Intelligent Design - What's The Big Deal? »
Posted By mdvaldosta 10 months, 3 weeks ago in ReligionSo why can't this at least be taught alongside evolution in schools... I don't understand?
Read Full Story at sequencedbydesign.blogsavy.com »
1084 Views Share Story 233 Comments Report
Submitted By:
mdvaldosta
The submissions, votes, thoughts, and comments do not reflect the opinion of this person. In fact, I don't even know this person. Wait, where ...
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 221 of 233 Comments (view all)
-
97%
CRYMTYPHON10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Some simple points to make:
Reply
In science, a theory is a tested interpretation of observations. Evolution, Gravity, and Relativity are all 'theories', - and proven many times over.
ID (intelligent design) has no way to prove or disprove itself; it is faith, not science.
To be taught alongside biology, or history, or algebra, because it is prefered over reality? - is to mock education.
Which, perhaps, is the point of those who present it as their trojan horse for creationism.-
23%
airglide10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In science, a theory is a tested interpretation of observations. Evolution, Gravity, and Relativity are all 'theories', - and proven many times over.
Reply
You are half right. Evolution is a theory. Proven? No. There are no facts to prove evolution. Anyone who studies DNA will tell you that evolution is not possible. That is science, not a theologian who came up with an idea outside his area of expertise. Are you aware that Dr. Louis Leakey had to have six labs age some bones for him before one did it " correctly"? Are you aware that neanderthal man was actually 1500 years old after all the publications about how old he was? We can do this for hours.
Bottom line? Today neither side can ultimately prove their view. Teach both as theories or teach neither. Either way, why is it so important that you be right?
Consider this. According to the theory, there was intense heat. This means a sterile environment. Today we use this process for sterilization. How do you start something from nothing? Life in a vacuum? When you remove all the improbable there is only one solution.
All those millions of years ago that are so important to the theory of evolution don't consider that nothing is static. The sun would have been larger and fried the earth. -
100%
Tangent00110 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The distinction between micro- and macro-evolution is largely artificial and is generally just a matter of time before small adaptations result in speciation. 'New' genetic information happens all the time. Read up on the 'Nylon Bug', a new species of bacteria that feeds on industrial waste (no, it was not engineered). There was a 'frame shift' mutation that allowed the bacteria to exploit a new environmental niche. All sorts of mutations allow for changing, adding, transposing and deleting genetic information and material.
Reply -
13%
protoham10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Evolution, Gravity, Relativity are all theories and have never been proven. Who knows maybe the earth is flat, it is just our understanding that makes it appear not. People who say these things are proven are the same people who say things are impossible. Nothing is impossible.
Reply -
100%
Ratskii10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hi all, here's an article from Wikipedia on the subject of macroevolution. Hopefully it will allow the debate to proceed beyond basic definitions.
Reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution -
100%
Ratskii10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's a much longer article on the subject of macro evolution:
Reply
http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/comdesc/
I don't expect everybody to read the whole thing for purposes of commenting on the disputes over evolution. But it will go a long ways towards facilitating a higher level of discussion.
-
-
95%
Tangent00110 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Because ID presents no cogent scientific theory. Even Michael Behe only has a rough structure of an hypothesis. There is nothing testable--no experiments that will either support or contradict the hypothesis. Further, the vast majority of fossil, taxonomic, and genetic evidence biology has thus far is covered perfectly well by Darwinian evolution. Simply put, a designer simply isn't necessary.
Reply
At best, ID is a 'god-of-the-gaps' hypothesis, in that it searches for missing data to fill in using an ad-hoc 'designer'. At worst, ID is Creationism disguised with scientific-sounding jargon used as a wedge for the Church to regain a foothold in public schooling. The history of Intelligent Design is inseparable from that of the Discovery Institute. 'Of Pandas and People', the textbook the ID movement wants to use as an 'alternative' to Darwinism was developed by the Discovery Institute (a conservative think-tank funded by various Christian organizations). Earlier editions used the term 'scientific creationism' until it was replaced with 'intelligent design'. Perhaps the most suspicious aspect of the Discovery Institute is their 'Wedge Strategy' as outlined in the very telling Wedge Document:
http://ncseweb.org/creationism/general/wedge-docum...
The document outlines a 5-year plan to introduce issues such as ID so Christianity can, yes, regain a foothold in public schools.-
80%
UnusualSuspect10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think it's fine to teach ID, but I think it's best taught by those who are true believers, those within the church itself, and not in the public schools.
