Creationism/Intelligent Design

[Seshat]

Evolution can happen, that is fact. The question of how it happened and the measure of evolution, or what started it is full of conjecture.

A good science teacher (and yes, not all science teachers are good) will do as many of mine did when I asked questions that are beyond the scope of science: they'll tell the student that Science does not an cannot answer that, explain why, and refer them to their choice of philosophy, spirituality and/or religion. (One of the available philosophies being 'well, noone really knows, and we can't figure out how to find out'.)

There is no such beast as absolute certainty when approaching this discussion, so I do not see the harm in opening a dialogue to intelligently discuss other schools of thought.

There is no harm in discussing it. However, it should not be discussed in a way which misleads people into thinking that issues beyond the scope of science are science.

That sort of misunderstanding is what leads so many psuedo sciences, and makes so many fake scientists rich selling snake oils and miracle cures. Some of which are flat-out dangerous!

Discussing in the classroom that not everyone believes that life evolved from primordial ooze containing random elements that came together in perfect harmony to form the perfect chemical composition to form living creatures, is not something that I feel is a threat to belief in evolution.

Evolution is not a belief. Evolution is a theory, and noone is supposed to 'believe in' theories. Theories are 'well, this is the closest we have so far to the objective truth'.

In fact, 'believing in' a theory can actually be harmful to scientists. It makes it easier for them to change the facts to fit the theory, rather than changing the theory to fit the facts.

Indeed, a good science class will reinforce that there are conflicting theories. But I don't know if you'd be happy with the way my concept of a good science class would introduce either Creationism or Intelligent Design.

I'd be showing them both as examples of undisproveable theories, and thus ineligible to be called science.

Though I probably would refer the students to philosophy and/or comparitive religion to learn more about both. But I'd reinforce that neither is science.

What I am promoting is that schools at least discuss, however briefly, that there are other schools of thought.
<snip>
Of course it would probably be more at home in a debate class or public speaking class, than a science class.

My schools had a weekly class where a guest teacher from one of the local churches taught us whatever they believed in. I suspect a program like that would be suitable for you.

Possibly not as much as you might be thinking... It's more that I happen to believe certain things that science has chosen to either disregard, or ignore, or say doesn't exist at all (even if it isn't 'true' science that is doing that) that annoys me, so I argue against it in some ways... I did do my science at school... Chem and Bio.. passed too Even know some History of Science too....

If I recall correctly, I said that because you claimed that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory. Until someone comes up with a useable test for disproving ID, it cannot be a scientific theory.


There's a hell of a lot of non-science which claims to be science. One of the things which pisses me off is when people say 'Science says this' when it doesn't. Including when 'Science' is blamed for disregarding, ignoring, or claiming the nonexistence of something. So yeah - that clashes directly with your own annoyances stated above.

[Slytovhand]

If I recall correctly, I said that because you claimed that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory. Until someone comes up with a useable test for disproving ID, it cannot be a scientific theory.

Nope - not me... I would have said that the original ID came about by looking at the universe from a scientific point of view.. you know, all those 'coincidences' about just how fragile life is, and yet, we just happen to have those conditions around... as well as other things that form the stars and all...

No, ID isn't a scientific theory, but it's not as divorced from science as many other beliefs... that's all I'm saying...

Slyt

[AFPheonix]

Nope - not me... I would have said that the original ID came about by looking at the universe from a scientific point of view.. you know, all those 'coincidences' about just how fragile life is, and yet, we just happen to have those conditions around... as well as other things that form the stars and all...

No, ID isn't a scientific theory, but it's not as divorced from science as many other beliefs... that's all I'm saying...

Slyt

It may seem that way because there are people trying to make facts fit their preconceptions. This is not science at all. It's a trap that good scientists must avoid at all costs.
When people see "coincidences", it's because they haven't completely explored a topic of study to its very end. there's a lot of things that we still haven't been able to study fully yet since we are still limited by the tools we have at hand. But there are many more that we have figured out.
One of the most common things ID proponents will trot out is the idea of "irreducible components" like the human eye or a flagellum, but scientists have been able to show how both of these structures arose from other structures that may not have been used for the final product's ultimate purpose before.

[Slytovhand]

Damn - I just realised something...

I will now categorically state in an absolute, no uncertain way (and, interestingly enough, way that does not contradict anything I've said before)...

I do NOT think that ID is science! Not in any way shape or form!

I do think that it is something born of science, and thus has it's place in the science class, but it itself is not a science..

Ok???

I just realised after your post APF, over in Atheism.

Oh - as for

but scientists have been able to show how both of these structures arose from other structures that may not have been used for the final product's ultimate purpose before.

