Some argue that if a public school teaches about evolution, then students should also be taught about Intelligent Design. This is called 'Balanced Treatment' -- the ideas is, schools should be fair and present 'both sides' of the debate. Is this a valid argument? Should Intelligent Design be taught?
Creationists want desperately to have some version of their religious beliefs taught in public schools. First raw religious creationism failed. Then so-called "scientific" creationism failed. Recently so-called "Intelligent" Design has been failing. Creationists are turning to a new scam: argue for teaching the "debate" over creationism, not creationism itself.
One very fundamental problem with teaching Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution is the simple fact that there aren't any actual scientific theories that are alternatives to evolution, so why teach "Intelligent" Design as the "one" alternative? Scientists recognize that Intelligent Design is essentially religious, lacking even rudimentary scientific merit. Many supporters of Intelligent Design must recognize it, too, because they haven't been able to produce any scientific research and haven't contributed anything to our understanding of biology and life. There are dozens of religious "theories" about life. Should we teach them, too?
Part of the reason for problems like this can be placed at the feet of science education itself -- or, rather, the failures of science education. If people were better taught about the nature of science, they would realize that it isn't a subject of political debates but reasoning and evidence. They might understand that there is no more "debate" involved in evolution than there is in, say, plate tectonics. The basics are all broadly accepted throughout the scientific community; it's only some of the details that are disputed. Teaching the "controversy" over evolution and creationism is like teaching the "controversy" over astronomy and astrology, or over plate tectonics and the "Hollow Earth" theory. It's scientifically, pedagogically, and religiously inappropriate.
At a public school, separation of church and state alone is reason enough this to be a non-issue. ID is thinly veiled Xian creation myth. It has no place in schools. Teach whatever you like in Sunday School but keep my tax dollars away from it.
In science class of course not! If they would like it taught in a “Comparative theology” course alongside other religions creation stories, or in a mythology class taught alongside, norse, greek, sumerian, babylonian and egyptian myths then by all means.
Didn’t the Dover case back in 2005 settle this for good?
Wow, there’s actually that many people voting Yes? Ah, it’s probably just one guy voting over and over. If the world’s scientists were torn over two opposing views of life’s origins and development, then I would expect those two viewpoints to be taught as alternatives. Because those two hypothetical viewpoints came from scientists, that would make them valid for study in SCIENCE class. Creationism has NO BASIS in science, and therefore has no place in science class. As others have stated, save that baloney for theology or mythology class. Don’t agree? Then go get a shovel, and dig up some evidence! That’s what the scientists did! If creationism holds the truth about the Earth, then why did god leave so little evidence of it, while cramming the planet FULL of evidence for evolution? Is he trying to trick us?
There may be no Intelligent design theory as such, however their is a useful working hpothesis present in Intelligent Design Message from the Designers.For myself, the issue is not the ‘postman’ but the hypothesis contained in the ‘letter’. Here is potentially a classic example of the dangers, of science overlooking something, simply because it is not from a scientifically credible source..This book requires an evolution of thinking and being able to look at many issues at once, with an open mind. Instead of the presumption made by the theory of evolution that the progression of design is by nature, this hypothesis makes the case for progression of design by advanced science.Rather like putting the theory of evolution in a’ microwave’, it is much quicker.However it is not as quick as six days as stated in the Bible, but 12000 years, for the creation of this eco-system.In addition there is a further 13200 years added on to this for the develpment of our humanity. This theory is about the predictability of the development of a human race, and is rather like the creation of a baby. and as repeatable.When our humanity reached the level of technology to use nuclear weapons , it entered that scientifically predictable phase of rapid acceleration in both science and populationThe larger the population together with better technology means that more problems can be solved more quickly. Many hands make light work!!.Our potential to self-destruct is undeniable, given the issues of population, environment and nuclear weapons.Though I feel that ultimately, our humanity will get through this difficult phase and eventually understand its own origins.This is against a backdrop of there having been many humanities, on this very ancient planet that have disappeared for the reasons we can understand today.
