Simple question.
Should intelligent design be taught in school as an alternative to evolution? There is quite the debate taking place over this topic in PA right now.
Printable View
Simple question.
Should intelligent design be taught in school as an alternative to evolution? There is quite the debate taking place over this topic in PA right now.
Well, implicit in the "alternative to evolution" statement would be that intelligent design be a valid science. Which it isn't. Science requires hypotheses that are testable, and tests that are repeatable. Intelligent design, being thinly-veiled creationism, provides neither.
The only thing you can infer from ID is some vague characteristics of the creator... sorry.... designer. But why hasn't that been done yet? Hmmm.... thinly-veiled creationism is (apparantly) acceptable for schools, but once someone actually does any scientific exploration of ID, the thinly-veiled part comes right off. Anyone know if religion can be taught in schools in america? :wink:
Even if it wasn't just the latest plot of the religious right in america to push their religion on everyone, what would be taught? Try imagining an "intelligent design" test. It never fails to crack me up.
Question: How did life on earth develop?
a) Goddidit
B) Goddidit
c) Goddidit
-spoon
(edited to add) oh yeah answer the question. no. no it shouldnt be taught. Just because it pisses me off, here's a rant. If ID is let through, as a challenge to evolution, what's next? Evolution provides an alternative to the start of genesis. ID is a response to this, because evolution cant possibly be right if the bible says otherwise. Do you know what'll come next? Validating noahs ark. Goodby geology, chemisty, archaeology, anthropology, paleontology, maths, etc. [/rant/edit]
I think there is just too much... I mean... Intelligent Design... then whats next? Christianity? Then, more and more and more and more and more... I dunno i just think we should leave it along how it is or nothing at all.... Should be its own elective... I just think there's to many beliefs and everyone will push to bring everyone in...
I dont really know what Intelligent Design means, but from what you guys said i guess it has much to do with the "creation" and "God" in the bible.
Couldnt we either try going the other way. Teach philosophy. Let the students learn to think for themself. Not learn how they should think. Im not much of a religion guy, since i look at religion as a little branch on a big tree. Instead of learning the branch lets learn thinking about the tree...or something.
I don't think it should be taught as a required course but perhaps as a possible elective. However, I do not think that the teaching of this subject is any religion pushing its beleifs on another person, it doesn't even mention God. It is simply just another theoretical way of looking at how the universe was conceived. Even science hasn't been able to explain this with anything more than a theory. For some strange reason some people become deeply offended if there is anything at all that they could miscontrue to be of a religious nature, being taught in school. I think people make too big of a deal out of it personally.
I think people become alarmed when legislation is passed that threatens to undermine the 1st Amendment.Quote:
Merck wrote:
For some strange reason some people become deeply offended if there is anything at all that they could miscontrue to be of a religious nature, being taught in school.[/b]
This is indeed a tactical move by the religous right in this country to propagate their agendas. Just take a look at some of the key players spearheading this moment in PA...
William Buckingham - heads the school board’s curriculum committee in Dover, PA. He is a self described Born-again and believes in Creationism.
State Rep. Thomas C. Creighton (R., Lancaster) - has said that he wishes to broaden the scope of evolution theory to include points of view other than Darwin's theory of natural selection.
This is not an isolated incident, there is a national campaign to mandate the teaching of ID in public schools. Ohio's state Board of Education voted in 2002 to require students to learn that scientists "continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." This was in large part from the influence of the Discovery Institute (one of the leading organizations working nationally to change how evolution is taught).
The Discovery Institue has an annual budget of about $3.2 million, and plans to spend about $1.3 million on the intelligent-design work. The Fieldstead Charitable Trust, run by Christian conservative Henry Ahmanson and his wife, is one of the largest donors to that effort. The Fieldstead Trust was originally grant funded by the The Pew Charitable Trusts (a reputable contributor to such organizations, to include The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association).
Fortunately, there are just too many questions about the true intentions of those who advocate intelligent design, and people are not going to be willing to risk losing the separation between church and state. However, the fact that mandates are slowly being passed across this country is indeed cause for alarm. [/political rant]
While we're talking about the amendments, what makes it fair to impose evolution on the children in school?
I tend to agree with notion that the various options need to be presented equally, and a great deal of philosophy and skeptical thought be taught.