Ah... but where did those things come from??? What was before the Big Bang? And how did it happen? Where did all that stuff come from? Is it not 'fair' to bring into a science class not only what has been figured out, but also what hasn't? And, if there is a competing theory (hypothesis, suggestion even), doesn't it merit some mention.

ie "Hey kids. Well, science has yet to provide any information on miracle healings. We've got stacks of evidence to say it happens, but we've got absolutely no ideas how it can happen. But, there is one idea as to why it does..." (btw - no, I'm not referring specifically to god here... chi, alternative energies, and a stack of other theories abound...).

Otherwise, science gets held up as the all-wise all knowing parent to everything. No, as said, science doesn't know everything... but it (or it's proponents) claim that everything can be known! "Oh, we just don't have the tools for that yet.." Science will never admit it is wrong (oh, yes, it's theorems and hypotheses are wrong, but science itself is never wrong... Even if God pops his head up and says "yep, I did it all", science will still be saying "ah, yes, but where did you come from, hey??" nope - never wrong!)

I know, I just know I'm going to get flamed for this.....

[Jadedcarguy]

I know, I just know I'm going to get flamed for this.....

Flamed?!?! Whatever for?

I will give you a reasonable explanation of why you are horribly mistaken, though.

As you said, ID isn't science. but, it isn't borne of science either. Not by a damn sight. It's borne of a religious drive to try and take back the minds of children while they can still be molded. It is based entirely on supposition and willful ignorance. To presume that a system you don't entirely understand is divinely inspired in ludicrous and damaging. ID is religion in an ill-fitting lab coat.

Creationism is proven incorrect time and again and with every new fossil discovery, of which there are quite a few lately I'm happy to say. No transitional species? We have many. The creationist take? Misidentified. We have blind repeatability of both carbon and radiometric dating. The creationist take? False. We have correlation of tree rings and carbon dating. The creationist take? False.

See where I'm going? The most powerful jackhammer of reason and evidence can not get through the wall of dogma that these folks have built around themselves. If it can't be hammered into the Biblical mold of How Things Happened, it is declared "bad science" or heresy and discarded. A fact, totally ignored based on a preconceived set of ideals. It is so sad.

As laymen, we are only exposed to the tiniest fraction of biological and geological science that is done day in and day out every single day that supports evolution and natural selection every time. Evolution is falsifiable by definition, yet nothing discovered since Darwin wrote Origin of Species has done so. If it were to happen, and it could happen, the theory would be trashed and they'd have to figure out another way of looking at the evidence. It's pretty unlikely though.

I urge you to do an internet search and look at some of the papers that are published online.They can be boring and dry, but they will open your eyes to the real science that goes on behind the scenes and allow you to hopefully grasp why evolution is accepted as fact by the vast majority of scientists. Trust me, there is no debate. Ben Stein is full of shit.

One more thing: many creationists like to throw around the phrase "It's just a theory". Do you know what a theory is in the realm of science? Analysis of facts and their relation to one another. Have a quick look at this page for a better explanation. It's a quick read, and it has a comic!!

No guessing, no speculation is needed or wanted. Evolution is widely considered as fact. The theory of evolution is the study of how and when animals lived and died, how they change over time, and how it all works together.

[AFPheonix]

Not necessarily. I don't agree with you, but I won't flame you. I think it is perfectly acceptable for a science teacher to tell the class that at this point there are lots of things we don't know. Science is ok with not knowing, but it will find out, as long as it is a measurable, testable thing.

But still, philosophy does not belong in a nuts and bolts class like science. One, it confuses the issue, two, there's simply too much to go over material-wise as it is. A section on ethics would be perfectly suitable for upper level classes, but unfortunately bringing in unmeasurable and untestable ideas like chi and whatnot I find to be unacceptable in a class that is all about the measurable and testable.

[Slytovhand]

A) to Jaded... I also would urge you to do some research on ID. No, not the Creationist version - the scientific and philosophical version (not 'scientific' as in 'it's a science', but as in 'those scientists who don't subscribe to any particular religion, yet still can't call themselves an atheist' version).

I'll put this into really big print to get my point across... INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT THE SAME AS CREATIONISM!!!

And remember - this is coming from a PAGAN!!!!

Sure, sprout off all the crap that creationists talk about, and how they bought into the whole ID thing... but don't for a minute suggest that the 2 are one and the same thing!

For one thing - ID fully supports the science behind evolution! for that matter, evolution supports ID.

Please - read some of the stuff not being sprouted by the christians....


AFP... (I'll get your initials right sometime I'll have to go editing some other posts now....)

Point 1 - yep, I agree with that. Science can be a bugger at the best of times, so I was only suggesting it hit the physics as a small interesting discussion topic.

