ID in public schools

[SpiritMeadow]

Here’s what I was going to say:

However, I do have a question for the anti-ID’ers. If the universe wasn’t intelligently designed, as some of you appear to think, then how did it happen?

DaveBj

I hazard to speak for others but i really don’t think most anti-ID’ers dont believe in a God creator who apparently chose the medium of evolution as a method for changing life over time. That’s certainly what I believe.

 

[DaveBj]

I hazard to speak for others but i really don’t think most anti-ID’ers dont believe in a God creator who apparently chose the medium of evolution as a method for changing life over time. That’s certainly what I believe.

Sorry–the multiplicity of negatives in that sentence is confoozin’. So you’re saying that you do believe in a God creator who apparently chose the medium of evolution as a method for changing life over time?

How does that negate the concept of intelligent design? If that were true, it would still be “design,” and there’s still a major Intelligence behind it.

DaveBj

 

[rtconstant]

Sorry–the multiplicity of negatives in that sentence is confoozin’. So you’re saying that you do believe in a God creator who apparently chose the medium of evolution as a method for changing life over time?

How does that negate the concept of intelligent design? If that were true, it would still be “design,” and there’s still a major Intelligence behind it.

DaveBj

I’m glad you asked that. I’ve been wondering the same thing. I’ve noticed that some posters seem to be espousing a concept of evolution wherein God is either absent or uninvolved. Now, I’m not trying to put words in anyone’s mouth if I have picked up the wrong “vibe” then by all means clarify.

As to the question of ID I think (or at least I hope) that the objection to ID springs more from the fact ID is more than a concept of a divinely initiated and guided evolution. ID espouses at times specific theories and arguments that it asserts to be true dispite a lack of evidence. An exampel would be: Irreducible Complexity which while a creative concept is far from bullet proof. ID runs into problems because it tries to out-science science, and ends up intellectually dishonest.

Now from a philosophical point of view I think you do make a good observation Dave. While internally Christians can see a difference between various view points on the origin of the universe and its denizens. I would say that those on the outside looking in would see little to no difference between a theistic evolutionist and an ID. Both positions ultimately claim to espouse an objective scientific point of view while arbitrarily accepting miracles and divine intervention into their paradigm.

 

[The_Barbarian]

However, I do have a question for the anti-ID’ers. If the universe wasn’t intelligently designed, as some of you appear to think, then how did it happen?

Created. With no planning, organizing, figuring out, or design necessary. God is much more powerful and capable than IDers would like Him to be.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Now from a philosophical point of view I think you do make a good observation Dave. While internally Christians can see a difference between various view points on the origin of the universe and its denizens. I would say that those on the outside looking in would see little to no difference between a theistic evolutionist and an ID.

That should be a tip-off in itself, um?

Both positions ultimately claim to espouse an objective scientific point of view while arbitrarily accepting miracles and divine intervention into their paradigm.

The difference is that Christians don’t feel compelled to have science support their religious beliefs, and IDers do. I realize some Christians accept ID, but it is not a Christian doctrine.

 

[edwest2]

Apparently, Barbarian thinks he knows the mind of God. It seems the consequences of putting ID into public schools would be minimal. The fallout would be primarily ideological, with the ‘fundies’ gaining dollars and some bit of power. I think Intelligent Design is an excellent and workable concept that fits into what God can do.

It would not surprise me if it comes out that ID was a concept that was derailed by purely political forces bent on developing a secular-humanist America. It does not appear that their momentum can be maintained in light of the power of God.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Apparently, Barbarian thinks he knows the mind of God.

I know He is omnipotent, and thereby has no need of design as creatures do.

It seems the consequences of putting ID into public schools would be minimal.

It could legally be included in a philosophy or comparative religions course. It is no weirder than Wicca or many other new religions.

 

[Ghosty]

What would be the consequences of teaching ID in public school science classes?

Thanks,
Ed

The main consequence I can think of is that more discerning parents would then send their children to private Catholic schools where “Intelligent Design Theory” would never be put in a science class because such schools know how to distinguish between good scientific theory, good theology, and pseudo-intellectual quackery.

