Comments on: Even as Philosophy, Intelligent Design Under Fire

By: Si Brandon

Si Brandon — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:45:05 +0000

I liked the post about gravity also being a theory. Electromagnetism, relativity, quantum physics – all theories, yet we build computers, particle accelerators, calculate vast distances, and we feel safe that we are not going to float away from the ground based purely on them. Try telling these zealots that belief in god is a ‘theory’. No way.

Science: takes observable evidence, forms hypothesis, tests against it over and over, comes up with theory.

ID: starts with unprovable conclusion, searches backwards for evidence to back it up.

Arguing with them is like shouting into a black hole. These medieval thinkers will be as outdated as pez dispensers very soon though.

RAmen.

By: Andrew Grange

Andrew Grange — Sun, 28 May 2006 23:13:23 +0000

Well, I am a student in the UK, studying both several sciences, maths and philosophy. I find it absolutely abhorent that ID should be taught in any of my lessons, especially science and philosophy. As has been said, its complete specualtion and just creationism trying to hide as science.

It doesn’t belong in Sceince for the reasons discussed above, and definitely not in philosophy. If anywhere, (and I’m not convinced of that) it should be taught in Theology or Sunday School.

I have no problem witha alternatives to conventional schools of thought being taught, it is a good thing. I’d think it wrong if I were not taught both Quantum Mechanics, Newtonian and Einstenian view points, it would be absurd. But these are as Bobby henderson put it: “Logical conjectures based on observable evidence”

You need not however, teach what is essentially religious dogma purely because you have it on a good wrod from your parents and Parish Priest.

RAmen

By: Spookyblog

Spookyblog — Wed, 24 May 2006 22:52:05 +0000

Intelligent Design as philosophy?

By: Adam Pederson

Adam Pederson — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 21:09:49 +0000

Well I dont have a religion and i really dont care what people think but why cant we agree or even consider that it might be impossible to explain our exsistance other than we are. And Why do people have to know “when the universe was created”? Anyone ever heard of the word infinity? If we consider it as applicable then why cant the universe be infinite with only us traped with the concept of time. If there is nothing around is there time? I really dont see why people need to compensate thier lack of knowledge with religion? Teaching ignorance does not make it right.

By: Chris Grainger

Chris Grainger — Sun, 26 Feb 2006 21:26:10 +0000

My understanding is that the so called “physical and chemical evidence” is garbage. Considering I was informed of this by professors at Brown and have read concurring opinions by several PhDs, I consider the opinion to be rather believable. I have a friend who is has a PhD in Chem (Orgo specifically) and he (even being Jewish and believing in God) pointed out that the “scientific” evidence pointing towards intelligent design is non-existent and when it is put forth (like in “Darwin’s Black Box”), it is manipulated and/or fabricated.

By: Lamia

Lamia — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 01:43:30 +0000

I read the NY Times article about this case: To balance the 20-or-so videos they were going to watch on ID, they were going to have to guest speakers come in to talk about evolution–one of which died about ten years ago. The other one is one of the people taking this case to court. I think that kinda shows how well thought-out and balanced this project was.
Also–Dan: In (rare, for me) defense of the ever-notorious Catholic Church, the papacy has issued statements that evolution and religion are not at odds. So the assertion that the Catholic Church backs ID to gain a larger following is not only an inaccurate assessment, it is plain untrue.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster lives.

By: Joan Vanini

Joan Vanini — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 04:37:03 +0000

Just to note:

As part of the scientific process, scientists must publish their research in a peer-reviewed journal. Peer-review means that other scientists of the same dicipline look at his/her work and check the valitity.

Intelligent Design proponents have published no peer-reviewed articles to prove their “science”.

RAmen!

By: Dan S.

Dan S. — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 00:48:58 +0000

Anne – this argument is more ideology than anything else. The Catholic church and other religions due to dwindling congregations are attempting to bring people back to the church by linking science and religion. There is some science and math behind the ID principle, but mostly speculation. The biggest issue with teaching it in a science class, is that any experiment involved with it is not reproducible. Remember that anytime you mix “religion” with public schools it’s like mixing fire and gasoline – most of the time you can’t control it. As far as kids having already made up their minds, that’s too bad. How can anyone expect to learn anything if they choose to approach a subject without keeping an open mind?

