Intelligent design

[Drix D'Zanth]

Well I was reading Time in New York and it was dominated by a picture of the Sistine's God (you know, god touching life into Adam) touching fingers with a monkey. In bold letters was the phrase Intelligent design. What ensued was an interesting article illustrating the dialogue between differeng philosophies on the way our next generation should be taught. Is intelligent design an acceptable alternative to Evolution? What do you believe?

I took these questions to several renowned biologists here at Hope. I was able to sit down for a satisfying discussion with a nobel laurate, Dr. Thomas Bultman... head of the biology department and engage in this very topic of conversation one on one. He had some interesting things to share with me.

I'll give the population here at OB to answer the question first, in fairness... what are your opnions?

[Lafleur]

[COLOR=DarkRed]Is it possible? I guess, ya. I don't rule it out. But I still don't believe it, as one of the prequsites is to have a belief in God, which I lack. I don't know, I mean originally it was that God created everything, because we didn't know any better. Than all of a sudden we know that we evolved from apes and the story changes to God creating what we evolved out of. It seems to much like 'Uhh... God did that too!', way to superficial to me.

So, in answer to the question, no. I think it's a crock. An alternative to evolution? Not a chance. I remember that Bush wanted to supplement teaching intellegent design for teaching evolution, and that's just criminal. First of all, not everyone believes in God, and a significant amount dont believe in the Christian notion of it. Second of all, there is very little supporting evidence and even less common sense supporting it... Seems fake to me.[/COLOR]

[DeadSeraphim]

[COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]Keep intelligent design out of schools. It's inappropriate to mix religion with school, even if the religion is particularly wide-spread in that country. It makes the assumption everyone believes in the story of Genesis which, to be frank, most don't. I think, from what little I know of US Constitution, that it's unconstitutional too, but there's a big chance I could be wrong, lol.

Sure, you could argue that evolution is just 'theory', but the difference between evolution and intelligent design is that evolution is religiously unbiased. Theory or not, it doesn't enforce any particular religious ideals on anyone, and makes no assumptions about their religion. All it says is 'This is a widely supported theory on how we got here, here's the ideas and research we've got thusfar'. It's not going, as Intelligent Design does, 'Right, so, there was GOD, right, and GOD made the world, and then set in place evolution. What, you're Hindu? Sorry, ID deals with GOD making the world, you don't count.'

And that's all I have to say on the matter.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]Why does 'intelligent design' have to mean God is involved? I'm sure that Christians who realise the folly of the Bible's chain of events would like to think that intelligent design, with God as the creator, is an acceptable alternative. And maybe it is, and maybe it's right. But, don't close off Intelligent Design because of a lack of belief in a Christian God. Really, intelligent could be anything. It's just examining whether this process was actually constructed.[/size]

[DeadSeraphim]

[COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][quote name='Baron Samedi][size=1']Why does 'intelligent design' have to mean God is involved? I'm sure that Christians who realise the folly of the Bible's chain of events would like to think that intelligent design, with God as the creator, is an acceptable alternative. And maybe it is, and maybe it's right. But, don't close off Intelligent Design because of a lack of belief in a Christian God. Really, intelligent could be anything. It's just examining whether this process was actually constructed.[/size][/quote]
Intelligent Design is inherently a Christian concept. Made by Christians, for Christians, to work the evolution theory into their belief. I'm pretty sure if/when ID is being taught, it will largely be Bible orientated.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Horendithas]

I do not think that Intelligent Design should be used in schools. Religion and school do not mix well as there are so many different views on what is considered religion. It is one thing to open people?s mind to the idea that others have a different viewpoint than you do. But I cannot agree with using a concept that clearly seems to say you have to believe in God because we do.

I believe that such thinking is narrow minded and nothing more than a rude attempt to force your beliefs onto others who think differently than you do. After all there are quite a few of us who do not believe in God or the Christian view of life.

Now if Intelligent Design were taught along side with Evolution as a means to get one to start questioning different viewpoints on how the world and man may have been created, well that would be acceptable to me as now you are saying what if? Instead of this is the only possible way. Till later.

[Brasil]

It all depends on what course it's being taught in. I don't necessarily have a problem with it being taught--in the sense that I'm perfectly fine with giving students access to different ideas.

