Intelligent Design Theory explained. (2 Viewers)

[Not-That-Bright]

(2) Only scientists are entitled to decide in questions of scientific truth and to determine the scientific value of research.

I agree with it, but I would like to know what constitutes a 'scientist', is it someone whom is an expert in the field. Of course also while the abilty to 'decide' should only rest with said experts, anyone should remain the right to comment.

 

[malkin86]

Kaiser, 'creation stories' are taught, in the NSW Stage 6 Biology Syllabus. http://community.boredofstudies.org/showpost.php?p=1767280&postcount=34

I reckon that other creation stories should be mentioned because:
1. It is part of the broader social history of the Evolutionary Theory - eg. the Scopes trial
2. Scientists cannot isolate themselves from the rest of society - it borders on dangerous elitism to do so, as there impacts on society from science, and impacts on science from society.
3. There would not be equal time on it, as ID is primarily a theological/philosophical position, and as such cannot be explored in depth in scientific terms.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I have no problem if people want to start teaching such things in schools. You can talk about ID, as long as the problems associated with it etc are explained.

 

[Kaiser Zero]

I believe ID will remain a hypothesis.

Wishful thinking. It's gathering support in some soutern state's educational institutions. It'll be accepted eventually, prominent members of educational boards are christian fundamentalist ID advocates over there

 

[tWiStEdD]

Not-That-Bright, perhaps is Just-That-Bright?
Good point, that would be open to some interpretation. What that is would require little effort... but I've gotta get this contracts finished today, fuck detail.

malkin86:
1. Scopes trial is a matter of historical and social interest; it is not even slightly mildly relevant to science.
2. Just because science affects society and vice-versa does not mean that this 'elitism' as you so poorly articulate it is unjustified. As i said no member of one profession, trade or occupation can rightly, fairly or objectively make judgements upon issues peculiar to another profession, trade or occupation.
3. It would add nothing to the course and take up time which could be spent dealing with something worth knowing such as Newton's Laws of Physics or an extra revision lesson at the end of the year; why distract from science by adding in such an unknown quantity?

What you haven't responded to is why it shouldnt be taught in Philosophy and whether or not Philosophy deserves wider recognition in both private and public schools; should it? justify.
Perhaps you should suggest that philosophy be taught in the science curriculum?

 

[gerhard]

Kaiser, 'creation stories' are taught, in the NSW Stage 6 Biology Syllabus. http://community.boredofstudies.org/showpost.php?p=1767280&postcount=34

I reckon that other creation stories should be mentioned because:
1. It is part of the broader social history of the Evolutionary Theory - eg. the Scopes trial
2. Scientists cannot isolate themselves from the rest of society - it borders on dangerous elitism to do so, as there impacts on society from science, and impacts on science from society.
3. There would not be equal time on it, as ID is primarily a theological/philosophical position, and as such cannot be explored in depth in scientific terms.

This is the problem though. They arent trying to teach ID as a theological/philosophical position but as a genuine scientific theory which is equal in stature to evolution

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well I read there has only been one scholarly article published on the topic of ID so far. It should not be given the same stature as evolution, and it probably will never be in the scientific community... but if the public really wants it taught in schools it will be. Personally I do not see this as a bad thing as long as there is open, vigorous discussion (which I imagine they would not permit in schools) which would allow students to objectively work out where they stand.

 

[malkin86]

malkin86:
1. Scopes trial is a matter of historical and social interest; it is not even slightly mildly relevant to science.
2. Just because science affects society and vice-versa does not mean that this 'elitism' as you so poorly articulate it is unjustified. As i said no member of one profession, trade or occupation can rightly, fairly or objectively make judgements upon issues peculiar to another profession, trade or occupation.
3. It would add nothing to the course and take up time which could be spent dealing with something worth knowing such as Newton's Laws of Physics or an extra revision lesson at the end of the year; why distract from science by adding in such an unknown quantity?

What you haven't responded to is why it shouldnt be taught in Philosophy and whether or not Philosophy deserves wider recognition in both private and public schools; should it? justify.
Perhaps you should suggest that philosophy be taught in the science curriculum?

Scopes trial, ID, etc. are part of the history of science, and as such should be taught in the science curriculum.
Science cannot divorce itself from society, and scientists should consider the ethical/social implications of their work - perhaps with consultation from sociologists/ethical-studying-type-people. Who would want to revolutionise the world at the cost of a shattered society that couldn't cope?
Who would teach Newton's Laws of Physics in biology time? It is important to know the history of an idea in order to better understand it and its impacts on the field of study and in society in general.