So the consequence would be more money for good Catholic schools…so I say bring on the ID.

As for the person who asked if those of us who oppose Intelligent Design Theory don’t believe in God as an intelligent designer, I would answer that OF COURSE I believe in God as an intelligent designer. What’s more, I believe that this fact can be known without any faith at all, but rather through pure human reasoning. What it CAN’T be known by, however, is the “scientific theory” called Intelligent Design, which takes a poor philosophical approach to the question of God, and an even poorer approach to science. I respect God, science, and the minds He granted us by His infallible design too much to believe in Intelligent Design.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Steve40]

What would be the consequences of teaching ID in public school science classes?

Thanks,
Ed

Ed

to some extent it is. It is called Biology. The truth of the incredible design and complexity can’t be hidden. The coupling of a study of sound engineering and life studies is inherently ID studies. In my view openly teaching ID instead of just letting it be discovered would make for better scientists and engineers.

The study of design patterns is a good way to learn engineering.

 

[Steve40]

The main consequence I can think of is that more discerning parents would then send their children to private Catholic schools where “Intelligent Design Theory” would never be put in a science class because such schools know how to distinguish between good scientific theory, good theology, and pseudo-intellectual quackery.

!

I’ve got some news for you. Some of our Cathlic kids boldly bring ID into the Catholic schools with the understanding that they come against the mother of modernist heresey.

The battle against modernism is conducted by the Holy Spirit and if teachers are not willing to listen to Him, He will use students.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The truth of the incredible design and complexity can’t be hidden.

So far, it’s just a belief, without any evidence for it. No one can actually identify any design in nature.

The coupling of a study of sound engineering and life studies is inherently ID studies.

Actually, it’s going the other way. Engineers have realized that evolutionary processes are more effective than design for complex systems. They are now using “genetic algorithms”, simulations of natural selection, to solve problems in very complex systems that are not possible with design. It turns out God was a lot smarter than some people think He is.

In my view openly teaching ID instead of just letting it be discovered would make for better scientists and engineers.

Quite the opposite; engineers, learning how evolutionary theory produces order and function, have adapted it to their work.

tinyurl.com/38s5nw

The study of design patterns is a good way to learn engineering.

Rather, the study of evolution is a good way to advance engineering.

 

[Ghosty]

Engineers have realized that evolutionary processes are more effective than design for complex systems. They are now using “genetic algorithms”, simulations of natural selection, to solve problems in very complex systems that are not possible with design. It turns out God was a lot smarter than some people think He is.

Bingo!

It is precisely because there is NOT “irreducible complexity” in evolution that is leading programmers to utilize such ideas in the development of new programs and algorithms. God is such a good designer that He has established systems that automatically give rise to His designs; there is absolutely no need whatsoever for God to miraculously intervene to make a bacterium develop a tail, for example. In short, the best proof of God that the evolutionary system offers up is that it DOESN’T require intelligent “intervention”, but rather operates according to its design naturally.

What many ID proponents seem to fail to understand is that the lack of “irreducible complexity” doesn’t eliminate the need for an intelligence behind the system (basic philosophy has proven the need for such an intelligence since the time of Plato and Aristotle; it is only modern atheists who seem to have cut themselves off from this fundamental principle of human reason, proving the Scriptural bit of wisdom: “the fool has said there is no God”). This is why real proof of God is best left to philosophy and theology, rather than to material science which can’t really touch on the substance of the matter. Only God can supply the “nature” of the evolutionary process, and only God can constantly give being to all things that grow and change (i.e. everything that exists). Nothing needs to be irreducibly complex to prove/necessitate an active deity.

We can’t deduce God purely through studying mechanics; even examining a watch scientifically doesn’t tell you that there is a creator behind it! What’s more, the philosophical proofs for God don’t touch on “irreducible complexity”, but rather on the fact that mechanisms don’t set themselves in motion to act in a certain way (Aquinas’ Fifth Proof, often called the “Proof from Design”, but not at all the same as the “proof” ID utilizes).