That way the children can make their own informed choices.
But that's just my feeling at this point.
I think a cross section of those most popular ideas in the world be taught.
Such a simple idea, yet oh so profound. Yea Jill I like the sound of that idea.Quote:
Originally posted by jill1978
I think a cross section of those most popular ideas in the world be taught.
Simple answer: Yes.
http://www.venganza.org/Quote:
I think a cross section of those most popular ideas in the world be taught. [/b]
Any elaboration?Quote:
Originally posted by syzygy
Simple answer: Yes.
And IntheMoment, that link is classic. All hail His Noodly Appendage!
-spoon
Spoon touched on it...but no one has really pointed out the plain fact that ID makes no sense.
Theory: The level of complexity observed in the universe suggests that it did not arise by chance, but was designed by an unspecified creator which is more complex.
Unfortunately, if this is true, a more complex creator is needed to explain the existence of this creator. And a more complex creator to create that one, and a more complex creator to create that one....I think we see where this is going.
Wow, Jill! O_O I never thought I'd see you again down here..if you still remember me, anyway. But wow, its awesome to see a post by a member who had been gone for such a long while! :) I'm sure people will be delighted to see you around again, we never did forget you. Anyway, glad to see you around again! :DQuote:
Originally posted by jill1978
I think a cross section of those most popular ideas in the world be taught.
ps Im sorry if you made a topic on your returnal, but I havn't been able to find it if so.., so I decided to just post over here. 8)
Not if its infinite.Quote:
Originally posted by Charles Darwin+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Charles Darwin)</div>There are numerous irreducibly complex systems that demonstrate just that.Quote:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.[/b]
Darwin's theory of evolution works on the scale that he showed, but it does not work when you get down to the origin of things. Evolution cannot explain the origin, so ID does not disprove evolution, it just offers a solution to the problem that evolution cannot explain.
Allowing Intelligent Design to be taught in schools is not the first step to teaching any religion. Although it has serious metaphysical implications, it in no way proves one religion to be true, in fact it could be used to show how similar all religions are.
Evolution is just that, another creation myth. As I said before, it cannot show evidence for the origin of life. The Creation in Genesis is often times taken too damn literally (which didn't start happening until the fifth century AD, btw). How ever much the modern fundamentalist Christians want it to be a simple, literal record of history, this is not the case. Same with Noah's ark, this is not a literal historical event, so it will never disprove sciences. Intelligent Design opens up a possibility that materialist science has been trying to deny, even though many religions in many cultures in many times have known otherwise.Quote:
Originally posted by spoon@
Evolution provides an alternative to the start of genesis. ID is a response to this, because evolution cant possibly be right if the bible says otherwise. Do you know what'll come next? Validating noahs ark. Goodby geology, chemisty, archaeology, anthropology, paleontology, maths, etc.
<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker
Unfortunately, if this is true, a more complex creator is needed to explain the existence of this creator. And a more complex creator to create that one, and a more complex creator to create that one....I think we see where this is going.
An "alternative" to evolution?? When proposed like that, it only increases it's highlight of uncertainty in the topic.
I really don't think ID will be the standard in America anytime soon. Here in California, it is definately not the norm explanation for the universe origins. At best, it's a metaphysical vagueness mixed in with evolution. A simple idea should not have the ability to threaten the intelligence of human minds. But I feel creationism should still be an open topic. But it's hard for people to be completely open to everything, they usually choose one or the other.
The new education system that is emerging is as follows
"The growth and the development of the Science of Psychology.
The recognition of the facts of Esoteric Astrology
The admittance of the fact of the Law of Rebirth as a governing, natural process.
The Science of the Antahkarana. This is the new and true science of the mind, which will utilize mental substance for the building of the bridge between personality and soul, and then between the soul and the spiritual triad. This constitutes active work in substance subtler than the substance of the three worlds of ordinary human evolution. It concerns the substance of the three higher levels of the mental plane. These symbolic bridges, when constructed, will facilitate the stream or flow of consciousness and will produce that continuity of consciousness, or that sense of unimpeded awareness, which will finally end the fear of death, negate all sense of separateness, and make a man responsive in his brain consciousness to impressions coming to him from the higher spiritual realms or from the Mind of God. Thus he will more easily be initiated into the purposes and plans of the Creator.