But even then...Intelligent Design really belongs in a Philosophy and Religion course, rather than a science course, because science courses like Geology and Paleontology are based on hard sciences...natural sciences. You can find evidence of sedentary rock formations in bayous, for example. With Evolution, while still classified as a "theory," the evidence for it is there. The hard scientific evidence for it is there...and if not the hard scientific evidence for it, then absolutely the groundwork to support the idea.

And largely, you just don't find that kind of hard data for Intelligent Design, because the very idea behind ID is supernatural in nature.

So...unless it's a completely unbiased instructional method, "here are a few different ways of looking at it," keep the ID in Philosophy/Religion courses, because that's really where it belongs.

Plus, even though I don't really intend to get into this point entirely, you could argue that ID is actually incompatible with the Creation stories in the Bible. The text itself in GoE is at times the complete antithesis of anything remotely related to Evolution, or even ID ("God creates, then Evolution takes over").

[Sage Kaley]

I read both the Time and Newsweek articles on this, they were both amazing. I hope I still have those issues around here...

I think what bothers me about ID is how it tries to both have religion and distance itself from it. One of the leaders of the ID movement has said that it's not saying God created us but rather that a Creator did. That just sounds silly. Not God but some Creator, which is another term for God...but not God...that bugs me I suppose. I think they should just say God. I don't mind if someone believes God created us but I don't. I mean, a Creator is vague...God, aliens, what? Christians originally created ID so why not just say God?

I don't like it when people say evolution isn't possible because there's still monkeys. Ugh...it might help if evolution itself was taught properly. It's such a touchy subject that most schools skip over it or only mention it in passing. I would like it if evolution was given a good teaching in schools before they consider dragging in ID. Then maybe some people would understand 'why there are monkeys'. (sighs) What's funny though is plenty of perfectly reasonable religious people believe in evolution and dislike ID.

Although what also seems odd to me is that they reject evolution so much. Evolution is a theory yes but it's got more evidence to back it up than, well, many things. Like God. God is about faith, I understand and respect that...but God shouldn't be taught with evolution, something much less about faith and more about facts. Teaching ID would be fine but not in a biology class. To me, ID isn't science because it can't be tested.

There, end of my ramblings.

[Manic Webb]

I say stick Intelligent Design in the Social Studies classes, and keep Evolution in the Science classes. Both get taught and receive equal time in different courses. Wam, bam, mission accomplished. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]People seem to have different interpretations of "intelligent design" anyway. If you mean intelligent design as Creationism, then no, it should not be taught in a school (as a science-based subject). Creationism is a fallacy, at least in any literal interpretation.

Anyway, I would agree with what most have said here. Keep Intelligent Design in religion/philosophy/social studies classes and keep evolution in science classes. That way these things are taught in a more accurate context and students can make educated decisions about both concepts.[/font]

[AnimeFront]

definately Keep this theory out of school if they make us learn it I don't know what i will do. And the sad part is they willl probaly put it in the curiculum, where i Live. Virginia would love to do this stuff, they just approved a a license plate model that said "Same Sex is Bad Sex" it is just sickening, now this.

[Baron Samedi]

[quote name='Sage Kaley']I think what bothers me about ID is how it tries to both have religion and distance itself from it. One of the leaders of the ID movement has said that it's not saying God created us but rather that a Creator did. That just sounds silly. Not God but some Creator, which is another term for God...but not God...that bugs me I suppose. I think they should just say God. I don't mind if someone believes God created us but I don't. I mean, a Creator is vague...God, aliens, what? Christians originally created ID so why not just say God?[/quote][size=1]
There is a large difference between the Christian God creating everything, and between another Intelligent force [i.e. some 'Creator']. I know it might seem like semantics, but it's actually quite an important distinction. Sure, God may have formed ID, but it's much more appropriate to refer to it as some 'Creator', because the point is, we don't know.[/size]

[Petie]

[quote name='Manic Webb']I say stick Intelligent Design in the Social Studies classes, and keep Evolution in the Science classes. Both get taught and receive equal time in different courses. Wam, bam, mission accomplished. It doesn't get any simpler than that.[/quote][font=Verdana][color=blue]I agree here. Intelligent Design should not be taught in a science class. I think that what you said would work as long as neither side is saying "this is the only way we got here." Evolution and Intelligent Design should both be offered as [i]possibilities[/i] and left to the student to decide which one he/she wants to believe. I think this would be the best way to incorporate both without trying to force a belief on people.[/color][/font]

[ForgottenRaider]

[quote name='James][font=franklin gothic medium']That way these things are taught in a more accurate context and students can make educated decisions about both concepts.[/font][/quote]
[b]Are you calling me a liar[/b]? [i]I think you are[/i]!... Intelligent Design is a well thought out factual explanation of what really did happen.

