-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
'Intelligent design' goes on trial: CNN
- Thread starter bob_arctor
- Start date
- Status
brooklyngooner
Member
Harrisburg, PA, huh? Hooduhthunkit.
ManDudeChild
Member
... such small minds. Must it be so black and white? Of course evolution can't explain the beginning as of yet (or if there was ever a beginning), but that hardly means that it was an intelligent force that created life, a god. .
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Seriously, what the HELL is going on? This "Intelligent Design" nonsense borders on the fucking medieval. Where are the eyes of Newt and Merlin hats?
heavy liquid
Member
That Guardian article a while back summed it up perfectly:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
:lol Is Robert Muise just a pseudonym for this lovable rapscallion?:
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
I think students should be prepared to examine and deal with both, if only because they will face it in the real world. When we teach kids american history we also teach them how to face racism, why? Because whether we like it or not, they are related, and it comes up. This is no different--education should be about preparing the kids for life, not just throwing collections of facts at them.
As for intelligent design, I don't even see how it is in direct opposition to evolution--they seem like different things to me. Evolution more attempts to explain the process by which life developed, and as far as the actual origin is concerned little is known or told. It certainly tries to explain what happened, but doesn't really touch on the question of why.
When it comes to "random" I think intelligent design folks get confused when scientists use the term; in science "random" really means "indiscernible probability of necessary conditions." Science is based on naturalistic observation, which is under the presupposition that the observable is all there is to go by. It doesn't rule out the possibility of other forces that have not been detected, but it won't count them until they have.
We may not know exactly why life developed in the way that it did, but we know that we are here now, so it had to have happened some way or another. If it seems to contradict thermodynamics well we just assume it didn't until we can observe some evidence to the contrary--and the answer to the question of "why" remains unknown.
Intelligent design has a presupposition of something beyond the observable. When looking at how things came about, when certain things don't connect they assume the answer before observing evidence for it. That's not scientific and not really needed, and I really don't think they would mind evolution if they actually understood what it was attempting to answer and what it wasn't.
Science isn't an enemy of faith, it's an entirely different and unrelated field. As I said, I think kids should be taught how to examine both. The ability to distinguish between the two is a good skill and would help prevent this from going on for several more decades. Plus it makes for better scientists and better believers, and even helps show people how they can be both if they decide to.
As for intelligent design, I don't even see how it is in direct opposition to evolution--they seem like different things to me. Evolution more attempts to explain the process by which life developed, and as far as the actual origin is concerned little is known or told. It certainly tries to explain what happened, but doesn't really touch on the question of why.
When it comes to "random" I think intelligent design folks get confused when scientists use the term; in science "random" really means "indiscernible probability of necessary conditions." Science is based on naturalistic observation, which is under the presupposition that the observable is all there is to go by. It doesn't rule out the possibility of other forces that have not been detected, but it won't count them until they have.
We may not know exactly why life developed in the way that it did, but we know that we are here now, so it had to have happened some way or another. If it seems to contradict thermodynamics well we just assume it didn't until we can observe some evidence to the contrary--and the answer to the question of "why" remains unknown.
Intelligent design has a presupposition of something beyond the observable. When looking at how things came about, when certain things don't connect they assume the answer before observing evidence for it. That's not scientific and not really needed, and I really don't think they would mind evolution if they actually understood what it was attempting to answer and what it wasn't.
Science isn't an enemy of faith, it's an entirely different and unrelated field. As I said, I think kids should be taught how to examine both. The ability to distinguish between the two is a good skill and would help prevent this from going on for several more decades. Plus it makes for better scientists and better believers, and even helps show people how they can be both if they decide to.
teruterubozu
Member
Dice said:
Never had to deal with this issue in the real world. Are you in Kansas?
brooklyngooner
Member
Dice said:
Except that so-called "Intelligent Design" folk are agitating it be taught and be required cirriculum in biology and other science courses. Going by even your own definitions it is not science.
teruterubozu
Member
This is my favorite:
:lol
:lol
brooklyngooner
Member
I admit to looking forward to the first one who drops in to write, "I don't see what the big deal is."
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Dice said:
Philosophy 101 perhaps? Or how about parents? Either way, keep ID the hell outta Science class.
This pisses me off to no end, because 'intelligent design' is just a backdoor way of getting their Bible-thumping mentality back into schools. If their way is so right, so correct, why can't they present it without a facade? Why try to couch it in semi-pseudo-scientific terms? If you have to sneak your bullshit into the public arena, shouldn't that tell you that the public isn't interested in hearing it?
The fact is, religion is dictated by faith. And you can't fucking teach faith. Faith can't be legislated.