The dificulty for many Intelligent design scientists. is that they are so busy looking at the bark on the trees for evidence of Intelligent design that they miss the ‘forest’.On the other hand with the Evolutionists, it is rather like they are, ignoring our humanitiy’s history and walkining backwards to the future,facing the altar of Darwin and unable to be wrong, because their evidence , appears to supports their case. They seem to regard the world religions as so may fairytooth stories. However if this hypothesis is correct, then in effect what they have been doing, for the last 150 years, is too retro-engineer what has taken very advanced science some 12000 years to engineer, followed by the development of man. Our scientists are approaching the starting grid, of the artificial creation of life (Craig Ventner Genesis II) In the course of time they will create more a more complex organisms, through the evolution of Design, Eventually they will be able to create man in their own image, and then the buckle will be closed and those scientists will become CREATORS like those scientists in times past, mistaken for gods by our ancestors.
I would imagine that, for many involved in Intelligent Design or in Evolution, it is perhaps not within the purview of their disciplines to consider so many isues at once,as this includes all the world religions history, the capabilities of modern science especially since 1945, in genetics in particular, nanotech computing etc and finally that most ‘unscientific’ of issues the subject of Ufos. I would argue that if our scientists can do what they are doing, then why should there not be much more advanced scientists in other solar systems? Further this theory allows for potential explantion for the real agenda behind the appearance of Ufos over the millennia, but especially since 1945 and Hiroshima. That being, advanced scientists waiting for our humanity to connect up the dots between our past and where we are today in the 21st cenury and in the future. The way I see the Ufo phenomenon is that akin to ‘doctors’ awaiting the ‘birth’ of a child’ , that is our humanity. Once one is able consider this hypothesis,and all issues involved together with the idea of the predictability of our humanity’s progress , then one can understand the ORIGINAL good intent, behind ALL the world religions.That being to precipitate in our humanity, a capacity to cope with this scientifically predictable age we entered in 1945, on our own.We in this argument, are on our own, but not alone.
Where is the evidence you may ask? It is all around us, traces of which can be found in all the religious texts and in history, in what we are doing in science today and likely to do in the future, and not least in a sensible explantion as to what is the real agenda behind the appearance of the REAL Ufos and NOT advanced retro-engineering of what are probably crashed Ufos ‘
Of all the religions. Buddhism is nearest to the truth , but that said GENESIS contains the scientific framework, albeit somewhat compressed in time with the six ‘ days’.Ultimately this argument is about the spititualisation of science, and provides a useful compromise between the Darwinain argument of the one side and the religions on the other.Both sides would be partly correct. Herewe can respect our ancestors, and understand that they contributed to our being priviledged to be alive today.Howevert we should read those texts through the scientifc eyes of the 21st century and not through the eyes of the times when these ancient texts were written.
As one famous person said of this book, ‘ ..if this is science-fiction ,then it ranks alongside the most breath-taking of it’s kind, but if it is true it is earth-shaking…’.If this is science-fiction then one wonders why the film industry has been so slow in takeing it up as a theme for a film? After all it has been around for 35 years?
As far as I am aware, this is one of a few scientific hypothetical frameworks of argument, that allows
1. Offer a sensible explanation for the functionof all the world’ religions,
2 .Take into account leading edge developments in science,patricularly genetics.
3. The subjects of Ufos to be brought in from the .’ cold ‘ into the world of science ,
4. Form a new and much larger paradigm, as to our humanity’s origins.
I read recently …… Official disclosure of extraterrestrial life is imminent
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2383-Honolulu-Exopolitics-Examiner~y2009m10d21-Official-disclosure-of-extraterrestrial-life-is-imminent
Creationists/IDers have nothing to offer but already often refuted distortions and religion badly dressed up with pseudoscientific jargon.
Does this mean we have to teach the stork theory of reproduction? What about the Bill Maher theory of medicine?
Please Austin… Why would you even mention teaching ID? It’s already be decided by a federal court that ID is nothing but creationism in a new dress, and there’s certainly nothing scientific about Biblical creationism.
ID is a dead horse…. Let it stay that way.
Ben, get yourself some professional help, your mind is broken.
Why not? Teaching religion of any type opens the door to teaching the alternative to religion. Perhaps it’s time for shining light on the truth and letting the little tykes who have had religion shoved down their throats from day one, see that there are alternative explanations to the mysteries of life and our place in the universe.
I attended Catholic schools and was taught to take religion from the Bible but not science. We were taught about evolution with the explanation that that was how God created us. I remember one teacher basically saying, “The Big Bang? That was God saying, ‘Let there be light.’”
Even now, as an atheist, I still think that was a sensible and intelligent ‘blending’ of science and religion.
