Creationism/Intelligent Design

[Sylvia727]

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.

God's greatest creation? Humans. Who figured this out? Humans.

The most astonishing coincidences in nature? The ones that led to the formation of humans. Who figured this out? Humans.

---

I'm going to chime in that "intelligent design" is not science. Did you know that myths, like the "seven days of creation" story told in Genesis or the legend about Persephone in the Underworld for 6 months out of the year, were the forerunners of science? They were the first attempts to understand how the world is put together. Intelligent design, IMHO, ought to be taught in whatever course teaches the scientific myths.

The way I see it, science is all about the "how". How did humans evolve? What string of coincidences led to this? Intelligent Design is all about the "why". Why did human evolve to these parameters? Why this string of coincidences, and not another?

[AFPheonix]

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.

Oops, I meant how they're NOT taught to challenge beliefs and anything that comes out of the mouth of authority instead of taking it as gospel truth.

Kids are taught a lot of info, but they aren't taught how to think. Maybe kiddy philosophy classes would be helpful or something.

[Slytovhand]

Ok... here's my thinking.

Is Intelligent Design a subject worth discussing? (no - not the nature of the designer, not bringing religion into the discussion at all, but from a philosophical point of view? In a way not to dissimilar to philosophy and history of science). Just - is it worth a few minutes of thought by someone intelligent?

Secondly - if so, where should it get taught? Kindergarten? Primary school? Secondary? Undergrad? Post-Grad?? Not at all until you've got your degree and start publishing in various journals?? Only on the Fratching forum?

Who, presuming we have a 'yes' to question 1, should do the teaching? School teacher? If so - religion, science, social studies, mathematics? If not, then professors of which school?


I'm believe (hahaha ) that it should be done when the student is able to grasp what is being argued - which to me says when they've got enough scientific background to understand it - probably around year 10-12 physics.

I also believe (ha ha - take 2), that it should be taught by those most likely to be unbiased about it. Philosophy would be nice, although as APF pointed out, that sort of questioning doesn't take place in schools very often (though is down this a-way a bit more ). So - that should leave either in religion, science or social studies. 2 of those won't give the parameters and reasoning involved to be of much use. And in religion... anyone seriously think the teacher of that would be unbiased? I've already seen how the argument changes direction from those who don't know what it's really about (it's not against the idea of evolution.. if anything, it holds it up). Besides, ID is a hypothesis about the nature of the universe and how it came to be (not really 'why' - cos it doesn't go into that at all).

So - that leaves us with a science teacher - someone who is unbiased, and should reasonable be able to discuss the relevant points to the ID hypothesis - and it's counters.

After all - in our class rooms, we don't do 'english' and only learn about the english language, we learn about psychology, sociology, anthropology, history etc. In history, we learn about history, and also geography, language, religion, anthropology and sociology, and many more. Sometimes biology will go into the realms of ethics. No subject can be taught alone.

So - I think it (ID) merits once lecture in the science class. And in doing so, kids will be

taught to challenge beliefs ...

On a similar tangent (now that didn't really make sense, did it??) - just because fundamentalists propose an idea, doesn't not in and of itself make the idea bad. Yes - they have their motives, and their motives may suck... but good things do come out of bad purposes. Look at the breakthrough in technology, medicine, IT etc due to the amount of money thrown into military R&D, through the expansionist period throughout our history. Didn't the Romans build roads so that they could move their troops faster and keep them well supplied (as well as allow faster couriers)?? The byproduct was much faster transport for trade, but that wasn't the original purpose.


Slyt

[AFPheonix]

It belongs squarely in a philosophy and comparative religions class. Those could easily be taught alongside history in high school. I really do think that students should delve into the ideas of where we come from and how it should affect where we go from here.
Religious studies can be taught from a historical and objective point of view, although probably an agnostic or athiest teacher would be best for that
I really don't have a problem with discussing the idea that there's something bigger than us and could have guided the processes that formed us and our environment, but it needs to be done in the correct forum.

I am a strong believer that only science should be in science class. Otherwise we get stupid crap like we have now where some school districts are required to put stickers in the front of their texts that say that Evolution is only a theory. Damn straight it's a theory, and a damn good one at that! But of course that's not what they meant at all. It's a slippery slope to dumbing our kids down and I simply don't want to risk it.

[Rapscallion]

People who say that Evolution is only a theory misunderstand what a theory is.

A hypothesis is an untested idea. It hasn't withstood the rigours of scientific inquiry.

A theory is an idea that has been tested, perhaps altered slightly along the way as required, and is provable under further repeated investigation.

For example, there is a theory of gravity, and it is still being altered from time to time as more investigations into such phenomena as black holes etc occur.

Rapscallion

[AFPheonix]

Yes. Isn't it scary how some people who can control how schools spend money can't even comprehend a small vocabulary lesson like that? Ridiculous.

[Seshat]

I believe that there should be a class in which children learn mythology, historic religions, history of spirituality, and history of philosophy.

And with that grounding, they can then move onto how science developed from religion, spirituality and philosophy; and the philosophy of science, and what science actually IS.

