Intelligent Design has no Place in the Classroom of Science

Just because Intelligent Design is not science does not necessarily mean it is wrong. But because it is not science, it should not be given time in the scientific classroom.Let me explain why I don't believe Intelligent Design is science.
In pre-Darwinian time, biologists could not explain the adaption of things in their enviroment, so they assumed God must be continually providentially directing such changes. Paleontologists could not explain the origin of organic species so they assumed that God must have supernaturally created them. Today many look at the complexities in organisms or structures and simply cannot imagine how such perfection could be acheived, so they assume a Designer designed it. These claims are religious. They don't consider science as being able to answer them, so they appeal to the religious. Again they are not necessarily wrong, but they don't make any room for the possibility that as we continue to grow in our understanding of the world, we might come to natural explanations.Speaking of creationists, Michael Ruse said at McLean v. Arkansas that "reliance on the acts of a Creator is inherently religious. Is is not necessarily wrong. It is just a different perspective. It has its place just as science has its place, but it is not science."Perhaps we can extend that to Intelligent Design, and Dr. Ruse in his latest book 'The Evolution-Creation Struggle' extends that to the worldview of evolutionism, which takes evolutionary science, and applies it to economics, ethics etc. To Ruse, this also doesn't belong in the science classroom.EVC's resident PriestThis message has been edited by Priest, 09-17-2005 10:18 PM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

If you assume that a creationist says, "wow, look at species diversity, it is more diverse even than can be imagined by computer scientists" therefore I am going to simply stick with own environment (let's say this was my Gradfather's farm in South Dak. on a farm of Seventh Day Adventists) then YES INDEED, yes, indeed and truth it would appear that you might think it appropriate to apply Maclean and have said that the claim is simply religious.But wait, even granting that, the question would be, has the "environment" in its current more globalizations formations CROSSED all these developments in religion such that it matters NOT what I assert from a religious perspective as the secular control controls even the feedthrough as well as any feedback IN MY STATMENTS whether motiviated by religiousity or denominializtion. That is an issue for a legal theory to legally resolve. In any fact pattern it seems doubtful that this is going to end the LEGAL DIFFERENCE OF (opinions). As long as I think in this environment, I can always have an assbackward opinion etc and this has happened somewhat more recently in my environment than what I represented in the best or worst case, depending on which illegal side you come down on.Now, you were not saying THIS. You were tyring to use something like the above to say why YOU DONT BELIEVE ID is SCIENCE.I dont think the history of ID is out of order. ICR was touting a "two-model" APPROACH OUT of these environs BEFORE one even had much of a chance to "believe" in ID or not. In THOSE "models" (a model is not science - got it?- my models of dinosaurs were not reptiles and amphibians I had next to them in cages and the strange change machine that turned plastic squares into dinosaurs by plugging them into the wall that seperated me and my brother's room was not religious) DATA was directed, sent, or inputted INTO EITHER MODEL. ID blurrs this clear discrimination that was simply deployable by the difference in the placements of words (scientific creationism and creation science). There is no necessary conflict between the "science" outputted from either of these disciplinary labels , if I may say, and the claim that there is no legitamate controversy IN SCIENCE whether in the ONE Model or THE other stands no matter what the globalization did to the invelopment of the environs that even Finnegan's wake can not Shemicize. That may also be a legal "sorry I made a mistake" but it would need a good lawyer, perhaps Johnson to so bring it.But look what had happened, and if the courts of appeal decide to use the history to decide a purely contingent reality then it seems scientific that it be recognized that these two clear models can not be differentiated in the designs of ID ON SCIENCE (and if phrased interms of physical teleology these CAN be sustatained in a "research program" just as evo bios have tried to maintain that Croizat represents a "research program" contra Neo-Darwinism (at least when this planet is the place the environment exists in)as it can be cognized that the seperation of the data from the model no longer exists in the events that make up what one might call "Intelligent Design".This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-18-2005 07:38 AM

To quote Cardinal John Henry Newman: "I believe in design because I believe in God; not in God because I see design."The point is that Intelligent Design falls outside the realm of science. There are many elements of nonscience that are already taught in the classroom of science. This usually falls under the banner of evolutionism. These should be purged, but in purging it, there is no reason to add another nonscience like Intelligent Design.EVC's Resident Priest

