Does anyone here support it? I'm interested in what it is they want to teach, from what I've heard it's just another version of creationism, but I could be wrong. I'm a student at a science school so there is absolutely no argument for it here and I know very little about it. I do however have a very strong belief in evolution, but i will do my best to be unbiased.
Intelligent Design
- Thread starter The Lorax
- Start date
Brother John
Senior Master
Honestly, it's been several years since I was in school (non-martial arts school anyway), so I really don't know about the "official" theory being over-viewed in some educational systems, but from what I "THINK" I know of it, I do support it.
PM me if you want to know why or what I think about it.
Only reason I don't post it here, it's my own personal belief and there are many that would Love to pounce on a subject like this, but if you'd really like to discuss it, we could send E-mails back and forth.
Your Brother
John
PM me if you want to know why or what I think about it.
Only reason I don't post it here, it's my own personal belief and there are many that would Love to pounce on a subject like this, but if you'd really like to discuss it, we could send E-mails back and forth.
Your Brother
John
heretic888
Senior Master
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2002
- Messages
- 2,723
- Reaction score
- 60
I believe in organic selection, not intelligent design.
It has been pretty well-established that proponents of the intelligent design movement are just re-labeling creationism with a more "scientific" sounding platform in order to get it pushed into public schools. This was why the theory was recently shot down by a Republican judge in Kansas (I think?).
In any event, there is no scientific grounding for the theory. It is sheer speculative metaphysics.
Laterz.
It has been pretty well-established that proponents of the intelligent design movement are just re-labeling creationism with a more "scientific" sounding platform in order to get it pushed into public schools. This was why the theory was recently shot down by a Republican judge in Kansas (I think?).
In any event, there is no scientific grounding for the theory. It is sheer speculative metaphysics.
Laterz.
Xequat
Black Belt
This is the best theory of ID I've seen so far...
www.venganza.com
Actually, I don't really care that much. I think that evolutionary theories should be taught in science classes and ID should be taught in philosophy or religion classes, but neither should be banned altogether, even though ID could conceivably be ignored, just like Swahili language classes...you can't teach everything. Leave it up to local and state governments, but definitely not federal. I do think that since empirical and factual evidence support evolution, that should be taught until it's no longer theory, but fact, or it is disproven altogether by the truth or more facts and then that should be taught. Keep science classes scientific. Let the family and/or church teach about ID, or the school if the locality prefers it that way, but do not only teach ID w/o teaching evolution.
www.venganza.com
Actually, I don't really care that much. I think that evolutionary theories should be taught in science classes and ID should be taught in philosophy or religion classes, but neither should be banned altogether, even though ID could conceivably be ignored, just like Swahili language classes...you can't teach everything. Leave it up to local and state governments, but definitely not federal. I do think that since empirical and factual evidence support evolution, that should be taught until it's no longer theory, but fact, or it is disproven altogether by the truth or more facts and then that should be taught. Keep science classes scientific. Let the family and/or church teach about ID, or the school if the locality prefers it that way, but do not only teach ID w/o teaching evolution.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
There was a federal court in Pennsylvania that recently ruled that Intelligent Design was relabeled Creationism.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/
More significantly, on the last election day in this little Pennsylvania town, all of the school committee members who voted to include ID in the curriculum were significantly defeated and replaced by people whose position was against ID in the classroom. It seems the majority of parents in Dover, PA want their children to learn science.
P.S. xequat, in science, theories do not move to fact, they move to law. There are many facts that support the theory of evolution. If, someday, we accumulate enough data to prove the theory, it would become the law of evolution. You are correct in assuming if a more viable hypothesis was to arise, the theory of evolution would fall out of favor. Incidently, I think, there is very little room in science for the term 'truth'; a term you used. 'Truth' is a human construct.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/
- “breathtaking inanity”
- “is a religious view"
- "a mere re-labeling of creationism"
- "not a scientific theory"
More significantly, on the last election day in this little Pennsylvania town, all of the school committee members who voted to include ID in the curriculum were significantly defeated and replaced by people whose position was against ID in the classroom. It seems the majority of parents in Dover, PA want their children to learn science.