The Science of Meditation. At present meditation is associated in the minds of men with religious matters. But that relates only to theme. The science can be applied to every possible life process. In reality, this science is a subsidiary branch, preparatory to the Science of the Antahkarana. It is really the true science of occult bridge building or bridging in consciousness. By its means, particularly in the early stages, the building process is facilitated. It is one of the major ways of spiritual functioning; it is one of the many ways to God; it relates the individual mind eventually to the higher mind and later to the Universal Mind. It is one of the major building techniques and will eventually dominate the new educational methods in schools and colleges. It is intended primarily to:
Produce sensitivity to the higher impressions.
b. Build the first half of the antahkarana, that between the personality and the soul.
c. Produce an eventual continuity of consciousness. Meditation is essentially the science of light, because it works in the substance of light. One branch of it is concerned with the science of visualization because, as the light continues to bring revelation, the power to visualize can grow with the aid of the illumined mind, and the later work of training the disciple to create is then made possible. It might be added here that the building of the second half of the antahkarana (that which bridges the gap in consciousness between the soul and the spiritual triad) is called the science of vision, because [97] just as the first half of the bridge is built through the use of mental substance, so the second half is built through the use of light substance.
The Science of Service grows normally and naturally out of the successful application of the other two sciences. As the linking up of soul and personality proceeds, and as the knowledge of the plan and the light of the soul pour into the brain consciousness, the normal result is the subordination of the lower to the higher. Identification with group purposes and plans is the natural attribute of the soul. As this identification is carried forward on mental and soul levels, it produces a corresponding activity in the personal life and this activity we call service. Service is the true science of creation and is a scientific method of establishing continuity.
These three sciences will be regarded eventually as the three major concerns of the educational process and upon them will the emphasis increasingly be placed.
We have now laid the ground for a consideration of the three sciences which will dominate the thought of educators in the coming age. The building and the development of the antahkarana, the development of the power to control life and to work white magic through the science of meditation, and also the science of service whereby group control and group relationship are fostered and developed - these are the three fundamental sciences which will guide the psychologist and the educator of the future. These will also cause a radical change in the attitude of parents towards their children and in the methods which they employ to train and teach them when they are very young and in the formative years of their consciousness.
It should here be remembered that these parents themselves will have been brought up under this new and different regime and will themselves have been developed under this changed mode of approaching the educational process. What may therefore seem to you mystical and vague (because of its newness, or its idealism and its emphasis upon a seeming abstract group consciousness), will seem to them normal and natural. What I am here outlining to you is a possibility which lies ahead for the next two or three generations; I am also referring to a recognition which a new educational ideology will normally permit to govern the mode of instruction.
- Alice Bailey
First off, you're mistaken on what evolution is. Evolution is the development of already extant organisms. Abiogensis is a naturalistic attempt at explaining the origin of life, which has 0 to do with evolution. Thus, as an alternative to evolution, ID can say nothing about the origin of life.Quote:
Originally posted by syzygy
Darwin's theory of evolution works on the scale that he showed, but it does not work when you get down to the origin of things. Evolution cannot explain the origin, so ID does not disprove evolution, it just offers a solution to the problem that evolution cannot explain.
Show some. And show that this means that there is a designer.Quote:
(darwin says that irreductibly complex systems = end of evolution)There are numerous irreducibly complex systems that demonstrate just that. [/b]
Whats that even mean? And brady's example still stands:Quote:
(Creator needing a creator)Not if its infinite.[/b]
A being who is defined by its infinite nature has to be irreductibly complex, as any less than the sum of its parts would be < infinite. Hence (by your reasoning) it requires a creator.
ID is Intelligent design by a supernatural entity. Religion (being a strong belief in supernatural power(s)) follows from that. And all religions (based around deities) already agree on on the supernatural part. Teaching it to kids doesn't make them agree anymore. Monotheism, henotheism, polytheism, aliensdidit-ism - these will still remain fundamentally opposed.Quote:
Allowing Intelligent Design to be taught in schools is not the first step to teaching any religion. Although it has serious metaphysical implications, it in no way proves one religion to be true, in fact it could be used to show how similar all religions are. [/b]
As spoon correctly pointed out, evolution has nothing to do with creation.Quote:
Originally posted by syzygy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syzygy)</div><!--QuoteBegin-syzygyQuote:
Evolution cannot explain the origin[/b]
Evolution is just that, another creation myth. As I said before, it cannot show evidence for the origin of life.
