Intelligent Design (not so intelligent)
Alright, here's something that's a bit more relevant. Pennsylvania parents are suing local schools that have added "intelligent design" to the science curriculum.
What is happening to the state of education in this country?? I was a biology major in college and I'll be the first to admit that the theory of evolution is exactly that: just a theory. But it's the best explanation we have (based on physical evidence) as to where we came from and how species are related. It looks at fossils, bone structure, DNA, etc. and draws conclusions based on evidence. In addition to giving a reasonable explanation about our existence, it helps students understand the scientific process of making observations and coming up with theories.
It's wrong to not push our students to think and learn about the world. Intelligent design tells us nothing! To say, "We can't explain it, so it must be God" is such a lazy cop-out. It's like how in ancient times people thought that the gods were responsible for thunder and lightening, but now we know what causes it. How can we be teaching ignorance and laziness?
- Jean Chen
posted by flika @ 1:48 PM
26 comments
26 Comments:
Why not teach the children all possible scenarios? Then let them choose which they will embrace?
There's a ton of books on conservative websites that talk about intelligent design. I didn't really understand what it was until this post.
I must say, teaching intelligent design rather than evolution is just begging for our children to become illiterate. This reminds me of the "whole language" VS phonics debate that resulted in unparalleled illiteracy. Why must people insist on wrecking what was a fine school curriculum?
I understand the faith based argument and as much as I sympathize with the christian folks, keep that stuff at home. If you want to teach your children that there's no such things as dinosaurs or evolution, hey, it's your house and your kid. However, it's the school functions to expose children to what the facts are and that's all. Bringing intelligent design will only muddy already screwed up school system.
The idea “present all possible scenarios and let the children choose” I think points to one of the main problems in political discourse right now.
Science works because only ideas that do not fail rigorous tests of experimental scrutiny are left on the table.
However valid theories may be by the standards of other fields (philosophy, theology), they have no place in science if they are not testable and if they offer no predictive power.
It’s true that we can never “prove” that evolution is true – we cannot prove anything in science, we can only fail to disprove it. However, the basic ideas of mutation and selection are useful and have predictive power in explaining the emergence (and the rate of emergence) of viruses and bacteria that are resistant to our drugs.
The number of people who support an idea has nothing to do with its validity. This is something that is currently lost on the national media – it doesn’t need to become lost in our classrooms as well.
There was a time when some people believed faith in Christianity would be destroyed if we permitted teaching the concept that the Earth revolves around the Sun. It is inconceivable to me that anyone would stake the ultimate test of belief on something so flimsy. This is not what religions are about.
Indeed, there are more practicing Christians in the world now than there were when the Earth/Sun debate seemed so dire, and they may even sway a greater proportion of the inhabitants of our planet. And very, very few of them find their faith disturbed by the idea that the orbit of the Earth is more easily described as an ellipse around the Sun.
It seems our Fundamentalist friends could learn from this experience. Science does not deal with the fundamental issues of Religion. It does not describe "right" and "wrong", or model how we may best live in company with the rest of mankind. It does not speak to our longing for meaning. Science can tell us only If this happens, Then that will follow. It provides no evaluation of the "good" or "bad" of the outcome.
The Religious can only make themselves fools if they stake their theological lives on denying the validity of predictions that can eventually be demonstrated and repeated. And, indeed, a prediction is not Scientific unless it can be demonstrated and reliably repeated. That's pretty much the definition of Science. Far better for them to encourage great minds to continue to explore the endless wonders and mysteries of the physical world, and to provide a framework for the understanding of that world that cannot be shaken or muted by what we learn.
-- The Green Man
The field of Intelligent Design does not come from thologists or philosophers. It has nothing to do with religion and is not supposed to be threatening to biology teachers.
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.
What is not so intelligent is closing your mind to possibilities because of your disdain of those who have a belief in a god.
Last night a debate on MSNBC on the topic on intelligent design, hosted by Pat Buchanan. He challenged the sole atheist / evolutionist on the program (Pat had three fellow defenders of Creationism on the panel) with the question, "So, who created the universe?" Note that B begs the question by asking "Who?" It must have been a person, or a superperson, that "created" the universe, right?
Yes, evolution is a theory. But that term is being misunderstood and abused in this debate. It's not a theory like Linus's Great Pumpkin theory is a theory. It is a scientific theory based on a huge base of facts.
