Intelligent Design

[Gemini Cricket]

I found this interesting today:
Voters came down hard Tuesday on school board members who backed a statement on intelligent design being read in biology class, ousting eight Republicans and replacing them with Democrats who want the concept stripped from the science curriculum.
Source (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/09/evolution.intelligentdesign.ap/index.html)

Being partnered to a scientist, the words 'intelligent design' brings up such a heated response from him.

Fine, discuss it in theology class but not science class... I think 'intelligent design' is hooey. What about you?

[Ghoulish Delight]

I have no comment on whether the intelligent design itself is hooey or not, however it's not science. Period. By definition, it's not science and does not belong in a science class. Of course, Kansas got around that by, believe it or not, redefining science. I haven't seen the language they now use to define it, all I saw was that it no longer defines it as the search for natural explanations for phenomena. :rolleyes:

[Nephythys]

I disagree- that it is hooey and also that it can not be compatible with science. But hey- that's just me.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I disagree- that it is hooey and also that it can not be compatible with science. But hey- that's just me.
Where in the definition of science does "We give up, it's too complicated to figure out, therefore it must be a supernatural force" fit? Is the existence of an intelligent creator a hypothesis that can be tested by a repeatable experiment or demonstrated by physical evidence? If not, then it's not science.

[Alex]

Probably goes without saying that I think ID is hooey (because I think all religion is hooey). But it is also not science.

It offers up not predictions about the world around us, it explains nothing (insofar as "it is unknowable" is not an explanation) and as preferred by most proponents, it requires an actor that exists outside the physical laws of the universe and therefore to enter it into scientific discussion would render all science meaningless because one of the fundamental axioms of scientific exploration is that the laws of the universe are constant across the universe and time (not that they haven't changed, but that when they have it is do to other purely physical forces). All intelligent design does is refute another theory and if Darwinian evolution is incorrect (in its basic principles, many more minor elements of his theory have been refined or changed over the last 150 years) there is already a process discussed in science classes for discovering that falseness and it doesn't require simply shrugging your shoulders and saying "god is a tricksy."

Why is intelligent design only offered for debate in biology classes? If true, it would be equally shattering to every realm of science tought in schools. It would redefine chemistry, physics, the earth sciences, mathematics, and every discipline built upon these. The founders of Intelligent Design have discovered a scientific methodology have "evidence" of a fundamental fact of the universe so tremendous as to undo centuries of scientific examination and they just want to apply it to biology? And not even all of biology (I'm guessing "because someone made it that way" is not the answer they'd want to "why does aspirin work") but just to one subfield of biology. No, not even to a subfield but rather just one aspect of one subfield of one field of scientific exploration.

They get their knickers in a bunch over room 103 talking about non-deitic origins in life but don't seem to care that in 104 they are talking about non-deitic origins for matter and energy.

It's kind of like inventing the wheel and then only ever using it to make lazy susans.

[Prudence]

I'm still rooting for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Not Afraid]

Wait. Did they make up a new "fake" term for religion?


"Hey, I know how we'll get religion in the schools. We'll rename it "Intelligent Design" - yeah, that sounds scientific - and we'll pretend it is a science. Good thinking!"

[Gemini Cricket]

Here's the story GD was talking about re: Kansas.
Source (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-11-08-kansas-science-standards_x.htm)
The Kansas Board of Education approved new science standards for teachers in public schools Tuesday that question Charles Darwin's teachings on evolution and hand a victory to advocates of "intelligent design."

The board's 6-4 vote reverses a 2001 decision that affirmed Darwin's theory of natural selection. That vote came two years after most references to the theory were removed from state standards, making Kansas the butt of jokes by scientists and late-night comedians.
I know, it's USA Today (not my favorite news source) but the picture is worth the click. My eyes are strained from rolling them so much. :D

[Gemini Cricket]

It offers up not predictions about the world around us, it explains nothing (insofar as "it is unknowable" is not an explanation) and as preferred by most proponents, it requires an actor that exists outside the physical laws of the universe and therefore to enter it into scientific discussion would render all science meaningless because one of the fundamental axioms of scientific exploration is that the laws of the universe are constant across the universe and time (not that they haven't changed, but that when they have it is do to other purely physical forces).
Longest sentence ever. Just kidding. (I won't insert a smilie here, I know how much you hate them.)