Trying to explain creation with evolution would be like trying to prove that 1 = 1 using addition.
Should Intelligent Design or Creationism be taught in schools? It depends on where it is taught.
Evolution and Speciation are parts of biology and should be taught as such. Creationism has nothing to do at all with biology and is religion, and so should never be taught in class as an 'alternative' to evolution, because it is not so. Evolution is a part of biology, whether someone likes it or not, but people can choose to ignore this and beleive in creationism if they want.
Intelligent Design and Creationism should be confined to church school, or taught in religious education classes (which by no means should be compulsory). Keep creationism out of the biology classroom, because it has no right to be there at all.
An infinite creator? A creator that has no beginning or end, i.e. not created, not finite.Quote:
Originally posted by spoon+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spoon)</div>Sorry, I should be more clear as there are multiple meanings to evolution. What I mean is that ID does not replace species variation, but it does offer an alternative to chemical evolution, which is where irreducibly complex systems come in.Quote:
First off, you're mistaken on what evolution is. Evolution is the development of already extant organisms. Abiogensis is a naturalistic attempt at explaining the origin of life, which has 0 to do with evolution. Thus, as an alternative to evolution, ID can say nothing about the origin of life. [/b]
One of which is baterial flagellum. Since it contains a system that needs all of its parts to work (and has parts that are only found in that system), then it could not have evolved since there would be no need for the parts unless the whole system was working. How can this organism know exactly what parts it needs to create a system that cannot evolve?
And how do you think DNA (which is totally unprecedented in nature) originated?
<!--QuoteBegin-spoon
Whats that even mean? And brady's example still stands:
A being who is defined by its infinite nature has to be irreductibly complex, as any less than the sum of its parts would be < infinite. Hence (by your reasoning) it requires a creator.
But being infinite means that there is never a sum of the parts, you never have something you can point to and say \"thats it\". What is going to create infinity? Infinity + 1? Or maybe infinity x infinity? It is everything, even the creation.
Maybe this is a totally different discussion and ID is only one part of it. But what I meant was that if we realize that this entity designed everything, including all religions, then we can no longer say that one is the ultimate truth. That is something only the human ego wants.Quote:
Originally posted by spoon
ID is Intelligent design by a supernatural entity. Religion (being a strong belief in supernatural power(s)) follows from that. And all religions (based around deities) already agree on on the supernatural part. Teaching it to kids doesn't make them agree anymore. Monotheism, henotheism, polytheism, aliensdidit-ism - these will still remain fundamentally opposed.
Evolution is biological evolution. Abiogenesis is chemical evolution. They're different. What you're saying here is that ID has nothing to do with biological evolution yet....Quote:
Sorry, I should be more clear as there are multiple meanings to evolution. What I mean is that ID does not replace species variation, but it does offer an alternative to chemical evolution, which is where irreducibly complex systems come in.[/b]
This is biological evoultion. Bacterial flagellum are life. I have never scientifically researched evolution, so I am not qualified to have a scientific opinion on this. But I can link to talkorigins, which is compiled by scientists, from actual scientific research, with references. The whole thing is relevant, but I like this part:Quote:
One of which is baterial flagellum. Since it contains a system that needs all of its parts to work (and has parts that are only found in that system), then it could not have evolved since there would be no need for the parts unless the whole system was working. How can this organism know exactly what parts it needs to create a system that cannot evolve?[/b]
\"One third of the 497 amino acids of flagellin have been cut out without harming its function\"
It doesn't sound too irreductible to me.
From RNA? Which makes DNA kind of precedented. But again - biological evolution not chemical.Quote:
And how do you think DNA (which is totally unprecedented in nature) originated? [/b]
That was my point. How does infinity arise? It's irreductibly complex. Hence, creator. But we might just not see eye to eye on this. So besides the creator --> creator --> creator --> etc loop you get, here's another problem:Quote:
But being infinite means that there is never a sum of the parts, you never have something you can point to and say \"thats it\". What is going to create infinity? Infinity + 1? Or maybe infinity x infinity? It is everything, even the creation. [/b]
Descisions require time (being the transition from one state to another)
Time is a part of creation
An infinite creator existed before creation
Hence (the creator existed) before time
Hence, before creation, an infinte creator didnt have enough time to decide to create time
Unless time was already there with the creator (outside of its creation)..... which means another creator. And again you have an infinite loop.