How about demanding Sunday schools teach the Peter Cottontale Theory of Easter alongside the story of Christ's death and resurrection? Why not let the kids choose whether they want to believe that the son of God died and was brought back to life or that, on Easter morning, a huge rodent in a vest will come hopping down the bunny trail and leave brightly colored eggs for all the good little children? Give them the choice between competing theories.
"it is frequently true that the 'fittest' species goes extinct anyway through sheer bad luck." How can the writer possibly know this?
Some of the comments on thias site absolutely amaze me, the above quotation being a prime example. Here in England, I don't think we have considered "Intelligent Design" as being worthy of any consideration at all and it is frightening to read the exhibition of such a massive lack of logical thinking in inhabitants of the World's greatest power.
Please remember who last built a national psyche on faith only -please!
You think "Intelligent" Design is bad? Look at the Abstinence Only Programs the government is sponsoring. They actually teach that masturbation can cause pregnancy!!! I can't believe that's even possible in this day and time. That the government of the richest nation in the world, a nation with one of the most highly educated populations, is supporting blatant lies in education is unfathomable! Going back to the Dark Ages isn't going to help this country. Teach religion at home, not in school.
Christiana is right on and pretty much articulated my frustrations with the majority of people misunderstanding the theory of evolution. Or oversimplifying it.
Trevor needs to understand that an example of the "fittest species" going extinct due to sheer bad luck is what happened to the dinosaurs (if you believe that a comet wiped them out). Or take a look at pretty much any species of animal which has gone extinct due to humans hunting them or destroying their habitat. Plus, how do you define what is the most fit? Is it living to reproduce children? Is it your grandkids living to reproduce ten more generations?
Anyone with a clear and in depth understanding of the theory of evolution will agree with Christiana and her thoughts on the theory of evolution and it's oversimplification. And she's right: schools need to be teaching it properly and yes, there needs to be and probably will be a number of revisions to it in the future.
It's the same as with any other scientific theory invovling, for example, atoms and molecules. Can we see atoms? No, but we form theories about their behavior based on observations on how scientific equipment reacts. And by the way, the whole notion of electrons circling around a nucleus in a fixed orbit is a gross oversimplification of how scientists think atoms actually behave.
That said, I disagree with Christiana about also teaching Intelligent Design in schools. It's just a lazy excuse with no scientific merit. Let's work on revising and updating the theory of evolution and teaching our students to think. Like Sarah said, "The basic ideas of mutation and selection are useful and have predictive power in explaining the emergence (and the rate of emergence) of viruses and bacteria that are resistant to our drugs.
intense!
love,
jason mulgrew
internet quasi-celebrity
Oh man, I was going to comment on this, but I forgot that every single instance of this issue being opened for discussion results in an outpouring of uninformed rhetoric from both sides.
Both theories are faith-based. It's just that one of them freely admits it. What's ignorant and lazy is reducing Intelligent Design to a flippant "cop-out" accusation.
If anybody comes up with a way to discuss this issue on the basis of facts and evidence (i.e. without the emotion and opinion factor), please let me know. I'll be the first to sign up.
The reason Intelligent Design should not be taught as Science is simply because it holds no predictive power. There is no experiment that can be performed, where you propose "If I establish these conditions, then God will come down and design me something." It doesn't matter how many people who have spent their lives working as "Scientists" say an idea has merit. One of the beauties of the Scientific Method is that it allows independent verification, and does not rest on the force of opinion or persuasion. Unless Intelligent Design can propose repeatable results, it is not a Scientific theory.
-- The Green Man
as to one being a religious viewpoint and the other 'scientific' is a shut out technique that is just not working .
Could it be that Evolution isn't science but instead a Naturalist Philosophy?
This refers to an AP Online story -
Theory of Evolution Still in Doubt BOSTON, Jul 03, 2000 (AP Online via COMTEX) -- Scientists have made enormous progress building upon the theory of evolution in the 140 years since it was first proposed by naturalist Charles Darwin. But some are particularly puzzled by one unsolved mystery: Why do so many people continue to have their doubts? A Gallup Poll conducted last year found that 47 percent of Americans believe God created human beings, while 49 percent accepted the theory of evolution - that mankind developed over millions of years from more primitive species. "I think all that shows is that most Americans are woefully badly educated in science, which is our fault, not theirs," said Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. Could it be that people are looking at it from a Worldview perspective and choose to use or discount any science underpinnings? Author (Niles Eldridge) who just recently wrote The Triumph of Evolution says; "I have come to see that religious traditions in general - and concepts of God in particular - reveal a lot about how people see themselves, and how they see themselves fitting into the natural world" This (from an avowed evolutionist) correctly addresses the issues in creationism versus Darwinism. He adds, "It's only their stories about how they got that way that tend to be fanciful." Darwinism versus Creationism is really not science versus Religion or better yet, fact versus faith but naturalistic philosophy versus the Christian worldview. To a Christian, taking God out of the universe cuts to the core of what they believe - you have taken the foundation out from under them and they suddenly are without meaning - an accident of magnificent proportions. On the other side, these fanciful stories in Genesis put God in the control of a world that the philosophy of naturalism cannot live with. A war is predictable because of the opposing philosophies and science doesn't have much to do with it, except conveniently providing a place to hide your underlying philosophies (note that Creationists also try this).
