Intelligent design belongs in Church not Biology class.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I think science classes should weigh evolution more heavily in their curriculum than other theories because it has the most support in the scientific community and the most research associated with it, but other ideas, particularly intelligent design, should at least be discussed as well.  Let students decide for themselves what they want to believe in given as much evidence and information as possible.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

There's no difference between theory and law in that context. It's the THEORY of General Relativity, and Quantum THEORY.

[John Dibble]

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.

There's no difference between theory and law in that context. It's the THEORY of General Relativity, and Quantum THEORY.

Law is reserved for things we have pretty much a complete understanding of, theory is only partially understood or proven.

[muon2]

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.

There's no difference between theory and law in that context. It's the THEORY of General Relativity, and Quantum THEORY.

Law is reserved for things we have pretty much a complete understanding of, theory is only partially understood or proven.

That isn't generally true. The difference is more about when the understanding took place. For instance Ohm's law in electricity is an approximation and understood far less well than the theory of special relativity. The difference is that Ohm wrote in 1827 and Einstein in 1905. The technical use of the terms changed over that century.

[socaldem]

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.

The problem, of course, is that if you accept what science teaches, everything can be explained from the big bang without resorting to religous explanations. 

Certainly, one may insert God as the driving force of the big bang, but such a God would be such a distant being that His existence would bring little satisfaction to anyone but agnostics.

I think that there is a fundamental logical conflict between what our current scientific theories tell us and what our popular religions tell us.  Denying this conflict would be foolish. 

Forcing people to accept scientific theories in completion would have such radical effects on their social and religious beliefs so as to result in the rejection of science altogether. 

Thus, it seems to me, allowing intelligent design theory alongside evolution, furthers the cause of science because it encourages religious people to, at least, accept some, if not all scientific premises.  Eventually, of course, people will become dissatisfied with the flawed ID theory and accept the much more robust TOE...

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

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.

The problem, of course, is that if you accept what science teaches, everything can be explained from the big bang without resorting to religous explanations. 

Certainly, one may insert God as the driving force of the big bang, but such a God would be such a distant being that His existence would bring little satisfaction to anyone but agnostics.

I think that there is a fundamental logical conflict between what our current scientific theories tell us and what our popular religions tell us.  Denying this conflict would be foolish. 

Forcing people to accept scientific theories in completion would have such radical effects on their social and religious beliefs so as to result in the rejection of science altogether. 

Thus, it seems to me, allowing intelligent design theory alongside evolution, furthers the cause of science because it encourages religious people to, at least, accept some, if not all scientific premises.  Eventually, of course, people will become dissatisfied with the flawed ID theory and accept the much more robust TOE...

Where's the missing link?

[afleitch]

Due to fluctuating sea levels and the prevailance of our early ancestors to live in coastal areas, it is more than likely that the fossil evidence is underseveral hundred feet of water. And even if they did discover the missing link those who believe evolution is bunk still wouldn't accept it along with such scary concepts as say...oh I don't know the natural prevailance of homosexuality in all species, medical science and the seperation of church and state.

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

Due to fluctuating sea levels and the prevailance of our early ancestors to live in coastal areas, it is more than likely that the fossil evidence is underseveral hundred feet of water. And even if they did discover the missing link those who believe evolution is bunk still wouldn't accept it along with such scary concepts as say...oh I don't know the natural prevailance of homosexuality in all species, medical science and the seperation of church and state.

The seperation of church and state is not a "scary concept" its nonexistent here in the US. But of course in Britian they have a state church but they have seperation of church and state there.

[afleitch]

And if America continues down its current path we'll probably soon have most of your scientists too!

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

And if America continues down its current path we'll probably soon have most of your scientists too!

Ok, quit believing extremist nonsense.

[A18]

I noticed a natural prevalence to kill things in all species. It must be a great thing.

[afleitch]

What on earth is so 'extremist' about the Theory of the Origin of Species? It seems to be pretty much mainstream to me.

[Rob]

What on earth is so 'extremist' about the Theory of the Origin of Species? It seems to be pretty much mainstream to me.

Actually, it's funny that the religious right hates Darwin so much, since the Origin of Species doesn't rule out the existence of a "higher power". Their dislike of it just proves their lack of scientific knowledge.

[socaldem]

What on earth is so 'extremist' about the Theory of the Origin of Species? It seems to be pretty much mainstream to me.

Actually, it's funny that the religious right hates Darwin so much, since the Origin of Species doesn't rule out the existence of a "higher power". Their dislike of it just proves their lack of scientific knowledge.

Well, Darwin's original origin of species did not...neither does ID theory...

the theory of evolution in its current form, however, minimizes God to a pretty tangential position, imo, making fundamentalist objections perfectly sensible...

[jokerman]

What on earth is so 'extremist' about the Theory of the Origin of Species? It seems to be pretty much mainstream to me.

Actually, it's funny that the religious right hates Darwin so much, since the Origin of Species doesn't rule out the existence of a "higher power". Their dislike of it just proves their lack of scientific knowledge.

What infuriates me is when I see people arguing in the paper against the big bang and such with arguments like "well where in tarnation did it all come from" or how could "it just bang out of nowhere?"  I believe that god created the universe, but I also read a lot of science (Brian Greene is a very good author) and I try to keep an open mind and the belief that science dosen't nessicarily disprove the existence of god.(Which is what the far left and the far right of the argument try to push)

[PBrunsel]

I think Evolution is real. Man did come from monkeys, and the Democratic Party is proof of that!

[John Dibble]

I think Evolution is real. Man did come from monkeys, and the Democratic Party is proof of that!

You know, that goes both ways.

[angus]

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.

There's no difference between theory and law in that context. It's the THEORY of General Relativity, and Quantum THEORY.