I'm glad you mentioned that.Quote:
Originally posted by syzygy
One of which is baterial flagellum. Since it contains a system that needs all of its parts to work (and has parts that are only found in that system), then it could not have evolved since there would be no need for the parts unless the whole system was working. How can this organism know exactly what parts it needs to create a system that cannot evolve?
And how do you think DNA (which is totally unprecedented in nature) originated?
Read this:
http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11711
What many people in this country and on this country's school boards seem to be forgetting is that ID is not science. The proper place for ID/creationism and other cultures' creation stories is in the history classroom, not the science classroom. Those who claim that evolution is not supported by factual evidence are uninformed, misled, or deceiving themselves and others in a desperate bid to save a literally-interpreted piece of their religion from science's cutting room floor. The fossil record offers clear and compelling evidence of the evolutionary process, and evolution on a micro-scale can be observed and studied within a single human lifetime (the peppered moth of industrialized Britain is probably the most oft-cited example). I have no problem with ID being taught -- but not in biology class. And not alone in a history class. As the Christian creation myth, it should be given equal time with the world's other main religions during a world history or cultural anthropology course; however, that is where it should remain. It is a mistake to confuse a scientifically unsupported, shiny, new, “updated for the new millennium, buy now!” mock-up of a flailing religious doctrine with actual evolutionary science.
Edit: should have run spell check before posting... :?
On that note, you often hear "evolution is a theory" in ID debates.Quote:
Originally posted by Peregrinus
The fossil record offers clear and compelling evidence of the evolutionary process, and evolution on a micro-scale can be observed and studied within a single human lifetime (the peppered moth of industrialized Britain is probably the most oft-cited example).?
The statement is false because the "theory of evolution" is not "evolution happens". The fact that evolution happens is just that, a fact. Observable, as Peregrinus said, through fossils and through scientific observation. The theory of evolution is the theory of the mechanism by which evolution occurs. If this mechanism is found to be false, it is discarded - Lamarckism being an example. Science is good like that
Methinks I enjoy this topic too much
[quote]
It seems that you do not understand how evolution works, which is by mutation. An animal does not suddenly 'grow' an extra leg, and a bacteria does not suddenly 'grow' a flagellum, these things are the cause of mutations.Quote:
One of which is baterial flagellum. Since it contains a system that needs all of its parts to work (and has parts that are only found in that system), then it could not have evolved since there would be no need for the parts unless the whole system was working. How can this organism know exactly what parts it needs to create a system that cannot evolve?
A mutation, as you may or may not know, is the result of a mistake in the DNA of the species. This mistake can cause abnormal growths, in the case of the bacteria, a flagellum. Now if this abnormal growth turns out to actually be beneficial, then the bacteria can survive a lot easier. Having a flagellum to move around can prove to be very useful indeed and help it to obtain more food. The obvious flow-on effect of this is that the bacteria with the flagellum reproduces more, and it's descendants all share the flagellum also.
Evolution is caused by the slow modifications of a species through mutations. The surrounding environment then dictates which of these mutations is successful. An organism never "knows" or "decides" which things to evolve.
As for DNA, it is further evidence of evolution, as it shows that every organism, every life form is linked, and must have originated from the same point.
I guess simple is sarcastic. Ok I'm a sarcastic type, but this usa is a democracy. So lets take a cross section of the world and teach that. I would'nt think that a large number of people would buy into the spagetti monster idea, ok one or two. But a large number of people are bible bangers, so I can see why creationism should be tought. Even if I dont buy it.
I think there should be an option. Like two divisions of Science, one for Evolutionary science and the other for Creationist science. I dunno...does it really have to be one or the other? Just a lil' hint: this is one of those times when the answer isn't black and or/white. :wink:
LOL.Quote:
Originally posted by Ramu
Creationist science
OK...well, you know what I meant. Just for the sake of peace, have the option of bull science or real science. Just for the kids with the wacko extremist parents out there... :shock:Quote:
Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>Quote:
<!--QuoteBegin-Ramu
LOL.[/b]Quote:
Creationist science
Science class is not the appropriate place to be teaching such ideas. It's not that they have no merit, but they have no scientific merit.
