Stemming off of the youth and religion topic I wanted to know what everyone thought about the validness of the theory of intelligent design. Is it viable scientifically to believe the Earth and life was created specifically with purpose (most famous example is the watch analogy: you find a watch in a field, you notice its complexity with gears and such, you conclude it was built and not randomly generated), or is intelligent design just a rewording of religious creationism in an attempt to have it taught in public schools? Thoughts?

Please be sure to post your opinion shortly.

I'd say that intelligent design doesn't have any place in a public school. What class would they even teach it in? Can't be science because there's nothing scientific about faith (not saying this as an insult or demeaning faith or religion it just isn't something that can be counted and measured).

Religion should stay in the home and at the church until college, then teach or don't teach whatever as long as it's relevant to the course.

I'm against teaching it in science, but if they want to mention it in a social studies or some such class, I don't see the harm. I'm a fan of Aquinas as a philosopher. I'm not sure his points are irrefutable, but I think their worth exposing students to.....

It's my personal belief that everything has science behind it, but sometimes, just sometimes, I feel that there had to be a bump, or help, from someone or something.

I'm definitely not overly religious, I'm Jewish, and am far too much of a realist to believe that g-d simply created everything.

But, I can't deny that some part of me thinks there is a g-d out there playing the smallest of roles in our existence.

In terms of the topic, I agree that it has no place in schools, neither does creation theory. The only thing that should be taught in schools is evolution in terms of how things evolve (genes, DNA, etc.), and not the creation of anything.

As for me, there is no greater leap of faith than to walk outside and conclude that all that I see just happend by means of some explosion billions of years ago. Whether it is the car in the parking lot or the intricities of the universe, I can come to no other conclusion than what I see is the result of an intelligent creator.

As for what is taught in schools, that should be left to the local school district to decide.

Intelligent design is religious rewording. I'm not sure how you could apply the scientific method to it, so it's not exactly a viable theory, but that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true.

Just so you know where I'm coming from first...I'm a Christian who believes in I.D./creationism but I'm also a scientist.

While ID is quite obviously a viable theory, I actually agree with fathobbit, you can't put the scientific method to it.

While there are plenty of scientific reasoning/calculations/philosophies (like fine tuning, debunking radiometric dating techniques, equations of motion 'big bang' vs inteligent 'starting point', etc) applied to ID and applied successfully there's no way to test the initial premise, that a being much smarter than anyone on this planet, started things in motion.

I would be perfectly fine with ID being discussed in ANY highschool philosophy or social studies class, but not in science.

However, you can apply the same statements I just said to the beginnings of the universe in the evolution/big bang theory as well. There is no way to test the "beginnings" and to be honest, the beginnings (especially for evolution) require just as much faith/belief as believing that a supreme being created it all.

What most people don't know is that evolutionary biologists still have NO IDEA how the first single cell animal came to be in the evolution theory model. One of the most well accepted ideas is that the first cell was planted/seeded by aliens and/or an asteroid that already had the single cells on it.

In other words, they still don't know how the first life started on the "other" planet that had life before ours. They just made up this idea because they have FINALLY come to realize that the theory of "chance" to make a single cell by accident holds no water when you look at the complexity of even a single cell animal (DNA, information transfer, movement, repair, etc).

I.D. cannot be proven scientifically except thru intellectual intuitivty. It's proper place is in a religion or philosophy class. Science class should be confined to scientific study of facts and theories.
I don't think necessarily that 'origins' should be excluded from public schools, but it's discussion should be philosophical.

HitsRus wrote: I.D. cannot be proven scientifically except thru intellectual intuitivty. It's proper place is in a religion or philosophy class. Science class should be confined to scientific study of facts and theories.

I agree with this, but the same statement can be said about the beginning of life in the theory of evolution.

jmog wrote:

HitsRus wrote: I.D. cannot be proven scientifically except thru intellectual intuitivty. It's proper place is in a religion or philosophy class. Science class should be confined to scientific study of facts and theories.

I agree with this, but the same statement can be said about the beginning of life in the theory of evolution.

