Intelligent Design

[Dark Virtue]

A few questions for you regarding ID:

Do you believe Intelligent Design is synonymous with Creationism (by the God of the Bible)?

Do you believe ID has as much probability of being true as Darwinism?

Do you believe ID should be taught alongside Darwinism in school? Keep in mind that the Theory of Evolution is based on/in science, while ID is philosophical in nature.

At it's core, ID states that "nature is so complex that it could not have occurred by random natural selection, and so must be the work of an unnamed "intelligent cause."" If this is the case, isn't there just as much probability to humanity being genetically engineered by aliens as by a god since ID never stipulates who or what the designer is?

----

My position on ID is that it should NOT be taught in school as part of the science curriculum as it has at its core something that can not be proven or disproven, the designer. On the other hand, I absolutely detest the way Darwinism is taught in school. It is a very flimsy scientific theory with many, many flaws and should be taught that way, not as the end all of creation theories.

 

[Bowser]

A few questions for you regarding ID:

Do you believe Intelligent Design is synonymous with Creationism (by the God of the Bible)?

Absolutely, yeah.

Do you believe ID has as much probability of being true as Darwinism?

I would hope that it has at least that amount of probability!

Do you believe ID should be taught alongside Darwinism in school? Keep in mind that the Theory of Evolution is based on/in science, while ID is philosophical in nature.

Intelligent design very much has a scientific nature, but either way I think that it should be taught in school, whether it's in science or philosophy.

At it's core, ID states that "nature is so complex that it could not have occurred by random natural selection, and so must be the work of an unnamed "intelligent cause."" If this is the case, isn't there just as much probability to humanity being genetically engineered by aliens as by a god since ID never stipulates who or what the designer is?

Well, I don't think that the quote correctly applies to Creationism, but it could easily mean that we were designed by aliens (perhaps the Xel'Naga??)

My position on ID is that it should NOT be taught in school as part of the science curriculum as it has at its core something that can not be proven or disproven, the designer. On the other hand, I absolutely detest the way Darwinism is taught in school. It is a very flimsy scientific theory with many, many flaws and should be taught that way, not as the end all of creation theories.

Well, the problem is that something has to be taught in school, whether it's Darwinism or Creationism. I think that it's unfair to teach one over the other, and at the same time I would be unhappy if the theory of our origins weren't taught at all (being a Christian), because at least Darwinism raises questions that we can answer (and some that we can't). I completely agree with the theory being flimsy, which is why I believe that Creationism needs to be taught next to it, along with possibly more "theories".

 

[MeridianFlight]

What's going to happen when you take a pro-evolutoinist teacher and insist that they teach Creation? Are they going to repesent Creation as farily as they would evolution? Absolutely not. The same could be said for a Creationist who was forced to teach evolution.

As for evolution being scientifically sound and Intelligent Design being more philsophical, that's preposterous. Where's evidence supporting evolution that doesn't have to be acquired by inserting estimates that are based on the theory in the first place? It's a circle, the theory works because the theory works, not because there's anything out there that can actually substantiate it.

 

[Eon]

Darwinian evolution is the currently accepted scientific theory. Nobody states that it is complete, but it is the ONLY theory we have that has yet to be disproved scientifically. It belongs in Science class - along with a definition of scientific theory too, as some of you seem to feel the word is synonymous with "guess".

Intelligent Design is an intruiging little idea, but unfortunately rather disproved by all the unintelligent design decisions that seem to have been made along the way. It deserves to be mentioned in science class - specifically the problems with this idea should be taught.

Creationism is an anathema to scientific thought. It has been thoroughly disproved and is widely discredited throughout the scientific community. It is, however, the cornerstone of Christian thought. It should be taught in Science class because the light of understanding always dispells the fog of superstition.

 

[Bowser]

lol Eon, what rock did you crawl out from?

Whoa... wait.. are you really saying that Darwinism is more credible than Creationism? You can't be serious?

 

[Dark Virtue]

Evolution is only a theory as well. by your reasoning since it has not been changed form a theory to a law it should also not be taught.