ID IS NOT SCIENCE. The whole concept of “we don’t know how it was done so it must have been God” is absolutely the opposite of science. Science doesn’t claim to be able to explain everything today but but the philosophy of science means never stopping looking and learning. The second you give up and say that it must be magic or God the science has stopped!
I would pull my kids out of school if they attempted to teach them religion – and creationism IS religion.
*
If our universe were designed, I cannot understand how any intelligent person could think it was intelligently designed. A little basic cosmology, astronomy, physics, geology, chemistry, biology,… should dispel that belief. I propose, if taught, it should be Imbecilic Design.
I am not trying to defend creationism versus evolution but logic brings to my understanding.
Scientists have yet to prove evolution. We all can agree on that.
Why should one believe in a theory without any law to prove it or some testable set of explanation during one’s lifetime or someone Else’s past lifetime?
Scientists only believe in evolution by faith in the hope to find a proof to it some day.
It seems that the only faculty that brings someone to believe in evolution is the same for someone who believes in creationism. It takes faith in evolution as well as in creationism. It does follow that creationism and evolution can be taught equally in our Universities and public schools based on the faculty of acceptation of the notions.
Both of the theories have equal rights to be accepted or refuted.
When logically analyzing Creationism, it seems to make better sense than evolution on the basis on the faculty allowing acceptation of either one of the two theories and based on the uniformity of the thought process.
For example ” We walk into a room and see a nice and glorious watch, we automatically think that some intelligent must have designed it and/or placed it there. From that same thought process, it follows that the existence of the universe is connected to the existence of some intelligent being, or alien might have designed it. It could something above and beyond the universe itself, who knows.
Let’s use fanaticism or biases influence but pure reasoning.
Uh, no. Evolution is as proven as plate tectonics.
Because evolution has been proven and successfully tested.
No more than they believe the germ theory of disease based on faith.
No, people accept evolution because of scientific evidence while people believe creationism because it conforms to religious and ideological preconceptions.
Not for people who understand what evolution is.
Uh, what “faculty” is that?
First, “theories” do not have rights.
Second, ever person has a right to accept or reject anything.
Third, only evolution is a scientific theory and thus is the only one that has any place in science classes.
Please, do explain where in the above you used logic.
Here is my simple logic 101:
Is there any fallacy in the following?
” We walk into a room and see a nice and glorious watch, that automatically lets us think that some intelligent being must have designed it and/or placed it there. From that same thought process, it follows that the existence of the universe is connected to the existence of some intelligent being, or alien that may have designed it. It could something above and beyond the universe itself, who knows.
Pretty inductive, but strong, no?
Does anyone here have a clear and concise example of evolution that can be grasped by an intellectual mind?
Evolution is one of God’s greatest ideas.
Judging by some of the comments above, the genious design behind evolution is of far greater intelligence than the end result it produces. Can we create life with our own 2 hands without using the fundamental essential life force that has already in existance? No! We can only manipulate the basic building blocks of life that have already been created if we want to produce something different and neat. A building has intelligent design. They collapse; are re-worked and evolve into a better design. There is no proof of intelligent design behind a building but that does not stop us from that there was intelligence behind the design. We can bulid a building so elemenatry and primieval and pat ourselves on the back for doing so. Then we deny that there is any intelligence to the universe because we have no proof of the ‘thought’ behind it. I guess your’e right. There is no intelligence behind our design.
No. This was addressed the first time you posted it. It’s dishonest of you to post it again as if it were new even though you have not gone back to answer responses to your first posting.
If you keep repeating your posts and refusing to address responses, your comments will just be deleted.
You’re being awfully harsh on creationists and theists.
And that’s supposed to be a reason to think that life was designed? No!
Why not?
Correction: we have no evidence whatsoever that there is even any “design,” much less an “intelligent designer.”
Dear Mr. Austine Kline:
Your counter arguments are lame at best. Your evolution argument has not evolved beyond predictable. Evolution is supposed to be progressive and creative. If you are going to defend it you can at least do so by emulating it lest you disprove your own point. Try and be imaginative and creative in your response.