As well as this I am fighting for the right that my beliefs in Intelligent Design, specifically the strand handed down to us from up high and practiced under the [url=http://www.venganza.org/]United Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster[/url], will remain strong until this fight for the minds of young people all over the world is won in our favor!

Those of you who point out that creationism and evolution are completely separate events/ideas and don't conflict with each other are just trying to use logic to corrupt our firm knowledge that we are right. We shall ignore you like a well worn shoe!

Further more this applies to those pathetic biologists in their fancy I'm-a-rich-boy-not-a-stupid-hick-like-you lab coats who can shove their examples that Humans are in fact rather badly designed in the first place so if any one did have a part in it they should be fired and sued for negligence talk out the window.
That's right, we at the [url=http://www.venganza.org/]Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster[/url] are on to you and your misuse of truth and fact, soon we shall cover you in tomato and mince goodness until you surrender your scientifically accurate ways!

And as for I-only-give-one-version-of-Intelligent-Design Bush we at the [url=http://www.venganza.org/]Church of the FSM[/url] look down on you for ignoring our true goal in believing in Intelligent Design... To increase our security in the knowledge that we are (as fundamentalist Christians), and always will be, right.

PS. Evolution sucks.

[Guest PyroGirl]

Yes, I am a Christian and if you don't like it deal with it. I did not want to be taught the theory of evolution, but it's not my decision. So maybe all of you atheist should just learn to deal with being taught ID if all of us Christians have to deal with learning evolution.

P.S. Where IS the missing link?

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=PyroGirl]Yes, I am a Christian and if you don't like it deal with it. I did not want to be taught the theory of evolution, but it's not my decision. So maybe all of you atheist should just learn to deal with being taught ID if all of us Christians have to deal with learning evolution.

P.S. Where IS the missing link?[/QUOTE]
When fossil records and carbon dating and a solid century or so of Paleontology uncover a big-*** holy chicken bone in the middle of Mesopotamia, then we can start talking ID.

Until then, ID has absolutely no scientific or factual basis and thus teaching it in a science course is asinine, trite, and annoyingly simplistic. Evolution, while a theory, has actual evidence to justify teaching it in a science course. ID does not.

P.S. It's there. It's called "Missing" because we haven't found it yet, but we're getting close. With each passing year, the gap between pre-historic man and "modern" skeletons is shrinking and shrinking.

You want schools to teach ID like it's some actual scientific reality? Produce some evidence that ID could ever conceivably be an actual scientific reality.

Evolution has evidence that it's an actual scientific reality.

Why doesn't ID? Oh...that's right. Because it doesn't have any relation to actual scientific reality, because it's a rationalization created and propelled by Ideologic religious doctrine.

[Decadence]

[Quote=ForgottenRaider][b] Are you calling me a liar? I think you are!... Intelligent Design is a well thought out factual explanation of what really did happen.[/b]

As well as this I am fighting for the right that my beliefs in Intelligent Design, specifically the strand handed down to us from up high and practiced under the United Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, will remain strong until this fight for the minds of young people all over the world is won in our favor!

Those of you who point out that creationism and evolution are completely separate events/ideas and don't conflict with each other are just trying to use logic to corrupt our firm knowledge that we are right. We shall ignore you like a well worn shoe!

Further more this applies to those pathetic biologists in their fancy I'm-a-rich-boy-not-a-stupid-hick-like-you lab coats who can shove their examples that Humans are in fact rather badly designed in the first place so if any one did have a part in it they should be fired and sued for negligence talk out the window.
That's right, we at the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are on to you and your misuse of truth and fact, soon we shall cover you in tomato and mince goodness until you surrender your scientifically accurate ways!

And as for I-only-give-one-version-of-Intelligent-Design Bush we at the Church of the FSM look down on you for ignoring our true goal in believing in Intelligent Design... To increase our security in the knowledge that we are (as fundamentalist Christians), and always will be, right.

PS. Evolution sucks. [/quote]

[color=DarkSlateGray]Funniest argument yet.[/color]

[quote=PyroGirl] Yes, I am a Christian and if you don't like it deal with it. I did not want to be taught the theory of evolution, but it's not my decision. So maybe all of you atheist should just learn to deal with being taught ID if all of us Christians have to deal with learning evolution.