I think you need to work on your reasoning skills

Einstein's theory of relativity is a theory too, does that mean it shouldn't be taught? As I said, I'm all in favor of it being taught, but stressing that it is, indeed, a theory and not fact. Nothing should ever be taught one sided, if there are flaws, they should be pointed out as well. There is a HUGE difference between macro and micro evolution, those differences should be noted.

 

[Dark Virtue]

lol Eon, what rock did you crawl out from?

Whoa... wait.. are you really saying that Darwinism is more credible than Creationism? You can't be serious?

He's saying that Darwinism is scientifically based, therefore verifiable and testable. Creationism is NOT.

I disagree that it should be taught as part of the science curriculum though. How can you test something that can't be proven Eon?

 

[Dark Virtue]

What's going to happen when you take a pro-evolutoinist teacher and insist that they teach Creation? Are they going to repesent Creation as farily as they would evolution? Absolutely not. The same could be said for a Creationist who was forced to teach evolution.

As for evolution being scientifically sound and Intelligent Design being more philsophical, that's preposterous. Where's evidence supporting evolution that doesn't have to be acquired by inserting estimates that are based on the theory in the first place? It's a circle, the theory works because the theory works, not because there's anything out there that can actually substantiate it.

As I have said, evolution is testifiable and verifiable, it is subject to the scientific method. Creationism is NOT, because it has at its core, something that can't be proven, verified or tested.

Since you believe it's preposterous, would you mind explaining how to test ID's core with science?

 

[Bowser]

He's saying that Darwinism is scientifically based, therefore verifiable and testable. Creationism is NOT.

I disagree that it should be taught as part of the science curriculum though. How can you test something that can't be proven Eon?

Creationism or Darwinism can't be proven, but regardless of that it can be studied; which is why I think it's fair to have both taught in schools. I wholeheartedly agree in that no one belief should be taught one-sidedly - questions should be brought up about both, as should any problems or flaws with either belief.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Thanks for your reply Bowser, I'd like to focus on one particular thing.

You say that ID is synonymous with Creationism. If that's the case, then ID supporters are being extremely underhanded in pushing the theory since they are claiming otherwise. How can you claim that ID is an objective theory, when you have already attributed the identity to the designer before ever proving the designer exists?

That's one of my problems with ID, it's a dishonest approach, it disguises itself as "science" when it's actually Creationism in disguise.

 

[Bowser]

Thanks for your reply Bowser, I'd like to focus on one particular thing.

You say that ID is synonymous with Creationism. If that's the case, then ID supporters are being extremely underhanded in pushing the theory since they are claiming otherwise. How can you claim that ID is an objective theory, when you have already attributed the identity to the designer before ever proving the designer exists?

That's one of my problems with ID, it's a dishonest approach, it disguises itself as "science" when it's actually Creationism in disguise.

Very true. I can see how teachers could easily mix the two.

Do you think ID should be taught aside from Creationism, and Creationism in another class - or even not at all?

 

[Dark Virtue]

If the Christian brand of creationism is taught in school, it should be part of a theology class, possibly philosophy. As science? No.

"True" ID can definately be taught as part of philosophy. By "True" I mean that it stops short of identifying the designer, since the designer can't be known due to a lack of evidence.

Keep in mind you're talking to somone who minored in philosophy and took a philosophy of religion course. The problem here is we're not talking about college, but high school. Is this something that really needs to be taught in high school? If so, it should really should be part of a much greater overview, part of an overview of ALL religions, not just Western thought.

That's a different discussion though.

Let's not forget the huge, glaring problem ID has: If a complex creation requires a Designer, then who designed the designer? You have a problem of infinite regression.

 

[Eon]

"Darwinism" is less a single theory and more a broad raft of concepts and theories that people find easier to intermingle. Whilst the broad argument of Darwinism cannot be falsified - and therefore isn't science - the individual components and theories can, indeed, be tested.

That is the only reason I say that Darwinism should be taught in Science class. Amongst the lay people of the scientific community there is a poor understanding of the science behind Creationism / Evolution and as I said earlier I belive an education should shine the light of truth on uncertainty.

