Intelligent design belongs in Church not Biology class.

[MissCatholic]

"Intelligent Design," the religious alternative to Darwinism, ought to be taught in schools - Sunday schools and high school social studies or history classes. But in biology classes? No way.

In about 20 states - most notably, right now, before the Kansas Board of Education - conservative Christians are trying to demand "equal time" for ID and evolution as the explanation for how life developed on earth.

But ID isn't science. Its concepts can't be independently verified. In essence, ID holds that living organisms are so complex that they couldn't be the product of blind natural forces, but had to be the work of a Designer - or, at least, a designer.

The scientific problem is this: There is no way to locate actual evidence of a designer, be it small-d or big-D. Proponents of ID, including some sophisticated scientists, point to holes in Darwinian explanations for the development of life and say that only "intelligent design" can fill the gap. But that's not proof of design.

Kansas' conservative-dominated Board of Education seems to be on the verge of changing its state standards for science education by removing evolution as the preferred concept for students to learn in biology and creating a toss-up with ID.

In a 2004 CBS poll, only 27 percent supported the belief - one that has been endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church - that humans evolved from lesser species, but that God guided the process. And only 13 percent believe in pure Darwinism - that humans evolved without divine intervention.

Sixty-five percent of those polled said that both creationism and evolution should be taught in schools. Fully 37 percent favored teaching creationism instead of evolution.

[jokerman]

....everyone just ignore this and she will go away.........

[afleitch]

I agree completely with MissCatholic. The theory of Intelligent design has no place within a biology class whether the 'designer' in question is a god or an alien race!

[Storebought]

I think this fact may have been mentioned here before, but it bears repetition:

Some of you are too quick to dismiss Intelligent Design as a pseudoscience when, in fact, it could be the forefront of an entirely new discipline--one that can establish, once and for all, the fact that life on earth arose solely by chance.

Consider archeology. The whole foundation of that science is to discern the artifacts of human culture--ie, natural objects that display evidence of 'intelligent design'--from the earthen rubble that surrounds it.

In archeology, workers developed scientifically sound criteria for observation so that they could be certain that, for ex., that Indian arrowhead is not just some weathered rock.

I don't see why Intelligent Design, once it develops scientifically sound observation techniques, can't be used in biology to establish that evolution does not follow Darwinian logic.

 

[??????????]

I agree completely with MissCatholic. The theory of Intelligent design has no place within a biology class whether the 'designer' in question is a god or an alien race!

Then throw out the THEORY of Evolution as well. Evolution is certainly junk science in my book.

[John Dibble]

I don't see why Intelligent Design, once it develops scientifically sound observation techniques, can't be used in biology to establish that evolution does not follow Darwinian logic.

The problem is how would you go about developing those techniques. Without any proof of existence and involvement of the designer, Intelligent Design doesn't even deserve the status of theory(scientifically speaking, it is a hypothesis, and yes there is a difference). How could you possibly go about proving the existence of such a divine entity? That's pretty much why it's considered pseudoscience - there's no scientific way to show the involvement of a designer.

[Emsworth]

Then throw out the THEORY of Evolution as well. Evolution is certainly junk science in my book.

The notion of evolution itself is not merely a theory, but something that is supported by much evidence - enough evidence, in my opinion, to conclusively demonstrate its validity. The theory of evolution seeks to explain why and how evolution happened (i.e., by natural selection): that is a completely different matter.

[Gabu]

Some of you are too quick to dismiss Intelligent Design as a pseudoscience when, in fact, it could be the forefront of an entirely new discipline--one that can establish, once and for all, the fact that life on earth arose solely by chance.

Consider archeology. The whole foundation of that science is to discern the artifacts of human culture--ie, natural objects that display evidence of 'intelligent design'--from the earthen rubble that surrounds it.

In archeology, workers developed scientifically sound criteria for observation so that they could be certain that, for ex., that Indian arrowhead is not just some weathered rock.

I don't see why Intelligent Design, once it develops scientifically sound observation techniques, can't be used in biology to establish that evolution does not follow Darwinian logic.

The only question I have is this: what scientifically sound observation techniques could possibly be applied to the theory (I use this word loosely) of intelligent design?  In archaeology, they knew what an arrowhead looks like and they know what a simply weathered rock looks like.  Thus, they can compare the two and identify for observational purposes what the difference between them is.

To make a similar type of identification technique for intelligent design, you'd need to know what something created by God looks like and what something not created by God looks like.  So, all you need to do is find something that God created, then find something that God didn't create, compare the two, and identify the differences.  Then we can simply look at the things in our universe and see whether or not God created them or not.

Obviously, the above paragraph is dripping with sarcasm.  The fact of the matter is that I really cannot see any way that intelligent design could be elevated past the level of pure speculation.  To be able to identify whether something was created by God or not, we would have to already know things that were created by God, which indicates that in order to solve this problem, we would first have to solve this problem.