Reply
Then students can hear both sides of the issue and make up their own minds as to which to believe. Of course, children who do go to church are greatly outnumbered by those who go to public schools. So, ID will lose out in the end because they just won't get enough people to listen to the idea.
-
-
91%
truthiness10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.
Reply
The steps of the scientific method are to:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. A "fair test" occurs when you change only one factor (variable) and keep all other conditions the same.-
94%
truthiness10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
if you cannot apply this method to the questions/concepts being discussed it does not belong under the heading of science.
Reply
curiously there are several topics in theoretical physics that should not be considered science for this reason... such as string theory. however, the fact that they are improperly categorized does not allow for the miscatagorization of ID.
ID is a philosophy or theology, but not a science. -
40%
protoham10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So doesn't the idea of God fit this method. Did not Jesus cure many incurable diseases, feed thousands, walk on water, bring the dead back to life as witnessed by thousands. I was wondering what would God have to do today to convince people that he/she is God.
Reply
-
-
88%
truthiness10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
this article about fox breeding is also very interesting on the subject, I remember watching a video about it at an exhibit about dogs.
Reply
a russian scientist was attempting to figure out how early man could have domesticated wolves and breed them into dogs. wolves do not have spotted coats or curled tails or droopy ears or other traits we see in dogs, nor did he believe they (early man) could have been sophisticated enough to breed dogs for speed or fetching, etc.
so he decided to take an undomesticated animal (foxen) and breed them to a trait that would have made sense to early man.. not being afraid of man (or less afraid anyway).
the result was unexpected.. within ten generations of foxen they began to develop spots, curled tails and droopy ears.. THEY HAD EVOLVED.
http://mammals.suite101.com/article.cfm/domesticat...-
100%
lvrofwolves10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
truthiness, I remember that show on TV, it wasn't an article. The foxes became very tame as well, it was really interesting. Some people keep saying 'well if evolution is real, why are there still apes, and why are there still wolves? this show explains why in a very easy to understand way. What is also amazing is that an Alaskan Malamute is just as close to a wolf as a poodle is even tho Alaskan Malamutes closely resemble wolves, and poodles for instance look like the furthest thing from a wolf, in relationship, the Alaskan and Poodle are the same, and neither of them are wolves.
Reply
-
-
100%
CaptainLucid10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If we want to teach intelligent design we should teach about things our scientists have developed like an apple tree that has 5 different types of apples on one small tree. I'm gonna plant some around my house to ward off those genesis types with 5 fruits of knowledge that they must not taste. Some scientists in Japan invented a glow in the dark fish and will be rolling out more glow in the dark animals soon. I heard that some Asian country invented salmon that eats constantly so it grows 5 times as fast. We can grow a human ear on a mouse's back. I can't wait til our scientists can create life in a lab.
Reply-
100%
Tangent00110 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sooner than you might think:
Reply
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/08051... -
-
-
-
86%
Natureboy10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're right, you don't understand.
Reply
"Intelligent design" is not a bona fide scientific theory, or even a scientific hypothesis. At its root, "intelligent design" is no different from an aborigine speculating that because he can't figure out how a car works, there must be a "God" in it.
There is one and only one legitimate reason to raise the issue of "intelligent design" in a science class - as part of a curriculum on the scientific method, to illustrate the difference between a legitimate scientific hypothesis and a half-assed opinion. -
94%
mesodude10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I just find it interesting that those who want to insert ID theory as part of the science curriculum are usually the same people who insist they know for a fact that the nature vs nurture argument regarding sexual orientation has been settled (and that, therefore, the public shouldn't fund sex education which informs children that same sex couples exist). Also, if they want to pimp religion in schools they should be for pimping all religions and not just those they approve of or consider to be the most popular.
Reply -
91%
Poulenc10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Of course you can teach--by which I mean expose students to--the notion of intelligent design. But not as part of a science curriculum, as IC isn't provable.
Reply
I'm all in favor of students learning that the world is full of people with many opinions, and given the opportunity to weigh their validity using a number of criteria.
That's what school is or should be about: teaching rational inquiry.-
100%
truthiness10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree. I also want to point out that the science doesn't exclude the possibility of a creator. personally I believe a creator caused the big bang. I can list all sorts of reasons from the real world that make me believe this, but I can't test my belief. that is why it is faith and not science.
