Intelligent Design in Science Class

[Michaelo]

Should ID be taught in science class? If so, should it be taught alongside evolution as an alternative? Or should it replace evolution altogether in the curriculum?

 

[Orogeny]

Should ID be taught in science class?

Of course not. Science class is for science, not theology.

Peace

Tim

 

[M0nkey]

I personally don’t see what’s wrong with teaching the structure and order of the universe, and that it does seem to have a purpose. Darwinism on the other hand is the dogmatism of meaninglessness, so it really sounds a lot more like ideology; not science.

 

[Namesake]

I personally don’t see what’s wrong with teaching the structure and order of the universe, and that it does seem to have a purpose. Darwinism on the other hand is the dogmatism of meaninglessness, so it really sounds a lot more like ideology; not science.

So then, what would a science class teach?

 

[Orogeny]

Darwinism on the other hand is the dogmatism of meaninglessness, so it really sounds a lot more like ideology; not science.

Sure it is. I suppose you make that claim based on your years of study of science, right?

Please, tell us what science sounds like. Does it sound like a story with no evidence (ID)? Does it sound like a story that has to be careful about identifying the “designer”?

Peace

Tim

 

[M0nkey]

I’ve read bodies of work on evolution, my take is Darwin was no Darwinist, these terms were used later on as 20th century ‘scientists’ revived it along side eugenics. A careful look at the laws in nature would dictate that there are fundamental laws which are unchangeable, therefore, giving rise to natural law such as gravity, relativity, heat exchange, etc.

 

[crowonsnow]

Teaching ID in a science class would be akin to teaching the garden of eden fable or some other creation myth as scientific fact. Evidence for a designer would be all the natural laws. Evidence for a talking serpent would be sickness, disease and human misfortune generally.

These unscientific stories have a place in our culture but they are not scientific pursuits.

 

[buffalo]

Only empirical science in the science classroom. That means testable, repeatable and predictable.

Students should be mandated to have a philosophy and metaphysics class.

 

[CWBetts]

Evolution teaches about the mechanism. Intelligent design teaches about the source of said mechanism. One is not an alternative to the other. That being said, in my opinion, for what its worth, science classes should not only teach evolution, but laso spend some time on the questions raised by evolution. Any good scientific thoery raises more questions. Evolution does have its critics. There is a way to discuss evolution without presenting it as enmity with God.

 

[crowonsnow]

… science classes should not only teach evolution, but laso spend some time on the questions raised by evolution. Any good scientific thoery raises more questions.

As long as they are scientific questions sure. The issue is always to what degree an astronomy class should be interrupted to discuss how the sun was made to dance around in the sky at Fatima.

If I were instructing such a class I’d suggest to the student posing the question that he design a thought experiment to duplicate the events at Fatima. Short of his responding with some Velikovskian scenario which might take a degree of explaining, I’d tell him that we cannot believe Einstein simply because he said it but because we can experimentally verify it, and that it agrees with scientific observation.

 

[CWBetts]

As long as they are scientific questions sure. The issue is always to what degree an astronomy class should be interrupted to discuss how the sun was made to dance around in the sky at Fatima.

If I were instructing such a class I’d suggest to the student posing the question that he design a thought experiment to duplicate the events at Fatima. Short of his responding with some Velikovskian scenario which might take a degree of explaining, I’d tell him that we cannot believe Einstein simply because he said it but because we can experimentally verify it, and that it agrees with scientific observation.

Obviously. For example, the mechanism that allows for changing the number of chromasomes in an organism (and thereby creating a new species) without being fatal. In most cases too much genetic information is fatal

 

[Cristiano]

I would encourage people to watch the movie “Expelled”. That it is a good way to show that the scientific community (especially USA) does not operate in a scientific manner but in a politically correct manner when it comes to dealing with diversity in scientific dogmas.

Intelligent design is not Biblical creationism. It can be consistent with creationism but does not imply it. A lot of “scientific” theories are just philosophical speculations and not provable theories. Just because they use the scientific lingo and they are aesthetically pleasing (elegant) does not mean that they are science.

