Judgement day,intelligent design on trial

[Friday on my mind]

On the PBS show NOVA tonight they are airing a show on a trial involving the teaching of intelligent design(the counter theory to evolution) in public schools.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/?campaign=pbshomefeatures_1_novabrjudgmentday_2007-11-13

 

[Legzman]

Intelligent design? What the fuck is that? Sounds like some superstitious, religious bullshit!

 

[Imagine]

I have no problem with teaching intelligent design in public schools. Just do it in courses about religion. It is in no way, shape or form an alternative to evolution. It's not even a valid theory. The only thing it does is question evolution (well, the only reasonably sane thing it does at least) and although it has some valid points, most of what I've read is merely based on a fundamental lack of understanding for what evolution is.

I don't teach science in church, don't preach religion in my lab.

 

[D-rock]

I have no problem with teaching intelligent design in public schools. Just do it in courses about religion. It is in no way, shape or form an alternative to evolution. It's not even a valid theory. The only thing it does is question evolution (well, the only reasonably sane thing it does at least) and although it has some valid points, most of what I've read is merely based on a fundamental lack of understanding for what evolution is.

I don't teach science in church, don't preach religion in my lab.

Of course somebody that believes that people were put here by extraterrestrials 12,000 years ago could go and complain that what his philosophy is isn't taught in schools either in that case, and he would have almost as valid a point as the people that want intelligent design. Besides brief descriptions in some social studies classes on what basically a certain religion is I don't think religions should be taught at all and definitely no theology, dogma, or philosophy from it. If somebody goes into a private school or chooses a class in higher education then fine, but keep it out of everything else.

 

[YMIHERE]

Why stop at teaching intelligent design in biology classes. All science classes should teach that the answer is "God did it".

 

[BlueBalls]

Teach it in religious classes and not in science

 

[Friday on my mind]

Just a follow up.The show was very good and not surprisingly the trial which was caused by a group of school board members trying to get "intelligent design"(creationism) forced into the schools as a alternative to Darwins theory went very badly for the intelligent design side who the republican judge ruled were only trying to introduce religion into the schools.None of the intelligent design scientists were willing to go on camera for the show and additionally one of the school board members almost certainly commited perjury as he was caught lying about that his aim was really to get creationism in the schools as a valid theory on the origin of man.Many think because something is called a theory that is somehow lacking evidence of being correct.They just do not understand how science works.Theories are things that have been tested again and again to prove thier validity,just like gravity many think it is a law but it is really just a theory which has lots of data to support it like evolution.Oh and BTW I think discussions of religion in schools are OK in age appropriate grades as long as it is presented as just one of many philosophies that have helped shape the world.But it can not be presented as some sort of truth and other pilosophies such as atheism must be presented as well.But religion has absoulutely no place in science classes.

 

[thegunner]

Until there is the amount of evidence for intelligent design as there is for evolution, which is alot, then keep it out of schools altogether. Maybe put the topic of religion in a social sciences class or general studies or something.

What these people fail to understand is that evolution is not just a theory, there is evolution as a fact and evolution as a theory. And there is inteligent design as only a theory. Lets keep science based on facts.

 

[TonyBro]

Keep religion out of schools and "Intelligent Design" is religion.

 

[Blink]

As a devout Pastafarian, I am a firm believer in succulent spaghetti and tender meatballs. It is well to see Intelligent Design being promoted, for that brings honor to His Noodly Appendage and His gifts most saucy. Such delicious delicacies are all the proof I need of His gloriously edible existence.

 

[Friday on my mind]

As a devout Pastafarian, I am a firm believer in succulent spaghetti and tender meatballs. It is well to see Intelligent Design being promoted, for that brings honor to His Noodly Appendage and His gifts most saucy. Such delicious delicacies are all the proof I need of His gloriously edible existence.

:thumbsup::rofl::rofl:

 

[Imagine]

As a devout Pastafarian, I am a firm believer in succulent spaghetti and tender meatballs. It is well to see Intelligent Design being promoted, for that brings honor to His Noodly Appendage and His gifts most saucy. Such delicious delicacies are all the proof I need of His gloriously edible existence.

Yes, well, Pastafarism does not require you to spread the word as I recall, and it backs unintelligent design.

Edit: Apparently, these days it does encourage spreading the word. Kinda sad, really.

 

[mongo18]

How many times does it have to be said? EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY, IT IS A FACT, AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE ARGUED. Saying you don't believe in evolution is as intelligent as saying you don't believe in gravity.