P.S. Where IS the missing link? [/quote]

[color=DarkSlateGray]The missing link is off drinking coffee with jesus.

ID should not be taught in schools, because ID is just faith, plain and simple, there is not even the slightest possibility of proving its true, unlike evolution, which, while not proven true yet, there is the possibility.
And while christians may complain about having to learn about evolution, they can always read their bible when in need of proof of ID. And if your faith can't handle learning about other theorys then your fgaith isn't very strong to begin with. There is nothing in the bible that says "Thou shalt remain ignorant." That is not the 11th comandment.
[/color]

[Lafleur]

[QUOTE=PyroGirl]Yes, I am a Christian and if you don't like it deal with it. I did not want to be taught the theory of evolution, but it's not my decision. So maybe all of you atheist should just learn to deal with being taught ID if all of us Christians have to deal with learning evolution.

P.S. Where IS the missing link?[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]
Go to Catholic school. In public school you learn about things that have proof. Your taught things that will help you and things that we know to broaden your mind. You don't go to be preached too.

P.S. Ever hear of a woman named Lucy?[/COLOR]

[Doc]

[size=1]Siren here has pretty much summed up my arguments. Many people throughout this thread have stated many a great comment, each of which I feel proves why ID shouldn't be taught.

I personally had to take a bio/chem class last year. When we reached evolution, the teacher gave the option as to take an ID text and go into an adjacent computer room and read it. I'm glad to say that only one person took the book. I wouldn't nessecarily call that person ignorant, or any other term, for their parent's had actually come into class and had her leave.

I whole heartedly believe that Evolution is the right thing to teach in class, for if it isn't taught, more people like those parent's would interfere in the quest for factual learning.

Right before the parent's walked out of the classroom, the father stopped next to me, *I was sitting in the last seat by the door* and blattently exclaimed something along the lines of, "You'd rather believe you came from a dirty chimp than the holy being that is God?" and stormed out.
[/size]

[dposse]

Intellegent Design is crap. Its a based upon faith and religion, not science. It's nothing more than saying "God created everything! End of story". But, the theory of Evolution says that things took millions upon millions of years to become what it is. It needs to stay away from schools. The theory of Evolution is just a theory, but it is scientifically possible, unlike Intellegent Design. Intellegent Design would be a great class for sunday school, but normal public school should only be taught Evolution. I don't know about you all, but i prefer science to religion. Faith has no place in school.

[AnimeFront]

[quote name='dposse']Intellegent Design is crap. Its a based upon faith and religion, not science. It's nothing more than saying "God created everything! End of story". But, the theory of Evolution says that things took millions upon millions of years to become what it is. It needs to stay away from schools. The theory of Evolution is just a theory, but it is scientifically possible, unlike Intellegent Design. Intellegent Design would be a great class for sunday school, but normal public school should only be taught Evolution. I don't know about you all, but i prefer science to religion. Faith has no place in school.[/quote]
Straight up. I agree with ya.

[Delta]

[COLOR=DarkGoldenrod][SIZE=1]Alright, loves! For the sake of discussion, how's 'bout I provide you with a what if:

[CENTER]What if the evidence for ID has been staring at us right in the face all along?[/CENTER]

No, no. Just think about it. What if we misinterpreted some data relevant to the discovery of ID and took it as evidence for, say, the existence of neutrinos? The Big Bang Theory was founded from the red shift phenomenon; who's to say that some other undiscovered forces are interacting and meddling with what we're receiving here on Earth? Given the vastness and uncertainty of the Universe, it's possible that in our quest to find proof for the BB theory, we applied the wrong principles and consequently misread data.

We sound like bunnies who see nothing but the single carrot dangling in front of them.

Anyways, there's always the possibility, yeah? Closing this field off from inquiring minds sounds like idea monopoly to me. [b]We let Science prove Darwin's Theory of Evolution, why can't we do the same for the ID theory?[/b][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Drix D'Zanth]

It has been very interesting hearing all of your ideas. I think everyone here is at least thinking critically about the issue and arguments between the current Modern Synthesis and the idea of Intelligent Design. The questions of course are as follows:
-Is Intelligent Design Valid?
-Should Intelligent Design, if it is valid, be taught in school?