It would be exceptionally irresponsible to present an unfalsifiable argument while at the same time trying to stress the importance of the scientific method.
Talk about mixed messages.
OK, I guess you're right...but try telling that to said wacko extremist parents out there... :?Quote:
Originally posted by bradybaker
Science class is not the appropriate place to be teaching such ideas. It's not that they have no merit, but they have no scientific merit.
It would be exceptionally irresponsible to present an unfalsifiable argument while at the same time trying to stress the importance of the scientific method.
Talk about mixed messages.
yes
they should teach both religon and science and tell the kids to develope their own concusions.They should be exposed to a number of religons and sciences.They need to think more spirtual and yet understand that sicence can prove wheather or not things are right.
Yes, but they should never be taught creationism in a science class, and the religion should be taught completley seperatley and must be voluntary.Quote:
Originally posted by eyeofgames
yes
they should teach both religon and science and tell the kids to develope their own concusions.They should be exposed to a number of religons and sciences.They need to think more spirtual and yet understand that sicence can prove wheather or not things are right.
yes
I think the real question is whether teaching should be done by telling or by asking.
From pre-school students are told to accept facts because their teachers say so. Not until college do they offer courses that touch on the fundamental justification of those facts. Throughout school students are presented with countless disputable facts. Most are seldom questioned, but when a large segment of the population doesn't believe something that is being taught to kids in school, as in this case, they try to force teachers to stop teaching it as truth. Very little they teach in school is unquestionable truth, and yet it is taught anyway, and seldom questioned. What they should teach children first is what truth is, why things are true, and if anything can be said to be true in the first place. In order to have a full understanding of any subject a student must have at least some exposure to philosophy. I think it should be a required course as soon as middle school and it should probably taught using the Socratic method.
Students need a reason to accept what their teachers are saying in order for them to develop intellectual integrity.
Intelligent Design should not be taught but presented, debate should be welcomed and other alternatives presented.
Allows students to make up their own minds. I had people telling me the grace of some benevolent male ideal god for years and I never took in a bit of it.
I say present it, so people are well, aware that many people believe it, but for the love of god [ha ha funny pun] don't actually say "this is true". Because, well, it might not be. Let the kids make their own decisions on things like that.
I think it's fine to teach ID in schools, but you will not find it taught alongside evolution because evolution is a scientific theory whereas ID is a social movement. Available evidence, including comparative DNA analysis of existing species, supports the close relation of primate species, including humans, and the divergence of species from common ancestors over time.
The evidence available c. 1953 can be arranged in such a way that it seems to correspond to the book of Genesis, if you already assume that to be the case and ignore 2/3 of the fossil record. Intelligent Design theory gains further credence if you snap your heels together three times while intoning, "There's no place like home."
Comparative religion in high school? It's hard enough convincing parents that their children should know that mammals reproduce sexually via intercourse.Quote:
Originally posted by Roller
Yes, but they should never be taught creationism in a science class, and the religion should be taught completley seperatley and must be voluntary.
Some good information regarding evolution from Scientific American:
The Woodstock of Evolution: The World Summit on Evolution, held in the Galapagos Islands, revealed a science rich in history and tradition, data and theory, as well as controversy and debate
Wouldn't it be nice if there were not two thousand ideas of creation and religion? If that were so, you could try to give the children some background of each. Then let them decide.
But that would be impossible. Provided that most children are already influenced by their peers in some fassion or another towards a specic idea. Also I stated earlier it would be a little confusing to teach two thousand differant doctrines. :P
Sure. Seeing as how Evolution and Intelligent Design are both theories they should be presented side by side with all the facts behind each. Then you leave it up to the student to make up his/her mind.
No.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Intelligent Design is not a theory and never will be, because A it isn't science and B because of A it cannot be falsified, proven, or anything.
It is not a fact, it is not a theory. It is not anything but an assertion without proof.
There is no controversy there is just a bunch of idiots clinging to old, old ideas that don't hold water making a scene.