Richard Lewontin (Harvard Geneticist) wrote an article arguing for the superiority of science over religion (he groups with UFO's and channeling) - in it he admits that science has its own problems. It has created many of our social problems and many scientific theories are no more than "unsubstantiated just-so stories." Nevertheless, "in our struggle between science and the supernatural," we "take the side of science." Why? "Because we have a prior commitment to materialism." I looked up Gould's Harvard evolution class and found a student discussion board. In a discussion thread about increasing complexity I noticed that no one would dare to question the theory of evolution, they were simply trying anything that would still support their fixed view.
Scientists, who almost universally accept evolution, believe all the evidence is on their side. Facing activists who want creationism taught alongside evolution in public schools, they say they'll have to make a stronger case to the public. Notice that Evolutionists are scientists and creationists are 'activists'! Is this unbiased journalism? A stronger case is just not education on the same tired old unscientific theories - creationists will need something more. Gould is one of several prominent scientists involved in a new Evolution Education Research Centre, based at Harvard and McGill University in Montreal. The premise is that Americans and Canadians - about half of whom also have their doubts about evolution - aren't being convincingly taught the science that supports the theory. "If students understand well evolution, but for religious reasons say 'I still cannot accept that because of my religious beliefs,' then we in the educational community say we respect that," said Brian Alters, a McGill science-education professor who is leading the center. "But that is not the case, we usually find." Linda Holloway, who was chairwoman of the Kansas Board of Education when it voted last year to remove most references to evolution from the state's curriculum, said she welcomed efforts to teach evolution more effectively. "I think that's great. I think this whole discussion is great," she said. "Evolutionists are putting out their information and people who have different viewpoints are putting out theirs. I think that's healthy." The center plans to disseminate its research through teachers conventions and seminars, and on a Web site. But the main target is university-level science education professors, who will train the next generation of high school teachers. In a study of 1,200 college freshmen, Alters found 45 percent of those who doubted evolution had specific misunderstandings about some of the science that has been used to confirm the theory - for instance carbon dating techniques that determine the age of fossils. The recent widespread scientific acceptance of the 'Big Bang theory' has many scientists scrambling to make it fit with natural selection - what caused this big bang? While Genesis has the answer I'll not ask you to believe such nonsense but instead to keep trying to modify the theories to make it fit your underlying philosophy (call this science). I find it interesting that Eldridge (Fossils : The Evolution and Extinction of Species ) has moved from the widely accepted gradual evolution theory to the sudden transformation caused by the extinction of a species - conveniently this fits the absence of fossils in transformation - now it fits. "We need to find out why people don't understand evolution," Alters said. "Then we need to craft lessons, activities, curricula to specifically address that." The debate over teaching origin theories dates back to 1925, when John T. Scopes was charged with violating Tennessee law for teaching evolution in high school. Scopes' conviction was later were overturned. In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court barred states from requiring the teaching of creationism in public schools where evolution is taught. The Kansas school board's decision last year rekindled the debate. Alters and Gould both say Americans' attitudes toward the teaching of evolution are more complex than they first appear. The Gallup Poll conducted last year also found 68 percent of Americans favored teaching both creationism and evolution in the public schools. By a margin of 55 percent to 40 percent, they opposed replacing evolution with creationism. Those results were based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1,016 adults, 18 years and older, conducted June 25-27, 1999. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.
In closing・. I agree with Chuck Colson (1) when he writes, "We can no longer allow naturalists to treat science as a sanctuary where their personal philosophy reigns free from challenge." Eldridge was right when he said, "・concepts about God reveal a lot about how people see themselves・" An additional survey question that would have made this report clearer needed to be added; "What is your view of God? We might find that no amount of additional education will address the differences which are really incompatible Worldviews.