Point 2 - if ethics is unmeasurble and untestable, why does it have a place, where discussion of where the universe is not? Yes, I'm talking philosophy (not religion...). Chi - actually, it is measurable and testable! It has been tested (maybe not rigourously and thoroughly enough to pass the scientific theory test, but it has been done. Can't say that it is therefore unmeasurable nor untestable. Just hasn't had enough done yet...


Super big question then, based on

Science is ok with not knowing, but it will find out], as long as it is a measurable, testable thing.

Does that mean that only things that are measurable and testable by us humans (or any other races that we deem compatible enough) exist? Is it possible for things to exist that we will never know about? Hey - first thought that comes to mind is alternate dimensions.... Oh, we've got the maths that 'prove' they exist... but doesn't actually prove they do.

As I think I've said, I do think it's a great idea that kids learn that science has it's limits, and just because science is completely unable to prove or disprove something, does not make that thing any less real or valid. Teaching that in religion or humanities would be a complete waste of time and effort (as the creationists will oh so gladly tell you )

[Boozy]

A) to Jaded... I also would urge you to do some research on ID. No, not the Creationist version - the scientific and philosophical version (not 'scientific' as in 'it's a science', but as in 'those scientists who don't subscribe to any particular religion, yet still can't call themselves an atheist' version)....
Please - read some of the stuff not being sprouted by the christians....

I would do so, but I haven't any clue where to look. It would be very helpful if you provided us with some links. Wading through the internet looking for NON-Christian intelligent design theories is like finding a needle in a haystack.

[Slytovhand]

See what I can do, Boozy. Actually, I was thinking of checking through my notes (have a feeling trawling the net will be easier )


Edit: finding stuff...


This page has a stack of links - it's for a uni lecture, so isn't too bad. Still fairly concentrated with Christian stuff though.

I found this one as well - but it's more useful for looking at some of the specific arguments - both for and against. The bottom has links that the individual proponents would suggest. (personally, I don't have much time for Dembski, but I like Behe (I think - might be confusing him with someone else. And, as I've said, I really like Paul Davies - who isn't on this site Probably cos he's Australian, and isn't christian )

Thomas Woodward has written a couple of books on the history of the ID debate (but I haven't read them). The comments made in Amazon seem to indicate that what he has to say is 'fair' regarding this debate - from both sides. Also, apparently the science is well outlined... First & Second. Might be worth taking a brief look at the comments at the bottom.

Here is an interview explaining the basics, by a couple of those on both sides of the fence...

Now... my preferred author...One, two, three is a review of one of his books, four is better...

Ok, this does come from the biased camp, but is from a purportedly non-biased astrophysicist. This basically is the reasoning why I'm in the ID camp. (personally, Micheal Behe's stuff on the flagellum has been debunked - because it presumes that it was designed that way, rather than being the last and, rather coincidentally, useful, in a long line of changes. Plenty of things that came and went before it which was useful - and sometimes not - and now you end up with it. Sort of like tonsils... they probably used to have a purpose - but now??)

More theory... - with criticism and arguement for and against.

And lastly, while I'm at work, I can't hear or access this stuff, but I'm hoping it's good.

Does this help at all??

Slyt

[AFPheonix]

Point 2 - if ethics is unmeasurble and untestable, why does it have a place, where discussion of where the universe is not? Yes, I'm talking philosophy (not religion...). Chi - actually, it is measurable and testable! It has been tested (maybe not rigourously and thoroughly enough to pass the scientific theory test, but it has been done. Can't say that it is therefore unmeasurable nor untestable. Just hasn't had enough done yet...

Until Chi can be measured in terms of units (say wattage or some such) then it unfortunately must remain in the realm of the untestable and not of the natural world. We discussed ethics in several classes, including Molecular Biology in college and some other 400 level classes. I feel that is appropriate for budding scientists at that point to remember how their research affects the rest of the world. That is why those belong in higher level science classes. I feel that even your version if ID is best placed in a philosophy or comparative religion class because it is dependent more on individual truth. Your version of a creator is obviously not the same as my mother's. Does either have to be wrong or right? In any case, it is not provable, nor of the realm of the natural world.

Does that mean that only things that are measurable and testable by us humans (or any other races that we deem compatible enough) exist? Is it possible for things to exist that we will never know about? Hey - first thought that comes to mind is alternate dimensions.... Oh, we've got the maths that 'prove' they exist... but doesn't actually prove they do.

As I think I've said, I do think it's a great idea that kids learn that science has it's limits, and just because science is completely unable to prove or disprove something, does not make that thing any less real or valid. Teaching that in religion or humanities would be a complete waste of time and effort (as the creationists will oh so gladly tell you )

No, it just means that only things that are measurable and testable belong in a science class. Things that are more ephemeral and spiritual belong in a philosophy or religion class. That is the only point I am attempting to make. My personal, spiritual truth is not yours. Nor is yours mine. I'm really ok with that.
I do think humanities are a great place to teach that sort of thing. I think that every school should have philosophy classes again, because they teach kids how to think for themselves. I do not agree with kids having only classes in which they only have the opportunity to learn stuff by rote, only to forget it after their standardized test.