I agree totally with you, Alex. Damn you eloquent people. (wink smilie)

It does sound like the Intelligent Design answer to every science question would be 'God made it so that's why'. And that just isn't good enough for me.

[Not Afraid]

http://images.usatoday.com/tech/_photos/2005/11/08/evolution180.jpgAnd God is looking on saying "You laughing at me?" :rolleyes:

[tracilicious]

I do believe in God, etc. But I don't want it taught to my kids in school. That's not what I'm sending them for. Even if I disagree with Darwin, there are still merits to learning various theories and ways of thinking. They are presented as theories anyways. Not solid fact. I think if people want to combine spirituality and school then they should send their kids to a religious school. Or homeschool. Don't muck up my kids biology class.

[Moonliner]

Aside from all the issues surrounding ID vs Evolution, I have to say it's nice to see that at least occasionally democracy works for the people. No matter which side of the argument you are on it's fairly clear that the school board somehow lost touch with the parents in that state. Hopefully this will serve as a shot across the bow of other school boards that don't listen to parents.

[Ghoulish Delight]

It's kind of like inventing the wheel and then only ever using it to make lazy susans.But the lazy susan is so amazing, so powerful, and so complicated, clearly it was crafted by an as-yet-unamed mystical being.

I'm still rooting for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Behold his noodleyness!

[Name]

For once, I actually agree with the Vatican on the subject of intelligent design.....

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/07/1526216&tid=99&tid=14

typobox43 writes "A Vatican representative has expressed a defense of the theory of evolution, stating that it is "perfectly compatible" with the Genesis story of creation. "The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator"."


The slashdot posting also has some really interesting discussion on intelligent design and science as well, and since I agree with intelligent design is not science, I agree with the folks on slashdot that hold that position as well....

[€uroMeinke]

We are DEVO

Honestly - I think Metaphysics needs to be mandatory for all graduating seniors

[Gemini Cricket]

Name- I saw that, too. I agree also. That's what the science nuns in my grade and high school taught us.

I'm trying to get Ralphie to post about Intelligent Design. He's being sheepish. He has a lot of good points about what's going on. I'll try some more.
:)

[€uroMeinke]

You know, I'm not sure how inteligent design is contrary to evolution any more than it is to the Big Bang Theory - they all might be the work of an intelligent designer.

[Stan4dSteph]

Intelligent design is not science. Feel free to teach it in a philosophy or theology class, but it doesn't belong in the science classroom. I also find it interesting that generally those people advocating this and saying it's not religion are only viewing it from the Christian perspective. What about all the other deities who could have been the designer?

[Name]

And that sir, is the vatican's position.....

However the Fundi's position is that evolution is false, the big bang is false, and the genesis story of the creation of the universe is to be taken as literal truth.......

Which is just scientifically silly.

[Kevy Baby]

The best argument against IE is the Platypus. No sign of intelligence in that design!

[€uroMeinke]

You know - there are other theological theories that attempt top prove the existence of god - I feel the ontological argument and notions of the numinous tremndous are getting short shrift here - where are their proponants?

[Name]

The other theological theories are all false, and the work of the devil....

It is bad to associate with them.....

[Not Afraid]

Awwwwww. I love Platypi!

http://www.goana.com.au/Gossips/Gossip34/images/platypus.jpg

[SzczerbiakManiac]

I think Metaphysics needs to be mandatory for all graduating seniors"I was thrown out of college for cheating on the metaphysics exam—I looked into the soul of the boy sitting next to me."
Woody Allen

[SacTown Chronic]

This ID stuff sounds serious (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/10/religion.robertson.reut/index.html).

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city," Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, "The 700 Club."

"And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there," he said.

And don't try turning to FEMA, good citizens of Dover.

[Prudence]

Wow! Dover actually voted God out of the city?! That's some demcratic power!

[Ghoulish Delight]

Hey, I'm glad Pat's spouting off like that. Gee, all you ID proponents, I thought ID didn't have to do with God. I thought it was science. Seems Pat doesn't see it that way...