I didn't read every post, but I read most. I am a Christian and I am a pastor. I believe in a blend of ID and Evolution. I believe that there must have been a Creator at some point. I also believe in what is called a Long Day theory. That in the Creation story the seven days were not literal 24 hour periods which allows for the obvious fact that our world is not only thousands of years old. This is a brief description of what many books have been written about.
Also, please try not to label every Christian as what you see on TV with the televangelists and the two Pats (Robertson and Buchanan). There are many people striving to be authentic and compassionate in a world where many others are posing as "Christians" for political causes and other reprehensible things. I believe in Jesus Christ and His message of love, hope, and peace. Feel free to join me in my journey by checking out my blog.
D.
Do you honestly not care whether a scientist has an agenda, a belief system that could cloud his/her scientific endeavours? Reminds me of the 'discovery about 5-7 years back where two scientists had concluded that homsexuality was caused by a particular part of the brain - turns out that both 'scientists' were avowed homsexuals and most of the findings were tainted to say the least. I am only asking why evolutionists are so dogmatic in their support of this theory of evolution - where is the openess to new probes? From this view, it sure looks like both are beliefs based on faith - ask yourself what would happen to your worldview if evolution was proven wrong? Then examine it and see if you have created a bridge too long to cross.......
and painting the ID theory as 'Christian' gives evolutionists a quick way out without letting honest probes into a theory. I will admit that many Christians have jumped on this bandwagon - but you would have to say with good reason. thanks for debating.....lee
Actually, Lee, your case of the two scientists promoting certain politically motivated findings is a great example of the way the Scientific Method works. One of the basic understandings of Science is that, sometimes, individuals are wrong. It's a process that is designed to deal with individual error. So two guys who go off on their own agenda and present a particular set of findings can absolutely be mistaken. That's OK -- there is room for that in Science.
No one experiment proves anything Scientifically. Before something is accepted as "valid" by Scientific standards, other people have to reproduce the experiments, critique their failings, and present any contradictory results. The idea is that a series of experiments, sliced and diced different ways by different people with differing agendae, eventually winnow out the parts that are consistent from the parts that were flukes or misrepresentations.
Scientific Theories are broad frameworks that bring together a large amount of such data and explain them in a way that includes all of the particular findings that are reproducible. One of the important points of this is that the details of our understanding may change. Indeed, the Scientific Method insists our descriptions must change, as data is discovered that does not fit earlier versions. Those who criticize Evolutionary Theory because they see disputes between various groups of scientists about its application, actually highlight one of the strengths of the Scientific Method. These differences show that the Scientific Community is continually working to bring our understanding more in line with the facts, as we discover new evidence.
The bottom line here is that you have to be willing to allow your belief in Intelligent Design to be changed by future discovery if you want it to be discussed in the same arena as Evolution and other Scientific Theories. If your belief is inflexible and immutable, you are not playing the same game. Do you see how that's different?
-- The Green Man
Its a bit more than a theory, we may not have all the pieces put together but, Ill bet these same idiot parents would love it if they tought their kids that the world is only 10,000 years old and God made man out of dust on the 6th day, which is the worst theory out there, the hardest to prove and has the least evidence supporting it of any other theory that explains how we evolved, its a lot less believable and a lot less logical. If they want to teach their kids about God send them to church or a Catholic school, but dont spend my tax dollars teaching kids that some invisible guy waved a magic wand and poof here we are eating fruit in a garden and conversing with fucking snakes.
I went to a christian school growing up, and I learned the formation of the world was when the promodial (sp?) soup got together, God went "Presto". I assumed they just didn't know what happened and was thoroughly shocked when I got to college.
Those students, if kept under that program, may experience the same shock.
William, I would prefer to let Lee answer for himself. It's pretty clear you don't think the same way he does, so I can't imagine how you know what he's going to say.
How are you going to win someone over to appreciate the beauty and the utility of scientific reasoning by shouting at them? You're following the method you most despise. If you really think Science is a better way to figure out how the world works than shouting, you'll get that across more clearly by using the method and showing how it pays off. If you feel you can't reason with Creationists, I don't know why you keep answering them.
-- The Green Man
As a practicing Christian myself, I think "creationists" project fear in the wrong direction. Stop worrying about a separation of church and state (a governing principle stemming from the U.S. constitution that many Christians believe to be authored and ratified by inspired men), and start worrying about separation FROM religion. Why in the world would you leave the instruction of your children to only a schoolteacher who you may have met once in your life? Take some responsibility for you child’s spiritual education!