[Everett]

What the hell is redeeming about evolution such that it's acceptable where other theories aren't? Easy to whine about religious theories being taught and then whine about others whining about evolution, correct? I find it completely immature and pointless when people constantly complain about what is happening in schools that they are not attending. If the people who actually attended the schools had problems with it, they can correct the problems themselves.

And I thought you extremist liberals were into showing everything from all viewpoints because of *gasp* tolerance! Oh wait - aren't you registered with the Libertarian Party on Atlasia? Don't you support the lack of government involvement in schools? I guess that government intervention to modify curriculums is perfectly acceptable when it's in your own interest. If you can't stand what Kansas schools are teaching, then don't live there. Don't send your children there.

[/troll]

[Storebought]

Some of you are too quick to dismiss Intelligent Design as a pseudoscience when, in fact, it could be the forefront of an entirely new discipline--one that can establish, once and for all, the fact that life on earth arose solely by chance.

Consider archeology. The whole foundation of that science is to discern the artifacts of human culture--ie, natural objects that display evidence of 'intelligent design'--from the earthen rubble that surrounds it.

In archeology, workers developed scientifically sound criteria for observation so that they could be certain that, for ex., that Indian arrowhead is not just some weathered rock.

I don't see why Intelligent Design, once it develops scientifically sound observation techniques, can't be used in biology to establish that evolution does not follow Darwinian logic.

The only question I have is this: what scientifically sound observation techniques could possibly be applied to the theory (I use this word loosely) of intelligent design?  In archaeology, they knew what an arrowhead looks like and they know what a simply weathered rock looks like.  Thus, they can compare the two and identify for observational purposes what the difference between them is.

To make a similar type of identification technique for intelligent design, you'd need to know what something created by God looks like and what something not created by God looks like.  So, all you need to do is find something that God created, then find something that God didn't create, compare the two, and identify the differences.  Then we can simply look at the things in our universe and see whether or not God created them or not.

Obviously, the above paragraph is dripping with sarcasm.  The fact of the matter is that I really cannot see any way that intelligent design could be elevated past the level of pure speculation.  To be able to identify whether something was created by God or not, we would have to already know things that were created by God, which indicates that in order to solve this problem, we would first have to solve this problem.

Normally, I respect your arguments to the contrary, but, I'm sorry, that's just sloppy.

Science began as pure speculation on what consituted matter. The first Greek 'scientists' thought the world was made up of air, fire, etc., with absolutely no proof to justify their conclusions. The important fact, though, was not their answers, but the questions that they posed. So it seems disingenous of you to dismiss intelligent design as 'pure speculation.'

Just because you cannot come up with arguments in favor of ID does not mean someone else cannot do so, either. Open your mind a little...

How did archaologists 'know', a priori, what an Indian arrowhead is supposed to look like? They didn't; they observed how flint weathers according its crystal structure, which they then compared to the marks actually present on the rock. If marks/flecks are present that break the symmetry of the flint crystals, then we can conclude that the rock is likely to have been man-made.

It takes no large leap of the imagination to apply that sound reasoning to biology.

But I will agree with you on one small point: much of biological (as opposed to biochemical or genetic) research is decidedly unscientific in nature, likely because they base their "research" dogmatically on Darwin's notions of evolution. Imagine if 20th century scientists were so dogmatic in their support of Classical Mechanics!

I would suggest to the die-hard IDers to focus first on developing scientific observations that disprove the tie between genetic variation and macroscopic Darwinian evolution. God can come later...He can wait.

*Apparently, God doesn't need to wait for very long, at least for His medical practitioners: Most doctors surveyed believe in God

[DanielX]

Short-scale evolution is not just a theory but proven (ie changes in populations and inherited traits due to environment). Long-term, especially human evolution, is still just a theory, even if it fits the scant data.

[Hitchabrut]

I have a question. What if you were thirsty because you live in the desert? Would your descendents begin to grow water-stroage apparati? No. Things don't change spontaneously because they would change ideally.

In response to DanielX, i think you're referring to natural selection which doesn't allow for new genetic material to be produced from nothing, but allows for rare, helpful genetic material to become dominant in a population.

[The Dowager Mod]

I agree completely with MissCatholic. The theory of Intelligent design has no place within a biology class whether the 'designer' in question is a god or an alien race!

Then throw out the THEORY of Evolution as well. Evolution is certainly junk science in my book.

At least evolution is a theory.
ID is just wishfull thinking and blind faith.

[John Dibble]

In response to DanielX, i think you're referring to natural selection which doesn't allow for new genetic material to be produced from nothing, but allows for rare, helpful genetic material to become dominant in a population.

Well, there's also mutation - new traits can be introduced through it. Mutants with beneficial mutations will then spread their new gene through the idea of natural selection.

[Hitchabrut]

In response to DanielX, i think you're referring to natural selection which doesn't allow for new genetic material to be produced from nothing, but allows for rare, helpful genetic material to become dominant in a population.

Well, there's also mutation - new traits can be introduced through it. Mutants with beneficial mutations will then spread their new gene through the idea of natural selection.

