If Intelligent Design Has No Place in The Science Classroom, then...
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
May 19, 2008 12:09pm CST
Then niether do concepts like...
Random: Has anyone ever used scientific method to prove "random" as a cause of anything? Can random be proven at all? Random is used to describe the cause of a lot of things. I find it an interesting conclusion, considering it can't be backed by facts. All "random" means is "we know something causes "x", but we have no idea what the cause is, so we'll say it's just "random"... and expect people to accept that.
Instinct: What part of the body regulates instinct? Is instinct based on a hormone, enzyme, sugar or protein? Is it part of the Central Nervous System or Peripheral Nervous System? Can a species overcome instict, or are we all slaves to the insticts our species assigns us?
The fact is, science doesn't know the answer to any of these questions. Yes, there are guesses and hypotheses, but in the end, instinct is a pretty deep mystery. Or is it just the conclusion that science comes to when a species does something and we can't explain why?
Placebo: This is the term used when medical science can't explain how or why a treatment works. It is often uttered between shrugged shoulders, as if just stating the word explains away any need for an explanation. It is also used to discredit a claimed treatment without all that fuss and bother of actually coming up with a viable argument against it.
But sugar pills have a higher rate of success than mere chance. Isn't that, in itself, interesting enough to warrant study and research? What part of our bodies stimulate the placebo response? What was the mechanism of action? How do placebos releave signs and symptoms?
Science people say that intelligent design should not be taught in the classroom because no data can be used to support it as a conclusion. That's interesting since no data can be used to support any other explanation for what caused the big bang... what causes what we shrug off as "random", "instinct" or "placebo" either.
3 people like this
5 responses
@Latrivia (2878)
• United States
20 May 08
Actually, "science people" say that intelligent design shouldn't be taught in the classroom because it ISN'T SCIENCE. There's a strict definition of science, and the supernatural doesn't fit into it. Teaching ID in science makes as much sense as teaching English in math class. It's not the data behind it that makes it science, that's not even close to what science is.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
20 May 08
In other words, "because the powers that be in science are too close minded to allow debate if they didn't think of it first."
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
20 May 08
Also, it wasn't that long ago that blood borne diseases were considered to be "supernatural"... in fact, most physicians scoffed at the thought that blood was any different one patient to the next.
Many physicians today consider psychology "supernatural".
The only difference between the supernatural and the natural is at what point in history it moves from silliness to science.
We all know about the scientists who called the Wright Brothers (and everyone who witnessed their first few flights) liars.
@Pigglies (9329)
• United States
20 May 08
I think it's very hard to have arguments like this with people who truly do not understand science. I wouldn't claim to be a science whiz because I do not have my PhD, however, I have found that it is very hard to argue with Christians because their religion teaches them to look in a book for all the answers rather than to think for themselves.
Random can definitely be proven. Through several experiments there will be no correlation. Instinct has also been thoroughly researched.
Placebo is the effect of you wanting something to be better. Basically, think of it this way for religious types... placebo is like if you pray because you're sick and then you get better. Because you thought you were going to get better faster, you might have improved your chances... or, more likely you perceived you got a bit better while you actually did not. A lot of these studies are on things like depression, which is hard to rate anyway. If someone thinks they are on medication, they might start thinking they feel better also.
1 person likes this
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
20 May 08
..why does it have to be an argument? Why not a conversation?
- To think of all christians as alike is quite a stereotype isn't it.. Many students of public education and even universities simply read the books and accept what they are told also.. This is obvious by so many people thinking there is data to support the theory of evolution as to origins.. And the lumping of "intelligent design" as having no science to it! To many the idea of ape to man (or previous ape, to ape and man they say now) or squirrel to bird, cow to whale.. dinosaur to bird, are much stranger myths than intelligence being involved in the formation and existence of the universe..
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
20 May 08
I have degrees in both health and paramedicine. No, not PhDs, but it does mean I have taken Human anatomy & physiology, pharmocology and other college classes on the subjects at hand.
Random can be proven with simple things like the roll of the dice, flip of the coin or how many grains of sand will land in a jar when dropped from 'x' number of feet.. but Random is also used to explain the creation of the eye and brain. Neither can be tested, but the term "random" is accepted all the same.
Placebo effect is used to explain a lot about the body modern medicine can't answer. It is conclusion that is used when no other explanation fits. Yes, the effect has been tested and there is some very good data on it. However, no one can answer the questions I asked about the placebo effect. Even though medical science can't answer even the most basic phamacological questions about the placebo effect, the explanation is used to discredit a lot of things.
Yes, a lot of things are like depression and hard to measure, but the best studies on it use physiological signs and symptoms tested against known treatments.
Another aspect of the placebo effect is, after the treatment is given, and the patient improves... how much of that improvement was the placebo effect and how much was from the treatment? There is no way to test that, but medical professionals assume the medication did the trick and make decisions based on that assumption.
1 person likes this
@wong89138 (50)
• Canada
13 Oct 08
Well yeah, Christians don't all think the same. But if you're going to believe in science, you either have to be the type that just disregards the parts of their religion that speak against science (most of them are in this group) or the type who doesn't take the Bible word for word as a literal meaning.
And I'm surprised ted2k has gone to college...because he didn't sound like he actually knew anything about the concepts he was arguing against. Then, oddly enough, he pretty much said what I said, except in a way to defend his argument. His new argument still has holes, but much less than his original argument. Maybe he went to college and learned all this stuff in the last 6 months...it's feasible :P.