P.S. xequat, in science, theories do not move to fact, they move to law. There are many facts that support the theory of evolution. If, someday, we accumulate enough data to prove the theory, it would become the law of evolution. You are correct in assuming if a more viable hypothesis was to arise, the theory of evolution would fall out of favor. Incidently, I think, there is very little room in science for the term 'truth'; a term you used. 'Truth' is a human construct.
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 4,753
- Reaction score
- 189
Intelligent design has nothing to do with science. It's about the 'why' of the universe, science is about the how. 'Why' is a philosophical and religious question, and intelligent design is better reserved for highschool classes on philosophy and religion.
heretic888
Senior Master
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2002
- Messages
- 2,723
- Reaction score
- 60
michaeledward said:
Ah. It was Pennsylvania, not Kansas. My mistake.
On a somewhat related note, the Vatican recently published a statement pertaining to this subject. It seems that, according to the Roman Catholic Church (the largest body of Christians in the world), intelligent design ain't science:
Vatican Newspaper Denounces Intelligent Design
Laterz.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
heretic888 said:
Well, Kansas has its own issues. The Dover ruling will probably have a big effect on what happens in Kansas.
The Kansas State Board of Education controversy is about changing the definition of science.
The 2005 definition removes the word 'natural', opening the door to 'supernatural explanations' for what we observe around us. Obviously, if something is supernatural, it is not science.
still learning
Senior Master
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2004
- Messages
- 3,749
- Reaction score
- 48
Hello, If it was really true? Wouldn't the rest of the world be teaching it too?
Man need to believe in a GOD....it helps guide us...
NO one has proof Jesus is real. But the belief can be.........
Almost every group of people has some kind of belief/god or gods. They feel is real! From small amazon tribes to whole world religions.
Religions are design to rule people...guide them..help them in there lives...
Is there a RIGHT ONE? ...and the rest got it wrong?......Aloha
Man need to believe in a GOD....it helps guide us...
NO one has proof Jesus is real. But the belief can be.........
Almost every group of people has some kind of belief/god or gods. They feel is real! From small amazon tribes to whole world religions.
Religions are design to rule people...guide them..help them in there lives...
Is there a RIGHT ONE? ...and the rest got it wrong?......Aloha
Ray
Master Black Belt
I sure wished my own carepentry (and other) projects exhibited Intelligent Design.
tradrockrat
2nd Black Belt
Ray said:
ROTFLMAO!
- Thread Starter
- #12
Brother John said:
I tried to PM you but it said you couldnt except anymore. I understand your not wanting to post it here. I dont want to start an arguement, I just wanted to here the other side of the debate.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
The New York Times has an article today on the State of Ohio, and its endeavors into the world of Intelligent Design.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/education/14evolution.html
Several years ago, Ohio added to its curriculum the idea of "critical analysis", whereby the ideas of Intelligent Design (homology, embosymbiosis) were introduced into a written lesson plan.
There is growing pressure in the state to remove the 'critical analysis' component of the lesson plan, as it is viewed as 'Intelligent Design', relabeled.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/education/14evolution.html
Several years ago, Ohio added to its curriculum the idea of "critical analysis", whereby the ideas of Intelligent Design (homology, embosymbiosis) were introduced into a written lesson plan.
There is growing pressure in the state to remove the 'critical analysis' component of the lesson plan, as it is viewed as 'Intelligent Design', relabeled.
tradrockrat
2nd Black Belt
Well, as a teacher, I'm pretty talked out about this, so I'll just post this. Intellegent design does not meet one single criterion for inclusion in a science class / course. Not one. Call it whatever you want, it is not science.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
One of the arguments among the ID folks is there are no transitory fossil records.
Well, they just found one .... alive.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12875772/
Too Cool
Well, they just found one .... alive.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12875772/
Too Cool
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
Science is the study of the natural world. Intelligent design presumes the supernatural. It isn't science, and ought not be taught in science class. It posits no testable hypothesis.
