Are people who believe in Intelligent Design ignorant fools who wish to fill our schools with nonsense?

Question

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5098608.stm gives an article on "Intelligent Design". Are those people who demand that "Intelligent Design" be taught in school, even if alongside Evolution, mentally ill, so ignorant they don't realise it or examples of the work of a "Retarded Designer"?

Answer 1

Some are, certainly, but far from all of them. Some of it's supporters are quite intelligent people.

Most of the proponents of Intelligent Design want it to be taught in schools on an equal footing with Evolution - and therein lies the problem. Evolution is a scientific theory and Intelligent Design is not. Instead of theory, Intelligent Design is a philosophical viewpoint.

Here is a quote from wikipedia: "Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy. These steps are repeated in order to make increasingly dependable predictions of future results."

Intelligent Design CAN NOT BE TESTED. Anything that can't be tested is not science.

Of course, this doesn't mean that claims arising from the philosophy of Intelligent Design are not true. What it does mean, however, is that "Intelligent Design" is certainly not an example of science.

Let me make this very clear - I am not stating that Intelligent Design is bad science, I am stating that it is NOT science.

So let's all just be honest and present Intelligent Design for exactly what it is - a point of view. It should be taught in any class that tackles philosophical notions. It has no business being represented as science, because it isn't.

Answer 2

Unfortunately, Intelligent Design as a label was latched onto quickly by Christian Fundamentalist Creationists seeking a doorway into the public schools. They took the label, tacked it onto Creationism, and publicized their "intelligent design" model to the point of killing the real one as a viable curriculum.

The original (and real) Intelligent Design approach is that the scientifically derived information is indeed the observable, fact-based documentation of what is and has been physically happening, including evolutionary data. Therefore, the Universe really is billions of years old, Biblical stories are oral traditions teaching us morals and values, rather than being literal, etc. It does NOT reconcile easily with literal interpretations of scripture.

The difference between Intelligent Design and the purely Evolutionary approach is that pure Evolutionists postulate that it was all accidental, that there is not driving intelligence behind it all, that the laws guiding everything that's been happening were "just there" all this time. However, there is no supporting evidence for "accidental" occurance, either. It is POSTULATED. Teaching the "it just happened" approach is teaching Athiesm (the strong belief that there is no Divinity). This causes stress in any home where children are taught to believe in some form of Divinity (whether Christian, Jewish, Wiccan, Islamic, etc.).

Many Evolutionary scientists make the arguement that if you can't DIRECTLY observe a phenomenon, or create proof through repeatable experimentation, that it is NOT legitimate. However, all scientific theories are built off of both observable phenomenon/repeatable experimentation, AND POSTULATES, which are basic assumptions based on the "it's obvious" idea -- it doesn't need to be proven because it "just IS." In geometry, one postulates the existence of a point, line, etc. In science, one postulates that the forms one observes are real, and are what they appear to be.

When asked to PROVE, through experimentation and direct observation, that a Divinity absolutely does not exist, they can't. Absence of proof, in either direction, is not the same as repeatable evidence... the very arguement Athiests keep throwing into the faces of those who believe in the existence of a Divinity.

Intelligent Design postulates that defined structure indicates planning.

In real Intelligent Design, the underlying mathematics are viewed as too intricate to have been accidental.... the idea postulates that there is probably a driving, conscious force behind the billions of years of existence, based on this intricacy and complexity.

It does NOT define that force, beyond the idea that it is conscious and pervasive.

It allows room for both scientific approaches and definitions, AND a variety of faiths.

Of course, these short-sighted Christian Fundamentalists, by co-opting the terminology, have ruined it. Sigh. Now, those of us who are true ID proponents must find new terminology, or be "grouped in" with those, ahem, well, there are words but a lady doesn't use them.

http://www.arn.org/idfaq/what%20is%20int...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/intelligent...

Answer 3

Yes it does. Actual creationist ID is taught by teachers. It is outside of the curriculum, but they do it anyways. As far as the method of testing to conformity over conformity to testing, that is also taught. Students are told that F=ma. They are then expected in lab to follow a direct method of testing this, and copying the results. Only one time did I run across a teacher that knew the students were not picking up on what a real scientific method was. Mr. DePino was formerly employed alongside Enrico Fermi. He ended up teaching high school physics at Enrico Fermi High School. He always made it point to ask the students, "What could possibly account for the errors in the lab experiment?" The answer he was looking for was, "the hypothesis is wrong and needs further improvement". Few students understood that he was teaching that science is a way of thinking much more than it a body of knowledge. (Which is a Carl Sagan quote.)

Answer 4

Do you believe in Divine Engineering?

Anyway, if they want to learn it, let them at an appropriate age where they can decide for themselves.

If they don't want to then they will just choose another elective.

If it's that much of a b*tch off for parents then it should be made as a college course after high school.

Parents have a lot more to worry about than this. It should either be a college course or a senior class elective.

Give this course to people who are adults who can make decisions for themselves. This is better because when adults try to interfere with the education of other adults, someone is getting their *** whooped.

Answer 5

Well see the issue I have with evolution is that it has holes in it. When tested it does not work. And in many cases it is taught as the truth the only belief that works. Evolution leave me with several questions....If we all evolved from apes why are there still apes? Shouldn't they have evolved too? If we are to continue to evolve why haven't we changed in the last several hundred years? And hey if we are still evolving when will I be growing a third arm? With the exception of dinosaurs, how come every fossil from millions of years ago I have every seen I have also seen as living animals today?

Answer 6

Ok, Intelligent design is not foolish, DNA is packed with information in ATCG (N-bases) and they are read in triplet code, interpreted by mRNA and translated into proteins, now these sequences have to be in correct order, their isn't any "random chances" that are going make this happen. Please try to drop scrabble letters on a table and see if any letters land in sequence for a sentence, much less a word and think that it takes thousands and thousands of ATCG's to make a single protein. By chance? I don't think so. Why didn't Darwin talk about life in the beginning?? What did you have for dinner on Oct 12th of 1993?? can't remember, yet people want to believe that scientist know what happened "millions" of years ago?? I find that funny!
Intelligence is needed to make information rich systems, believe that!

Answer 7

I look at it like this. If you are going to teach evolutions, which is just as much a religion as Intelligent Design then teach them both or don't teach any of it. Simple as that. You cannot prove evolution!

Answer 8

I would have issues with anyone trying to teach my child that kind of crap. If I wanted my child to be taught religion, I would send her to a religious school. I much prefer science. Intelligent Design is definatively not a science.

Answer 9

Aren't there more important things to worry and care about instead of whether or not others believe in intelligent design?

Answer 10

they are retarded, science proves it!