[Jadedcarguy]

A) to Jaded... I also would urge you to do some research on ID. No, not the Creationist version - the scientific and philosophical version (not 'scientific' as in 'it's a science', but as in 'those scientists who don't subscribe to any particular religion, yet still can't call themselves an atheist' version).

I'll look at the links you provided. Not tonite, have to work tomorrow.

I'll try to keep an open mind.

[Slytovhand]

***Warning - long post ahead****

Firstly - disclaimer... I only briefly skimmed over those sites, so it is quite possible there is some crap in there Also, there could be some doubling up.

Secondly - this is basically the reason I am an ID person (these quotes are also from somewhere in those links...)

Stephen Hawking wrote, "If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached it present state." Slightly faster than the critical rate and matter would have dispersed too rapidly to allow stars and galaxies to form. George Smoot describes the creation even[t] as "finely orchestrated."

"The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation ... His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

Albert Einstein

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Sir Fred Hoyle

“We do, of course, have an alternative. We could say that there was no creation, and that the universe has always been here. But this is even more difficult to accept than creation.”

Barry Parker
Creation—the Story of the Origin and Evolution of the Universe

"Every one of these forces must have just the right strength if there is to be any possibility of life. For example, if electrical forces were much stronger than they are, then no element heavier than hydrogen could form ... But electrical repulsion cannot be too weak. if it were, protons would combine too easily, and the sun ...(assuming that it had somehow managed to exist up to now) would explode like a thermonuclear bomb."

Richard Morris
The Fate of the Universe

Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias:

In summary, therefore, astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say "supernatural"), plan.

(from The New York Times, Jan. 2, 1979)

Obviously - these merely quotes and in no way constitute 'proof' (obviously), but gives an idea of where I stand.

I prefer to think that the universe is like a massive jigsaw puzzle, and every tiny piece of 'necessity' that makes this universe work the way it does (electron spins, co-efficients, atomic valences etc etc) all fits perfectly together. Not just that they all fit into 1 box, but that they all fit into a coherent whole - a picture that is recognisable and coherent. It is rational and reasonable. There is no 'chaos', no 'randomness'. If something doesn't seem to fit, there is a 'reason' for it. The fact that science can give answers says to me that it has all been put together so that answers are possible - they make sense.. the universe appears to be 'intelligible'.

Now, unless you accept multiple universes, or that this has happened almost immeasureable times before, then it's one hell of a leap of faith to say we got all that right in just 1 showing (ie - Big Bang happened once, and once only). "It just is" doesn't cut it for me.

Ok, done now...

[Jadedcarguy]

I can't speak for the rest of those guys, but you must know that Einstein was an atheist.

[Jadedcarguy]

OK Slyt, I read through your links and honestly there is nothing there that is new or compelling, simply the same old same old of looking at the complexity of all that is, not being able to fathom what can happen over billions of years because the human mind is unable to grasp how long that truly is, and swan-diving off the cliff of assumption.

Think about what we know now as a species. Compare it to what we knew 100 years ago. 200. 300. 1000. We didn't know shit back then and compared to what we will know in another 100 or 200 years, we don't know shit now. Think about what people will think of us in 200 years. We will be their "primitives".

Evolution is real. It is testable, repeatable, and potentially falsifiable. ID is not. ID is wishful thinking based on the human mind's inability to accept that we are animals.

I don't mean to say that we should behave like animals. We shouldn't. We are self aware. I'd go so far as to say we are the only life form on the planet that is truly self aware(don't talk to me about dolphins or apes. they may be close, but they're not self aware). Because of that we are able to grasp how our actions affect other people, other animals, other cultures, the environment, and society. From that alone stems morality, right and wrong. We don't need dogma or a desire to please an immaterial sky daddy in order to behave. It comes from being decent to others out of a desire to have others be decent to us. That would be a far easier task globally if we would all simply stop worrying about who's sky daddy is better.

Eliminating ID brings us one step closer to eliminating religiously derived walls and boundaries.

[Flyndaran]

I can't speak for the rest of those guys, but you must know that Einstein was an atheist.

First off, as much as I would like to include Einstein as a fellow non-believer, he most definitely not an atheist. One of his most well known quotes involves god not playing dice. That was why he never could understand quantum physics, despite it being a natural outgrowth of his own theories.

Of course what one astrophysicist thinks about theology matters... Wait, no it doesn't mean squat.
I wouldn't care what my mechanic says about cooking.