Why do so many americans believe in Intelligent Design?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aprilfloyd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JHow said:
It’s a response to something they understand all too well - a culture war. It has nothing to do with scientific thought and it in no way prevents students from learning actual science. Americans are simply tired of pseudo-scientific bullying of which Darwinism as presented in school is very much a part. Since you are from the UK you perhaps are not familiar with our public schools. They were designed with one purpose - to turn out “good citizens”. Once a student catches on that his elders are full of beans, he can’t help but look for flatulence everywhere - including in evolution as popularly explained or personified by Darwin, for example.

Spend five minutes reading Darwin and you will see what I mean. He is full of wind and all sorts of nonsense (vice: his views on race). Hardly the secular saint presented in school.
Click to expand...
Are they rebelling against science as a protest against the American school system?
 
aprilfloyd said:
Are they rebelling against science as a protest against the American school system?
Click to expand...
I think they are more open to consider evolution as an open question instead of received wisdom, yes. This is not an anti-scientific position, however, it is skepticism.

All science is settled until the next advancement comes along and knocks it over. I have a wonderful textbook from the 1940s with a very lucid explanation of waves in ether.
 
aprilfloyd said:
I suppose I am talking about the various forms of ID and creationism in the sense of the alternatives to evolution. But in particular, why are these theories so prevalent in the US, that scientists (e.g. Nye) express a concern that it will hold america’s children back, and krauss believes it is tantamount to child abuse to teach pseudo science.
Click to expand...
I’m glad you’ve clarified your question. You should be made aware that Intelligent Design is not the same thing as theistic evolution.
ID is mostly an American thing because it was thought up by Americans wanting their version of creationism taught in public schools, which are supposed to not be affiliated with any religion. ID adds a supernatural explanation to the science of biology. But supernatural explanations are not supposed to be a part of science. That is why ID is often referred to as pseudo-science.
ID is more than just an alternative to evolution as an explanation of the diversity of life. It is a movement with political ties. You may want to read up on the difference between Intelligent Design and theistic evolution as well.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#Types_of_creationism

Hopefully anyone with an interest in pursuing a career in science will be able to tell the difference between pseudo-science and science.
 
aprilfloyd said:
It’s not a ‘beef’ as such.

But I am interested in why it is so popular in America as opposed to other countries and if there is a reason(s) for this.

As Nye indicates, for example, for America to maintain a lead or to at least stay at the front in terms of science and technology, it needs science graduates of the future. To me that is a good viewpoint and as he says ‘please don’t teach this to children’. He is also worried that teaching pseudo science is not good for America

Krauss is a bit more blunt and says it is a form of ‘child abuse’. I go to to say why is this so popular in the states, compared to other scientific countries.
Click to expand...
Both these guys are way off base.

Where to start…

Nye first - Americans are not the only ones who know ID when they see it. Then he goes on to say it is holding us back. Look all the biomimicry going on. I contend not looking at designs in nature has held us back. Intelligent design proponents are not science literate? Let us start round one and let the audience judge.

Krauss - we need to teach children truth. We do them a disservice teaching them in science class what should be taught in philosophy class.
 
samiam1611 said:
I’m glad you’ve clarified your question. You should be made aware that Intelligent Design is not the same thing as theistic evolution.
ID is mostly an American thing because it was thought up by Americans wanting their version of creationism taught in public schools, which are supposed to not be affiliated with any religion. ID adds a supernatural explanation to the science of biology. But supernatural explanations are not supposed to be a part of science. That is why ID is often referred to as pseudo-science.
ID is more than just an alternative to evolution as an explanation of the diversity of life. It is a movement with political ties. You may want to read up on the difference between Intelligent Design and theistic evolution as well.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#Types_of_creationism

Hopefully anyone with an interest in pursuing a career in science will be able to tell the difference between pseudo-science and science.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the answer. So it is a way to sneak ‘creationism’ into American science classes, where the schools systems forbids religion? If so that makes sense, why it is an American phenomenon.

If it is obvious to Americans that it is pseudo science, why would a popular scientist come out and express a worry about American children? Or Krauss for that matter
 
aprilfloyd said:
What do you think about Krauss and Nye’s point that teaching of psuedo science will hold back American children in the future as they have to compete with the rest of the world, who will have a better understanding of the natural world.?
Click to expand...
Methodological naturalism is limited and those that hold to it have painted themselves into a corner.

Limit empirical science to the science classroom, that is observable, repeatable and predicatable. In addition mandatory philosophy class so students will now how to recognize truth when they see it.
 
aprilfloyd said:
Do Americans feel that by having people that believe in ID and Creationism that that helps prevent a perceived threat to civilization? Surely, ‘knowledge’ should not be used that way. That is a form of indoctrination. But is that true, I would love to hear other views.

I don’t think scientists are rejecting Gods. They just don’t see evidence for them. If some one found evidence, it would be global news AND the scientific community would welcome it, they probably more than anyone love a discovery.
Click to expand...
Science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. It is limited by our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time.

Look here - see the weakness? It is in the human limited reasoning of our observations.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=7720
 
aprilfloyd said:
Thanks for the answer. So it is a way to sneak ‘creationism’ into American science classes, where the schools systems forbids religion? If so that makes sense, why it is an American phenomenon.

If it is obvious to Americans that it is pseudo science, why would a popular scientist come out and express a worry about American children? Or Krauss for that matter
Click to expand...
Intelligent design, the science simply looks for evidence of design in nature. IDvolution, the philosophy takes it up who the designer is.
 
buffalo said:
Science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. It is limited by our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time.

Look here - see the weakness? It is in the human limited reasoning of our observations.
Click to expand...
OK Ha ha. That is the funniest thing I have seen. You are winding me up.
 
buffalo said:
Science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe. It is limited by our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time.

Look here - see the weakness? It is in the human limited reasoning of our observations.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=7720
Click to expand...
Interesting diagram, but it shows that Science excludes reason, while faith intersects with reason. Would you care to redraw your diagram, and consider the definition of science, the definition of faith, and the definition of reason? I think you will come up with a very different diagram, if you use reason to figure it out.
 
epan said:
Interesting diagram, but it shows that Science excludes reason, while faith intersects with reason. Would you care to redraw your diagram, and consider the definition of science, the definition of faith, and the definition of reason? I think you will come up with a very different diagram, if you use reason to figure it out.
Click to expand...
Science does exclude reason. It is observational. Then kicks in reason, human reasoning. Science does nothing without humans.

Yes indeed, there are areas of intersect.

For example -

In the beginning - time
God created the heavens - space
and the earth - matter.

Now faith knew this for thousands of years and science has just recently agreed.
 
buffalo said:
Science does exclude reason. It is observational. Then kicks in reason, human reasoning. Science does nothing without humans.

Yes indeed, there are areas of intersect.

For example -

In the beginning - time
God created the heavens - space
and the earth - matter.

Now faith knew this for thousands of years and science has just recently agreed.
Click to expand...
You just failed the reasoning test. Oh well.
 
buffalo said:
Science does exclude reason. It is observational. Then kicks in reason, human reasoning. Science does nothing without humans.

Yes indeed, there are areas of intersect.

For example -

In the beginning - time
God created the heavens - space
and the earth - matter.

Now faith knew this for thousands of years and science has just recently agreed.
Click to expand...
Come on buffalo - you are just having a laugh on here - admit it. The jokes on us
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top