Law is reserved for things we have pretty much a complete understanding of, theory is only partially understood or proven.

That isn't generally true. The difference is more about when the understanding took place. For instance Ohm's law in electricity is an approximation and understood far less well than the theory of special relativity. The difference is that Ohm wrote in 1827 and Einstein in 1905. The technical use of the terms changed over that century.

agreed.  I find "model" to be very much in vogue now among my fellow eggheads, don't you?

[Storebought]

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.

There's no difference between theory and law in that context. It's the THEORY of General Relativity, and Quantum THEORY.

Law is reserved for things we have pretty much a complete understanding of, theory is only partially understood or proven.

That isn't generally true. The difference is more about when the understanding took place. For instance Ohm's law in electricity is an approximation and understood far less well than the theory of special relativity. The difference is that Ohm wrote in 1827 and Einstein in 1905. The technical use of the terms changed over that century.

agreed.  I find "model" to be very much in vogue now among my fellow eggheads, don't you?

You could argue that those changes in terminology from Law > Theory > Model reflect the narrow and delimited scope of recent scientific research

Compare Newton's "Law" of universal gravitation, with its explanation of everything from planetary orbits to rising tides to falling apples, with "The Standard Model" which explains, well, whatever subatomic particles do in particle accelerators. Pretty esoteric stuff.

[angus]

yes I think you could.  Which is not unlike what muon posted.  I think you could also point to technological innovations.  For example, Boyle's law for gasses states that at a constant temperature, the volume of of a gas will vary inversely with its pressure.  This is an important law for divers to understand.  This doesn't require fancy calculators to observe, and repeated observations that taking a balloon deeper and deeper into water makes the balloon smaller and smaller in a predictable way.  Thus a "Law" may be said to be empirical, and maybe that's what John was trying to say.  But then so are theories, which came later, starting in the late 1800s when investigators were trying to understand electricity.  For example, you can say Rutherford ruled out Thomson's plum pudding model of the atom since some of the alpha particles ricocheted directly back from the gold foil.  But he didn't "prove" that most of the mass was in the nucleus.  Thus the word theory.  But I think you could just as well call it Rutherford's model, and, in fact, I believe many modern textbooks do refer to "Rutherford's Nuclear Model" in keeping with the current usage.

Isn't this a bit tangential to the topic, though?  We're arguing over syntax and its historical development at this point.  Going back to ID, my main problem with it is that I think it's total bullsh**t.  But maybe the reason I think it's bullsh**t is because like everyone else here who went to public schools in the US in the 70s/80s, I was taught that we evolved from simpler organisms via natural selection.  Times were different then, and I don't remember anyone having a problem with "darwinism"   Elimination of extremes, extinction, filling niches and creating new ones.  All that stuff.  Sure, we all understood he got many of the details wrong, but we knew that this was customary as theories develop.  Now, if you have a competing alternative theory which has a sound hypothetical basis, maybe we should rethink it.  If we never rethought anything, we'd still believe the earth is at the center of the solar system, right?  Nothing wrong with challenging authority, in my book.  So the question becomes, is ID an attempt by religious scholars to bring religion into public schools, or is it a reasonable scientific alternative to the theory of evolution via natural selection?

[Hitchabrut]

What annoys me the most are the excuses that are formulated for textbooks where evolutionary theory is most laconic, such as regarding the origin of the first life on earth and the theory on how mitochondria supposedly invaded other cells and became genetically imprinted in their descendents.

[angus]

ah, the endosymbiotic origin of the mitochondria.  (and don't forget chloroplasts, our green friends!)  Actually, it's a reasonable hypothesis.  Don't forget these organelles have their own genomes.  Hey, if you were a blue-green alga and a big hulking primordial endocytic cell came to devour you, would you rather just lie down and take it like a man?  Get digested?  Not me, buddy.  I'd figure out how to make a living inside the beast.  Seems like a reasonable hypothesis to me.  (okay, I'll call it hypothesis rather than Theory if you prefer)  Sure, there are alternate theories of the evolution of eukaryotic cells, but we can't go back in time (yet!) so we can't be sure.

[PBrunsel]

I think Evolution is real. Man did come from monkeys, and the Democratic Party is proof of that!

You know, that goes both ways.

LOL!

[Redefeatbush04]

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 has SOME solid evidence to support it and is not just a blind guess as to how everything originated. The "theory" of evolution came about through the dilligent studying of many scholarly individuals, constant tests and research, and was developed using many of todays technological advances. This lies in stark contrast to the faith-based, uneducated,  and primitive "intelligent design" idea which states that some creature created itself and then created life. There was NO research, NO testing, and NO studying. It is nothin more than a guess.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

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 has SOME solid evidence to support it and is not just a blind guess as to how everything originated. The "theory" of evolution came about through the dilligent studying of many scholarly individuals, constant tests and research, and was developed using many of todays technological advances. This lies in stark contrast to the faith-based, uneducated,  and primitive "intelligent design" idea which states that some creature created itself and then created life. There was NO research, NO testing, and NO studying. It is nothin more than a guess.

Perfectly said.  Evolution at least has some support behind it.  I mean, we've dug up creatures that looked half-human half-ape. 

On the other hand...

"I believe a giant wad of poo came forth from Saturn 8,567 years ago and created man, then darted off to Andromeda to spread it's beautiful work"

what I just said has about as much evidence behind it as your average religious myth or Bible story. 

That's right.  NONE.  Stop the ignorance.  Intellegent design is just a word for the Genesis version of man's creation without actually saying it so it won't violate seperation of Church and State.  Could these people just say its POSSIBLE they MIGHT be wrong.  Most stubborn bastards on the face of the Earth if you ask me.