Should Intellegent Design be Taught in Schools?

Oh so only those who share your ideology have common sense and should feel welcomed to post here? You should have pointed that out in your opening.

The point of this topic was to ensue debate. You haven't posted a single supported argument, while Fargale has. Try posting proof of intelligent design. I made this topic to find just that.

Finally, a person with some common sense.

What proof does Intelligent Design have? I think Evolution should be taught in schools, because there is solid proof, while Intelligent Design has none.

What that a rhetorical question then? Do you honestly know what proof intelligent design has or don't you?

Sorry, I meant to say "Was that a rhetorical question?"

You mean, like letting kids opt to learn that the earth is flat (there are people who believe that!), that the planets are bound to the sun by electromagnetism instead of gravity (there are people who believe that!), or that the earth is hollow and filled with an ancient evil race of lizard people in its interior (there are... well, you get the drift). The only thing that differentiates intelligent design from these beliefs is the fact that it's tied to a widespread religious belief.

Adidas, that might not be a bad idea for further more in-dept studies on the two models. However I think that all students should at least learn the basics of both models in a regular Biology class. The problem is finding teachers who don't simply pretend to know the science of design, but actually have the knowledge. As you can see from the claims of the poster above, whose perspective is heavily tainted by is evolutionary ideology, we could have teacher promoting willful ignorance and misinformation. The we WOULD be doing a real disservice to our kids.

Er, I think this is a bad idea (and it's a great illustration of why the Japanese (and most other modern cultures) wipe the *walls* with us in the sciences these days). We *do* already have choices on what to learn or what not to -- most schools (even high schools) do let you choose elective courses. Colleges are wide open -- there are "core" classes you need to take, just like in high school, to get any degree (sorry, gang, but you *are* going to have to know a bit about math and science to get a degree that says you're an "educated person"), but otherwise it's wide open. Pick your major, then start taking the classes it requires. Almost every degree flat-out *requires* electives. And, for the record, most college degrees also require you subject yourself to some entirely unrelated stuff (computer science majors at Colorado State University have to take a few credits in the "humanities" -- stuff like psychology, philosophy, etc.). It's been suggested here that the "problem" with teaching intelligent design is just a matter of finding teachers with the knowledge about it. I opine that this shouldn't really be that tough -- let's drop the iron curtain here and bring in the experts. They're easy to find -- visit your local churches on Sundays and look for the guys standing around in black with little white collars. They are the current "experts" in the creationist theory, aren't they? You don't find many people graduating from colleges with "training" in intelligent design, because it seriously *is not* a recognized field of science. It's been made up. It's creationism wrapped in pseudoscience to make it *look* legitimate. It's still not a real science, though, because it cannot be tested, cannot withstand impeachment or interrogation, and its proponents' strongest argument is simply "well, *your* theory can't answer every single smart-assed question I have, so it must be wrong!" Evolution may well have been completely "made up," too. It sure doesn't *look* that way (because far too many things match it perfectly), but it's entirely possible. But at least scientists are willing to admit it could be wrong. They're also too busy trying to actually *find* real answers (fixing problems/mistakes in the theory, investigating alternatives, etc.) to bother with this religious nonsense.

leavert65, do you believe science has any value? And do you realize how many assumptions you have made in this single short response? The majority of which I believe to be faulty? We can agree to disagree on many points, but I would like to know what you feel the value of science is, if any. Draven the Resepctful Atheist http://dravenwriter.blogspot.com