Public education is for secular learning, the home is for spiritual guidance and education. Faith without works is dead, if you have a problem with a secular teaching, teach your children the correct principle. I don’t want my children or anyone else’s child to pass up the discovery of the next penicillin because some “creationist” parents group told his or her school that the scientific method and the discoveries it has given mankind are not infallible and thus not noteworthy. The whole point of the scientific method is that it is just that, fallible. A thorough scientific education teaches that science is constantly working to improve and correct itself.
As a Christian, I believe that science attempts to explain God’s creations, and that one day, science and faith will merge when our understanding is made perfect. Until then, we should study both sides of the spectrum in order to gain the greatest understanding of the world around us. I believe that the glory of god is intelligence, and parents have just as big of a responsibility to encourage learning as schoolteachers. A levelheaded schoolteacher would never be against a parent taking an active role in teaching their child good morals and faith that encourage good behavior and active learning, so let schoolteachers do their job!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mr. White
First, asking someone to “prove” his or her faith is an oxymoron.
Faith (f th) NOUN: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Second, resigning to the position that “Christians” are responsible for all of the hatred and intolerance in the world is a misguided, ignorant, and prejudiced notion. Evolution itself was used as a tool for extreme intolerance and cruelty at the hands of godless “scientists” that claimed certain races were inferior, or had not “evolved” as far as the Caucasian. i.e. craniologists, Hitler, etc. etc. etc. The truth is that anyone who is intolerant or close-minded, AHEM, is the real enemy, no matter what their religious or scientific beliefs are.
The bottom line is that the scientific method is fallible, and you will never be able to prove otherwise anymore that I am able to “prove” the existence of a God. Science and religion each have their place (refer to my post above). To insult one’s faith in God by asking them to “prove” it reveals your misunderstanding of religion and faith altogether.
As for the issue at hand, teaching creationism in public schools, see my post above. I must have not gotten the Christian memo informing me of our imminent takeover of the public school system or U.S. Government. Manage your use of the word “most” carefully when describing any tendency within a group. A ballot asking to allow the teaching of creationism in public schools would never even approach popular approval in this Christian majority country. It would definitely not have this Christians vote.
"I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are details." -Albert Einstein
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
First of all, I agree that Creationism should not be taught in schools, so you really need to get over that some Christians may actually agree with you on this point.
In showing the indiscretions of a few past evolutionists, I was simply showing that “science” is no more innocent than religion when it comes oppression of the “other.”
Third, you proved my point by mentioning scientific laws that have been proven false. Who is to say that tomorrow someone does not come up with a theory that is considered by scientists to be superior to the ideas set forth by evolution? If you really believe what you said in your last paragraph, you will have to agree with me that this may happen.
Here are the first three of your atheist ten commandments (suggestions, whatever):
1. Thou SHALT NOT believe all thee art told.
2. Thou SHALT constantly seeketh knowledge and truth.
3. Thou SHALT educate thy fellow man in the Laws of Science.
http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/ten_commandments.html
Well, here is a law of science for you, the “truths” that science gives us are constantly changing. Why should you constantly be seeking truth if science is absolute?
Answer: It’s not, it is constantly changing as more information is gathered and new theories are tested.
When someone comes up with a better theory than evolution, are you going to “convert”? Sorry, couldn’t help myself.
Your own “commandments” prove my point, thanks for the url!
I repeat, religion is not a science. Asking someone to prove his or her faith shows lack of understanding of what faith actually is.
“…the American Christian is a different animal. Their goals are assimilation of the weak, and the destruction of all who oppose them. Do all American Christians think like this, probably not. But those who don’t usually sit back and let the above speak without challenge.”
Just for the record, this statement you made implies ALL AMERICAN CHRISTIANS support or participate the “destruction” and “assimilation” of “the weak.” Yes, that is generalizing and prejudicial. Why don’t you take a look at the statistics on humanitarian aid to starving countries by religious groups? They amount to far more than any government or “atheist” group combined. I think your enemy is extremism, you are really barking up the wrong tree with this “American Christian” thing.
Once upon a genesis
Authors of the word insist
Earth and Heaven came to be
Sponsored by the Deity.
Do you think they fabricated
How it all originated
Could it be their motivation
Was to tame the population?
CHORUS:
Joe Creator show your face
Can’t you let the human race
Understand the mystery
Without all the history?
( For the rest of this lyrical discussion, visit http://www.JoeCreator.blogspot.com )
Of course "God" can not be proved or disproved. But you can assign a probability to it. I think Bigfoot is more likely to exist than a god. But I will say I do not believe in either.
PS ~ Check out my latest post on ID.
Post a Comment
<< Home