Also, this class can cover modern religions, modern non-religious spiritualities, and modern philosophies.

Intelligent Design belongs in this class.

[Slytovhand]

I believe that there should be a class in which children learn mythology, historic religions, history of spirituality, and history of philosophy.

And with that grounding, they can then move onto how science developed from religion, spirituality and philosophy; and the philosophy of science, and what science actually IS.

Also, this class can cover modern religions, modern non-religious spiritualities, and modern philosophies.

Intelligent Design belongs in this class.

I'd vote for that! It'd be good if you could teach 'respect' for it all as well...

I remember all to well doing religion and having anything non-christian literally laughed at on occasions. "How could you possibly believe something like that?"...ummm - the same way you choose to believe that someone who died on a cross like thousands of others could save your soul!! (sorry-- I hope no-one is going to take that as an insult - I'm just trying to be ...'objective'..seeing christianity from a non-christian's POV).

[Jadedcarguy]

...ummm - the same way you choose to believe that someone who died on a cross like thousands of others could save your soul!! (sorry-- I hope no-one is going to take that as an insult - I'm just trying to be ...'objective'..seeing christianity from a non-christian's POV).

I say that all the time. Christianity IMHO is just as silly as the rest, but it's accepted. That makes all the difference.

[Slytovhand]

I say that all the time. Christianity IMHO is just as silly as the rest, but it's accepted. That makes all the difference.

In some bits of the world...

I heard that some people were arrested in ?Ghana the other day for practising witchcraft - by casting spells and cursing men by having their penis shrink. Now, some here might laugh (cos of the witchcraft bit, not how they're cursing), but in that culture, it is believed and true to the extent that there are laws against it (not the belief, but the particular use to which it was put).

[Slytovhand]

Ummm.... caveat??

Hey allls....

I just hopped onto Wiki and looked up ID on there. Ok - it may not be the best source in the world for information, but it does fully explain to me exactly how many people are seeing this debate.

Please understand that when I was studying it, it was in a philosophy class for university, and therefore we had selected reading. Some of that selected reading included the major players listed who have shown their christian tendencies (Behe and Dembski being the most cited).

But... being in Australia, we did a lot of looking at the works of Paul Davies - especially from books such as "The Mind of God" (which I do heartily recommend to get a fairly non-religious view of the ID argument...within reason!). It might be worth a quick squiz over his wiki heading - it's pretty short... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies

(quoted from Wiki...)

In the book proper, Davies briefly explores: the nature of reason, belief, and metaphysics; theories of the origin of the universe; the laws of nature; the relationship of mathematics to physics; a few arguments for the existence of God; the possibility that the universe shows evidence of intelligent design; and his opinion of the implications of Gödel's incompleteness theorem, that "the search for a closed logical scheme that provides a complete and self-consistent explanation is doomed to failure."

It is because of this - AND THIS ALONE - that I've argued the way I have. If I had been thinking of ID from the POV shown in Wiki under the ID heading.... damn right it shouldn't be in the science class!

I hope I haven't appeared as too much of an idiot or fool in my posts because of this


Slyt

[Sylvia727]

Arguing the science behind ID would make it rather difficult to put this in a philosophy or history class, but it still doesn't belong in a science room proper. Perhaps it could be explored in "History of Science" or a "Morals of Science" class. I stand by my previous statement that the "why" of science is not true science.

[Jadedcarguy]

In some bits of the world...

I heard that some people were arrested in ?Ghana the other day for practising witchcraft - by casting spells and cursing men by having their penis shrink. Now, some here might laugh (cos of the witchcraft bit, not how they're cursing), but in that culture, it is believed and true to the extent that there are laws against it (not the belief, but the particular use to which it was put).

I heard about that on the radio the other day. I was laughing my ass off.

[Slytovhand]

Arguing the science behind ID would make it rather difficult to put this in a philosophy or history class, but it still doesn't belong in a science room proper. Perhaps it could be explored in "History of Science" or a "Morals of Science" class. I stand by my previous statement that the "why" of science is not true science.

Ok - 2 thoughts occurred to me on this.

Firstly - given that there isn't much of a History or Morals of science class in our schools (and rarely in our universities)... where then?

Secondly - is the science class that sacrosanct? After all, it would be the perfect subject (ID) to explain exactly where science stands in our world, what it can and can't do, and to an extent, why. For that matter, (other than the limitations of not understanding the actual science behind it) I would think that science classes should be teaching history and morals of science somewhere in their curriculum.. I'd prefer at the beginning - but that leaves the problem of not understanding some of the facts that would almost be necessary (ie - explaining the importance of evolution without understanding what it really is). If our science students aren't taught the history and philosophy behind it, then they come out as automatons, who believe that science is the be all and end all - with little power to 'think' but only 'regurgitate' (IMHO).


Slyt

[Boozy]

I took several "History of Science" classes in university, and neither were offered under the Science department. They were history courses offered within the Liberal Arts department. And the reason they were considered history courses is because they used typical historical research methods.

Science courses are taught using the scientific method. Science class is sacrosanct because the scientific method is sacrosanct.