Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9094 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,800 Year: 12,912/6,534 Month: 195/2,210 Week: 136/390 Day: 45/47 Hour: 0/11

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   What's the problem with teaching ID?
Member (Idle past 5340 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003

Message 6 of 337 (291134)
03-01-2006 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by JustinC
02-28-2006 6:59 PM

Well I imagine one great big stumbling block would be getting a concensus on what is meant by the Intelligent in intelligent design.
WE have those who say it is God and those that say the intelligence could be anything.One wonders how one can teach something as being intelligent unless there is stipulation in place to begin with that the intelligence is defined by such and such properties. Failing this, the core assumption rests on a title that has no structure.
Let us take a quote from one Philip Johnson
If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this,...We call our strategy the "wedge." pg. 91-92, "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds" Phillip Johnson, 1997
From this statement it is difficult to see how they can perform the single thing that science uses to verify the phenomena, the experiment.One must deal with materialism in order to do so.
To quote my favorite author
"Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In this simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is - if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong"
Richard Phillips Feynman
I would equate the intelligent design movement with the Cargo cult science also described by Feynman
So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and science that isn't science.
I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head to headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.
Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they're missing. But it would be just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling them how to improve the shapes of the earphones. But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school--we never say explicitly what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
There is the crux after all no? They will never get any wealth in their system because they are not willing to explore the world to see what it is saying , but rather insist on seeing the world conform to their cherished preconceptions.
Intelligent design is a lost cause and no doubt one that will remain forever on the fringe. If I may apologize to the bard for an out of context phrase
And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.
I think it would,however,make an excellent case study for a class on critical thinking and logic. An example of what clear thinking is not.

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JustinC, posted 02-28-2006 6:59 PM JustinC has not replied

Member (Idle past 5340 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003

Message 25 of 337 (402822)
05-30-2007 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by pwnagepanda
05-29-2007 11:57 PM

Re: I have no problem with teaching ID in a school but...
The best reason that Intelligent design sould not be taught is that A. it has been proven false and B. it is unfalsifiable, and therefore not science.
Do you read what you write or is your critical thinking cap at the dry cleaners today?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by pwnagepanda, posted 05-29-2007 11:57 PM pwnagepanda has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022