This may well be true. But I have a hard enough time recreating in my own mind my own "voices" that distinguish scientific creationism, creation science and intelligent design. For someone sitting on the Federal Bench in Harrisburgh trying to compare a fellow Pennsylvanian and some random agnostic of atheist try to present the "relevant" designs on the history ID is beyond the pale. If a nonreligious person attempts to point to changes and uses simply the names "creation science" and "intelligent design" and then makes some general historical remark (say about Paley) it will not be possible for the adjudicator to differentiate IN THE CASE the religious perspectives of the 'other' side from the contigency that special and general revelation had not been transgressed. Now if the judge has some knowledge of the actual history regardless then perhaps the relation of design between theology and teleology will not be confused in the case the case is really only a fusion of the past and not a seperation of ID from other formations of science in creationism.As far as getting to Ruse, well he thinks it ok to accept the philosophers of biology who think that telelogy can be "purged" or "eliminated" from BIOLOGY. So by kicking someone like me out of school even though I knew more biology than Carl Zimmer they simply say THEN what biology is. Mayr tried to write this. The failure is at the most detailed level. I think the fault lies with the evolutionists who HAVE NOT attempted to remand the indeterminate relation of the measuring rod physically to biological streches between genes no matter the structure of the chromosome. While this is physically acceptable given a certain reading of Reimann where one groups any geometric transformation to whatever it would be physically I think the rise of organcism is rather the symptom of biologist's faliure to theorize Wright's isolation by distance INTO Croizat's paragonal framework of distribtions on Earth. Attempting to accomplish a defintion of the macrothermodynamic thermostat in terms of electronic equations faciliates this quantification no matter what the final invariance becomes but it is clear to me that evolutionists can not present creation science as ID by another name IF THEY DO NOT attend to what I just wrote. So far they do not. Part of the blame is mine. This is so hard to explain.While there can be some "elimination" of telelogical ends from biology this should only be thought if it is known how any means can be afforded in some other part of general pedagogy but as the attempts appear reacationary there appears to be no guarentee that mispresentation simply substitutes an index for a number no matter the geometry.I think evolutionary needs to coordinate its notion of the relation of gene distributions to a definite coordinate system before evolutionists have any right to condem the teachings and tutoring of creationists. It just is not logical to do otherwise.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, here. Could you elaborate?

Here is a link to a story about "Thirty-eight Nobel Prize laureates asked state educators to reject proposed science standards that treat evolution as a seriously questionable theory, calling it instead the "indispensable" foundation of biology."http://news.yahoo.com/.../20050916/ap_on_sc/evolution_debateI think that the important point is that this is how the science of biology is developing at present and it's the key concept holding it together. When and if it fails observation and experiment than new theories will be developed. The religiously motivated theories aren't being advanced to meet scientific needs.I agree with your viewpoint as I understand it.lfen

Brad,
As I am sure you know, telelogy is a philosophical term applied to any system that attempts to explain a series of events in terms of ends, goals, or purposes. It is opposed to mechanisms which suggest that the object of study may be explained by mechanical principles of causation. The teleological argument for the existence of God holds that order in the world could not be accidental and that since there is design there must be a designer. I am not uncomfortable with this view, but I view it as religious and not scientific.I am not uncomfortable with the study of complex organisms, or structures that IDers view as designed. Study complexity, but just say something to the effect of 'at present time, we cannot explain this scientifically.' Be scientifically honest. Appeal to a Designer may be correct, but leave that to someone who is in charge of instructing about God.Some evolutionists also finds purpose in the higher levels of organic life but holds that it is not necessarily based in any transcendent being. Doesn't that seem philosophical as well?Affirmation of a Designer is not science, thus it should not be taught in the classroom of science.Rejection of a Designer is also not science, thus it should not be taught in the classroom of science. Cardinal Pell of Australia has recently said that some of the schools in Australia teach evolution in a way that is anti-God. That shouldn't be the goal of a science teacher. The study of God is for someone else to lead.EVC's Resident Priest