Remember, the God we believe in is not just the author of intentional occurances, but is ALSO the author of “pure chance”. In fact, God’s will is so utterly all-pervasive that nothing can be called “chance” in relation to God, but can be called chance within the system of creatures. God is the cause of all cause, including chance causes.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Reepicheep]

If I take a theology course, and find that the teacher spends significant time on teaching physics or biology, I would be quite upset. I came to theology class to learn theology, not physics.
If I take a history course, I do not want to see the instructor devoting time to chemistry - I could take a chemistry course for that. If I take a physics course, I do not want the instructor to offer lessons in theology.

Intelligent Design may be true, but it’s not physics, nor chemistry nor biology. It has no place in such courses.

 

[ricmat]

Actually, it’s going the other way. Engineers have realized that evolutionary processes are more effective than design for complex systems. They are now using “genetic algorithms”, simulations of natural selection, to solve problems in very complex systems that are not possible with design. It turns out God was a lot smarter than some people think He is.

Quite the opposite; engineers, learning how evolutionary theory produces order and function, have adapted it to their work.

tinyurl.com/38s5nw

Rather, the study of evolution is a good way to advance engineering.

The process Barbarian describes as “genetic algorithms” are what my kids learned in elementary math classes as “guess and check”. Instead of learning how to e.g. divide 100 by 9, you guess that the answer is “10”, then when you check (multiply 9 x 10) you get 90. So you guess again, 11, and you get 99. Then you guess again, 12, and you get 108. then you try 11.5, etc. So eventually (very eventually) you get close to the right answer.

You all might also have heard this technique referred to as “trial and error.”

Advanced?

 

[Steve40]

Bingo!

It is precisely because there is NOT “irreducible complexity” in evolution that is leading programmers to utilize such ideas in the development of new programs and algorithms. God is such a good designer that He has established systems that automatically give rise to His designs; there is absolutely no need whatsoever for God to miraculously intervene to make a bacterium develop a tail, for example. In short, the best proof of God that the evolutionary system offers up is that it DOESN’T require intelligent “intervention”, but rather operates according to its design naturally.

What many ID proponents seem to fail to understand is that the lack of “irreducible complexity” doesn’t eliminate the need for an intelligence behind the system (basic philosophy has proven the need for such an intelligence since the time of Plato and Aristotle; it is only modern atheists who seem to have cut themselves off from this fundamental principle of human reason, proving the Scriptural bit of wisdom: “the fool has said there is no God”). This is why real proof of God is best left to philosophy and theology, rather than to material science which can’t really touch on the substance of the matter. Only God can supply the “nature” of the evolutionary process, and only God can constantly give being to all things that grow and change (i.e. everything that exists). Nothing needs to be irreducibly complex to prove/necessitate an active deity.

We can’t deduce God purely through studying mechanics; even examining a watch scientifically doesn’t tell you that there is a creator behind it! What’s more, the philosophical proofs for God don’t touch on “irreducible complexity”, but rather on the fact that mechanisms don’t set themselves in motion to act in a certain way (Aquinas’ Fifth Proof, often called the “Proof from Design”, but not at all the same as the “proof” ID utilizes).

Remember, the God we believe in is not just the author of intentional occurances, but is ALSO the author of “pure chance”. In fact, God’s will is so utterly all-pervasive that nothing can be called “chance” in relation to God, but can be called chance within the system of creatures. God is the cause of all cause, including chance causes.

Peace and God bless!

Computer programs do not design themselves any more than the information designed into your body developed due to a natural process. There would be no driving force or reason in natural selection for you to have much of the functionality that you have. If there is a plausible mechanism for evolution it must have taken a lot of creativity to come up with.

It’s OK to say you don’t know. Don’t be afraid of it.

