Multi-Board Poll: Teaching Intelligent Design in schools

[astrosanguinus]

Perhaps in a religion or philosophy class.

Which would be, I think, and as it should be, ina college class. It may be interesting (but I doubt it--these people are not truly interested in investigating the wonder around us, and that to me is sad and boring) in a survey of religion class. By that I mean you can acknowledge its presence. Something like this does need to be discussed in the framework of critical thought and scientific debate--by people who have already begun their own investigations and can talk about it in non-believing or non-reverential tones. Isn't the Discovery Institute linked to the Moonies? I have a vague recollection of seing that stated somewhere. Which leads to my question now, which I think is just as important as "Should it be taught?" which is: What is the agenda of the IDers?

[wolveraptor]

To push God into the class room the only way they can: by referring to him/her/it as the "Intelligent Designer", which is a "subtle" way of saying the Lord.

They figure if they can get that far, they'll have a real foot hold for more blatant Creationism, Old Earth, perhaps.

[spikenigma]

at the risk of "me-tooing" I voted no

intelligent design shouldn't be taught in the science classroom or the religious one. It's not even theology as far as I understand it, it's just the initial premise of "life is too complex to have come about by chance, evidence to the contrary be damned or strawmanned!".

I've of course substituted "The United States" for "Great Britain" in the original question

[Rye]

ID is covered in your average Philosophy course; debunking the argument from design is part of the whole "arguments for God's existence" section of the curriculum.

[spikenigma]

I thought ID was very careful not to postulate "Goddidit" (to try and pass it off as a scientific theory) and instead assert a probable "intelligent entity" based on the 'scientific evidence' we have.

The "proofs" for this theory falling under one of the following:

* x theory doesn't acount for y
* a is b (b being a strawman), therefore theory c cannot have been responsible for it
* g scientist/palentologist of x years believes and postulates an intelligent designer, thus ID has merit
* e theory (e being completely or tangentally related to the current topic) has proven false, therefore f related theory we are talking about must also be false


like the following questions:


"produce 6 cons for both the execution and methodology of one of Spiegleman's RNA experiments"

would not be in a question for a philosophy class, but a biology lecture


"produce 6 cons for both the execution and methodology of an abiogenesis experiment, which suggests that current thinking about the subject is wrong"

would also not be a question for a philosophy class but a biolodgy one. This question however, hints ID


...which is why (as I said) I thought the entire ID movement was careful not to bring "God" into their theories because the minute they do, it moves into the realm of Philosophy/Theolodgy and can no longer mascarade as science. Rather they just try to pick holes in current thinking.

[Rye]

I thought ID was very careful not to postulate "Goddidit" (to try and pass it off as a scientific theory) and instead assert a probable "intelligent entity" based on the 'scientific evidence' we have.

The principle is the same; unexplained (sometimes irreducible) complexity in nature equates to it being designed. Classically this means God, nowadays it means God, but nobody says it.

Paley gives on the watch example, how we know it's designed, supposedly not because it is clearly artificial and different from nature and we know that humans made it, but because its inner workings are cmoplex. Such marvellous complexity. Much greater complexity can be seen in any biological system, thus, it too was designed. Then, to counter all this, you quote Darwin and Hume and give an explanation of evolution accounting for complex natural features.

Darwin dealt with such nonsense himself.

like the following questions:

"produce 6 cons for both the execution and methodology of one of Spiegleman's RNA experiments"

would not be in a question for a philosophy class, but a biology lecture


"produce 6 cons for both the execution and methodology of an abiogenesis experiment, which suggests that current thinking about the subject is wrong"

would also not be a question for a philosophy class but a biolodgy one. This question however, hints ID


...which is why (as I said) I thought the entire ID movement was careful not to bring "God" into their theories because the minute they do, it moves into the realm of Philosophy/Theolodgy and can no longer mascarade as science. Rather they just try to pick holes in current thinking.

The actual core of ID's principles are already addressed in Philosophy, that's all I was noting, regardless of them trying to make ID look more scientific.

[Zero]

I don't think ID should be taught in school because I HAVE DISCOVERED THE TRUE REASON THAT IT EXISTS!!

The creationists wish to undo Adam's mistake by destroying all semblence of the gift we attained from it! Knowledge must be disreguarded! The scary books must be destroyed! Return man to a state of ignorance and stupidity, for that will make their divine leader happy!

[Hawkwings]

one day left! I can't find this poll on any other boards though

[Surlethe]

Not that I'm too surprised, but 161 to 4 seems a total one sided victory (for common sense). Wheeeeeeee.

There seem to be three more "yes" votes than there were a week or two ago.

[Noble Ire]

Not that I'm too surprised, but 161 to 4 seems a total one sided victory (for common sense). Wheeeeeeee.

There seem to be three more "yes" votes than there were a week or two ago.

Aren't at least two of them admitted mis-clicks?

[Surlethe]

Not that I'm too surprised, but 161 to 4 seems a total one sided victory (for common sense). Wheeeeeeee.

There seem to be three more "yes" votes than there were a week or two ago.

Aren't at least two of them admitted mis-clicks?

I thought two or three of the initial four "yes" votes were mis-clicks? Then, suddenly, there are three more "yes"s.

[wautd]

There seem to be three more "yes" votes than there were a week or two ago.

Aren't at least two of them admitted mis-clicks?

I thought two or three of the initial four "yes" votes were mis-clicks? Then, suddenly, there are three more "yes"s.

Our good friend boc120 probably voted yes

[Molyneux]

Nope! History class, maybe. Comparative Religion or Theology class, definitely. If it was better-thought-out, it'd be great for Creative Writing classes.

Science class, though? No way.

[weemadando]

Boc and Ravengrim no doubt added their manure to the heap.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

It's Sept. 2. What's the word?

[Justforfun000]

LOL!! Someone actually said this on SpaceBattle.

Creation is obvious. I understand not everyone is a Christian, but surely you still must realise that everything had to start at some point. And if it hadnt been going until then, with nothing else happening either, then that means that there was no catalyst to ever get it going. That means something must have got it going. And that something must be a someone because it must be an intelligence. This is because since there was not catalyst for a start the intelligence had to make a decision or already have had a decision made to start. This means that the intelligence made everything since it was all that was before and this means the intelligence is superior to everything. This means that the intelligence must know about and be able to control everything meaning the intelligence must be omniscient and omnipotent. Since the intelligence made everything everywhere, than the intelligence must also be omnipresent.

Of course all that is a logical observation, not physical evidence. But thats part of the point. You cant prove it until the end times, because part of what it is about is faith.

[Surlethe]

For the record, as of Sept. 2:

Yes: 7

No: 207