Creationism/Intelligent Design

[Seshat]

Ah. Now I get what you're saying. Yes, I agree.

[DexX]

Did you hear about the young earth creationist who believed in astrology?

He knew about as much about the future as he did about the past.

*ba dum tish*

[susfubb]

I had my creationism/evolution lecture today, and I've no shame in admitting that it was probably the most interesting single class I have taken in a LONG time.

MOD EDIT: no need to quote so much. People who haven't seen it can easily go back to do so, everyone else has read it. - Seshat.

well, Spiffy, I wrote more than I should, then thought it would be nice to quote you about what you learned in that invaluable lecture. This time, I will simply tell members who missed a GREAT post to scroll back to #51, because when i tried to add a quote.. oh never mind! heh

Your "most important points are great - especially the "humans did not evolve from monkeys (nor even apes)". The regularity with with this "argument" appears from uneducated creationists is astounding.. the number of religious leaders whose sole education is from denominational seminaries is appalling.

As mentioned, I am a biologist with a major degree in botany, a minor in agriculture, and a CCN - Certification from the California Nurserypersons' Association. The 4 hour test for that last was harder than any final I ever took, and I am very proud to pass it on first try (20% chance) & especially be one of the first females to pass it at all.

Still it doesn't seem to matter what I say. 99th %ile on ACT & SAT in 1967-68? naw. National Merit Scholar? bfd. 5th in my class of 565 with a 3.89 GPA when 4.0 was the max? bs. 43 university credits in comparative religion/ biblical & pervious histories? NBD..

So, with your own standing in this club, I applaud your well-wriiten review of an obviously significant, if not life-changing lecture/ experience. If this is a SERIES of lectures, PLEASE continue to share your notes & insights, k? With all due respect, ~jill

[Jadedcarguy]

Here is a link for a photographic tour of the Creation Museum. There are many amusing comments to the pictures. Takes forever to get through the whole thing though but highly worth it.

http://scalzi.com/whatever/?p=121

Thank you so much for that link! I laughed so hard that I cried, then laughed some more.

[tropicsgoddess]

I'm all for people having their own opinion and all,as long as it's not being force-fed. As far as creationism and intelligent design goes, just please leave teaching/preaching the creationism stuff for church run schools or religious centered subjects.

[Slytovhand]

Here I am again... coming in late on the bandwagon...<sigh>

I've got a bit more than 2cents to play with this time (crap.. .I just looked at this post - damn it's long!!!)

My degree is in Philosophy, and I'm interested in doing a Masters in Comparative Religions and Spiritualities. I've also thought about doing a degree in science - particularly physics (but I'm crap at it ) I'm also a practising pagan - Shaman and druid. (ok... maybe 'lazy practising pagan' ) My last subject for my degree was Religion and the Natural Sciences, and ID was a big thing. I did a 2300 word assignment on the topic of ID - and that's after having to get specific and having to cut down on the words (damn!!!)

Firstly... 'creationism' and 'Intelligent Design' are not one and the same thing. Nor are they even 'close - but with a religious overtone'. That, unfortunately, is what has become of the debate - mostly by the fundy christians who think they've now got a better leg to stand on in the science realm.

I do think that ID should be taught in the science classroom, and not in the religion class room.

If ID gets taught in the religion class, then it gets dumped in as merely another belief that seems to confirm other beliefs, and the science behind it gets ignored - or they'll start to gloss over the real reason that ID became so damn significant. Although, it should get mentioned... I'll get to that towards the end.

It has virtually nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is a (for want of a much better word.. my brain has been slowly dying over the years ) 'byproduct' of the way the universe works. The way the universe operates falls in the realm of physics, not biology. Evolution is a biological theory.

ID really says - take a look at all those damn 'coincidences' out there in the universe. (I don't have my stuff on me, so I'm going to throw random numbers here now.. so please don't pull me up on the numbers used, but only on the theory presented).

In order for chemical interactions to occur, they have a certain range of specific values for their environment to fall into before they can occur. ie - water will turn from solid to liquid at approx 1 degree celcius. It turns from water to vapour at approx 100degrees C (depending on pressure etc). In the great course of the universe, that's a massively small range - and yet, here we are with 70% water in our systems. Ok - we could be a completely different species, using some other liquid (solids make it harder to move), and then the argument would continue in a different way.

