Intelligent Design
Legionnaired
Join Date: 2002-04-30 Member: 552Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-04-30 Member: 552Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Should it be taught in schools?</div> The discussion forum has been quiet for a while now, I thought I'd shake things up a bit. I've been talking to my Chem teacher about this for a little while, thought I'd throw it up to you guys.
The Theory of Evolution as a mechanism that brought about the world's organsims as they exist today is, here in Ohio at least, the only thing taught as far as the orgin of the species. Creationism has long since been dismissed by the scientific community, but Intelligent Design, or the belief that something other than natural freak occurances has been gaining some popularity.
Regardless of your personal feelings on the issue, as has been discussed in the thread about TAK's school and the hippys, students have a right to be educated about both sides of an issue. Everyone pretty much agrees on this politically, but scientifically, only the theory of Evolution is taken seriously, despite an intelligent design movement that cites such things as the human eye, or the cillia of bacterium as non-reducable complexities; things so complex that they had to be created that way all at once.
We've had a lot of Evolution vs. Creation debates in here before, and as those are banned now, I don't wish to open that can of worms up again. I don't care what you think is right or wrong. What I want to be discussed is: Should alternatives to Evolution be discussed or presented in the public school system, and, to what extent should those alternatives be presented? Is merely an in-class, student led discussion appropriate, or should teachers require their students to read both <u>The Orgin of the Species</u> and <u>Darwin's Black Box</u>?
Moderators, I feel this topic does not discus right and wrong in regards to the "Science vs. Religion" forbidden by the first addendum to the Disc. Forum rules, but if you think it will draw flaming and bad blood, by all means, I encourage you to nuke/lock this thread.
The Theory of Evolution as a mechanism that brought about the world's organsims as they exist today is, here in Ohio at least, the only thing taught as far as the orgin of the species. Creationism has long since been dismissed by the scientific community, but Intelligent Design, or the belief that something other than natural freak occurances has been gaining some popularity.
Regardless of your personal feelings on the issue, as has been discussed in the thread about TAK's school and the hippys, students have a right to be educated about both sides of an issue. Everyone pretty much agrees on this politically, but scientifically, only the theory of Evolution is taken seriously, despite an intelligent design movement that cites such things as the human eye, or the cillia of bacterium as non-reducable complexities; things so complex that they had to be created that way all at once.
We've had a lot of Evolution vs. Creation debates in here before, and as those are banned now, I don't wish to open that can of worms up again. I don't care what you think is right or wrong. What I want to be discussed is: Should alternatives to Evolution be discussed or presented in the public school system, and, to what extent should those alternatives be presented? Is merely an in-class, student led discussion appropriate, or should teachers require their students to read both <u>The Orgin of the Species</u> and <u>Darwin's Black Box</u>?
Moderators, I feel this topic does not discus right and wrong in regards to the "Science vs. Religion" forbidden by the first addendum to the Disc. Forum rules, but if you think it will draw flaming and bad blood, by all means, I encourage you to nuke/lock this thread.
Comments
How are we going to discuss the issue then ? We'll need to defend both theories right to be taught in schools , which requires questionning their valitidy.
I'll stay as neutral as possible and say only rational theories should be taught in a biology class. It is not possible to talk about religion based theories in public schools , if the State is separated from the Church. In my not so humble and not so qualified opinion , Creationism is irrelevant to biology and the Evolution isn't.
Intelligent design, while possible, is not a theory that's been refined well enough to cover in a curriculum. It's not really even a theory at all (evolution ain't quite right (obvious), but doesn't do much to explain and support what is right. They just sorta guess). So, right now at least, it's not worth teaching. I'd say just leave the door open. At some point in the future, however, it would probably be worth at least mentioning and explaining, so long as it doesn't fall into the typical mistake of religion in the classroom: failing to distinguish between teaching and preaching, theories and "truths." Which answer is correct should be left for the student to decide, once all known facts are made available to them.
'Seperation of church and state'
Alot of people will heavily fight against anything that smacks of schools implying there is/isn't a god and what it did/didn't do
So I think teaching WHAT Intelligent Design is.
I honsetly only know some rough edges about it, basicaly that eveloution did hapen (well, duh <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->) however Intelligent Design is there to fill in gaps (instead of needing 'missing links' and stuff <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->)
Again, It might work in certian areas, but with school boards generaly making desisions for large areas, you can't say that "Well town X Dosn't like the idea so their schools don't teach it, however town Y does like the idea so we let them teach it."
The other problem with this is that "Providing the alternatives" Is generaly not a good idea simply b/c teachers are human and thus (generaly not knowingly) will influance their students with their own preconcieved ideas.
(wow, look at the time, gotta go to work <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->)
So my problem with it is Lagistics of figguring out HOW to integrate it into cariculums <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
ID is an interesting concept but unfortunately it relies on things that will never be scientifically proven. Perhaps teachers could mention its existance while teaching evolution, but I don't think it should be explicitly taught.
I don't think that Creationism should be taught at all in schools because it is trying to push religious beleifs onto children -something I don't agree with.
Stakhanov: you're right, Evolution is pertinant to biology, but if the theory has obvious holes, should those holes at least be pointed out, if not explored? Not doing that would be like shoving a bible down the throats of every 7th grade student, without offering scientific alternatives.
taboofires: That's exactly what I'm advocating, leaving the door open for presenting possible opportunities. A simple line at the closing of a lesson saying "Here is a handout with a list of holes in the Theory of Evolution, and here is a list of explanations of those holes," is all I advocate. As it is now, the Theory of Evolution is the only thing presented as curriculum, and thus, the only thing that kids are led to believe is right. Again, if the tables were reversed, and Christianity was taught in public school as it was in Wahhabist Saudi Arabia, I'd bet everything I have that there'd be huge discontent about it.