Reply -
67%
mdvaldosta10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's the problem... schools aren't teaching the possibilities of all sides to the story. In one of the cited pages, http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-wha... , geosynclinal theory was mentioned. Point being that it was thought of as "fact" and 10 years later it was completely wrong and there's an entirely different "fact."
Reply -
-
100%
Engnr10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That is exactly the point, "Evolution Creation of Life" is not provable either. We can observe evolution of species, but not the creation of life. On the other hand we are close to creating life ourselves, but that would be ID wouldn't it.
Reply -
-
-
100%
aceofspades110 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
why isn't alchemy taught in chemistry class?
Reply
why isn't flat earth taught in geography class?
why isn't racial superiority taught in social studies class?
Because they are all false science
ID could be taught in comparative religion classes - right next to voodoo and human sacrifice. -
100%
alakazam10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There was the Great Deep.
Reply
There was Nothing and then Things were.
Then there was the Dark and then there was Light.
Then there was the Earth.
There were Oceans then Land.
There was no Life then Plants began to grow.
Then there was Life in the Sea and then there was Life on the Ground and then some Life even flew.
Then there was Man.
Was that from Genesis or Science?
The only actual argument I see here is whether or not there is a God...both histories are essentially the same.
Who figured it out first?
Darwin? ...I don't think so.-
89%
crespi10 months, 2 weeks ago
-
100%
Tangent00110 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Um, you left out the part where there is water above the firmament, or that there was light without either the sun or stars.
Reply
Actually, MOST creation myths follow roughly the same sequence.
Oh, and there was land FIRST. Oceans formed later.
-
-
Neutral
Mutainia10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No matter how stupid a Creation account may sound, you can't say, "Hey, that sounds so stupid, there can't possibly be a God", because, how do you NOT know that God set it up that way to create atheism? "Broad is the road that leads to destruction", it says in the Bible. IF the Creation account in the Bible matched perfectly with what scientists claim, would faith in the Bible and Christianity be increased? I'm thinking that it actually would, narrowing damnation alley. But, God has willed it that there would be unbelief..."for God has concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all." IF God has concluded us all in unbelief, I'm thinking God had better, or, we've got Allah running things, shutter, shutter.
Reply-
-
100%
wtagg10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"for God has concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all."
Reply
What you suggests implies that there is no possible way to determine the why and what of the bible or the validity of the information it contains, therefore removing it as a source of enlightenment or knowledge.
Seems like god has so much idle time on his/her/its hands that he/she/it needs to manufacture a purpose for god's existence. -
100%
smithichie10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're right mutaina, gods and bigfoots can always be behind the next tree or bush. No matter how much evidence we have for any subject, evolution or the orgin of the universe, or a popular favorite, quarks, you can always say 'god did it'. Or a bigfoot did it, for that matter.
Reply
-
-
hefaa1Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
80%
ConsAreNonGrata10 months, 2 weeks ago
-
-
100%
alakazam10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Intelligent Design is not taught in science class because the chief idea in Intelligent Design, the Intelligent Designer, cannot be observed."
Reply
Sounds reasonable.
Though I don't think little kids should be treated like they are simply animals. OOOH! Look at him...he is a (insert religion here). Conversation should be open and free in School. About any subject.
I studied other religions in Elementary School and beyond ...there was this one Chaplain who had a whole bunch of people she was quite ready to send to Hell over their beliefs. The lady was crazy.
I don't see a problem with religion in schools as long as teachers do not teach Intolerance and represent them all at face value.
The thing is...If you wanna have a Jesus week...You have to let the Muslim children have a week for Muhammad or the kids whose Parents follow the Buddha or Pahana or whatever.
Fair is fair.
-
-
-
-
100%
alakazam10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The whole primitive boat as big as an Iowa-class Battleship is the part that makes me wonder.
Reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_class_battleship
5,000 year old Sci-fi? I dunno...I think there is something to the story.
-
-
100%
Lobo2Loco10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The bible was written by men, not God. These men claim to have been inspired by God. Many times they'd take an event, change the facts to fit the story they wanted to tell or make the point they wanted to make ... and call it a parable. In the end the story had nothing to do with fact...more like fiction.
Reply
Further, the men who wrote the books that are contained in the bible were often written by zealots (they had nothing better to do ... and they were going against the corrupt Priests of the major religion of the time: Jewish). Additionally, the "church fathers" decided to to further corrupt the story by eliminating books they didn't like or which didn't present the religion in a way they liked.
