Intelligent Design and Schools?

N

N1c0_ds

CAGiversary!
Feedback
4 (100%)
I was wondering what was your point of view on teaching Intelligent Design (creationism with pseudo-science) in schools as something equally valid to evolution.

This war brought to us the Flying Spaghetti Monster and quite a lot of debates, but no real answer. On one side they say Intelligent Design is not science and should not be considered as if it was, on the other they say creationists have no proofs of evolution.

I am 100% against teaching it as a science, but what do you CAGs think about the whole thing?
 
Although my comments have proven to be very conservative on the political spectrum, I believe in a very liberal approach with respect to science. One of the greatest follies of a scientist is overconfidence and a blind adherence to one explanation for a phenomenon. Multiple explanations for the origin of the earth/life should be presented in schools because that is what makes science interesting and promotes further inquiry.

Much of our understanding of the origin of the world is nebulous at best; no single theory gives a comprehensive and unified explanation. Through review of the current evidence, it is my position that some degree of evolution has unquestionably occured. However, that does not rule out creation as the seminal event. I believe the events in Genesis to be more of an allegory than a literal historical account... but that does not negate intelligent design.
 
Keep it the fuck out of compulsory education. If someone wants to pursue omnipotent men in the sky, they can do it on their own time and dollar, and not in a science classroom. Faith and scientific logic go together like, well, Bush and logic! See my signature for an example.

Science in churches, etc.
 
Having this taught in schools would negate the point of having churches imo. If they're teaching the shit in schools, why even bother going to church? They'd basically be the same place. If you want a little religion with your education, go find a catholic school.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Having this taught in schools would negate the point of having churches imo. If they're teaching the shit in schools, why even bother going to church? They'd basically be the same place. If you want a little religion with your education, go find a catholic school.[/quote]

Putting religion in science class negates the purpose of science class, so it goes both ways.
 
[quote name='N1c0_ds']I was wondering what was your point of view on teaching Intelligent Design (creationism with pseudo-science) in schools as something equally valid to evolution.

This war brought to us the Flying Spaghetti Monster and quite a lot of debates, but no real answer. On one side they say Intelligent Design is not science and should not be considered as if it was, on the other they say creationists have no proofs of evolution.

I am 100% against teaching it as a science, but what do you CAGs think about the whole thing?[/quote]

Creationism belongs in schools - as a historical footnote (Scopes Monkey trial)
 
Simply put, the theory of evolution is science and "intelligent design" is not. If you want to teach intelligent design for what it is - creationism - go right ahead, but put it in a religious studies class where it belongs. It's grossly irresponsible to represent intelligent design as a scienfic theory when it cannot be observed, cannot be tested, and cannot be refined.
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']Simply put, the theory of evolution is science and "intelligent design" is not. If you want to teach intelligent design for what it is - creationism - go right ahead, but put it in a religious studies class where it belongs. It's grossly irresponsible to represent intelligent design as a scienfic theory when it cannot be observed, cannot be tested, and cannot be refined.[/quote]
QFT

Intelligent Design is just creationism with a fancy name so religious types can try to get it into schools and say that is it science. If they want their kids to learn creationism, thats fine, but don't do it with my tax dollars. Do it on your on time, in a church.
 
[quote name='BigT']Although my comments have proven to be very conservative on the political spectrum, I believe in a very liberal approach with respect to science. One of the greatest follies of a scientist is overconfidence and a blind adherence to one explanation for a phenomenon. Multiple explanations for the origin of the earth/life should be presented in schools because that is what makes science interesting and promotes further inquiry.

Much of our understanding of the origin of the world is nebulous at best; no single theory gives a comprehensive and unified explanation. Through review of the current evidence, it is my position that some degree of evolution has unquestionably occured. However, that does not rule out creation as the seminal event. I believe the events in Genesis to be more of an allegory than a literal historical account... but that does not negate intelligent design.[/quote]


no, to even be able to bring ID into the classroom is has to be testable. Their is this thing they use in Science called the Scientific Method. If it can't adhere to that than it is not Science. How are you going to test if their is an unknown force that does unexplainable and complex stuff. You can't test any of it so its not science.

Fun fact ancient people saw stuff like lightning and big waves couldn't explain it scientifically so they created Gods to explain the unexplainable to them. Funny how history repeats itself.
 
[quote name='Hex']Putting religion in science class negates the purpose of science class, so it goes both ways.[/quote]
Well yeah of course, you can think of it as the anti-science.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Well yeah of course, you can think of it as the anti-science.[/quote]

Haha, exactly.

Back in pre-Newtonian times...