It uses mechanisms as well.There needs to be a place in academia where these mechanims might be be "farmed" out to engineers, physicists, and biotechnologists but because evolution is used as the frame for writing AND working in biology rather than some abstract cooridnation system of ordinal numbers the only purposeful action oftens seems to be the removal of any work on means to the ends of the design OUT of academia.It is true I say that I was "kicked" out of school. Part of it was just that my ideas on how the kinematics preceed these dynamics were designed with physical teleology of Kant as explained distributionally by Aggassiz but unawares to me looking at Croizat's view. This is not religious even if Croizat would not tend to support the religious perspective.I did not understand the term "physical teleology" as used by Kant to be a philosophical term but instead was related via design to adaptation in the great chain of being. It would be an accident for the human designer to create a physical teleology but the move from a reflective position on it to determinations within chance variations seems to need be part of science or at least be accessible to the jobs scientists do.As for IDer's needing to say "we cannot explain "this" scientifically" at the present time, I would agree as to the different religiousity they brought into the creationists repretoire. The problem I have is with people who do not have a religious perspective thinking that humanity needs a seperation IN THE SCHOOLS where we need to train the people to make the seperation ON THE JOB. Yes keep it seperate in the mind. Thinking that creation science and intelligent design are simply the same thought with a few words changed IS NOT REFLECTIVE despite its determinability. This could be accomodated from a top down perspective rather as well but that will surely raise legal suits that would really be frivolous.I tend to agree with seperation of the data from the model so in that we probably agree but perhaps for different ends even if our means are on average fairly close. I dont know

It is true that our aprior assumptions dictate whether we see deisgn or not. But our underlying beliefs (or lack of) are not science. ID could be taught in a philosophy class, but it has no place in a science classroom.This message has been edited by JKnCA, 09-19-2005 07:50 PM

---

The process by which God created all life is called evolution.

ID could be taught in a religion class, or a history of science class, or a history of religion class.You can't ignore ID, or at least you shouldn't, and you also should not hide options from your students.My only beef was that some actually believe it is science and it should not be taught as such.EVC' resident Priest

What to do with ID? Well, if someone brings it up, I can obliterate it in class, but what would that accomplish?I am now finishing up my first unit on the nature of science and the scientific method. My students have been shown the information on what science is, some of its major historical developments and what science deals with. I hope my students will take heed that science deals with the natural world and what we can detect in it.I tell them right out that we do not deal with religious ideas in science because they are supernatural and science is unable to deal with them. Any ideas brought up that deal with natural events given a supernatural cause,though, are treated scientifically and the evidence for or (for the most part) against can be discussed.ID is not scientific and can only provide a slippery slope when thrown out of misguided conviction into science. If we cannot figure something out right now, then a "designer" did it! So why try to figure something out at all!?!

When I look at ID I see no reason that it should be taught in the science classroom. It has no scientific basis other than an assortment of inferences. But as ID does not have a place in the science classroom this latest craze of consorting human psycology with evolutionary theory and wrapping it up as science has even less. Rape is not a product of evolution, neither is infantcide. Perhaps genes may play a small role, but the main force driving these heinous acts must be environmental pressures. When applying evolution to humans we must use caution, because (at least in my mind) the society we live in does not refect a natural world therefore natural laws, which may apply to animals, do not apply directly to humans. Making assumptions like those listed above does not help evolution in the public eye, and in my mind frightens much of the middle which may otherwise support a better teaching of evolution, and the continuation of keeping ID out of science.

Why?As a student of the human condition, it seems obvious to me that the majority of the behavior of human beings is a situation of doing something and then coming to terms with it, justifying it; as opposed to rationally considering the alternatives and choosing one. We're very good, most of us, at choosing the most reasonable alternative and then doing the exact opposite one. Everybody understands that being an adult human being is not so much a process of actively pursuing the proper course of action, but preventing yourself from following the seductive, detrimental ones.It's an open debate, of course, the extent to which environment or genes determine those behaviors that we don't seem to be in all that much control of; it's an open debate whether or not "genes" and "environment" are even two different things. What are you talking about? The world we live in is no different than the world of animals: limited resources are competed for, people make choices to maximise the opportunity and safety of their offspring, present and future, persons do not mate at random but according to criteria that they don't seem to consider voluntary or arbitrary (i.e. I like caucasian blondes, but I don't remember choosing that preference. In fact I was in denial about being a blonde-lover until I looked back at all my ex-girlfriends, and over at my wife, and noticed they're all blonde.)Humans are as much the product of evolution as anything else is. Why should we be so special that we're the only species on Earth for whom evolutionary concerns don't inform the bulk of our behavior?

ID/Creationism and all in between have no place in the public science classrooms. There is no way that something that has so little scientific evidence (the only scientific thing i see is irreducible complexity). But, if these people want to learn these other theories in school, take them to sunday school. Anything involving religion will be and should be denied using the establishment clause of the first amendment. Its simple!