As a broadcloth concept though, I imagine it is a philosophy more than a science.

Oh, and Bowser, for Evolution to have MORE credibility than Creationism would require Creationism to have ANY credibility in the reputable scientific community. It has none.

 

[Dark Virtue]

I should have clarified, I consider Darwinism to be the same as macro evolution, which cannot be verified scientifically. Micro evolution, however, can, which is why it is the basis for macro evolution. It's that extra step that kills it.

 

[Eon]

And on that, I agree. Macro evolution, as I have said, is simply the best explanation, and should be taught as such.

 

[Bowser]

Oh, and Bowser, for Evolution to have MORE credibility than Creationism would require Creationism to have ANY credibility in the reputable scientific community. It has none.

OKAY. THANK you.

 

[Bowser]

And on that, I agree. Macro evolution, as I have said, is simply the best explanation, and should be taught as such.

Do you realize that you just totally ignored what DV actually said?

 

[Eon]

Not in the slightest. If your car makes a knocking noise and doesn't run smoothly I can say that my best guess is water in the carburettor - there's insufficient proof for that to be a certainty, but that IS the best explanation based on the available information.

Until we can work out more tests and continue the process of narrowing and winnowing that IS scientific thought, that's where it stays. That's scientific thought for you - you start with a doubt and work as close to a certainty as you can get. Faith starts with a certainty and adds layers of doubt.

 

[Didasko]

Do you believe Intelligent Design is synonymous with Creationism (by the God of the Bible)?

Absolutely not! Many proponents of ID are not Christians and do not claim the God fo the Bible is the creator.

Do you believe ID has as much probability of being true as Darwinism?

I believe that The intelligent designer...the God of the Bible...did absolutely create the universe.

If we take that out of the picture and just compare generic ID with Darwinism then absolutely yes.

If I did not know God then I would still not believe in macro evolution so I would have to admit the possibility of ID.

Do you believe ID should be taught alongside Darwinism in school? Keep in mind that the Theory of Evolution is based on/in science, while ID is philosophical in nature.

Darwinism is taught in most schools from K-12 as fact. The textbooks are terrible, leaving out the problems associated with the theory and making it out to be the only 'intelligent' way of looking at our origins. Many teachers (most from my experience...and I am a school teacher so I no many) teach Darwinism as fact. If Darwinism is going to be misrepresented as fact in our public school system, then alternatives should be taught as well.

I agree that ID falls more under philosophy than science...but so does Darwinism the way it is taught today.

At it's core, ID states that "nature is so complex that it could not have occurred by random natural selection, and so must be the work of an unnamed "intelligent cause."" If this is the case, isn't there just as much probability to humanity being genetically engineered by aliens as by a god since ID never stipulates who or what the designer is?

Did the aliens come about through macro evolution before they genetically engineered us?

If I remember right you already addressed this question about ID...where did the designer come from?

Neither of those options can be tested using the scientific method...so we are back where we started scientifically speaking.

My position on ID is that it should NOT be taught in school as part of the science curriculum as it has at its core something that can not be proven or disproven, the designer. On the other hand, I absolutely detest the way Darwinism is taught in school. It is a very flimsy scientific theory with many, many flaws and should be taught that way, not as the end all of creation theories.

ID has as much scientific evidence for it as macro evolution does...since there is no scientific evidence for macro evolution.

I do agree with you DV on micro evolution being scientific.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on the terrible way Darwinism is taught in school.

 

[Didasko]

What's going to happen when you take a pro-evolutoinist teacher and insist that they teach Creation? Are they going to repesent Creation as farily as they would evolution? Absolutely not. The same could be said for a Creationist who was forced to teach evolution.

Actually I am a creationist who was forced to teach evolution. I feel that I did a very good job of teaching it. The biggest difference that I see between the way I taught it and the way my collegues did is this;

I taught it as a theory and left open possibilities for other answers to the question of our origin. I made it clear that theory does not mean fact. I did not force creationism on them (which is against the law). However, I did allow them to have discussions that involved both creationism and evolution. The students will bring this up on their own...they don't need a teacher to do it for them