Creationism, you know the 7 days idea, is entirely religious in nature. Intelligent design has logical and philosophical merits that should not be ignored.
Whether you are a supporter of evolution or not, it is still a theory <b>based </b>on science. It has not been in anyone proven.
Here is a healthy solution, don't teach either theory until the college level. Is it absolutely critical for grade school children to be taught either theory? Ultimately, it is their backgrond that decided who they believe anyways.
The purpose of school is to teach us fact, or close to fact without obscuring it with religion. When you start getting into creation theory, which one should you present? Christian? Muslim? Akkadian? Assyrian? Phoenician? Roman? Sumerian?
By virtue of faith, one or all of them could have happened. All we can really say is that we are sure that we do not know. But we have ideas that can be demonstrated with things we can perceive with our senses. And those ideas won't have people declaring jihad on the teacher. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
And again, I'm not suggesting talking about any creation stories in specific, mainly pointing out holes in the theory, and allowing the suggestion that an intelligent being somehow willed the coming-about of our species.
There's a huge difference between addressing unanswered questions in evolution and presenting creation theories.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Here is a healthy solution, don't teach either theory until the college level.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That doesn't solve the problem, it only delays it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> but rather arguing that the disproportionate ammount of stress put on the Theory of Evolution leaves students with a one-sided idea of how things came about.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Theory of Evolution has a great deal of scientific evidence backing it up. Hence, it has far more merit in a science class. Intelligent Design would be great for a theology class, as it's still founded on something that can't be proven empirically.
I would hope that by the time a student is 16, they would be able to make that distinction. In some countries, that is the voting age. At bare minimum, I'd hope they'd be able to handle it by the time they are 18. During the first two years of highschool, however, many students (including myself) had not yet made that maturity leap toward adulthood.
Biology is a part of the highschool curriculum. Evolution is an important part of Biology. Therefore, I'd recommend teaching it to Juniors and Seniors.
On the other hand, some people never grow up. It would be a shame to restrict the education of others because of them, however.
On the topic of the holes in evolution again: While Biology is a fairly old science, and Zoology isn't exactly new either, they've both been pretty darn wrong until about the 1950s, and they're still fixing things. Often enough, a textbook that is only 2-3 years old is full of things that are now believed false. I think it would be more useful to point out that these are changing disciplines than provide specifics to the students, unless they are particularly interested. It's pretty hard to teach them anything that won't be proven wrong or changed around a few years down the road.
There are no scientific methods that intelligent design has at its disposal, so it should not qualify for the classroom.
You, sir, have committed the genetic fallacy: what a supporter says or is does not determine the truth of anything. Even the greatest dullard in existence can say things that are true, even if they justify it incorrectly. ID is indeed possible, but isn't particularly convincing.
And, while I'm being picky <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> they're trying to "sneak" the existence of god into science, not so much creationism.
//NM found something...
Creationism isn't ID though and the two things are very different concepts. ID for example, has it's own set of wierd and usually extremely poorly supported premises that it must adhere to.
Here, here! I couldn't agree more. Please, more education of that there are theories is important and relevant if we are ever to try to attain higher learning, yes?
Theories? Maybe. If you stretch the word a lot. But certainly only one of the three is science, and thus, only one of the three should be taught in a science classroom.
There was a debate recently in Ohio about this, in which someone wanted legislation passed that would require teachers to teach intelligent design in addition to evolution in order to show both sides of the debate. The response was, "There is no debate. Intelligent design isn't science." Thankfully for the minds our more impressionable students, it wasn't passed.
Number 1, specifically.
To be honest, I chalk much of the debate up to the fact that knowledge of the general population in any particular scienctific field lags so far behind that of experts in the field, that much of the population is simply too ignorant on the subject to make an informed decision. Take quantum theory. The field is about a hundred years old, but if you mention the wave-particle duality of light or super-string theory, their eyes glaze over. If you ask people what evolution is, I'd be willing to bet that a lot would say that evolution is the idea that humans came from a monkey.
I reiterate,
1. ID, having it's own set of premises or not, still relies upon an unprovable premise.
2. Tearing holes in evolution doesn't support either ID or creationism.
Oohhh, that's a good article. #7 and 8 (pg. 3), 10 and 11 (pg. 4) are a good read, 14 and 15 (pg. 6) are directly about ID (I didn't realize how old ID was... 1802, right before Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species). I'd copy-paste 14 and 15 for you, but they're longer than I should reasonably quote, so <a href='http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=6&catID=2' target='_blank'>clickeh!</a> to get to the right page.
You, sir, have committed the genetic fallacy: what a supporter says or is does not determine the truth of anything. Even the greatest dullard in existence can say things that are true, even if they justify it incorrectly. ID is indeed possible, but isn't particularly convincing.
And, while I'm being picky <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> they're trying to "sneak" the existence of god into science, not so much creationism. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No fallacy here. The BS about entropy is a CORE ARGUMENT of intelligent design.
You, sir, have committed the genetic fallacy: what a supporter says or is does not determine the truth of anything. Even the greatest dullard in existence can say things that are true, even if they justify it incorrectly. ID is indeed possible, but isn't particularly convincing.
And, while I'm being picky <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> they're trying to "sneak" the existence of god into science, not so much creationism. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No fallacy here. The BS about entropy is a CORE ARGUMENT of intelligent design. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Go study philosophy or another logic-based discipline. I am correct.