I have not studied Philosophy in school, therefore I can't comment on the treatment of Philosophy, and whether ID would fit in with the Philosophy curriculum. I do think that ID should fit in with Scripture, though.

 

[SashatheMan]

let then teach ID in schol but NOT in science classes.

 

[M-turkey]

Intelligent Design is just the world to describe non specific creationism. It can be discuss that way without having to promote a specific religion.

I agree that its philisophy, but so are some areas of physics. (topics such as stringtheory, or pretty much anything labelled as a theory).

The majority of the worlds population believe in some form of Intelligent Design some way or another.

 

[gerhard]

Intelligent Design is just the world to describe non specific creationism. It can be discuss that way without having to promote a specific religion.

a)I agree that its philisophy, but so are some areas of physics. (topics such as stringtheory, or pretty much anything labelled as a theory).

b)The majority of the worlds population believe in some form of Intelligent Design some way or another.

a)Some people, (possible even Karl Popper, one of the foremost philosophers of science) would argue whether string theory was actually science. Also, everything in science is labelled as a theory - it is a theory that large masses attract small masses, it is a theory that when i apply a force to an object, it will accelerate. The fact that these have theories never been proven wrong doesnt make them suddenly 'not theories' any more.


b)The majority of the world believed the sun revolved around the earth too.

 

[M-turkey]

Also, everything in science is labelled as a theory - it is a theory that large masses attract small masses, it is a theory that when i apply a force to an object, it will accelerate. The fact that these have theories never been proven wrong doesnt make them suddenly 'not theories' any more.

Those arent scientific theories... Those are Laws (Newton's Second Law, and the Law of Gravitational Motion). They are different, we observe them to be true under all circumstances and therefore are not theories.

Theories, for example, our theory for the structure of an atom, with Electrons, Neutrons, Protons etc, is a theory because they have not been pyhsically observed.

 

[Xayma]

No, they are not theories because they don't explain how the effects work, just how to calculate the effects.

F = ma, doesn't explain why the acceleration is proportional to the force and inversely proportional to the mass.

In a same manner use of the law of gravitational motion doesn't explain it either way, Einstein's explanation in the general theory of relativity is a theory.

 

[PoP 'n' Fresh]

Anyone read the wedge document?
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
search it in google if you want more sources that arn't biased or whatever, but the actual document exists.

I quote from it:
"We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

 

[ariande]

You're all misguided fools.

Unlike chaps.

 

[SashatheMan]

Vatican official refutes intelligent design

By NICOLE WINFIELD
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

VATICAN CITY -- The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.

The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.

"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be," the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

His comments were in line with his previous statements on "intelligent design" - whose supporters hold that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

Proponents of intelligent design are seeking to get public schools in the United States to teach it as part of the science curriculum. Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism - a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation - camouflaged in scientific language, and they say it does not belong in science curriculum.

In a June article in the British Catholic magazine The Tablet, 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.

"God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity," he wrote. "He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves."

The Vatican Observatory, which Coyne heads, is one of the oldest astronomical research institutions in the world. It is based in the papal summer residence at Castel Gandolfo south of Rome.

Last week, Pope Benedict XVI waded indirectly into the evolution debate by saying the universe was made by an "intelligent project" and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order.

Questions about the Vatican's position on evolution were raised in July by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn.

In a New York Times column, Schoenborn seemed to back intelligent design and dismissed a 1996 statement by Pope John Paul II that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis." Schoenborn said the late pope's statement was "rather vague and unimportant."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1103AP_Vatican_Evolution.html

finally we have some sane people from a religious place stepping in , on the issue

 

[gerhard]

Those arent scientific theories... Those are Laws (Newton's Second Law, and the Law of Gravitational Motion). They are different, we observe them to be true under all circumstances and therefore are not theories.

Theories, for example, our theory for the structure of an atom, with Electrons, Neutrons, Protons etc, is a theory because they have not been pyhsically observed.

no.

just because we've observed something to be true in the past doesnt mean it will always be true in the future. id recommend any decent book on the philosophy of science. the 'very short introduction to philosophy of science' isnt bad, and its very short. i think hawkings brief history of time also talks about this idea.

basically i cant prove that in the future when i drop an apple, it will fall to do the ground. the best i can do is inductive reasoning, in the form

every time ive ever dropped an apple it fell to the ground.
in every moment of recorded history that i have heard about, when you drop an apple, it falls to the ground
therefore, when i drop this apple, it will fall to the ground

as you can see, this argument is far from deductive. it is logically possible that an argument of this form could reach an incorrect conclusion

so the problem is we can never actually prove anything through science. so what do we actually know....?.....ahh epistemology....

 

[SashatheMan]