Intelligently designed?

[A.Saturnus]

I´m an atheist and a scientist. And an European. Maybe that´s why I don´t understand all the fuss about the "intelligent design" idea. It seems some people in America want to get "intelligent design" into school books. Others are vehemently against it. It is of course, the question what students should learn and who has a right to determ that. But lets be clear about one thing: evolutionary biology is certainly no bad science. The Theory of Evolution as it is currently seen by the majority of scientists in the world is one of the best researched fields of science. It is a more coherent theory than the Theory of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. And "intelligent design" is no part of it. Lets not get into a discussion about that. If you doubt it, study biology please.
But with a little understanding one can see that it is also sometimes a bit hard to swallow for believers. Science was not invented to please religious feelings. It is no part of the scientific cosmology that some god may have created the universe. Gods generally make bad scientific theories. That much should actually be obvious to anyone. Whether god exists or not, no one can claim without sounding preposterous to know the precise nature of any god. But exactly this would be necessary to make it scientifically useful. The claim "God made the flowers grow" isn´t scientific worthwhile unless you can tell how he did it, why he did it and what would have been the consequence if some variable had been different. Who would want that?
Now this explains why religious appeals have no place in science and when students, when they learn science should learn the scientific consensus that is naturally - because of said reasons - free of any hypothesis about god.
But science was also not invented to turn people into atheists. When someone believes in god, the scientific consensus is a bit unsatisfying. The scientific theory of evolution does not say god did anything with living creatures, the laws of thermodynamics do not even allow him to interfere with the world in any way. So, naturally the reasonable believer - the one who doesn´t reject these theories right away - simply chooses to believe that god was responsible for the Big Bang, influences evolution from time to time and bends the laws of thermodynamics whenever he sees fit. These claims are scientifically pointless but they satisfy religious feelings and - that´s the point I like - they aren´t absurd. You can´t prove that god did not influence chances of mutation a few times or that small extra bits of energy didn´t appear contrary to physical laws. These things are loopholes, of course. But loopholes that should make it possible for believers and unbelievers not to yell at each other.
That´s why intelligent design is something else than creationism. That creationism that claims evolution is a lie and the world is only 6000 years old is intellectually so far off that it cannot coexist with science without problems. But intelligent design can, because it is a loophole. And even though I think it should be made clear to students what the scientific consensus is, I also don´t see a reason these loopholes should be kept out of school entirely. School books don´t need to say "and there´s absolute no option that god plays a role in this". School books over biology should be about biology and not theology, but god is - even an atheist must admit as much - part of everyday life and if a teachers mentions a religious loophole that doesn´t endanger the students´ chance to establish a view of their own. In the contrary, it gives the believers among the students the chance to combine science and faith, without rejecting any of the two.
It seems in America, the classroom has become a battlefield and both sides think if they give up an inch than students will be inevitably pulled to the other side. Let scientists decide what to write in science books and common sense what to talk about: anything that can broaden their view.

Maybe instead, science books should wear a sticker saying: "It´s only a damn science book!"
After all, about half of what it contains will be wrong anyway...

[Kagemusha]

Sorry mate,but i dont understand as a believer why i couldnt also support the theory of evolution?There is no description what God is in any religious texts.If good is everything "he" doesnt have to effect anything because everything just is.I think that everything is energy in different forms and the God is all that energy combined.

[Aenlic]

You've hit on the difference between the two, really.

Evolution does not preclude some "intelligent designer" guiding it. It doesn't support it either. Evolution is neutral on the subject of a Supreme Being; but the concept of "intelligent design" is intended to directly contradict evolution, because evolution does contradict some other beliefs beside the belief in a Supreme Being. Beliefs such as the celebrated Archbishop of Canterbury who "figured" out the beginning of the world using the Bible to be something like 4900 BC. Evolution does contradict that kind of nonsense. Evolution contradicts literal interpretations, such as Eve being created from a rib of Adam, or the story of Noah's Ark and other things. Those who cling to such literal stories, like the Evangelical Christians, need "intelligent design" as an argument against evolution because of that.

The real intent, when you get right down to it, is that the religious people want to preserve their hold on the pliant minds of their children, thus preserving their early indoctrination into their religion. They don't want things taught to their children which might contradict their religious indoctrination and cause questioning of "the faith" - whatever that faith might be.

[Hurin_Rules]

But it is not the duty of science to point out every other non-scientific theory that evolution might not contradict. Science should deal with and only with scientific theories. If you're going to point out that evolution leaves space for 'intelligent design,' which has no basis in science, why should you not also point out that science doesn't rule out the possibility that aliens live amongst us, or that ghosts exist, or that our souls are reincarnated? None of it has any place in a science class. Leave that to religious studies and history.

[A.Saturnus]

But it is not the duty of science to point out every other non-scientific theory that evolution might not contradict. Science should deal with and only with scientific theories. If you're going to point out that evolution leaves space for 'intelligent design,' which has no basis in science, why should you not also point out that science doesn't rule out the possibility that aliens live amongst us, or that ghosts exist, or that our souls are reincarnated? None of it has any place in a science class. Leave that to religious studies and history.