IMO, how things started is completely separate from the fact that things do evolve. When I was in high school they taught that there were several alternative theories to how life started. I'm not sure if they still do, but I think it would be a mistake to teach how life started as a fact in a science class when it had not been proven.

I think both should be taught, to some degree, but make it more of a philosophical, theoretical discussion.

FatHobbit wrote:

jmog wrote:

HitsRus wrote: I.D. cannot be proven scientifically except thru intellectual intuitivty. It's proper place is in a religion or philosophy class. Science class should be confined to scientific study of facts and theories.

I agree with this, but the same statement can be said about the beginning of life in the theory of evolution.

IMO, how things started is completely separate from the fact that things do evolve. When I was in high school they taught that there were several alternative theories to how life started. I'm not sure if they still do, but I think it would be a mistake to teach how life started as a fact in a science class when it had not been proven.

Exactly, natural selection is the process that works on living organisms. It doesn't, nor does it try to, explain the origin of life. That is an area science is still currently working on.

If people really want to understand the evolutionary process, I recommend reading The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins (say what you want about his religion, he is possibly the foremost biologist right now). It really explains in great detail the processes of evolution and the evidence for it.

Pertaining to this topic, in the book he suggests the internal layout of mammals is evidence against intelligent design. We all know of things in our body that have no use any more, like the appendix and the tailbone. But he mentions other examples with even more glaring evidence against intelligent design. Like the laryngeal nerve (I am going off memory as I loaned the book to a friend, but the name isn't as important). This is the nerve that runs from your brain to your larynx and allows for speech. You would imagine it would be a shorter strand of nerves, but it actually runs down your neck, around the lungs, then back up into the neck and connects to the larynx. If there was intelligent design, you would expect the nerve to run straight to the larynx, but the fact that it doesn't suggests no intelligent design. The vas deferens is another example of the same.

These are two areas where evolution has changed us, but our bodies still try and take the same paths that our ancestors did. In these specific cases, the switch from gills to lungs (gills did not become lungs though, common misconception) and the dropping of the testes lead to these 2 anamolies talked about above.

I'd like to clarify, science and observation has proven that species evolve/adapt to their surrounding and "survival of the fittest" but no proof has ever been found/given for evolution from one species into a completely new species.

The fossil record has way too many gaps to explain away in this regards.

The above post about parts of the body being evidence against ID is basically saying we know exactly how everything works in the body and what it does. I don't believe medical science has come that far, if/when it gets that far in the understanding of the human body, we'll have far fewer medical problems and know how to fix them.

They are finding new discoveries every day about the human body, to say that we KNOW the appendix does nothing, or that those specific nerves don't route right to their attachment for a reason, is like saying we have the biology of the human body completely figured out...which is NOT true.

Religion is the biggest shell game that there is...and this is just another attempt to reshuffle the shells.

I would have no problem if schools decided to offer Intelligent Design as an elective in their jr. high/high schools.
To me, that kills two birds with one stone.

1. It's an elective, so any class would be completely voluntarity and not the dreaded "indoctrination" word. People can opt to skip this class and take something else like shop instead.

2. It offers more than just one way of thinking as far as theory and fact are concerned for those who want to explore new ideas, balance them out in their head, and make a decision based on their own thought process.

Has no place in public schools. The idea that we humans are some how so important to have be "created" by some supreme being is laughably arrogant.

I don't need nor want everything that my child needs in order to be educated to come from a school.

I don't have a problem with a school system choosing to have in their curriculum but I certainly don't rely on schools to present this to my children.

majorspark wrote: As for me, there is no greater leap of faith than to walk outside and conclude that all that I see just happend by means of some explosion billions of years ago. Whether it is the car in the parking lot or the intricities of the universe, I can come to no other conclusion than what I see is the result of an intelligent creator.

Of course you see the "creator" in everything around you from the car to the universe itself. It's the way your brain is organized.

Because you are familiar with the intelligent design of the car, your mind automatically wants to posit on the universe, a creator of the same kind.