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
19 May 08
'Theory" is the first word to morph into a big brother word change.. what's that called? "Doublespeak"! (I think.) Book of Rev/Apoc talks about a "false prophet". Some think this is the same as the 666 guy. One day i asked God about it as it just don't sound right, and it came back clear as day what I was looking for was the biggest influence over people's thoughts and world view (it didn't actually show up like words, just a flash of insight). But it was like bingo!
- The false prophet started as a man.. and it's that verse, about a deception.. a delusion.. the biggest. I think it was Peter wrote that.. Goes to prove I'm on the computer lots and could use more time reading, brushing up on my verses! He helps/helped the 666 office to bring down fire to earth in the sight of men.. then they said we better (re)build the world beast/body.. But I do stray!
- "sugar pills have a higher rate of success than mere chance" - something about that is makng the gears in my head slowly turn.. "sugar pills have a higher rate of success than mere chance" - I guess, what I'm thinking is, we could say that about the universe, couldn't we? (Or am I just getting spacey?)
Very interesting post/discussion!
) Book of Rev/Apoc talks about a "false prophet". Some think this is the same as the 666 guy. One day i asked God about it as it just don't sound right, and it came back clear as day what I was looking for was the biggest influence over people's thoughts and world view (it didn't actually show up like words, just a flash of insight). But it was like bingo!
- The false prophet started as a man.. and it's that verse, about a deception.. a delusion.. the biggest. I think it was Peter wrote that.. Goes to prove I'm on the computer lots and could use more time reading, brushing up on my verses! He helps/helped the 666 office to bring down fire to earth in the sight of men.. then they said we better (re)build the world beast/body.. But I do stray!
- "sugar pills have a higher rate of success than mere chance" - something about that is makng the gears in my head slowly turn.. "sugar pills have a higher rate of success than mere chance" - I guess, what I'm thinking is, we could say that about the universe, couldn't we? (Or am I just getting spacey?)
Very interesting post/discussion!@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
20 May 08
...but has it always meant that? When they first used the word "theory" in science, which meaning did it have? If we used the word "idea" to represent something concrete and proven and every degree in between.. that would be a bit misleading.. No matter how much scientific heads want to say evolution as to origins is the only viable idea, somehow supported by massive data and observation.. none of that is true! No matter what version of the word "theory" they use. It's double-speak!
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
19 May 08
Science just cannot prove everything. That is why every side of an arguement must be look at and examined. Lets say I found what I thought was a cure for cancer, but wanted no debate on the issuse. Science is and will be forever a confict to prove one side over the other. Why is there no Mermaids? That sounds like a stupid question but whales evolved from mammals that returned back to the ocean, so why could not early humans returned back to the sea and become a mermaid. Maybe they did and no one has found evidence of it yet. That is what make science of great, opinion and conflict can create answers.
1 person likes this
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
20 May 08
I loved your post! And that's the whole thing, Gewgew, the idea of mermaids evolving from mammals, even if we saw mermaids.. cannot be supported! (Until they find connecting or "missing links" that is, and there are none ever discovered anywhere of all the many types of creatures on earth! maybe a handful of pieces they call possibilities.) At best, what it is, is imagination.. and the same is true of the "from mammal to whale theory".. The land cow evolved into a whale? How bout this one? "Perhaps the flying squirrel evolved into the bird.." (actually said and written by a leading evolutionary 'scientist'.) Oh really? Well maybe an automobile grew mud flaps and became a jet! When I see that I'll believe pads between the toes will make flight.. the squirrel's bones would have to become hollow.. that would be number one requirement in so many.. Of course since the chosen way of dating the earth is one which supports their theory (when other means show a much younger earth) and they have billions of years for these animals to form or change from one to another.. I guess anything's possible, we can imagine anything! But how, I'm wondering would the half whale, half land cow survive those thousands of years when it's half and half? How did creatures breathe before it took all that time to evolve lungs? It's all in the dna... and dna loses information over time, it doesn't gain it.. mutations are always (always) negative.. And for that matter where does information come from? Show me a computer and a program that evolved.. and I'll become a believer..
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
19 May 08
I agree, science is at its best when it invites debate and testing. All to often though, politics rears its ugly head and debate and testing is silenced by overbearing pressure by the very scientific leaders who should be encouraging it.
2 people like this
@souless_tragedy (259)
• Canada
20 May 08
I know that this is a little off topic - not completely, but a litte. I think the problem with whether or not to teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom comes down not to the polarization between religion and science, but to the inability of teachers to provide students eith adequate information about ALL theroies as to the origins of the Universe. It is unfair to teach any of the ways on their own as "truth" or "fact". We should be giving kids the foundation to choose whatever they want to believe, instead of giving them bits a pieces of a couple of ways.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
20 May 08
Exactly! Education should be about teaching students HOW to think, not WHAT to think.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
20 May 08
Which is a problem with man caused global warming and other pseudoscientific concepts too.
Seriously, I don't know if ID belongs in the science classroom or not. I just find it interesting that the powers that be in science are willing to be so closed minded about the entire concept.
They have set up a tidy little double standard for themselves. Before they will allow ID to even be considered, they demand that the designer be identified... yet they'll accept the Big Bang without ever trying to identify the cause of the Big Bang itself.
@Latrivia (2878)
• United States
20 May 08
They already have that foundation. We teach them science in school, and Intelligent Design in Sunday school. Of course, if they wanted to learn all the creation myths, we'd have to incrporate a class purely dedicated strictly to objective studies of those mythologies. It does not, however, belong in a science class.
I agree with teaching kids to consider all sides. Of course, by doing that everyone would have to acknowledge the difference between science and psuedoscience - which is a problem for the Intelligent Design advocates.
1 person likes this
