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

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

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

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