Chemical evolution precedes biological evolution as does stellar evolution. I wonder what Darwin meant by the word "origins" when he wrote his book ORIGINS of the Species? Evolution by definition is an undirected natural process. Students need only look to the search by for intelligent life on other planets. They'd probably get a kick out of the movie Contact that appeared in the summer of 1997, based on the novel by Carl Sagan. In the movie radio astronomers determine they have established contact with an extraterrestrial intelligence after they receive a long sequence of prime numbers, represented as sequence bits. The actual SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) program radio astronomers don't look for something as flamboyant as prime numbers but rather something much more plebeian, namely, a narrow bandwidth of transmissions (as occurs with human radio transmissions)This is an excellent example of scientists using intelligent design. They're looking for an intelligent agent whoever or whatever that agent might be. I wonder how they will distinguish between signs of non-intelligent life and intelligent life since evolutionist advocates claim such a conclusion can't be made? Fortunately, they aren't bound by the Darwinian materialistic world view that only accepts naturalistic causes. With respect to faith, Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life;a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories- one denying evolution the other confirming design; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time with regular absence of transitional forms; a faith in time that only proves to promote degradation in the absence of mind.

Yes dravenwriter, I do believe science has value. I would be very pleased if you felt the same. You embrace a theory that is heavily laden with assumptions and speculations but less ignore that for a moment and just focus on the assumption free step by step evolutionary process of a land mammal to a whale. Please go ahead

I don't think religion should be taught in public schools either but I do think intelligent design ,which is not a religion, should be.

Not only do creationists make the assumption you pointed out but so do many evolutionists. "It is as though they [fossils]were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists... Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists)despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real,that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) reject this alternative." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker) Evidence for Design/Creationism Fossil Record Genetics - DNA, species limitation,specified complexity,irreducible complexity http://www.trueorigin.org/kansas8.asp http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Defense_of_ID.pdf http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Specification.pdf

Well then, could you please explain the science behind intelligent design? I understand that creationism generally relies on a lot of unanswered questions as it's basis for saying that evolution is obviously incorrect. Because those questions remain unanswered, they assume then that it points to creationism. But, what I'm really interested in is the actual science behind intelligent design. What are they using as their scientific proof?

That quote, which you were coy enough to not even date, is from 33 YEARS AGO. Need I remind you of how much a scientific field advances in more than 3 decades? I've already explained you in depth the current theories about the evolution of feathers and flight in a past discussion by that same name. So you can't even claim ignorance in your defense; you are simply being intellectually dishonest, nothing else. You're a time-leech; there's no point debating with you.

Excellent! Maybe you'd like to inform us exactly what year "useful" evolutionary information finally began for future reference! Then we can use as reference for outdated information in our science textbooks. Waiting.... Yes I do recalled you attempted to explain the evolutionary process for flight but you failed miserably. Don't you recall? I said: You haven't covered all your bases yet. first come up with some examples to counter the claim that no fossil structure transitional between scale have been found. Cite a few examples. Afterwards, please discuss: 1) the cross-linking of the barbules to make a connecting lattice 2) what is the mechanism for translating this "advantage" and how is it and advantage 3) The hooks coming out of one barb will connect with ridges reaching to the opposite direction from a neighboring barb. The ridges reaching in the opposite direction from a neighboring barb. The ridges allow a sliding joint which keep the surface flexible and intact. Where does the genetic information within the reptile scale allowing such a unique sliding joint come from? 4) How does the delicate lattice keep from becoming frayed? 5) How do the flying birds'bones become hollow allowing for flight? 6) At what point did the cross members necessary to maintain skeletal strength develop? 7) How did and why does the reptile go from cold blooded to warm blooded? 8) How did the new respiratory system needed to sustain exhaling against the oncoming air stream? 9) How did the mechanism for altering the birds tail shape in flight develop which are responsible for the numerous complicated maneuvers? 10) How did bird feathers become wind resistant? In case Fargale lies again and claims he answered these questions please see the thread under evolution entitled "A Challenge for Creationists" These are current questions that scientists have put forth as an argument against the flight of evolution. As you see the same difficulties that Stahl saw are still present? Should are these the type of questions that should be asked in a religion class or a class with a one-side evolutionary perspective?