The fact is, religion is dictated by faith. And you can't fucking teach faith. Faith can't be legislated.
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
Just to clarify: I'm not supporting the intelligent design party, I'm sharing my own alternative idea on what should be done in science class.
You've never debated with someone about evolution?teruterubozu said:
That's my point. It's not science, but when evolution comes up, some sort of intelligent design comes up--just like racism does in history class. It wouldn't be good to say "that's a non-issue" when racism comes up, and it's the same for this. I'm not saying it should be taught in the curriculum as a valid scientific theory, but I think it should be dealt with in some way.brooklyngooner said:
That doesn't fix the problem. It comes up when discussing science, and it's obviously of concern to science because it's attacking the principles on which it's founded. Why not use it to explain the difference between scientific thought and non-scientific thought and teach them how to distinguish between the two? You shouldn't tell them whether or not to believe in a "designer", but you also shouldn't let them think something is a scientific thought when it's not.bob_arctor said:
The problem with Intelligent design is that it was conceived by evolution opponents when teaching creationism in public schools became a violation of the First Amendment. Since the words creation and creator dropped out of favor, they pushed for 1.) either no evolution happened, or 2.) intelligent design. The intent is to discredit the theory of evolution by casting doubt by implying how complex and perfect organisms are and "randomness" cannot result in the life we see today. If you want me to go into it further detail I will.dice said:
teruterubozu
Member
Dice said:
Sure, maybe back in high school or college but in the grown-up world there is hardly any time for idle philosophy. Ahhh, makes me long for my utopian scholastic days when we would argue about nothing, thinking we could change the world...
Teach science in science class and religion in religion class.
Until "Intelligent" design becomes scientific I don't want it in science class. I don't mind it being discussed in other classes but science is hardly the right place. I don't talk about FF7 in English Literature same thing here.
Until "Intelligent" design becomes scientific I don't want it in science class. I don't mind it being discussed in other classes but science is hardly the right place. I don't talk about FF7 in English Literature same thing here.
Yeah, The theory of natural selection and evolution itself make NO mention of the original of life. :|ManDudeChild said:
Seriously, do some fucking research people before you point fingers and start attacking a scientific theory that has been supported with thousands of pieces of evidence since its introduction.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
i cant WAIT for the upcoming war.
MrPing1000
Member
We over here in the Uk are laughing our arses off at u lot.
as per usual *wink*
This has been dealt with, hence my utter disbelief that it is still an issue in Pennsylvania. My evolution class had one lecture where we discussed and refuted, point by point, the "theory" of intelligent design. There is no inherent conflict between evolution and religious faith, until people push intelligent design as a viable alternative to evolution. The POPE in 1996 acknowledged that Darwinism was compatible with traditional Christian understandings of God. So in closing, intelligence design = garbage. Religion compatible with evolution. That's the end of it.Dice said:
DjangoReinhardt
Thinks he should have been the one to kill Batman's parents.
Dice said:
That's where it's up to parents to educate their children on theology. Public schools are not the forum for religious ideology to be addressed. They have a finite amount of time to communicate facts; a given delusion's pervasiveness alone is not reason enough to make cuts to a legitimate curriculum. In practical terms, if you're going to give time to one empirically incorrect theory, where do you draw the line? Vampires, unicorns?
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
Hmm... good point, but it's so frustrating. If you leave it up to parents then they aren't going to teach the kid how to distinguish between scientific and unscientific (which btw are not synonyms for right and wrong). I mean it's not even an issue of facts, but of principles--the difference between things provable as fact and things believed as fact. It doesn't harm anyone to teach, it only helps scientific and religious communities. Philosophy class kind of touches on it, but it needs to be dealt with directly since it causes so many problems like this.DjangoReinhardt said:
Phoenix
Member
1) Just because you can't explain evolution entirely, does not mean its wrong.
2) Just because you come up with an alternative that is inherently unprovable, doesn't make you credible.
3) Just because there is no evidence of a higher being, doesn't mean one doesn't exist
4) Just because you have a theory that matches some circumstances, doesn't mean that its right for all circumstances.
Both of them are likely incorrect. The only difference is that one is a scientific theory (evolution), and the other one is a hypothesis(intelligent design).
2) Just because you come up with an alternative that is inherently unprovable, doesn't make you credible.
3) Just because there is no evidence of a higher being, doesn't mean one doesn't exist
4) Just because you have a theory that matches some circumstances, doesn't mean that its right for all circumstances.
Both of them are likely incorrect. The only difference is that one is a scientific theory (evolution), and the other one is a hypothesis(intelligent design).
The Shadow
Member
Well, Catholicism incorporated evolutionary teaching. The fundamentalists didn't. And they won't.