But... there are levels of radiation, types of radiation, decay rates, wavelengths, frequencies, and a whole stack of other such similar things that all are brought to bear on just what it is that makes this universe tick over... those things that are called laws of physics. They all operate in incredibly small ranges to operate effectively. 10 to the -53?? I don't know - it's a number I recall somewhere in my readings... Paul Davies I think...("The Mind of God", I think).

The masses of coincidences required just for this universe to exist in a stable manner are amazing. And then you add into that this thing called 'life'. And then add in 'intelligent life', etc etc...

Given such small values, and almost infinitely small probabilities of such things being made in such a way that we can be here having this discussion, led many scientists to theorise that there must be some form of Intelligent Designer who put it all together, at least in a way such that those laws would bring forth life (or not.. that just happens to be one of the lucky ones).

ID itself tells nothing about the actual designer itself - other than it should possess logic and rationality. It need not even have any interest in the universe itself other than its original inception. And it also certainly doesn't mean that the designer is still around, nor that there needs to be only 1.

So - that's why I think it should get brought up in the science class - so we get a good healthy and profound respect for this thing we are and live in - and just how close to not even being here we really are.

As for bringing it up in the Religion class.... Guess what? ID theory is a far far more useful and supporting theory for pagan beliefs than it does for christian beliefs. Christians need to start adding various character traits to this ID than any other religion would need to. Not only did the designer create (or allow to be created), but the designer must also now be interested in it's designs, must be interested in having a form of life that can appreciate it's existence, and can worship, and is also compassionate, and thus send down his only son to save us all - so we can have an eternal life in an afterworld (which must also be created...)

Who says this is the original universe that was designed? Why not just put in place the fundmental laws that could allow an infinite number of universes to get 'created' - one from the other... say that Black Holes lead to Big Bangs - in a new universe??

Pagans, on the other hand (other than specific theists) don't need to interpret any form of divine will. We can happily say "The creator did it, and there you go - now, go live your life the best that you can".


And on the subject of the supernatural - who's to say that those laws aren't a part of this universe anyway? Our science is hardly capable of explaining everything... Acupucture seems to work - yet try telling this to scientists who won't go looking for a neuro-chemical response. Maybe, just maybe, mysticism has a very important place in the world that science doesn't want to go near. See... maybe I'm not an idiot for believing in supernatural phenomena.

(ok - now how long was this? I probably should'nt write in 'quick reply'..)


Slyt (bringing the dead back to life)

[Seshat]

The problem with introducing Intelligent Design in Science class is that it's not science. Science is disprovable hypotheses, and theories which have been tested, not disproven, and thus been accepted pending later disproof.

Intelligent Design is not disprovable, therefore it's not science.

Not that I don't agree with the incredible number of coincidences it takes to get us here. It is pretty damn amazing.

And it's quite feasible - and well within the bounds of a science class - for the science teacher to teach the kids how many coincidences have come about to make us who and what we are.

But it's also the responsibility of a Science teacher to teach Science. If the teachers can keep themselves from providing any emphasis one way or the other, they can say 'some people think X, others think Y, Z and gamma'. But only if they can remain unbiased.

Science class is not the right place to teach any religious, spiritual, or philosophical theories. Only the scientific ones.

[Jadedcarguy]

Seshat beat me to it.

[Slytovhand]

Oh trust me - the 'unbiased' is essential. Same in the religion class ....

I was thinking more of the "Here is this ID thing, and here is the amount of physics and the coincidences involved that make certain people think this" - rather than actually throwing it up as any sort of 'law' - it is only a theory. More a "here is the science behind.." thing.

No - it's not 'true science' - but then, very rarely is 'true science' really taught in the class room. We get told nice little white lies when we learn stuff, to keep things nice and simple. In the classroom of schools, we get told that we learn is 'true' - not that it's subject to failure (other than in the opening couple of weeks). There is no philosophy of science, which I do believe someone pointed out earlier in the thread.

The way I look at it, ID is in the same or similar ball park as Big Bang theory, or String Theory, or an Infinite Universe, or even Multiple Universes... 'here's the various evidences for and possibly against, make of it what you will'.

I do see your point about ID being unprovable and disprovable though.

