PDA

View Full Version : Intelligent Design? Reprinted from Natural History magazine



SSanf
June 7th, 2007, 07:52 AM
Introduction
Prepared by Richard Milner & Vittorio Maestro, senior editors of Natural History

The idea that an organism's complexity is evidence for the existence of a cosmic designer was advanced centuries before Charles Darwin was born. Its best-known exponent was English theologian William Paley, creator of the famous watchmaker analogy. If we find a pocket watch in a field, Paley wrote in 1802, we immediately infer that it was produced not by natural processes acting blindly but by a designing human intellect. Likewise, he reasoned, the natural world contains abundant evidence of a supernatural creator. The argument from design, as it is known, prevailed as an explanation of the natural world until the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859. The weight of the evidence that Darwin had patiently gathered swiftly convinced scientists that evolution by natural selection better explained life's complexity and diversity. "I cannot possibly believe," wrote Darwin in 1868, "that a false theory would explain so many classes of facts."


In some circles, however, opposition to the concept of evolution has persisted to the present. The argument from design has recently been revived by a number of academics with scientific credentials, who maintain that their version of the idea (unlike Paley's) is soundly supported by both microbiology and mathematics. These antievolutionists differ from fundamentalist creationists in that they accept that some species do change (but not much) and that Earth is much more than 6,000 years old. Like their predecessors, however, they reject the idea that evolution accounts for the array of species we see today, and they seek to have their concept -- known as intelligent design -- included in the science curriculum of schools.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html#introductionWhat do you think of inteligent design?

SSanf
June 7th, 2007, 08:03 AM
"Intelligent Design" Not Accepted by Most Scientists
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/996_intelligent_design_not_accep_9_10_2002.asp

SweetIsTheTruth
June 7th, 2007, 10:27 AM
What do you think of inteligent design?

Seriously, read the court decision in the Dover, Pa schoolboard case. The Dover, PA school board had become overtaken by creationists. They instituted a policy which required ID be taught as an 'alternative theory' to evolution. (Which is really funny considering ID is hypothesis, having no evidence to allow it to graduate to theory). A lawsuit, of course, ensued in which the fraud of ID was exposed.

The court noted ID sprang from creationism, since books published in the 80s clearly outlined the scheme to remove all references of the Christian god from the creationist hypothesis, in attempt to fraudulently provide creationism/ID with scientific legitimacy. (Which, if it were legitimate science, numerous studies providing evidence of creationism/ID would have been published for review in scientific journals). So the fraud that ID is somehow science was recognized by the courts as actually being a religious teaching, and therefore not allowed in schools. One reason the court decision is so interesting, is because the judge noted how the fools on the schoolboard who instituted the teaching of ID repeatedly denied, in a court of law, after swearing on a bible, most likely, that ID had any sort of religious basis to it at all.

Of course, the school board was promptly voted out after the court decision. But who can blame the voters? I would be upset too if such a frivolous lawsuit had resulted in my local school board being left almost bankrupt.

gwendar
June 7th, 2007, 08:42 PM
I think it's unscientific.

SSanf
June 7th, 2007, 08:48 PM
I think it's unintelligent.

LadyCelt
June 7th, 2007, 10:09 PM
I think it'd be nice if schools taught creation stoies, ways of life, and the theology of multip religions. Don't take religion out or push it upon people. But, let them see what is out there so they are educated.

firefairy86
June 7th, 2007, 11:06 PM
I very much agree with LadyCelt. They probably can't cover all the creation stories and theories, but they should cover the more well-known ones. Even though some people would have a problem with it, they shouldn't because the religion wouldn't be pushed upon people, just presented. A high school kid is not going to change religions just becuase of a theory they were taught in school. If kids were taught basic theology, which should be part of the study of social studies , then it would help to promote understanding and acceptance of different religions.

gwendar
June 9th, 2007, 01:56 AM
I think it'd be nice if schools taught creation stoies, ways of life, and the theology of multip religions. Don't take religion out or push it upon people. But, let them see what is out there so they are educated.

Sure. But don't teach religion and mythology in science class. Save it for religious studies class.
Teaching creation myths in science class is pretty much the same as teaching the outdated flat-earth "theory" as an alternate view of the fact that, well, the earth isn't flat...
And ID seems to be a creation myth. God-of-the-gaps thing... "I don't know the answer, therefor god." Not very scientific.
:)

Shanti
June 9th, 2007, 04:41 PM
Sure. But don't teach religion and mythology in science class. Save it for religious studies class.
Teaching creation myths in science class is pretty much the same as teaching the outdated flat-earth "theory" as an alternate view of the fact that, well, the earth isn't flat...
And ID seems to be a creation myth. God-of-the-gaps thing... "I don't know the answer, therefor god." Not very scientific.
:) I agree 100%
And to add my own opinion.
I think any thing ID should be categorized and dealt with the same as any religious belief. There is no place for ID in school, except in religious studies separate from the basic academic studies, and ID does not belong in anything connected to the gov.

I dont care how much they alter the wording, ID still is nothing more than the idea of some supreme being. AKA a religious ideal.

Plus ID and science are as far a part in academics as Catholicism, or Muslim, or Shinto, etc and science are.
Science works with material evidence and physical facts. ID deals with the same thing all religions do, faith with no physical fact or evidence.

ID should stay in the private sector like all religions should be.