Person 1: Oh my goodness- look, up in the sky, it's been lit up with streaks of, well, light! Remarkable!
Person 2: Remarkable? Hardly. I can tell you exactly what's caused that.
Person 1: Really, what's that?
Person 2: Cheese!
Person 1: ... Cheese?
Person 2: Yes! Cheese is making that happen! The only thing that can cause that is cheese! See, here, I've got it written in this book! It simply can't be anything else because this book says so.
Person 1: But that's preposterous, I can't see any cheese!
Person 2: That's because it's an invisible cheese! An invisible cheese, up in the sky! You can't see the cheese, unless you believe in the cheese!

Now, just replace "cheese" with "god" and you'll get my point of how preposterous trying to combine religion with science is. Someone made the point that we don't know much at all about the universe- this is true. However the absence of knowledge shouldn't automatically lead one to fall back on that handy little cop-out known as 'god'. Such defeats the whole purpose of the scientific process. :roll:

And yes, I just equated your deity with aged milk product. Bring on the inquisition.
 
[quote name='Hex']

And yes, I just equated your deity with aged milk product. Bring on the inquisition.[/quote]

nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
 
I spent a few hours reading on the subject on wikipedia, jumping from article to article. I eventually learned about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Have a read.

Oh and as someone said, we should teach the controversy instead of having the bible used as an inerrant source of information. The theory of evolution has its gaps too, but it's not entirely based on faith and proved by pseudo-science. In fact, I noticed most arguments supporting creationism are based on "well, evolution has flaws, too". The difference between religion and science is that scientists can admit they are wrong when someone proves their theory impossible.

In my school we used to learn about religions in a factual way. Instead of teaching God is the one and only king, they explained creation "according to Christian/Muslim/Jewish beliefs..."
 
I just see religion as a crutch that should no longer be needed. At one time when everything was remarkable and mysterious to people, i could see people trying to explain it as the will of some higher power, it's all they had. But this isn't the dark ages, we can explain most of the things that were incredible to those people. Lightning doesn't occur when god is pissed, it occurs because of a build up of an electric charge in the atmosphere. Floods don't occur because god is punishing us, they occur because the fucking levees weren't constructed well enough.

Hmm, got a little off track there, but you get the point.:lol:
 
[quote name='Hex']Haha, exactly.

Back in pre-Newtonian times...

Person 1: Oh my goodness- look, up in the sky, it's been lit up with streaks of, well, light! Remarkable!
Person 2: Remarkable? Hardly. I can tell you exactly what's caused that.
Person 1: Really, what's that?
Person 2: Cheese!
Person 1: ... Cheese?
Person 2: Yes! Cheese is making that happen! The only thing that can cause that is cheese! See, here, I've got it written in this book! It simply can't be anything else because this book says so.
Person 1: But that's preposterous, I can't see any cheese!
Person 2: That's because it's an invisible cheese! An invisible cheese, up in the sky! You can't see the cheese, unless you believe in the cheese!

Now, just replace "cheese" with "god" and you'll get my point of how preposterous trying to combine religion with science is. Someone made the point that we don't know much at all about the universe- this is true. However the absence of knowledge shouldn't automatically lead one to fall back on that handy little cop-out known as 'god'. Such defeats the whole purpose of the scientific process. :roll:

And yes, I just equated your deity with aged milk product. Bring on the inquisition.[/quote]

Woah, neat! Who wrote the bible anyway? (might be a stupid question, sorry)
 
[quote name='N1c0_ds']I spent a few hours reading on the subject on wikipedia, jumping from article to article. I eventually learned about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Have a read.

Oh and as someone said, we should teach the controversy instead of having the bible used as an inerrant source of information. The theory of evolution has its gaps too, but it's not entirely based on faith and proved by pseudo-science. In fact, I noticed most arguments supporting creationism are based on "well, evolution has flaws, too". The difference between religion and science is that scientists can admit they are wrong when someone proves their theory impossible.

In my school we used to learn about religions in a factual way. Instead of teaching God is the one and only king, they explained creation "according to Christian/Muslim/Jewish beliefs..."[/quote]
Before you go putting theory in italics, you might want to educate yourself on the difference between a normal theory and a scientific one, not quite the same things. If you already know this, ignore me.:lol:
 
I'd be happy if we could teach the theory of evolution as just that, a theory. Somewhere along the lines we've confused the words theory and hypothesis for irrefutable fact. More teachers says "This is our best guess" and fewer saying "This is the way it absolutely happened" would be fantastic, and would look less silly when things get tweaked, modified or all-out changed.
 