But that seems so narrow-minded. What is school, an indoctrination factory or a place to learn? I´m not saying religion should be systematically brought up in science class, but I´m against putting narrow restrictions on what may be mentioned. What if a student asks "where´s the place of god in that?", is the teacher to silence him because he mentioned something forbidden? I don´t want a school that does nothing but putting facts into children´s heads. There needs to be a discourse in school and you cannot restrict a discourse in that way. What is needed is clearity, not restrictions.

[Hurin_Rules]

But that seems so narrow-minded. What is school, an indoctrination factory or a place to learn? I´m not saying religion should be systematically brought up in science class, but I´m against putting narrow restrictions on what may be mentioned. What if a student asks "where´s the place of god in that?", is the teacher to silence him because he mentioned something forbidden? I don´t want a school that does nothing but putting facts into children´s heads. There needs to be a discourse in school and you cannot restrict a discourse in that way. What is needed is clearity, not restrictions.

School is a place to learn--free of indoctrination into religion.

If the student asks where the place of God is, the teacher should tell him/her that science can't answer that question, and that he/she should take the matter up in religion or history class. If someone asks your Physical Education teacher when the Battle of Trafalgar was, or what tactics the British used to win even while outnumbered, do you think he or she should be required to answer it?

[Soulforged]

School is a place to learn--free of indoctrination into religion.

If the student asks where the place of God is, the teacher should tell him/her that science can't answer that question, and that he/she should take the matter up in religion or history class. If someone asks your Physical Education teacher when the Battle of Trafalgar was, or what tactics the British used to win even while outnumbered, do you think he or she should be required to answer it?

You're incorrect. The teacher should say God isn't in a place, it's in everyplace.
Then when you come back to physics the teacher would say that nothing existent can be in the same place at the same time. But sure what does it matter if you confuse your students. The physics gives practical results, rufetables and comprobables, religion doesn't have this caracteristc.

[A.Saturnus]

School is a place to learn--free of indoctrination into religion.

If the student asks where the place of God is, the teacher should tell him/her that science can't answer that question, and that he/she should take the matter up in religion or history class. If someone asks your Physical Education teacher when the Battle of Trafalgar was, or what tactics the British used to win even while outnumbered, do you think he or she should be required to answer it?

I never said he should be required, I say it should not be forbidden. I ask you, should it be allowed for a teacher to say that he stopped smoking in science class?

[Kagemusha]

You've hit on the difference between the two, really.

Evolution does not preclude some "intelligent designer" guiding it. It doesn't support it either. Evolution is neutral on the subject of a Supreme Being; but the concept of "intelligent design" is intended to directly contradict evolution, because evolution does contradict some other beliefs beside the belief in a Supreme Being. Beliefs such as the celebrated Archbishop of Canterbury who "figured" out the beginning of the world using the Bible to be something like 4900 BC. Evolution does contradict that kind of nonsense. Evolution contradicts literal interpretations, such as Eve being created from a rib of Adam, or the story of Noah's Ark and other things. Those who cling to such literal stories, like the Evangelical Christians, need "intelligent design" as an argument against evolution because of that.

The real intent, when you get right down to it, is that the religious people want to preserve their hold on the pliant minds of their children, thus preserving their early indoctrination into their religion. They don't want things taught to their children which might contradict their religious indoctrination and cause questioning of "the faith" - whatever that faith might be.

Im not talking about theology nor theory of Evolution by Charles Darwin or Bible.Because those are all just texts written by man.Im talking about the fact that it has been proved that evolution happens in Nature but it hasnt been proved that there cant be a God.

[Pindar]

God is not a principle of science. Only what is applicable to the method and focus of science should be taught in science classrooms.

Intelligent Design (ID) is not a new idea. It is a refurbishment of a rather old idea. It is basically tied to the classical teleological argument. As such, it faces the same merits and demerits of the same. Many of the points (in fact some of the exact same examples) often used by ID proponents actually appear in Bergson's turn of the Twentieth Century work "Creative Evolution".

I think one of the difficulties facing U.S. School Districts and this issue is that there is a strong anti-intellectual strain behind much of Fundamentalist Christianity (FC). Initially this religious approach coped with Modernity by divorcing itself from the public square. This changed in the late Seventies: groups like the Moral Majority serve as examples. The FC push for political power was/is in many ways a reactionary movement. This same sentiment applies to many larger academic issues which are seen as threats to revealed truth. Secular investigature of "truth" is often taken as pernicious because the base assumptions are not the same. Until this feeling can be overcome the friction will continue.

[ichi]

God is not a principle of science. Only what is applicable to the method and focus of science should be taught in science classrooms.

Intelligent Design (ID) is not a new idea. It is a refurbishment of a rather old idea. It is basically tied to the classical teleological argument. As such, it faces the same merits and demerits of the same. Many of the points (in fact some of the exact same examples) often used by ID proponents actually appear in Bergson's turn of the Twentieth Century work "Creative Evolution".