Fact is scientists don't give a toss anymore; since, like, the seventies. They just don't care, because it hampers everything and it is pointless.
ID is not science. There is no debate. It should NOT be "taught" in school in place of SCIENCE.
America already does poorly in science as it is. The last thing we need is the generation of more stupid people.
ID is a pseudo-philosophical assertion, not anything that strives to provide an explanation or answer a quesiton.
P.S. Old thread is old.
Sure, let's teach 'ID' in classes. Why not?
"Some people believe the apparent complexity of the universe denounces an intelligent creator behind it's origin. That's called intelligent design."
It would take less than 10 seconds to 'teach' it, just to show how much science ID has. :roll:
Yay for 3 year old threads!
The Bible does not have any scientific theories at all on intelligent design! Teaching intelligent design in school would be teaching those kids something completely made up by some christians who didn't understand the Bible.
The whole push for Intelligent Design in America is actually quite disturbing. When did your country, for so many years an economic and technological powerhouse, let science become so demonised? It seems that in America, as with many other countries, science is taught in a very hurried, half-arsed way, and something really needs to be done about it.
I would have no problem with Intelligent Design being taught in schools - provided that it is taught as part of a religion programme that is voluntary - if and only if children are simultaneously taught how to decide things for themselves. One of the most amazing courses that I took in my first year of university was called Argument and Critical Thinking, as part of philosophy. The course examined what constitues good arguments - what is good evidence, whether the conclusions follow from premises etc etc. The beauty of this course is not that it taught what to think, but how to think - it gave us the tools of critical analysis to be able to think for ourselves.
This should be taught in school, i have no doubt about that. If this were taught, people would be able to make up their minds in an educated way, and know when to avoid being sucked in by weak or fellacious arguments. Science isn't being taught in schools because students aren't being taught what science is - that it is a system of critical analysis enabling the formation of knowledge. To do this students first need to learn the basics of critical thinking, although this is such a hard topic to teach because curriculums are geared towards teaching children a base level of knowledge, then rushing them off into jobs.
Platform: Intelligent design should not be taught in science class instead of OR as an alternative to evolution.
Point 1: Intelligent design is religion, not science, so it should be taught in religion class. (subpoint: religion classes have been banned in most or all public schools as part of separation of church and state.) This is the only point that matters.
Point 2a: Macroevolution is not proven, but science has discovered nothing that explains things with a greater likelihood of having occured.
Point 2b: Microevolution has been scientifically proven, so quit saying [whine]"Evolution is not provable, evolution is not provable."[/whine]
Point 2c: Intelligent design has not been proven, and has had far more likely alternatives, assuming that there is an even chance of a creator existing or not. Mathematics have proven that the infinite is impossible (I don;t care what the hell you say about quantum physics and existing outside of time), and one of the requirements ID propagandists give for not being able to prove a creator is that the creator is infinite.
I didn;t want to get all "science kicks the butt of moral anecdotes taken literally," but therew are too many idiots trying to prove points 2a-2c so hard that they completely forgot that POINT 1 IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IN THIS DEBATE!
Actually,
"macro-evolution" = "micro-evolution" = evolution
Macroevolution is impossible to prove, because it is a long-term extension of microevolution. Microevolutio9n is porvable, ergo, macroevolution exists. I know it's theoretically provable, just not practically provable. (and by the macro/micro suffixes, I mean scale, not biological complexity.)
Thanks for pointing out the lack of clarity there.Unless you were just being argumentative. Either way, shouldn;t really matter.
First things first:Quote:
Originally Posted by JET73L
Macro-evolution and Micro-evolution are terms that have been abandoned by the Scientific community since like the 1930's, because there is actually no difference between the two, since both are governed by the same processes. The only thing now that distinguishes them is time frame, but even that can be variable, as the whole principle of Punctuated Equilibrium highlights.
Also, it has been observed in many cases. We've even manipulated it through artificial selection. It has been observed in nature, for example, with new plants emerging through polyploidy. These are just one of many examples.
Should flat earth theory be taught in school as an alternative to modern astronomy?Quote:
Originally Posted by bradybaker
There is quite the debate taking place over this topic in FES right now.
My point with more effort put into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluefinger
It might be a good class if you want to be a Theologist. Other than that, not at all.