 

[Imagine]

How many times does it have to be said? EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY, IT IS A FACT, AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE ARGUED.

It doesn't have to be said at all, because what you just said there is completely false. If you believe that, you've failed to understand a fairly fundamental principle of science. That evolution is still the best explanation we have is one thing, but that doesn't make it a fact and certainly doesn't mean its credibility shouldn't be argued.

Saying you don't believe in evolution is as intelligent as saying you don't believe in gravity.

Which explanation of gravity? Aristotle's, Newton's or Einsteins' version? See where I'm going? All of those have been shown to be incorrect or insufficient.

 

[Dootifull]

How exactly would you test a hypothesis that some intelligent being created humanity? They'd have to do that before "intelligent design" could be called a theory.

 

[thegunner]

How many times does it have to be said? EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY, IT IS A FACT, AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE ARGUED. Saying you don't believe in evolution is as intelligent as saying you don't believe in gravity.

It doesn't have to be said at all, because what you just said there is completely false. If you believe that, you've failed to understand a fairly fundamental principle of science. That evolution is still the best explanation we have is one thing, but that doesn't make it a fact and certainly doesn't mean its credibility shouldn't be argued.

Which explanation of gravity? Aristotle's, Newton's or Einsteins' version? See where I'm going? All of those have been shown to be incorrect or insufficient.

Gravity is a theory aswell as a fact. The fact is that it is there and there is evidence for it, and we know it exists, but gravity as a theory is the explanation of why and how it happens. The same applies to evolution.

 

[Friday on my mind]

How exactly would you test a hypothesis that some intelligent being created humanity? They'd have to do that before "intelligent design" could be called a theory.

Well one way would be to prove man just sprung up fully formed with no relation to other living things and having not evolved from them.Problem is there is overwhelming evidence as was shown in the show of the opposite.

 

[Imagine]

Gravity is a theory aswell as a fact. The fact is that it is there and there is evidence for it, and we know it exists, but gravity as a theory is the explanation of why and how it happens. The same applies to evolution.

Gravity is a very specific subset of possible explanations for a natural phenomenon we call "gravitation". Gravity itself is not a fact, merely a theory that has become increasingly flawed since relativity (earlier than that in fact, but relativity was more or less the breaking point). We know that gravitation exist in so far that all our experiments have indicated it. Whether that makes it a fact is questionable since we've only tested a very small number of an infinite number of variations, and that we don't even have a theory to explain everything we have observed.

 

[guittarjedi]

I saw some of that show. The creationists came off as the blithering idiots that they are.

 

[Member2019]

There are at least two types of "intelligent design" ...

There are at least two types of "intelligent design" ...

- Ones who attribute everything to God, virtually the same as Creationism, and
- Ones who attribute things unexplained by Darwinism to the possibility of a design by an "intelligent" aspect

I am not religious, but I am in the latter category, I subscribe to the "possibility" that an intelligent method is at work.

Unfortunately, the "intelligent design" still suffers the same issue as "creationism," it's subjective, highly subjective.
You can't qualify it other than possibilities, and it's virtually impossible to come up with a hypothesis you can test.
It's one thing to suggest it as a possibility and leave it at that (which I do), but it's another to try to explain it, which former Creationalists do.

Unfortunately, some in the "Darwinism" camp can be just as rabid sometimes, like the "fact" arguments.
Darwinism is a scientific theory based on empirical evidence combined with probable explanation, but it is not "fact."
Denying and saying "intelligent design" is "wrong" just because people are searching for additional explanations Darwinism doesn't cover is just as absolutist as the Creationalists who refuse to accept the explanations Darwinism does address, and quite convincingly.

In other words, while the schools must teach only Darwinism, schools cannot teach anything that Darwinism does not cover.
The problem is that too many schools make political alignments and arguments and punish anyone who asks the "hard questions" about how a creature is "self aware."
Darwinism may explain evolution, but it doesn't explain just how we (or even animals, taking the "soul" argument out) are "self aware,"

While such discussions are not up for debate in a classroom and should not be, a student who merely asks the question shouldn't be punished.
A student who merely asks is typically just an honest and innocent young adult who is just seeking answers, and educators must remember that just because they can't give them it doesn't mean they have to put that student under the political foot.
They are honestly just curious, it's the nature of their youth.

You must teach them to think for themselves, and put forth why empirical evidence -- when available (and it sometimes is not) -- offers the foundation for the best explanation known today.