By: Anne

Anne — Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:08:58 +0000

What’s funny is there is a huge argument over what is essentially nothing. (I don’t agree with teaching ID in science class, FTR) My AP Biology class in HS included a lot of information, of which maybe 15 minutes of class time was spent on evolution. In the entire year. Definition, explanation, move on. We even did gene splicing and dissected a cadaver in this class. I’m not sure even a small amount of kids take to heart the textbook’s opinion on the origin of our species, they probably have their minds made up already.

By: Lance

Lance — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:03:41 +0000

Intelligent Design does not belong in a philosophy class, either. Even if Evolution didn’t exist, “Intelligent Design” still doesn’t explain anything. It’s nothing more than religious dogma wrapped up in a package of “argument from ignorance”. The only place it belongs in a philosophy class is a class that’s covering fallacies and the history of crap philosophy, be cause that’s just what it is: crap. There’s not an ounce of evidence in support of intelligent design. Not a bit, and evolution is so heavily supported by evidence it’s amazing people talk as if it really is realistically debatable, and as if anyone who doesn’t think it is is dogmatic.

Evolution is true. Could we be wrong? Sure, and by the same token maybe the world really is flat.

By: Jeff Potts

Jeff Potts — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:45:00 +0000

It is not the fact that both theories exist.
It is a science course.
Technically those following ID should have no fear about their philosphy being tested by Darwin or even Pastafarianism. Realistically students have the option of being taught Creationism in their local church every designated Sabbath day per religion. While a student typically gets 1-2 hours to learn about the idea of Darwinism. The sheer amount of time one is immersed in creationism idealogies pales in comparison to the amount of time devoted to Darwinian teaching.
Scholastic education is not a matter of faith, it is up to the parents and the local parishes of whichever denomination and creed to teach their particular version of creationism, not the schools.

By: brateman

brateman — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 19:03:05 +0000

This is for the people who keep quoting Darwin. Darwinism is based on his original idea, and over 100 years of studies have added to that knowledge extensively. I won’t believe everything he said since some of it has changed over the years. But… the general idea is still there, and that is what we are debating.

If you want, we can debate Darwin’s book with the first copy of the Bible. Actually we can’t since Emperor Constantine had his way with changing the story significantly in favor of promoting a strong religion. Since we can’t, we can only go off what we know from history and scientific evidence.

Thus, the issue at hand is the theory, and not the original words. Please stop quoting Darwin and expecting us evolutionists to get upset. Darwin was not a god, and neither is yours. He was the just the first of his kind.

I propose we have a debate on the current evolutionary theory backed by science, and not what was said initially by a smart man in the 1800s.

By: Uncle Phil

Uncle Phil — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 10:35:23 +0000

This seems to be the main misunderstanding in the whole debate – separating scientific terminology from everyday terminology. For example: the word “theory”, as it applies to science, does not mean the same thing that it does in everyday conversation. A scientific “theory” is not just some idea that crosses one’s mind. A scientific theory must be tested and must have a lot of empirical evidence to back it up. A hypothesis, which is less than a theory, must at least be “falsifiable”, or it’s not even a valid hypothesis. People who don’t understand scientific method think that the word “theory” means “something that isn’t a fact”. Well, in scientific terms, gravity is a Ã¢â‚¬Å“theoryÃ¢â‚¬Â. Not because we haven’t collected enough evidence for it – it will always be a theory. Same thing with evolution. “Intelligent Design” does not even meet the criteria to be a hypothesis. It is not falsifiable, it can’t be proven or disproven. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s simply not science. Most people don’t know what science really is.

By: George O

George O — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:47:11 +0000

In Response to Anonymous (aka Julian):
“Why must evolution theory and intelligent design theory be mutually exclusive?”
Your right that in terms of Belief they are not mutually exclusive since you can believe pretty much whatever you want.
In terms of Objective science they are; as explained in the countless posts above.
“There are scientists working in pure research that believe in God” True, but they do not let their beliefs get in the way of objectivity.
“There are no rules that say one has to be agnostic or athiest to believe in scientific method or evolution as the correct path to discovery and understanding of the great plan for man.” Your right, one does not need to be atheist, one only needs to accept fact instead of faith as truth.
In science the term truth is far different than how it is used in religious circles.