[quote name='daroga']I'd be happy if we could teach the theory of evolution as just that, a theory. Somewhere along the lines we've confused the words theory and hypothesis for irrefutable fact. More teachers says "This is our best guess" and fewer saying "This is the way it absolutely happened" would be fantastic, and would look less silly when things get tweaked, modified or all-out changed.[/quote]
Uhh....plenty of things have been "tweaked" in various religious texts, yet people still regard them as irrefutable fact.

Besides, like i said in the above post, scientific theory has a different meaning than just theory.
 
[quote name='daroga']I'd be happy if we could teach the theory of evolution as just that, a theory. Somewhere along the lines we've confused the words theory and hypothesis for irrefutable fact. More teachers says "This is our best guess" and fewer saying "This is the way it absolutely happened" would be fantastic, and would look less silly when things get tweaked, modified or all-out changed.[/quote]

It's been a while since I was in middle school, but I seem to recall that evolution was stressed to only be a theory- however, religious fairy-tales were kept out of the context of the discussion at the same time. I highly doubt you'll find anyone who believes that evolution is 100% correct- that'd be as inane as creationism- but logically, that is the most applicable theory we've got at the moment, and honestly I think teachers are smart enough to remind students that this is merely a hypothesis.

[quote name='N1c0_ds']Woah, neat! Who wrote the bible anyway? (might be a stupid question, sorry)[/quote]

I expect some stoned Arab who got tired of watching his horses piss in the middle of the desert decided to write an opiate-induced story for his children as a joke then someone took it out of context.

'Cause we all know humans excel at taking things out of context. :T
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Before you go putting theory in italics, you might want to educate yourself on the difference between a normal theory and a scientific one, not quite the same things. If you already know this, ignore me.:lol:[/quote]

I entirely believe evolution, but putting italics was just a touch of irony showing that evolution IS a theory, unlike creationism which finds no proof of its existence except in a fat book dated from when they thought you would fall down in hell if you explored the world too far.


I say theory because it still meets many challenges to prove it's the pure truth. Creationists think they are one hundred percent right too. Why would we be right? The "we could be wrong" makes science advance. Religious dogmatism is what slows it down.
 
[quote name='N1c0_ds']I entirely believe evolution, but putting italics was just a touch of irony showing that evolution IS a theory, unlike creationism which finds no proof of its existence except in a fat book dated from when they thought you would fall down in hell if you explored the world too far.[/quote]

I'm going to play the devil's advocate here, an- Oh who am I kidding, no I'm not. I just would like to ask exactly *why* you entirely believe in evolution.
 
[quote name='Hex']It's been a while since I was in middle school, but I seem to recall that evolution was stressed to only be a theory- however, religious fairy-tales were kept out of the context of the discussion at the same time. I highly doubt you'll find anyone who believes that evolution is 100% correct- that'd be as inane as creationism- but logically, that is the most applicable theory we've got at the moment, and honestly I think teachers are smart enough to remind students that this is merely a hypothesis.[/quote]You don't do a whole lot of talking to the average populace, do you? There's plenty of people out there the buy into evolution as it stands (or stood) as the way the earth and life came to be.

I'm glad that your teachers were up front with you on the "best guess" principle. Elsewhere, especially in universities where the professor rules all, that's not always the case.

For the record, I don't really want to see ID in schools either, because it would undoubtedly be ripe with errors versus a study of biblical Creation. I think "Intelligent Design" would encompass far more that just the Bible's account of Creation, most of which I wouldn't agree with anymore than evolution.
 
[quote name='daroga']I'd be happy if we could teach the theory of evolution as just that, a theory. Somewhere along the lines we've confused the words theory and hypothesis for irrefutable fact. More teachers says "This is our best guess" and fewer saying "This is the way it absolutely happened" would be fantastic, and would look less silly when things get tweaked, modified or all-out changed.[/QUOTE]

Sure - but that's immaterial to this debate. I certainly wish that people would be taught skepticism and criticism more - in science, in literature, and elsewhere - rather than just assume gravity is a fact, or that Johnny Tremain is a classic American novel.

But your point is kinda futile to anyone who really engages what a "theory" really is - it's never a fact because it would no longer be a theory at that point. A theory that stands the test of time is just the one that hasn't been disproven despite many many tests attempting to do so.

Evolution and ID aren't really competing theories (outside of the fact that ID isn't a proper theory in the first place), IMO; they could feasibly co-exist (because let's be honest - a creature can both evolve and change and *still* have been made by some omnipotent being/force/whatever the word should be). Look at the way people breed dogs with certain characteristics over time - we've created our own boundaries that say "this is a poodle/pug/golden retreiver/etc." - moreover, as breeds are added to the AKC registry each year, we have to accept that we are shifting the biological makeup of dogs. They are evolving - indeed, by our own hand.

