If evolution is a higher level meta-theory, and intelligent design is also a theory that organises lower-level

Question

theories, surely those two theories belong equally in the classroom? Why are we so fixated on an 'either, or' approach when we might learn a lot more by putting the two theories in tandem? Since meta-theories have empirical implications, genuine differences between ID and Darwin could be pointed out. It's surely unfair that evolution continues to be used as a major tool for undermining belief in God when quantum physics has finally got around to realising the possibility of a higher mind at back of the universe? With parallel universes now being openly talked about, could this not account for heaven and hell, and spirit mediums' claims of contacting those 'on the other side'? Given that in science even wrong ideas often turn up something interesting (because any theory that gets you into the data is going to turn up something), can we not consider the possibility of intelligent design? Already scientists are driven by a sense of design in the lab - reverse engineering, it's called.

I didn't say ID should be taught as a science. I know what theory means. ID is NOT Creationism. It brackets faith and asks what the scientific data teaches about theological implications. A key element is that God's design is empirically detectable, as with DNA's 'language' and the fact that it cannot be produced by natural causes acting by chance; the many, and finely tuned, physical constants of the universe. Dover - wrong to mandate teaching ID; that's coercive, just as the judge was wrong to invoke the Lemon test. Religious motivation does not invalidate the worth of any policy but the Creationists messed up by lifting the ID banner - they confused the real issues. I'm calling for ID to be allowed to evolve. Evolutionists, of all people, ought to have the sense to give it enough time! Nobody's asking you to give up your basis, let alone believe in God! Just calm down and see how this embryo develops. It won't go away 'cause you shout at it! Let's co-exist, please.

Answer 1

You can teach that - just don't pass it off as science (its like pushing your pamphlets under the door), put it in a religious instruction class.

Answer 2

First, the word 'theory' is applied to any scientific idea that has been tested and cannot be disproven and is then generally accepted as fact. That's just how science works. Remember...*gravity* is also just a theory but nobody has an issue accepting that one. That said, I've never found a reason why evolution and intelligent design (or creationism - choose your label) can't coexist. I really think these ideas only serve to reinforce each other...if you can abandon the idea that the universe was made in seven days. Please allow me a moment to expound on that last item: the Hebrew word in the book of Genesis that is translated to 'day' also means 'period of time' depending on the context. Genesis doesn't give us a time frame, only an order in which things happened. If you can accept that it really did take the universe 13.5 billion years to get where it is, there is no reason to discount that a greater power had an active hand in the development of life.

Answer 3

ID is not scientific. It is faith.

ID does no scientific research of it's own, it only tries to pick holes and tear down ToE. It is destructive, rather than constructive.

IDiots start with a belief in god, then try and find science done by actual real scientists that seems to support their beliefs, and reject evidence that doesn't support it. They cherry pick the evidence just like the Bushies did for WMD before they invaded Iraq.

Science has an open mind, and lets the facts speak for themselves.

The Dover School Board decision, by a Bush appointed Republican christian judge, said that ID is just creationism with a superficial scientistic veneer. It was a blistering condemnation of ID as non-science, clearly with a religious and political agenda (the "wedge" policy of the Creation Research zeolots in Seattle) It is a religious belief, and as such, does NOT belong in the science classroom.

You confuse several different areas of science and pseudo-science, which emphasizes your ignorance unfortunately. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"
Quantum theory, parallel universes, etc is fascinating...has nothing to do with ToE. Parpsychology is junk science, and also has nothing to do with ToE. ID is simply not supported by any evidence.

And which ID hypothesis do you think should be taught in science anyway? The xian one only, or would you support the Hindu ID theory? The Native American ID theory....or are those ones just silly mythology to you? If so, why? How are those ID theories different than the "god hypothesis"?

What about the FSM theory of ID?...which was created during the Dover School Board fiasco to demonstrate that we have to have some standards of what we allow to be taught as science.

Answer 4

Evolution is not a theory, it is a scientifically observable and provable fact. This is more than can be said for Intelligent design, all that is is something to prove the existence of a creator. It has nothing to do with science at all, it is just religious conjecture. It does not say who created existence, just that it seems as if there is a creator. As to who such a creator might be, Intelligent design does not address this, it very well could be multi dimensional beings which manifest themselves in this continuum as white mice. Or the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster. "Bless his noodly appendages"

Answer 5

Evolution is supported by a wealth of evidence-intelligent design is not therefore only the former can be taught in the classroom. We need to get away from this quite deliberate obfuscation regarding the "theory" of evolution which only deals with a biological mechanism-the "fact" of evolution is not in dispute. We don't talk about the fact of intelligent design however so we are comparing like and unlike. 99% of biologists believe evolution is factual-1% don't- never in a million years will the 1% be proved right and even creationists if they're being totally honest would have to concede that.

Answer 6

the main reason you cannot teach ID in public schools (other than it is poor science) is that is still points towards one particular belief. You can say by not naming a creator then it is open but really it isn't. Say i want to teach the Native
American version of a creator in ID - the Christians sure would not go for that.

Science - and evolution - have to be non religious fields. I'm not going to say Atheist - there are a lot of theists in science - but leave it as it is - with no religious interpretations - and let each particular religion assign - in their churches and the believers homes - any importance a creator figure has within their beliefs.

Answer 7

Evolution is a theory, tested and proven (proven does not mean written in stone, merely demonstrated by testing). The use of semantics, calling it a "higher level meta-theory", so you can call the unproven hypothesis (not theory) of "Intelligent Design" a "theory that organises lower-level". It's empty rhetoric.

1. Intelligent Design is by it's own definition unprovable, so it is not testable and remains an unscientific hypothesis.
2. Every example you offer is college physics and beyond, not biology, so it does not belong in high school biology.
3. Quantum physics has not "finally got[ten] around to realising the possibility of a higher mind". When Einstein said "God does not play dice with the universe.", he was referring to quantum physics in its infancy.
4. I see no room for "heaven and hell, and spirit mediums" in biology education.

Answer 8

You can take intelligent design and substitute aliens for god. There is as much evidence that aliens created life here on Earth than god(s) did. Do you want the schools to set aside time to teach about how the aliens and their chariots of the gods seeded life on this planet?

What about the theory involving the Earth orbiting the sun? The church was against that one for a while too. Lets also teach that the Earth is the center of the universe and that everything orbits it. Heck, there is enough science in the bible to take us right back to the dark ages.

Answer 9

Problem.

Intelligent Design isn't a "theory". It's Creationism masquerading as science. To call it otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Evolution does not undermine belief in God, nay, it has NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD. It's a science. It's a fact. It's the way life developed on this little blue planet.

If there's any "design" in nature, it's because humans have described it so because they can conceptualize order. The "design" comes from nature and its laws.

Answer 10

My first question is which ID theory is used. There are thousands if not millions and more can be created in a moments notice. Since none of them have any scientific validity you have to accept all of them not just the Christian one (if that is what you are thinking about)

We can discuss everything else afterwards.

Answer 11

Intelligent design is not a theory. For a thorough discussion as to why not see a site like http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html or one of the other ten million places where the reasons why ID is not a theory have been discussed.