I’m skeptical. Show me the ‘thought’ that produced the design that created the building. You cannot see a thought, therefore the intelligent design cannot exist. Therefore I cannot believe that a building is created by intelligent design. And neither can you. Or are you going strictly by ‘faith’ that ‘thought’ exists. Because ‘faith’ is all you have to go on because you cannot produce any physical ‘evidence’ of thought. And unless you produce anything earthshattering it will be difficult in 50 years for anyone who cared to prove that you once existed. And once you are forgotten it would be a losing debate to prove that someone like you even existed at all. And this will go on for infinity. Yout pointless, meaningless life took Billions of years to arrive and is over, irrelevant and forgotten with trillions upon trillions of years of irrelevancy to follow. This is the significance of your life as you are trying your darndest to prove. And you do so with such determination you have to question your own sanity for doing so because of the pointlessness of it all. You’d be better off getting shagged, robbing banks, murdering those you hate, stealing candies from a baby, cheating on your wife, swearing as much as possible, paying for hookers as much as you can, phoning in sick any chance you can, pinch some young thing’s ass and blame it on the next guy, masturbate until your dick falls off, lick the centerfolds of penthouse magazines, go for liposuction as often as you can, don’t pay alomony or child support, tell no one you love them because it has’nt been proven that love exists, overcome guilt, kick your boss in the balls, shove a firecracker up a cat’s ass and light the fuse, and drive with your eyes closed on the wrong side of the road to get an adrenaline rush.
But you probably don’t. There’s probably something within you that keeps you law biding and decent. Why? It can serve no possible purpose for a life that can end at any moment. By your own logic I am baffled. Maybe you can help me understand.
Mr Kline???
I’m going on faith that you are real although I have no proof. You’ll have to gon on faith that I exist as well despite your lack of proof. After all, these are only letters randomly strung together that we have placed meaning to which provides coincidence , not evidence or existance. Unless you want to consider the intelligence of this apprant design as porrf of my existance but you’ll have to change the title of your blog to do so. I’ll leave that up to you ndhu mneybd ngybe ;lsp9m y ;l8nr /;d nt ie fhgy7
It’s “Cline”.
Feel free to show how.
Says who?
Go to city hall where you’ll find the designs. There will even be the names of the architects. You didn’t claim before, though, that there is no evidence of “thought” that produced the design, but rather than there was no proof of design. I challenged you on this and now you’ve changed your faux skepticism. This suggests that you recognize that you could not maintain your previous position — no proof or evidence of design — and now are forced to claim that there is no proof or evidence of “thought” behind the design (that you now acknowledge exists).
However, admission that there is design is admission that there is thought because design implies thought — as well as a designer.
Feel free to demonstrate how that premise entails that conclusion.
You mean, like an MRI?
Not to you.
Really? Prove it.
Because unlike you, I don’t need to believe in any gods in order to be a decent human being.
I doubt it. If you can’t understand how or why to be a decent being unless there is a deity commanding it. then you likely suffer from a sociopathic personality disorder and thus like the requisite empathy necessary to comprehend how other human beings interact.
Not “faith” as Paul defines it and as the term is normally used in the context of religion. So, if your goal is to draw some sort of equivalency between the two, you’re guilty of a creating an equivocation fallacy.
I’ll also point out another definitional error of yours: your failure to define “design.” You want to draw an equivalency between the “design” of your words (which, quite honestly, do appear randomly strung together) and DNA (see, creationists are predictable), but you can’t do so without first pointing to a definition that you are using consistently and correctly. You haven’t, and I don’t think that’s a coincidence.
Mr. Kline:
Have I struck a nerve? You seem to be focusing on my comments and devloving to a more primitive, state of survival by throwing insults such as calling me a sociopathic personality. I suppose if this conversation carries on much longer you’ll be walking around on all 4’s thumping your chest. For your sake you’d better stop now, unless there’s an evolutionary survival need for you to continue hurling like I’m going to do. Besides, I only assumed you were a decent human being. You have proven me wrong in your response to my previous post. My mistake.
Q. Where do you see yourself as fitting along the evolutionary chain? I see your photo with your nose in the air an a know it all look about you and I say to myself, surely this cannot be the end result of millions of years of evolution? If so, where did it all go wrong? Try and respond without going further down the path towards walking on all 4’s. Showm me that you truely do believe in evolution by providing an intelligent response so we can all witness evolution at work.
Hey, where did i go? I’m not done yet.
