Thread: Should Intelligent Design Be Taught In School?

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?

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.

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]

I think people become alarmed when legislation is passed that threatens to undermine the 1st Amendment.

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.

Originally posted by jill1978
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.

Simple answer: Yes.

I think a cross section of those most popular ideas in the world be taught. [/b]

http://www.venganza.org/

Originally posted by syzygy
Simple answer: Yes.

Any elaboration?

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.

Originally posted by jill1978
I think a cross section of those most popular ideas in the world be taught.

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!

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)

Originally posted by Charles Darwin+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Charles Darwin)</div>

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]

There are numerous irreducibly complex systems that demonstrate just that.

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.

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.

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.

<!--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.

Not if its infinite.

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

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.

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.

(darwin says that irreductibly complex systems = end of evolution)There are numerous irreducibly complex systems that demonstrate just that. [/b]

Show some. And show that this means that there is a designer.

(Creator needing a creator)Not if its infinite.[/b]

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.

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]

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.

Originally posted by syzygy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(syzygy)</div>

Evolution cannot explain the origin[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-syzygy
Evolution is just that, another creation myth. As I said before, it cannot show evidence for the origin of life.

As spoon correctly pointed out, evolution has nothing to do with creation.

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.

Originally posted by spoon+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(spoon)</div>

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]

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.

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.

An infinite creator? A creator that has no beginning or end, i.e. not created, not finite.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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....

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]

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:

\"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.

And how do you think DNA (which is totally unprecedented in nature) originated? [/b]

From RNA? Which makes DNA kind of precedented. But again - biological evolution not chemical.

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]

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:

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.

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?

I'm glad you mentioned that.

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...

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).?

On that note, you often hear "evolution is a theory" in ID debates.

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