If someone wants to teach that God created the universe (and that's all this is, thinly veiled creationism), then they ought to feel free to do so in their churches.
However; if schools want to teach creation theories in a comparative mythology/religion class, why not? PROVIDED they give equal time to every religion and myth. No special pleading, no favoritism.
I say that in spite of my bias.
For in the beginning, thawing ice water grew into a giant frost ogre named Ymir... and from the sweat of his left arm there grew a man and a woman. And one of his legs begot a son with the other. This was the beginning of the frost ogres.
The thawing frost then became a cow called Audhumla. Four rivers of milk ran from her teats, and she fed Ymir.
The cow licked salty ice blocks. After one day of licking, she freed a man's hair from the ice. After two days, his head appeared. On the third day the whole man was there. His name was Buri, and he was tall, strong, and handsome.
The Prose Edda of Snorri Sturluson says it, I believe it, and that settles it!
Regards,
Steve
If someone wants to teach that God created the universe (and that's all this is, thinly veiled creationism), then they ought to feel free to do so in their churches.
However; if schools want to teach creation theories in a comparative mythology/religion class, why not? PROVIDED they give equal time to every religion and myth. No special pleading, no favoritism.
I say that in spite of my bias.
For in the beginning, thawing ice water grew into a giant frost ogre named Ymir... and from the sweat of his left arm there grew a man and a woman. And one of his legs begot a son with the other. This was the beginning of the frost ogres.
The thawing frost then became a cow called Audhumla. Four rivers of milk ran from her teats, and she fed Ymir.
The cow licked salty ice blocks. After one day of licking, she freed a man's hair from the ice. After two days, his head appeared. On the third day the whole man was there. His name was Buri, and he was tall, strong, and handsome.
The Prose Edda of Snorri Sturluson says it, I believe it, and that settles it!
Regards,
Steve
I agree with Steve (hardheadjarhead) - if it's a science class, teach science concepts, not religious ones; likewise, in a religion or mythology class, teach religion or mythology - not science.
I have my own opinion on this issue, which does not change the concern I have with religious groups dictating curriculum to the public school system; there are other times and places in which similar issues arise, especially around the health curriculum (sex ed being the primary problem topic). If you don't want your child exposed to a certain curriculum, then inform the school and alternate work will provided while that section of the curriculum is being covered - but that, of course, would require that the parents attend to the daily work being given to their children, rather than attempting to control the information being provided to the entire student body... which is a discussion for a different thread, I think.
I have my own opinion on this issue, which does not change the concern I have with religious groups dictating curriculum to the public school system; there are other times and places in which similar issues arise, especially around the health curriculum (sex ed being the primary problem topic). If you don't want your child exposed to a certain curriculum, then inform the school and alternate work will provided while that section of the curriculum is being covered - but that, of course, would require that the parents attend to the daily work being given to their children, rather than attempting to control the information being provided to the entire student body... which is a discussion for a different thread, I think.
hongkongfooey
Black Belt
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2005
- Messages
- 628
- Reaction score
- 23
michaeledward said:One of the arguments among the ID folks is there are no transitory fossil records.
Well, they just found one .... alive.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12875772/
Too Cool
I wonder if they taste good broiled?
That was obviously a plant from satan.
FearlessFreep
Senior Master
It posits no testable hypothesis.
For the sake of argument (dare I say, "Devil's Advocate"?), neither does evolution. : )
For the sake of argument (dare I say, "Devil's Advocate"?), neither does evolution. : )
Dionysianexile
Yellow Belt
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 30
- Reaction score
- 0
FearlessFreep said:
Except, you know, it does.
Traits are passed on to future generations. A mechanism (either sexual, environmental, etc...) selects for particular traits, which will inevitably cause those who have said traits to be more likely to create offspring. After several generations, evolution begins to take shape with those traits that were selected for showing up in larger proportion in future generations.
This is completely testable. Take something with a short lifespan, be it bug or plant, and then start selecting for a trait. Watch as you force evolution. The same thing has been done for centuries with dog breeding.
