine?

Relegate such subjects to classes regarding religious history. Don't tout it as some alternative theory to evolution or as anything comparable to it.

 

[Raziaar]

EDIT: Double Post. Damnit. I thought I was editing and it seems I wasnt.

 

[Raziaar]

Raziaar, the problem is that when you start saying that you need to teach all theories (and ID certainly is not, at least not in any scientific sense), then where is the line drawn? Need I point out the flying spaghetti monster?

I could come up with a billion ideas explaining life and the inception of the human species - all of them nonsense and unsubstantiated. If ID were to be taught as theory in education, would you give equal time to all of mine?

Relegate such subjects to classes regarding religious history. Don't tout it as some alternative theory to evolution or as anything comparable to it.

Bah. I'm talking about the major, established religions. The world is full of leaf, tree and mushroom worshippers, but they're such a huge minority. I'm talking about most of the major and minor religions. You know, things like hinduism, buddhism, islam, christianity, catholocism, chinese folk religion, Judaism, Sikhism, Confucianism, Jainism, Shinto, Taoism, etc.

Obviously you cannot teach all religion's histories, but you can teach a majority of the histories and beliefs of various religions so that young people don't go out into the world uneducated about the faiths that comprise the majority of the world's population.

Many people want religions to be entirely phased out from the educational institution. This would be a bad mistake, as religion has shaped this world, for the better and for the worse. Don't bundle it together into some small class like you suggested, religious history. It needs to be bundled with history, as it is one of the most defining features of history.

I'm against teaching religious beliefs as fact, but you can teach them without doing that.

 

[CptStern]

all religion should be done away with in education ..except in later high school and university when it is introduced in a social sciences class where the history of religion is taught, not the faith behind it. Religion should not be taught in any other class especially history and science. Creationism should be taught in church/sunday school but should never even be mentioned in school as school is about teaching facts

 

[Solaris]

Stern I think I disagree.

I live in a highly multicuteral society, and without RE lessons, everyone would be ignorant about other people. This breeds racism.

The problem with our RE lessons (this is the ciriculum btw) is that its 90% christianity, and the other religions only get 10% of the lesson time.

Combine this with hymns and prayers in assembelies, and your forcing religion onto young children.

It should be taught from a neutral stand point, so the aim is to eductate, and not to convert.