I think one of the difficulties facing U.S. School Districts and this issue is that there is a strong anti-intellectual strain behind much of Fundamentalist Christianity (FC). Initially this religious approach coped with Modernity by divorcing itself from the public square. This changed in the late Seventies: groups like the Moral Majority serve as examples. The FC push for political power was/is in many ways a reactionary movement. This same sentiment applies to many larger academic issues which are seen as threats to revealed truth. Secular investigature of "truth" is often taken as pernicious because the base assumptions are not the same. Until this feeling can be overcome the friction will continue.

Pretty much nailed it, as usual

ichi

[Kagemusha]

Sorry Aenlic but im not pushing anything.I dont even know what Christian fundamentalist´s are pushing in your country.Last time i checked my countrys law we have freedom of religion over here and if parents dont want their children be tought religion in school it can be done.And about logig and religion.Religion is belief not logig.Good thing about personal beliefs is that i dont have to proof them scientificly or any other way to anyone.It sounds like your religion is science.If it makes you happy,thats good.

[Pindar]

Pretty much nailed it, as usual

ichi

[A.Saturnus]

I think one of the difficulties facing U.S. School Districts and this issue is that there is a strong anti-intellectual strain behind much of Fundamentalist Christianity (FC). Initially this religious approach coped with Modernity by divorcing itself from the public square. This changed in the late Seventies: groups like the Moral Majority serve as examples. The FC push for political power was/is in many ways a reactionary movement. This same sentiment applies to many larger academic issues which are seen as threats to revealed truth. Secular investigature of "truth" is often taken as pernicious because the base assumptions are not the same. Until this feeling can be overcome the friction will continue.

But isn´t it so that for FC, intelligent design is already heresy? I would think that most non-fundamentalist christians believe in intelligent design. What role could God play otherwise?

[BDC]

If you teach ID, you may as well teach astrology too. In science. As fact. Both have the same amount of scientific merit and logicity.

Besides, the Great Spaghetti Monster did it.

[Pindar]

I would think that most non-fundamentalist christians believe in intelligent design. What role could God play otherwise?

No, ID is a specific stance including among other things the belief in the irreducibility of complex systems. There is nothing within Christendom that requires that view.

[bmolsson]

Only what is applicable to the method and focus of science should be taught in science classrooms.

It doesn't have to be taught in science class, if that makes you feel uncomfortable. The whole issue is to broaden the understanding of what other people believe and respect this.
For a functional citizen in a modern society, it's irrelevant to know creation, evolution or intelligent design. It is, on the other hand, of large importance to understand why some people act and react as they do. Religion and it's attached theories are of importance to this, specially in US.

[Aenlic]

Ah, but that isn't the intent of the ID people. They want ID to be taught alongside evolution to dilute the teaching of evolution, not because they want to teach about religion.

If they want to teach ID in a class on comparative religions, then fine. Not a problem. They don't want that. It doesn't further their agenda, which is to bolster and protect the indoctrination of their children, and to spread "the word" to the heathen infidels, especially the witches who teach evolution and other heresies in the classroom. Burn 'em! Burn the witch!

You know, I just had an epiphany! I realize now why very short hair for men and appropriately styled hair for women is required at fundamentalist Chrisitian religious "schools" like Bob Jones University. It's so the wind from the passing of the Enlightenment over their heads doesn't mess up their hair too much. Come to think of it, that might also explain the fundamentalist Islamic insistence on the hijab, and the fundamentalist Jewish insistence on the yarmulka!

[Aenlic]

Im not talking about theology nor theory of Evolution by Charles Darwin or Bible.Because those are all just texts written by man.Im talking about the fact that it has been proved that evolution happens in Nature but it hasnt been proved that there cant be a God.

Exactly. It is impossible to prove there is no intelligent designer. It's a simple fact. God can not be disproven. And because of that one simple fact, "intelligent design" is not, has never been and will never be a scientific theory. Why? Because it can't be proven false. Understanding the nature of the scientific method is required. Sadly, the followers of "intelligent design" either are unfamiliar with the concept, or are deliberately ignoring the concept. Since "intelligent design" isn't a scientific thoery, it's just philosophy; and as such has no more place being taught alongside the scientific theory of evolution than any other philosophy.

So why should God be taught in schools? If someone wishes to teach his children about his religious views, then I have no problem with it at all. But when, because those religious views can't stand up to the light of reason and might suffer if the indoctrination isn't continually reinforced, creating a need for nonsense like ""intelligent design" put forward as a scientific theory alongside evolution, then I do have a problem with it. My child's education shouldn't suffer because a vocal minority want to maintain the religious indoctrination of their children within the public confines of public schools. Keep your religion where it belongs - private. If you insist on continuing the indoctrination of your children without the inconvenience of outside influences, then homeschool them or send them to private school. Just don't expect the rest of us to pay for the frailty of your views. If the logic of your religion isn't strong enough to defeat the logic of science, then the problem is your religion not the science.

[Silver Rusher]

Science was not invented to please religious feelings.

It wasn't even invented at all!