[SacTown Chronic]

It occurs to me that the angry, vengeful God of Pat Robertson's wet dreams would have already wiped out PR (And a couple thousand innocents -- collateral damage don't ya know.) for presuming to speak for him/her/it.


Wow! Dover actually voted God out of the city?! That's some demcratic power!
The voters didn't like it when God went all negative towards the end of the campaign.

[Gemini Cricket]

Pat Robertson's thinking is kinda scary. God is vengeful! I mean with his kind of thinking God hates the Boy Scouts (http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/07/31/news/state/15_37_567_30_05.txt) and this poor minister (http://www.kvue.com/news/state/stories/110905cccakvuekylelake.459ca023.html). :(

What's worrysome is that that's what Pat really believes his god to be. That's really sad.

[Alex]

Well, the Bible provides some pretty good stories about what a prick God is when on the rag.

[€uroMeinke]

Well, the Bible provides some pretty good stories about what a prick God is when on the rag.

Indeed, it was the book of Job that convinced me to be an athiest

[Gemini Cricket]

Cool Op-Ed piece from the washpost!
Because every few years this country, in its infinite tolerance, insists on hearing yet another appeal of the Scopes monkey trial, I feel obliged to point out what would otherwise be superfluous: that the two greatest scientists in the history of our species were Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, and they were both religious.

Newton's religion was traditional. He was a staunch believer in Christianity and a member of the Church of England. Einstein's was a more diffuse belief in a deity who set the rules for everything that occurs in the universe.

Neither saw science as an enemy of religion. On the contrary. "He believed he was doing God's work," James Gleick wrote in his recent biography of Newton. Einstein saw his entire vocation -- understanding the workings of the universe -- as an attempt to understand the mind of God.

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111701304.html)

[Prudence]

Unfortunately, Newton's view is incompatible with the many who consider themselves "true" Christians and who believe the world is only some 6K years old. For them, it's not just about "did God create evolution." For them, all of science (and history) with its dinosaurs and fossils and pre-human eras is not just wrong, but an indictment of much of modern science. For them, modern education has fallen into the traps planted by Satan to direct people away from the Truth. It's not just "I'm not an ape."

[€uroMeinke]

Another problem I see with "Intelligent" design is it sort of presumes God to be some sort of scientist (or watch maker if you go back to the 19th century version). Why can't we have "Poetic" design, where the world is but God's metaphore? or how about "Comic" design where God is demonstrating his boundless humor?

"Intelligent" design fails in that it embeds the superiority of sciene in it's ontology - only a culture that has lost it's faith, superceding it with science, would look to such an argument for the proof of God's existence.

[Ghoulish Delight]

You aren't alone in that thought.


In a June article in the British Catholic magazine The Tablet, [chief Vatican astronomer Rev. George] Coyne reaffirmed God's role in creation, but said science explains the history of the universe.

"If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly."

Rather, he argued, God should be seen more as an encouraging parent.


And the article is about him saying today that ID is not science and should not be taught in science class.

link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10101394/)

[Prudence]

The Dover decision was just released, for those of you that follow these sorts of things. pdf available at: http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/12/20/kitzmiller.pdf

My personal favorite part is from the very end: "The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

Teehee! Cranky judges! Love 'em!

[wendybeth]

That judge is clearly going to hell.
;)

[Gemini Cricket]

All I can say is... Amen to that ruling.
;)

[wendybeth]

Does this mean God is going to smite the US District Court- Middle Pennsylvania, or just that particular judge?

[SacTown Chronic]

I think Pat Robertson decides who God will smite. And then God smites that person (usually a homo) and three thousand innocent bystanders.

[€uroMeinke]

I must day, I like how this story has evolved...
;)

[Gemini Cricket]

I must day...
I think €uromeinke has a cold...
:D

[Not Afraid]

Ooooh!!! I love a good smiting. It leads to using the word "smote" in polite conversation.

[wendybeth]

Ooooh!!! I love a good smiting. It leads to using the word "smote" in polite conversation.

Unless it's you husband saying it- then it would be 'smode'.;)