*Sigh*. Oh this is going to be such fun. You're essentially making the same "argument by analogy" mistake that lots of intelligent design proponents make. Go read this, then come back for more commentary: http://mycaseagainstgod.blogspot.com/2007/03/intelligent-design-arguments.html I'm not the paper's author, but note it was written in 2004 and received an "A" grade in a Philosophy of Evolution course. Naturally it is to be expected that a "pro-evolution" paper would grade higher in a "biased" class waxing philosophical about the "abomination" that is the theory of evolution, but I digress (and I'm being horribly facetious anyway ;)). You're making the same mistake that's outlined (and ripped to shreds) by the paper. Your argument is essentially that because we do not have a complete and full explanation, right now, of how a specific biological structure could have ever "evolved" into its current state (because it is "irreducibly complex" to have evolved by chance), that the theory of evolution is fundamentally flawed. The paper I cited above makes reference to Michael Behe's infamous "mousetrap" example. A mousetrap is irreducibly complex -- if even a single one of its components is removed, it doesn't work anymore. It must have, therefore, been intentionally designed -- it could not have just "evolved" in nature. He makes his logical fallacy "leap of faith" to equate that mousetrap to a biological process, even though it's an obviously apples-to-orange comparison. From the paper: ---- Another Behe falsifier is called “improvements become necessities.” H. Allen Orr writes: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become--because of later changes--essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn’t essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. ---- You *assume* there are no advantages to evolving these random pieces until they're all cobbled together, but you don't *know* that. There is no need for "thinking ahead" planning -- if a random feature or mutation doesn't *hurt* the organism's chances of survival, it stands the same chance as its competing organisms to keep on going, to reproduce and have more chances to mutate new features later on. Remember, a key component of natural selection is the "randomness" of it. If you haven't already read through the linked paper, I suggest you do so. It does a better job debunking your argument than I can. For the record, though, your argument isn't "scientific thought" -- it's pseudoscience. "You can't explain how this evolved, so it must have been designed!" This is what the creationists wrap their idea with. But it's wrong. It only means we haven't learned enough yet to explain how it works. Remember, we used to think the earth was flat, too. Then again, looking at http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm, it's clear some people *still* think the earth is flat. One critical difference between real science and "intelligent design" theorists: real science will admit where its gaps in knowledge are, and is hard at work filling them. If science can't explain something, scientists get to work figuring out why not, what to test or examine to start explaining it, and so on. Science is willing to change its ideas and theories. Creationists are not. The "intelligent design" notion hasn't changed one damned bit in the thousands of years it's been trolling around. It's always just been "god did it, dude." Your "classic" argument does, in fact, belong in a religion or philosophy class, not in a real science class. It is simply not real science. I'm not professing an ideological belief; I'm stating that intelligent design has already received all the scientific attention it deserves -- subjecting it to any kind of standard, recognized process (i.e. "the scientific method") destroys it, each and every time. These days, it *does* get dismissed rather quickly by scientists, because quite frankly we're all tired of hearing about it, not because we "hate god."

Only those who have a clue of what Intelligent design is or can articulate what intelligent design scientists claim as their evidence should be considered qualified to make such a judgment.

Yes, whales are mammals. That's about as far as your knowledge takes you on the matter.

Yep. And whales aren't mammals. I can no longer take you seriously after that statement. Good luck defending yourself with facts like that.

Are you for teaching scientific challenges to the theory of evolution or do you feel that this theory should be held scared and should never be challenged? Should students be taught to think critically regarding the theory or dogmatically?

This might be useful as an analogy: I wouldn't be comfortable with claims of free energy devices being taught in science classes either. Because despite the fact that there are lots of people who believe in them, and books written about the subject, it simply isn't legitimate science, and it has failed time and time again to substantiate those claims with adequate evidence.

On the school thing? Evolution and science should be taught in schools, and so should the basic beliefs in all religions. There is nothing in science to negate any of it; and vice versa. Even a faith school should teach other religions too. Maybe then people would realise for example that Islam Judaism and christianity are all basically the same.