Few beneficial mutations occur, but those which occur are manifested strongly in populations because of natural selection.

[jokerman]

I firmly belive in god and I also think that there is nothing wrong with teaching intelligent design.

However, I must point out one flaw in the arguments of my side.  The stating of the fact that evolution is only a theory.  Well, general relativity is also a theory.  What many us would call theories are actually in science hypothesises.  A hypothesis must go vigorous testing before it can become a theory.  That is all.

[J. J.]

I think most of you are missing the point.  Evolution explains the journey of the universe got to the point where it is today.  It does not attempt to explain what caused the journey to start.  I feel that inquiry into the second point is a legitimate for both science and philosophy classes.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I agree completely with MissCatholic. The theory of Intelligent design has no place within a biology class whether the 'designer' in question is a god or an alien race!

Then throw out the THEORY of Evolution as well. Evolution is certainly junk science in my book.

Clearly since it has the word Theory, it must be false, along with the Theory of General Relativity, and Quantum Theory.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think most of you are missing the point.  Evolution explains the journey of the universe got to the point where it is today.  It does not attempt to explain what caused the journey to start.  I feel that inquiry into the second point is a legitimate for both science and philosophy classes.

^^^

[Emsworth]

However, I must point out one flaw in the arguments of my side.  The stating of the fact that evolution is only a theory.  Well, general relativity is also a theory.  What many us would call theories are actually in science hypothesises.  A hypothesis must go vigorous testing before it can become a theory.  That is all.

I completely agree. The common understanding of the word "theory" is different from the scientific one.

[John Dibble]

However, I must point out one flaw in the arguments of my side.  The stating of the fact that evolution is only a theory.  Well, general relativity is also a theory.  What many us would call theories are actually in science hypothesises.  A hypothesis must go vigorous testing before it can become a theory.  That is all.

I completely agree. The common understanding of the word "theory" is different from the scientific one.

Quite right. Stuff like this goes hypothesis->theory->law. Hypothesis only has a few observations to back it up, but nothing completely solid and little if any study done. Theory has a larger number of observations and study to indicate it is at least partially correct. Law has had enough done to where it can be certain all aspects of it are correct.

There was the law of gravity, but it got bumped down to theory because we don't understand fully it's mechanics and effects in certain situations(moving close to light speed or ultra-high gravity, if I'm not mistaken). So, gravity is only a theory.

[afleitch]

Is it me or is the USA the only civilised nation in the world who is deeply split by this?

[Beet]

Is it me or is the USA the only civilised nation in the world who is deeply split by this?

Spain Ireland and Italy seem to have their religious divisions.

Correct- Intelligent design does not belong in Biology class. However it does belong in History class.

[muon2]

However, I must point out one flaw in the arguments of my side.  The stating of the fact that evolution is only a theory.  Well, general relativity is also a theory.  What many us would call theories are actually in science hypothesises.  A hypothesis must go vigorous testing before it can become a theory.  That is all.

I completely agree. The common understanding of the word "theory" is different from the scientific one.

Quite right. Stuff like this goes hypothesis->theory->law. Hypothesis only has a few observations to back it up, but nothing completely solid and little if any study done. Theory has a larger number of observations and study to indicate it is at least partially correct. Law has had enough done to where it can be certain all aspects of it are correct.

There was the law of gravity, but it got bumped down to theory because we don't understand fully it's mechanics and effects in certain situations(moving close to light speed or ultra-high gravity, if I'm not mistaken). So, gravity is only a theory.

It's even more complicated than this. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries a hypothesis supported by testing would be called laws. Even some purely mathematical derivations would be called laws. The most prominent example is probably Newton's laws of motion and gravity.

In the nineteenth century the use of language evolved and the preferred term for a tested hypothesis or rigorous mathematical statement of physical law was the theory, from the same root as theorem. For example Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Einstein's theory of relativity had as much basis in testing as did Newton's laws in the earlier century. The only difference was the use of language. We still speak of theoretical physics, but mean that branch that primarily deals in the mathematical proofs and solutions pertaining to physical problems. These theories are often more rigorous than the old "laws".

Interestingly, in the late twentieth century there seems to be another language change. It is common to find model used to describe a scientific description. As an example, the Standard Model is used to describe the behavior of fundamental subatomic particles, but is based on the same solid mathematical foundation as earlier theories might have been.

Whether it is a law, theory, or model, science recognizes that new data can cause old ideas to be extended into new areas. This may appear as if science is repudiating an earlier work. More often we find that we considered too limited a part of the universe in the first place. For example, Newton's and Maxwell's works still stand as critically important to describe the vast majority of phenomena we encounter. Yet Einstein realized that these two works contradicted each other in certain cases, especially with electrons at very high speed. The result was his work on Special Relativity that celebrates its 100th anniversary this year.

[??????????]

Is it me or is the USA the only civilised nation in the world who is deeply split by this?

Correct- Intelligent design does not belong in Biology class. However it does belong in History class.

It's as much science as the junk science they call "evolution" now.