That idea helps your finite mind make sense of the infinite universe that you can't quite comprehend!!!! In fact it's not created just like the watch or the car is, but that's the only thing you know becuase that's what you encounter in your life everyday.

All these intricate things, from engines to watches to computers, are all complicated (just like the universe) and all have a creative mind behind them. Therefore, the universe must've been created by a mind like the one that created the car....Right??? Wrong!

Strapping Young Lad wrote:

majorspark wrote: As for me, there is no greater leap of faith than to walk outside and conclude that all that I see just happend by means of some explosion billions of years ago. Whether it is the car in the parking lot or the intricities of the universe, I can come to no other conclusion than what I see is the result of an intelligent creator.

Of course you see the "creator" in everything around you from the car to the universe itself. It's the way your brain is organized.

Because you are familiar with the intelligent design of the car, your mind automatically wants to posit on the universe, a creator of the same kind.

That idea helps your finite mind make sense of the infinite universe that you can't quite comprehend!!!! In fact it's not created just like the watch or the car is, but that's the only thing you know becuase that's what you encounter in your life everyday.

All these intricate things, from engines to watches to computers, are all complicated (just like the universe) and all have a creative mind behind them. Therefore, the universe must've been created by a mind like the one that created the car....Right??? Wrong!

You are correct that is how I make sense of all this in my finite mind. I only wish I could get passed this weakness and make the logical leap that everthing I see, hear, taste, smell, and feel, just fell into place by chance.

ManO'War wrote: Religion is the biggest shell game that there is...and this is just another attempt to reshuffle the shells.

I'm as big a skeptic at times as anyone, but if you don't think there is any "shell games" involved in "science", especially the modern use of science, then you really haven't been paying attention.

AGW is a great example that has been covered ad nauseum.

You know there are many "missing link" fossils (between humans and other primates) that have been proven to be hoaxes but are still taught as fact in modern day textbooks?

tk421 wrote: Has no place in public schools. The idea that we humans are some how so important to have be "created" by some supreme being is laughably arrogant.

The believe that all this is just random chance is also laughable, just laughably ignorant instead of arrogant.

I think it's viable to teach it in school. It's a theory of how life and everything was created. The theory of evolution is the theory of evolution NOT the law of evolution, yet it is taught in school.

Also I'm not convinced that Intelligent Design can't be empirically tested. If you discover the limits of natural processes, anything outside of those limits must've come elsewhere. I honestly don't have an opinion on what theory is right but I think as educators, all theories should be presented and the students can decide for themselves what to believe based on their own observations. After all, isn't that how science starts? The formation of a hypothesis and the will to discover if the hypothesis is true?

Again, I'm not saying one theory is right or wrong. I just think it's hypocritical to include one theory and exclude the other when neither is a law.

jmog wrote:

tk421 wrote: Has no place in public schools. The idea that we humans are some how so important to have be "created" by some supreme being is laughably arrogant.

The believe that all this is just random chance is also laughable, just laughably ignorant instead of arrogant.

How is it ignorant? Do you have some knowledge of how the universe started? No, I don't think so. You don't find the idea that "God" created the heavens and the Earth and all the plants, animals, etc on this planet just for us a tad arrogant?

tk421 wrote:

How is it ignorant? Do you have some knowledge of how the universe started? No, I don't think so. You don't find the idea that "God" created the heavens and the Earth and all the plants, animals, etc on this planet just for us a tad arrogant?

Anyone who truly understands the math/statistics/science involved in the creation of the first life could tell you why its ignorant to believe it just happened by chance.

Even the evolutionists are starting to "come around" and realize it all didn't happen by chance. However, they refuse to even consider an "inteligent design" so instead their answer is aliens planted the first life on the planet. Still an inteligent "being" starting life here on Earth, but they refuse to even consider a thought of that being being "god". I wish I was making it up, but its true, one of the most common beliefs among evolutionists with regards to how life began on Earth is now an alien "plant" or "seed" of life of one form or another.

How is it arrogant to believe that "God" created everything? Please explain that logic.