 

[Michaelo]

I would encourage people to watch the movie “Expelled”. That it is a good way to show that the scientific community (especially USA) does not operate in a scientific manner but in a politically correct manner when it comes to dealing with diversity in scientific dogmas.

That was a terrible movie. The large amount of time dedicated to discussing eugenics was unnecessary and seemed to just be an attempt to smear evolution. Also, the actual scientific merits of ID were never really addressed, so it was easier to demonize the scientific community for its reaction to ID advocates.

 

[buffalo]

That was a terrible movie. The large amount of time dedicated to discussing eugenics was unnecessary and seemed to just be an attempt to smear evolution. Also, the actual scientific merits of ID were never really addressed, so it was easier to demonize the scientific community for its reaction to ID advocates.

Maybe this is better:

Zombie Science - dead but won’t lie down

Zombie science: A sinister consequence of evaluating scientific theories purely on the basis of enlightened self-interest

Although the classical ideal is that scientific theories are evaluated by a careful teasing-out of their internal logic and external implications, and checking whether these deductions and predictions are in-line-with old and new observations; the fact that so many vague, dumb or incoherent scientific theories are apparently believed by so many scientists for so many years is suggestive that this ideal does not necessarily reflect real world practice. In the real world it looks more like most scientists are quite willing to pursue wrong ideas for so long as they are rewarded with a better chance of achieving more grants, publications and status. The classic account has it that bogus theories should readily be demolished by sceptical (or jealous) competitor scientists. However, in practice even the most conclusive ‘hatchet jobs’ may fail to kill, or even weaken, phoney hypotheses when they are backed-up with sufficient economic muscle in the form of lavish and sustained funding.

more…

 

[Nick_in_MB]

My public high school science class actually talked about ID, for about 10 minutes…

 

[Cristiano]

That was a terrible movie. The large amount of time dedicated to discussing eugenics was unnecessary and seemed to just be an attempt to smear evolution. Also, the actual scientific merits of ID were never really addressed, so it was easier to demonize the scientific community for its reaction to ID advocates.

The idea was not to address the merits of ID but to address the intellectual issue with knee jerk reactions from some pseudo-cultural environments to the possibility of bringing ID into a scientific discussion.

The best non sequitur from that guy talking about the possibility of protein formation based on growths along defects in crystals. Does he really understand the thermodynamics of the crystals, and the geometrical properties of the defects, the chemistry of the crystals (e.g. poisoning properties)? That was the best science fiction comment of the movie.

 

[Michaelo]

The idea was not to address the merits of ID but to address the intellectual issue with knee jerk reactions from some pseudo-cultural environments to the possibility of bringing ID into a scientific discussion.

But to understand the basis for that reaction we must also consider the scientific merits of ID. The appropriateness of the response becomes clear when one does so.

 

[Cristiano]

But to understand the basis for that reaction we must also consider the scientific merits of ID. The appropriateness of the response becomes clear when one does so.

That is one valid approach. I think that the approach in the movie was “some serious scientists think that ID is a possibility and they have being blackballed because of that”. The point was that scientists and not a bunch of creationist zealots were making the case for ID and that because of that they have been blackballed. In science you discuss theories, and when you disagree sometime goes on for a very long time.

 

[rossum]

Should ID be taught in science class?

No.
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove… No product is ready for competition in the educational world.

– Philip Johnson, Berkley Science Review (Spring 2006)

rossum

 

[Michaelo]

That is one valid approach. I think that the approach in the movie was “some serious scientists think that ID is a possibility and they have being blackballed because of that”. The point was that scientists and not a bunch of creationist zealots were making the case for ID and that because of that they have been blackballed. In science you discuss theories, and when you disagree sometime goes on for a very long time.

And I don’t understand why these “scientists” don’t deserve the reaction they received considering their pseudo-scientific contentions with evolution.