I go to a Catholic school and we have a very liberal evolutionary biologist as head of the science department and he is constantly at war with the theology department. I actually got into a fight with a teacher that told me "evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics."
I go to a Catholic school and we have a very liberal evolutionary biologist as head of the science department and he is constantly at war with the theology department. I actually got into a fight with a teacher that told me "evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics."
enjoy bell woods
Banned
I find that irrelevant.Iceman said:only 1 in 4 trillion cells spontaneously become transformed (i.e. start to become a tumor - either benign or malignant - a decidedly complex event at that).
the universe is supposedly 4 trillion years old.
I find that interesting.
Iceman said:only 1 in 4 trillion cells spontaneously become transformed (i.e. start to become a tumor - either benign or malignant - a decidedly complex event at that).
the universe is supposedly 4 trillion years old.
I find that interesting.
I have never heard either of those statements.
enjoy bell woods
Banned
Well duh I mean if one thing doesn't make sense, obviously God and co. swept down and made us out of clay 6,000 years ago.
It is kind of an interesting question, though, concerning the Big Bang Theory: Where did the original ball of matter come from? We're supposed to assume that it has always been there? Yep.
And then you add a religious lens to the picture. Was it placed there by a divine being? Yep. Where'd the divine being come from? Has "he" always been there? Yep.
What sucks is, I don't think there ever will be a true answer to this.
And then you add a religious lens to the picture. Was it placed there by a divine being? Yep. Where'd the divine being come from? Has "he" always been there? Yep.
What sucks is, I don't think there ever will be a true answer to this.
Phoenix
Member
GaimeGuy said:It is kind of an interesting question, though, concerning the Big Bang Theory: Where did the original ball of matter come from? We're supposed to assume that it has always been there? Yep.
And then you add a religious lens to the picture. Was it placed there by a divine being? Yep. Where'd the divine being come from? Has "he" always been there? Yep.
What sucks is, I don't think there ever will be a true answer to this.
Nope, one day we'll create a time travelling starship and go back to the beginning which will ignite the 'gas' that was supposed to be there at the beginning of time and for a brief moment when they say 'oh shit', we will indeed know the true answer.
DjangoReinhardt
Thinks he should have been the one to kill Batman's parents.
Phoenix said:
This cannot be stressed enough: scientific theory means a theory with tons of credible evidence (read: independently verifiable facts) to support it. Until intelligent design has survived the same rigor that has been applied to evolution, it is not reasonable to teach it in a public school. If Muslims had proposed intelligent design as a legitimate alternative to reality, for instance, they would be laughed out of the building.
Greenpanda
Banned
DjangoReinhardt said:
Unless that building were located in Europe or in Canada, in which case they'd be welcomed with open arms and the government bureaucracy would pat itself on the back for its commitment to "multiculturalism" and "tolerance."
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
In response to why should ID, for instance, be mentioned when other things like unicorns are not:
It's a recurring bias on the side of those who see themselves as scientific to regard *everything* that they consider unscientific as the exact same rubbish to be cast off with the exact same lack of consideration.
The reason why nobody is shouting to teach unicornology in biology class is that you don't have a huge number of people who all have a predisposition thanks to factors such as culture and upbringing to believe The Great Unicorn is actually behind all the mechanics of the universe.
This is not to say I am an advocate of Intelligent Design. But I agree with the sentiment that something such as ID should be brought up in context of preparing students to deal with it one way or the other, because it, or more accurately the motivations and beliefs that inspired it, are out there, very common, and are not going to simply vanish by next Tuesday. If anything, Intelligent Design could be used as a *superb* example of scientific methods are, and are not, applied to something. The very debate over whether ID should be included with the same weight as evolution would be instructive in itself - it's obvious that a lot of adults do not grasp the distinction between the two.
It's a recurring bias on the side of those who see themselves as scientific to regard *everything* that they consider unscientific as the exact same rubbish to be cast off with the exact same lack of consideration.
The reason why nobody is shouting to teach unicornology in biology class is that you don't have a huge number of people who all have a predisposition thanks to factors such as culture and upbringing to believe The Great Unicorn is actually behind all the mechanics of the universe.
This is not to say I am an advocate of Intelligent Design. But I agree with the sentiment that something such as ID should be brought up in context of preparing students to deal with it one way or the other, because it, or more accurately the motivations and beliefs that inspired it, are out there, very common, and are not going to simply vanish by next Tuesday. If anything, Intelligent Design could be used as a *superb* example of scientific methods are, and are not, applied to something. The very debate over whether ID should be included with the same weight as evolution would be instructive in itself - it's obvious that a lot of adults do not grasp the distinction between the two.
- Status