Mr. Kline. Where do you see yourself in comparison to me in terms of evolution? Be very careful in how you respond. By what I’ve seen so far you are not very witty and clever and what you say will most likely come back and bite you in the ass. But that’s evolution at work is’nt it? Survival of the fittest. The strong survive and the weak don’t. Who would want it any other way? So maybe you should devolve further after all. Apes have been around a lot longet than we have so at least your gene pool will be able to carry on in some form, albeit not human. Show us your evolutionary intelligence and wit Mr. Kline, or is the fright and flight instinct going to kick in? All your deciples are waiting.
One last thing. Come up with something original. Don’t quote my own words and then utter a 2 word response in reply. That is boring. I don’t like to be bored. None of us do. Here’s your chance to shine! Go for it!!!
No.
…says the person who refused to address a single question or challenge posed to them.
I didn’t call you “a sociopathic personality.” I said that if certain conditions were met, then you’d be suffering from a sociopathic personality.
Do you disagree with my description of what a sociopathic personality entails? If not, then you’re hardly in any position to object to my bringing it up.
Homo sapien.
Also homo sapien.
Since your comments lack any effort to address any of the questions posed to you, and appear to be written without any attention to anything that has been said by others, they receive as detailed of a response as they deserve. When you start contributing to a discussion in a substantive manner, you’ll receive the same.
Which suggests that you are posting comments which are short on substance but long on insult for the sake of personal entertainment. That’s called trolling, and trolling isn’t prohibited here. If you’re not going to answer any of the questions or challenges posed to you, don’t bother responding because future comments will be deleted.
i saw a bumper sticker that amused me that seems appropriate:
“OK! I evolved. You didn’t!”
I don’t see my last post. Did you erase it?
Dave @ 18:
“….Can we create life with our own 2 hands without using the fundamental essential life force that has already in existance? (sic) ….”
I have no idea what you mean by “life force” and I suspect you haven’t either.
But in perhaps 10 years, we may indeed be able to create life:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227084.200-molecule-of-life-emerges-from-laboratory-slime.html
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/biologists-on-t/
I still cannot believe we’re talking about “ID” in the year 2009. I have a bumper sticker that says “Intelligent Design, which is crossed out and underneath it, it says “Retarded Nonsense”.
I like it because the word retarded offends some people. Well, “ID” offends me. I would yank my kids out the their PUBLIC school if they dared tried teaching it in a SCIENCE class, but fortunately the schools in New Jersey are very, very good.
Austin, Kudos, for being so patient with such a nit wit.
There’s really only three reasons for not believing the fact of evolution:
1.Lack of knowledge.
2.Not having the intellectual capacity to understand.
3.Willful ignorance-having the knowledge but ignoring it.
Both #14 and #17,etc. seem to fall into the willful ignorance category.
Richard Dawkin’s new book,The Greatest Show on Earth,should be read by both.That’s giving them the benefit of assuming they have the brains to understand.
John Thomson said: “There’s really only three reasons for not believing the fact of evolution:
1.Lack of knowledge.
2.Not having the intellectual capacity to understand.
3.Willful ignorance-having the knowledge but ignoring it.”
>Thanks for that tidbit. I’ll keep it in mind for the next time those pesky Jehovah’s Witnesses come around.
Mary (10). God said “Let there be light” and even He was shocked to see the result: the instant that the Big Bang expansion began it was 10,000,000X the temperature at the center of the beginning of H-bomb explosion, and was expanding 1,000,000X the velocity of the H-bomb fireball.
in esponse to 32.
Instead of saying you think some people cannot grasp evolution because of a lack of capacity to understand, why don’t you explain how well you understand it and maybe you could can enlighten them.
I doubt that you understand it yourself. By the way some of the evidences that support evolution. If you can do well enough for me to understand, I will ride along with you.
Earlier, you wrote that “Scientists only believe in evolution by faith in the hope to find a proof to it some day.”
Here, you though, you indicate that you don’t understand evolution.
They can’t both be true. In one or the other, you lied.
There is no scientific evidence for creationism. There’s a lot of evidence from different scientific disciplines that plants and animals evolved and are evolving and no evidence that it doesnt. Therefore, in SCIENCE class, teach evolution and don’t teach creationism- the latter just isn’t science. If Christians believe that the universe was created by God then this is an important thing to teach kids about christianity but this should be done in religious studies classes.
Teach creationism if you like but for the love of *the void*, don’t tell kids that there’s any real reason to think its true other than religious faith.