So, the religious fathers decided to omit certain facts, change others, and just tell you what you wanted to know. And, by the way, you had to take their word for it that what they told you is the truth! Now, THAT'S something you can have faith in!
Well, ID is little more than creationism in disguise ... purporting to support scientific theory (to a point) and noting that things turned out the way they did only because of an intelligent designer. ID is to evolution like religion is to parable. ID isn't science and never will be. It's in the same handbag as religion ... and just as reliable when it comes to facts or understanding facts or even the truth.
The creationists/ID characters come from the same ilk as those who ostracized (or killed) people who tried to challenge the dogma of the day in centuries past ... they're in the same league as those in the religious "elite" who said: the Earth is flat ... everything revolves around Earth ... Earth is the center of the universe. And anyone who says different must repent or die. It's not that bad today ... but these same idiots want to water down our scientific curriculums down to the level of faith (well, if we don't know how a creature evolved it's enough to say that God did it and leave it at that). These are the same people who are trying to assert that Dinosaurs and mankind existed on the planet at the same time.
And these are the same people who want this ID taught as a science. Right...-
Neutral
alakazam10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well...all things are possible.
Reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood%27s_End
-
-
100%
frctm510 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A belief in evolution doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility of intelligent design if we consider the meaning of "intelligent design". What could be more ingenious than creating a system that by long term selection and mutation would yield complex life forms? In other words, you put together a set of variables and rules and allow them to ferment life. Its a very hands off approach but doesn't mean there wasn't an idea or method behind it. Its similar to chaos theory where simple formulas create complex designs.
Reply
Though I don't see the necessity of a creator, if a super being did exist, I would imagine that it would be more remote or esoteric than our anthropomphisized ideas about God. This God is more like a scientist conducting an experiment and we are just a little petri dish in one corner of the universe. \
I would recommend, however, the book by Leonard Suskind called "The Cosmic Landscape and the Illusion of Intelligent Design" In the first half of the book, he delves into the laws of physics and all the highly improbable values and measures which make life possible in the universe. For example, the rate of proton decay if changed one digit in nine decimal places would be enough to make life impossible. He has many other examples besides this but it is almost enough to make one believe that life in the universe could not have been an accident. The second half of the book explains why this is possible. Anyway, its a fun read whether or not you accept his conclusions. I heard him being interviewed on NPR and he has a thick Jersey accent and used to work as a plumber before he discovered he had a talent for particle physics. Its not the voice one would normally associate with theoretical physics. He sounds more like a blue collar stiff, but he has interesting ideas. -
Neutral
dwemm10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Intelligent Design is less scientific than Creationism. Creationism has the advantage of being a hypothesis that could be proven or disproven by evidence, as can evolution of species.
Reply
Intelligent Design is an attempt at a political solution to a problem that's hard for the person on the street to understand. As a compromise, it's okay. As truth, it's easier to call it a lie and be done with it. Like the attempt of the Indiana legislature to make pi equal 3.2, or 3.0 based on biblical references in 1897. -
100%
david_nwpa10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If Creationism or ID can be presented in science classes, so too can the theories from the Pastafarians, the Order of Zeus, the Order of the Norse, the Buddhist views on the development of life, reincarnation, and a whole array of Native American perspectives on Mother Earth. None of these concepts, however, can be tested using the scientific method in a science classroom.
Reply
If one wanted to teach ID or the other competing views on creation and changes in lifeforms over millenia, one could offer a philosophy or psychology class about them. However, none of the above are remotely acceptable in a biology classroom. -
HomerJS49Comment removed: Abusive
-
-
100%
Ratskii10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How many of you are aware that Prokaryotic cells existed as the only form of life from about 3.5 billion years ago until about 1.75 billion years ago? The Eurkaryotic cell, which comprises most of the life that exists today, came into existence later. The Prokaryotic cell doesn't have a distinct observable nucleolus.
Reply
If a simpler cell existed before the common cell that makes up most life today, why couldn't an even simpler precursor have existed before it? -
100%
Ratskii10 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The main problem that I see with a creator is that it just puts the problem of "how did this happen" back a step. Where did the creator come from? How did the creator come into existence? What existed before the creator. Is the creator as or more complex than its creation? If not how did it manage to create something much more complex than itself? If it is more complex, than its creation is even more difficult to explain.
Reply
It's a bit of a can of worms if there is no evidence.
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.