By: Mauro Lanzini

Mauro Lanzini — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:34:22 +0000

Of course religion has a place in public education: it would fit perfectly courses as diverse as Anthropology, History of Philosophy, Mithology, Psicology. I really look forward to a time when we shall have in universities a balanced covering of all the major religions, ie. Pastafarianism, Christianesim, Buddhism, Wicca, Satanic Cults, Scientology, New Age and myriads more. In upper and lower schools it would frankly look as a waste of time, study mathematics instead, it’s much more useful.

By: Anonymous (aka Julian)

Anonymous (aka Julian) — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:23:37 +0000

Why must evolution theory and intelligent design theory be mutually exclusive? Will someone clue me in? I believe in God and evolution. Both beliefs are inclusive as far as I am concerned.

There are scientists working in pure research that believe in God. There are no rules that say one has to be agnostic or athiest to believe in scientific method or evolution as the correct path to discovery and understanding of the great plan for man.

By: Freerefill

Freerefill — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:22:52 +0000

This is exactly the thing that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism was created for: to act as a balancing agent against Creationism. Wherever the Biblical view of Creationism should be taught, there should be taught other philosophies, ie, FSMism. As well as many others.

I for one am a proponent of free thinking and the collection and distribution of knowledge. However, if that knowledge is to be taught in schools, then it should (some say must) be delivered by an unbiased source and it should (some say must) be delivered with either supporting evidence derived from facts or balanced with alternative theories (preferably both, and lots of it). ID is a theory, claimed to balance Evolution. If you include ID, then you follow the rule of supplying alternative theories. If you do not include FSMism, you break that theory and effectively destroy the foundation that human intelligence is based on.

At least, that’s my opinion. I could be wrong.

By: nsarwark

nsarwark — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 03:45:06 +0000

Apropos of very little, I saw a witty quote in James Randi's latest Swift Newsletter that showed how people talk past each other in this and other debates.

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

All praise to the FSM. Yours truly, Nick ...giggling...

By: Juan Incognito

Juan Incognito — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 00:57:42 +0000

I understood that the current theory under attack is Evolution, not Charles Darwin presents Evolution. The scientific theory of evolution may well have been popularised or first theorised eloquently by Charles Darwin, but that was a long time ago. His book on that topic should not be taken to still speak as the definitive reference point for Evolution, so selective quoting from that work (or the various editions), while nice, and demonstrative of the theory of citiation is basically irrelevant. I mean, would you ask the person who invented the firearm to describe in detail the modern arms industry?

Perhaps one of our learned readers can suggest a contemporary book or article that summarises what the evolutionary scientific community accepts as being current evolutionary theory.

By: mikehorn

mikehorn — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:25:44 +0000

Michael Class says: Why? Because the quote is from: On the Origin of the Species, Chapter XV, Recapitulation and Conclusion, By Charles Darwin.

Actually, in the ORIGINAL edition it's Chapter XIV, and the quote you cite read differently, which you can read here (The Origin of the Species):

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

He added "by the Creator" in later editions to show there was nothing impious in his vision of nature. He claimed to be an agnostic. Reference: PBS.org

By: michael class

michael class — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 06:50:51 +0000

I wonder, would a public school teacher be allowed to say the following:

“It is interesting to contemplate … [all the many forms of life on earth] … HAVING BEEN ORIGINALLY BREATHED BY THE CREATOR INTO A FEW FORMS OR INTO ONE; and that from so simple a beginning, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”

Just imagine a public school teacher who says those words: that God created life and placed it on the earth in a few forms, and then that life evolved according to the physical and natural laws that God put into place in the universe.

Would that be allowed?

Actually, it should be REQUIRED FOR THE TEACHER TO SAY THAT.

Why? Because the quote is from: On the Origin of the Species, Chapter XV, Recapitulation and Conclusion, By Charles Darwin.

If you are going to teach Darwin’s theory of evolution in public schools, you should teach what Darwin actually wrote about it.

By: RK

RK — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 05:24:56 +0000

First off, ID shouldn’t be taught anywhere. Secondly, I’d be fine with discussions about ID/Creationism being in a philosophy class. However, the purpose of that course is blatantly non-philosophical. If that summary is true, they’d be teaching it like science, and as the plaintiffs said, just slapping a philosophy label on it doesn’t make it philosophy.

By: AlexJohnc3

AlexJohnc3 — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 03:27:35 +0000

If ID is taught in a philosophy class, fine. I don’t know enough about how Philosophy should be taught to go against it. But teaching ID in Science classrooms is disturbing. I don’t think it could be more obviously wrong to even consider it…

Nogodzone, that’s interesting information.