Oh - I should point out something that's in my head, and maybe not made it down to print to clarify stuff. I'm only thinking that the ID theory should only be worth ONE lecture in the science class - not an over-ridding idea/l. Say, do a stack of physics or chemistry(as I mentioned, ID doesn't get a whole lot into biology), and then towards the end of a semester, do a lecture on it, and point out just how well it fits together - almost as a throw-away line. Is that too much to suggest?

Slyt

[Boozy]

The way I look at it, ID is in the same or similar ball park as Big Bang theory, or String Theory, or an Infinite Universe, or even Multiple Universes...

No. Intelligent Design is not at all like these other theories.

These other theories are ultimately provable or unprovable, thereby moving them into the realm of science. Mathematics in conjunction with observational data should eventually shed light on these theories.

The only exception is the multiverse theory, which most theoretical physicists ignore because of its inherent "unknowable" quality.

ID is neither provable nor unprovable and therefore has no place in science class.

[AFPheonix]

Agh, I had this nice reply written up last night and I couldn't post it for some reason or another.
1) ID is not a theory. It is merely a hypothesis, and a crappy hypothesis at that, since it simply cannot be tested by field trials and experimentation. It has no data to back it up, only the wistful thinking of people who must believe that there is an invisible hand creating the universe. A theory a hypothesis that has stood the test of time and every piece of field data thrown at it.
Evolution has done just that, probably far better than any other theory posited in any branch of science.
2) We exist in this narrow range of "coincidences" because the chemicals that fathered proto-DNA and proteins were selected for in that environment. Remember, our experience with life is really limited to this planet and this solar system. For all we know, there are other parameters in other solar systems that beings rose to meet to become alive. We don't even know that our particular parameters are all that unique in relation to other solar systems out there.
3) The narrow range that life requires is often touted as a reason for a creator by Creationists and ID peeps, but we're really not on the knife's edge of not existing like they'd rather us think. One popular argument of Creationists is how precise the distance the earth has to be from the sun. They like to get all goggle-eyed and spout that a mile or two's difference could mean our destruction!
But wait: if they'd bothered to pick up a child's astronomy book, they'd of course see that our path around the sun is elliptical, and that the difference between the closest and farthest points is quite vast indeed.
As far as pH, this is why buffering solutions arose. Buffers can keep the pH of a solution pretty constant by absorbing or releasing H+ as needed in a large range of conditions. I could go on, but this will already be a monster post.
4) The only thing you need to know about ID is to look at its origin. It went mainstream in a textbook called "Of Pandas And People" in which the authors changed every incident of "Creationism" to "ID". The old and new textbooks are nearly identical except for that one change in verbiage. That frankly tells me all I want to know about this supposed theory.

I don't necessarily like the way kids are taught science, but then, I'm not expecting them to be handed copies of The New England Journal of Medicine and expected to write a report on it. Unfortunately until they get old enough to understand things, they must accept things as truth until they can question it.
I am also disappointed in how little kids are taught to challenge beliefs when they are finally old enough to do so. It quells an inquisitive mind and I suspect that has a small hand into why we as a nation are not churning out the quality scientists we used to.

[Greenday]

I am also disappointed in how little kids are taught to challenge beliefs when they are finally old enough to do so. It quells an inquisitive mind and I suspect that has a small hand into why we as a nation are not churning out the quality scientists we used to.

Wait, wait, challenging beliefs quells an inquisitive mind? I mean, it's challenging beliefs that leads to new discovery, it doesn't stop people from coming up with new ideas.

[Norton]

I misread that as well.

I believe he means little is taught to kids about challenging beliefs, not that challenging beliefs is taught to little kids.

[Greenday]

Yea, that makes much more sense. I don't remember too much of being taught to think for myself, but I did it anyway. Now I'm in college studying chemistry and they pretty much don't leave us with any options but thinking for ourselves. They won't do crap to help us in labs.

[Boozy]

3) The narrow range that life requires is often touted as a reason for a creator by Creationists and ID peeps, but we're really not on the knife's edge of not existing like they'd rather us think.

Besides, if these conditions didn't exist, we wouldn't be sitting around talking about them.

We think it amazing that we find ourselves here, but we wouldn't be able to think at all if it were any other way. Humanity is kind of biased that way.