Should Intelligent Design be taught in science class?

[Fishteacher73]

Since design detection is already taught in archeology, forensic science, cryptology, and copywright infringment, are't we already 4/5 of the way there? There's hope that biology will catch up in a decade or two.

All of these examples a known creator is the thing to be compared against. "Design detection" is also more likely patern recognition..not a theologically based dogma. :hihi:

[Lolic]

All of these examples a known creator is the thing to be compared against. "Design detection" is also more likely patern recognition..not a theologically based dogma. :hihi:

The "known creator" is generally termed an intelligent agent. Design detection compares the output of Chance, Natural law, and an Intelligent Agent and determines in any given instance which of the three is the cause. (did that piece of rock get shaped that way by chance, or did an intelligent agent shape it?) (did that person slip and fall or were they pushed) (did that functionally integrated, irreducibly complex micro machine arise by chance or was an intelligent agent involved?) All look at the observable data and draw a conclusion. Agreed, this is not theologically based dogma.

 

I wouldn't however confuse pattern recognition with design detection. Natural forces can produce ice or salt, but these repetitive, non information/non message bearing patterns are not the result of intelligent design.

[Tormod]

Moved to the theology forum.

[BEAKER]

It's amazing how much intelligence is used in a disscussion like this, in an attempt to prove that no intelligence was necessary in the first place.

[BEAKER]

By the way - I vote "YES".

 

Strangely, that option seems to be missing from the selections.

 

It appears that intelligent design was not used in the creation of this poll.

[C1ay]

The "known creator" is generally termed an intelligent agent.

:hihi: There is no "known creator"...

[emessay]

:hihi: There is no "known creator"...

 

Yes, there is no "known creator" in life-origins reality, but let's urgently define ourselves : "Are we still being unknown as ourselves ?". It's better to tell to next 1000 yrs generation that there is still green forest fields like 'Eden Garden' on Earth, science would keep watch it. Tell them that they are still safe for next centuries, and we're still like Adam and Eve prototype, this is the main job of science, not maintaining evolution theory. Earth is still safe in next 10,000 yrs like 'Eden Garden', are we ???

[Lolic]

:) There is no "known creator"...

But science can distinguish between those things that occure by Chance, Natural Law, and Intelligent Design. We can deny that the technology and methods exist, but where does that get us? (then one looks like Michael Russe on TV... like a talking :hihi: ) He want's to advocate science right up to the point that it advocates a position he doesn't personally agree with. How's that for an open minded approach that lets the facts speak for themselves. :hihi:

 

What is someone who does this, an anti-scientist? (or in his case an anti-philosopher)

[Fishteacher73]

open minded approach that lets the facts speak for themselves

 

And what are (if any) the facts that support ID? There are plenty of facts that support evolution.

[C1ay]

There is zero conclusive evidence to support any claim that nature is assisted by any directed intelligence. Any hypotheses that make such a claim are not even testable and therefore, not science.

[Dark Mind]

Now wait just a minute... Before we get him going on just a single track again, I feel that question can be broadened.

 

What FACTS support a "higher being" at all? What FACTS support Creationism? What FACTS can support any type of religiously based belief?

 

Science has been able to provide facts that evolution could have occurred, there's no "hard evidence", but the facts that have been presented due to the unearthing of centuries old skeletal remains leans in great favor of evolution. There isn't anything except for a book someone wrote and a belief that has been passed for generations that can help support Creationism (Which seems to now be widely dismissed due to scientific evidence) or Intelligent Design (Which I think was started just because the religious society realized that it was something else they could believe in without needing any proof and not having to suffer the wrath the scientific community surely would have wrought if any belief they held were based in the present physical world).

 

There is no logic involved in religion, and there need not be... I realize this and I have accepted it, but when you try to argue in favor of religion on a science forum, be ready for these kinds of rebuttals. I like to call myself Agnostic, my definition of an Agnostic is: Someone who does not deny the possibility that there is a God, but also believes that there is insufficient data to prove (s)he exists.

 

...So until God reveals themself to the general public, I am inclined to decline any belief that is based on a God or many Gods.

[emessay]

There is zero conclusive evidence to support any claim that nature is assisted by any directed intelligence. Any hypotheses that make such a claim are not even testable and therefore, not science.

 

Agreed !!

But it is not our time-table to extend evolution theory that life would evolve everywhere, ironically earth is still remained 'ONE piece of bread'.

[Csongor]

How about to try to make an other Universe by Us. And so if we created by anyone else, this will be a key to contact Us.

 

 

: )

 

 

Csongor

[C1ay]

Csongor, you're off topic. Don't spread your strange claim to other threads.

[Tagred]

I voted the second no ;)

 

Anywho, ID isnt exactly a science so it shouldn't be in a science class. When you have states like Atlanta that stamp high school biology books with "evolution is a theory not a fact" on them it makes you think exactly what the governors are trying to do. Taking the No Child Left Behind Act to extremes is not science.

 

Creationism should be left in the realms of RE and other philosophical teachings. It infuriates me when the word "theory" is completely misunderstood by those who use pretty much the same arguments to prove the existance of a divine being through "logical assumption"

 

Of course evolution is a thoery, by definition it can never be proven, most scientific thinking will always be theory even though there might be overwhelming evidence that might never be contradicted.

 

No, keep creationism for those who can't accept that humans are just another organism on this planet in religious context and not in the science clasroom. Surely this would increase the brain drain and slow down the progress of science and technology?

[rockytriton]

Well, one fact is that there is the law of conservation of matter. If this means that you can't create new matter, then it probably means that something that is above the laws of physics must have created the matter that currently exists. Still, this kind of stuff should be taught in a theology class and not a science class.

[Tagred]

As someone who is probably diametrically opposite to your views on creation etc, I would agree with you on this. Science to be taught in science class and theology or any sort of religious beliefs should be taught within the RE class, if not anything else but to keep it within its own context.