 

[Reepicheep]

The process Barbarian describes as “genetic algorithms” are what my kids learned in elementary math classes as “guess and check”. Instead of learning how to e.g. divide 100 by 9, you guess that the answer is “10”, then when you check (multiply 9 x 10) you get 90. So you guess again, 11, and you get 99. Then you guess again, 12, and you get 108. then you try 11.5, etc. So eventually (very eventually) you get close to the right answer.

You all might also have heard this technique referred to as “trial and error.”

Advanced?

I would guess that this “genetic algorithm” technique has become possible only because the newest computers are capable of running through incredible numbers of possible combinations in a short time. Hence “trial and error” has become a practical technique.

This proves nothing either way about the subject under discussion.

 

[Steve40]

If I take a theology course, and find that the teacher spends significant time on teaching physics or biology, I would be quite upset. I came to theology class to learn theology, not physics.
If I take a history course, I do not want to see the instructor devoting time to chemistry - I could take a chemistry course for that. If I take a physics course, I do not want the instructor to offer lessons in theology.

Intelligent Design may be true, but it’s not physics, nor chemistry nor biology. It has no place in such courses.

That’s right it is engineering and the only useful reason for physics chemisty and biology. Science without applied science is a lot of hot air.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The process Barbarian describes as “genetic algorithms” are what my kids learned in elementary math classes as “guess and check”. Instead of learning how to e.g. divide 100 by 9, you guess that the answer is “10”, then when you check (multiply 9 x 10) you get 90. So you guess again, 11, and you get 99. Then you guess again, 12, and you get 108. then you try 11.5, etc. So eventually (very eventually) you get close to the right answer.

You all might also have heard this technique referred to as “trial and error.”

Advanced?

Yep. But simple. This is why, for example, engineers were able to greatly improve the efficiency and clean combustion of diesels by evolutionary processes, when design couldn’t do it.

I don’t mean to oversimplify; this is a very sophisticated approach, but it is simple concept:

**The simplest algorithm represents each chromosome as a bit string. Typically, numeric parameters can be represented by integers, though it is possible to use floating point representations. The floating point representation is natural to evolution strategies and evolutionary programming. The notion of real-valued genetic algorithms has been offered but is really a misnomer because it does not really represent the building block theory that was proposed by Holland in the 1970s. This theory is not without support though, based on theoretical and experimental results (see below). The basic algorithm performs crossover and mutation at the bit level. Other variants treat the chromosome as a list of numbers which are indexes into an instruction table, nodes in a linked list, hashes, objects, or any other imaginable data structure. Crossover and mutation are performed so as to respect data element boundaries. For most data types, specific variation operators can be designed. Different chromosomal data types seem to work better or worse for different specific problem domains.

When bit strings representations of integers are used, Gray coding is often employed. In this way, small changes in the integer can be readily effected through mutations or crossovers. This has been found to help prevent premature convergence at so called Hamming walls, in which too many simultaneous mutations (or crossover events) must occur in order to change the chromosome to a better solution.

Other approaches involve using arrays of real-valued numbers instead of bit strings to represent chromosomes. Theoretically, the smaller the alphabet, the better the performance, but paradoxically, good results have been obtained from using real-valued chromosomes.**
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm

Not quite what your kids do, um? The lesson is not only that evolution works better than design, it’s also that the system is cleaner and simpler, too.

God is a lot smarter than IDers would like to think.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I would guess that this “genetic algorithm” technique has become possible only because the newest computers are capable of running through incredible numbers of possible combinations in a short time. Hence “trial and error” has become a practical technique.

This proves nothing either way about the subject under discussion.

It only demonstrates that natural selection is a much better problem-solver than design.

(Cue God in “The Holy Grail”)

“OF COURSE IT’S A GOOD IDEA!”

 

[The_Barbarian]

Intelligent Design may be true, but it’s not physics, nor chemistry nor biology. It has no place in such courses.

Steve40:
That’s right it is engineering and the only useful reason for physics chemisty and biology. Science without applied science is a lot of hot air.

ID isn’t engineering. In fact, engineering is going in exactly the opposite direction. ID is a religion, the official doctrine of the Unification Church.