At the same time, medicine, technology, and other forms of knowledge have made infant mortality rates plummet, life expectancies increase, average height increase remarkably. Humans have evolved as well - we haven't grown wings, but we've moved from a society where a person who had grandchildren by age 35 was normal (seeing as how they'd likely die in 5-10 years) to one where we think that only the irresponsible people are grandparents by 35.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Uhh....plenty of things have been "tweaked" in various religious texts, yet people still regard them as irrefutable fact.

Besides, like i said in the above post, scientific theory has a different meaning than just theory.[/quote]

Yep, we are constantly reminded about the scientific method in class, and the evolution is often criticized because it doesn't follow that method and is thus discarded as a bulletproof theory but rather a frame from which you can create other theories (or something like that, from wikipedia).
 
I also never understand why some religious people think they're the only people of faith. I have faith, faith in the scientists that study evolution to try and better prove it is fact. I have that faith, because unlike a god, these guys can and have been discredited/ruined when they lie. Who are we gonna blame for the lies found in most religions?
 
Just as an example of the difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

From dictionary.com:

"A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity."
 
And also:

theory

In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis.


Thats why evolution is more accepted in schools than intelligent design, because it can and has been tested and observed. If you can take me to a place to observe some of the "facts" of intelligent design, I'd be happy to go.
 
A theory in science is the best you get. And while the specifics of evolution might be debated, the concept of biological evolution is about the closest thing to a fact that science has. We know less about gravity.
 
[quote name='Hex']Jake, learn to edit posts... Triple and double posting isn't the most polite thing to do.[/quote]



i think you are trying to say he needs to evolve his posting skills
 
Divine intervention is not impossible, but IMHO, religion only fills the gap science fails to explain. This resumes science vs. religion. The farther science goes, the more outdated religion looks. In a couple of years from now, we will see religion only able to question what was before the Big Bang, remembering how ridiculous they were with their 5000 years-old Earth.
 
[quote name='daroga']You don't do a whole lot of talking to the average populace, do you? There's plenty of people out there the buy into evolution as it stands (or stood) as the way the earth and life came to be.[/quote]Then tell them that the ToE has nothing to do with the origins of the universe, the Earth, or life on the Earth. What Hex was saying is that, while plenty of us accept the theory, none of us are so deluded as to think that we have perfect knowledge of it. A pox on him, though, for interchanging "hypothesis" with "theory".

[quote name='daroga'] I'm glad that your teachers were up front with you on the "best guess" principle. Elsewhere, especially in universities where the professor rules all, that's not always the case.[/quote]The use of the word "theory" by scientists differs from the use by the general public. It's not just a "best guess" in this case.

[quote name='daroga']I'd be happy if we could teach the theory of evolution as just that, a theory. Somewhere along the lines we've confused the words theory and hypothesis for irrefutable fact. More teachers says "This is our best guess" and fewer saying "This is the way it absolutely happened" would be fantastic, and would look less silly when things get tweaked, modified or all-out changed.[/quote]Details get changed - Piltdown men tossed, Lamarck forgotten - but unless the theory itself is hugely flawed at its core (see: Phlogiston), then these changes only lead to greater understanding of the theory. And that's important to science. When you start talking about things that are unfalsifiable, you start leaving the realms of science.

EDIT: Spaz said pretty much everything I did here, but with fewer words. The ToE is one of the best-supported theories in existence, and saying "it's just a theory!" says more about your misconceptions about science than the flaws of the ToE.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition[/quote]

so true
[MEDIA]object width="425" height="355">[/MEDIA]
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition[/quote]

so true




[media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=3ZQI0Xm29To&feature=related[/media]
 
[quote name='daroga']So it's not "best guess" and it's not completely true. So... what is it?[/quote]

It's the best, but it's not a guess. Guess implies that it isn't solid or doesn't have a convincing amount of evidence. When a prosecutor convicts somebody based on DNA evidence, for example, you don't say that it's the "best guess" even though it's possible that they weren't the one who did it. You'd say they probably did it, or they most likely did it.

Evolution is most likely the way that life has changed on the planet from the beginning of it until now. Science can't go any further than that on anything ever.

Whether or not it's "completely true" is and will always be impossible to know.
 
Ah, I can see that. I guess I was implying "educated guess" by guess, not to say that it's a total stab in the dark but that research, thinking, some evidence, etc. existed.

Would "best educated guess" be palatable? Or perhaps "best idea"?

I'm not trying to come off as a jackass, I really would like to know how to properly speak about such things so I don't come off as said donkey in the future. :)
 
I'd take "best known reason for the current diversity of life/fall of civilization/slartibartfast," but I wouldn't yell at you for "best idea re: the above stuff".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top