I think we should all clear up a few ideas first about what [i]should[/i] be taught in school. Every concept that is, and has been used to evidence a theory of macroevolution is valid, and empirical. Science is a study of objective and empirical evidence in order to rationalize the way the world [i]is[/i] (has been, and will be in the more advanced sciences). Concepts such as microevolution, allele frequency, genetics, gene mutation, heredity, hybridization, ecology, and natural selection are all very real processes that can be studied. In fact, for this debate to continue, we must identify the specific ideas that are being argued. The theories I?ve listed before of mutation and natural selection (what are considered the engine behind our current all-encompassing theory) are valid, testable, and to remain in a scientific setting. And while science could easily be interpreted as a search for the ?truths? of the world, it does assume knowledge is fallible and every theory (including gravity) is possibly incorrect. For instance, while Gravity seems such an obvious idea, physicists don?t actually know [b]why[/b] it occurs. There have been many opposing theories and complex explanations, but if one continues asking ?how? and begins to divide each concept, the basest elements are still not understood.

Macroevolution as a result of the Modern Synthesis of paleontology, genetics, geographical biology, and biochemistry is the postulation that the very real changes of microevolution and natural selection explains the fact that there is an abundant diversity of complex life on this Earth. This is what is known as an ecological ?emergent property? much as flocking behavior could not be observed at an individual level of biological organization; neither, then can macroevolution. The most intimate driving force, however, behind the change is based upon the random mutation of various alleles.

Intelligent Design as a result of paleontology, genetics, geographical biology, and biochemistry is the postulation that the very real changes of microevolution and natural selection do [b]not[/b] adequately explain the abundance of complex and diverse life on Earth. Intelligent Design concludes that there are biochemical mechanisms (such as those irreducibly complex) so complex that no amount of random mutation could explain our current perception of life. Instead of a random chance-driven ?fate? as Microevolution concludes, ID rides the assumption that microevolution and natural selection are only ?mechanisms? used by some creator.

Macroevolution is neither more nor less empirically true than the Big Bang theory, or for that matter, Intelligent Design.

Why is that so? Because both Intelligent Design and Macroevolution accept the same- mechanisms; genetic change, natural selection- neither is any more valid than the other. The Pope has accepted Evolution as an acceptable explanation of how God created this earth. This is Intelligent Design in a nutshell.
Can you objectively test macroevolution? No, you cannot. You can only credit the mechanisms behind macroevolution to evidence it?s existence. Intelligent Design does the same thing.

I think [b]both[/b] should be in school if they can be managed correctly. I think Intelligent Design should not attempt to identify the creator. I think it should be open to a class discussion; what then, do you think is the creator? I think the discourse is an important element of the educational process even if it is on such esoteric ideas as theology or perhaps a logic-driven philosophical explanation of being (Parmenides? notion of One, for instance).

Overall, I hope that what remains objective (genetics, microevolution, etc) should remain in Biology. Macroevolution and Intelligent Design should be reserved for a discussion, or perhaps another class entirely.

[Red]

From across the pond, this entire fiasco has looked rather disturbing. To me, at least. There's always been mumblings of what should/shouldn't be taught to kids about where we may have come from all those years ago, but it's always been very divided.

Ironically, both words cover an enormous, branching subject. Evolution has many different theories & explanations; and it's plain to see there are many religions, thus differences in how they describe our coming to be. Both can whittle an argument down to "well if [i]this[/i] made [i]that[/i], how did the [i]this[/i] come to be in the first place?" when it comes to an attempt at disproving the other.

At the same time, I think science classes should remain firmly rooted in their namesake. I agree whole-heartedly with teaching children about the various religions and their beliefs, but imposing what (from the outside) appears to be an entirely Christian view is wrong.

Over here (and I'm sure in some capacity, in the US too), we have religious education classes. They cover ID fine all on their own, while managing to keep a steady distance away from science [i]and[/i] teach about all kinds of different religious theories as to our existence.

I fail to see how one can say that ID belongs in a science class. The word covers the idea of tried & tested methods, with theory thrown in for good measure. However, nothing is [i]ever[/i] certain until it has sufficient evidence to back it up - when has this been the case with religion? People were even skeptical of Einstein for years!

Religion is belief, science is method or attempt at proving/doing so. How you can bring something which, in scientific terms, has no [i]real[/i] evidence, into a class where facts, figures, results & specific details behind why things occur matter so much? Evolution, on the other hand, bolsters it's scientific position year after year.

On the other hand, I agree with Drix's (bloomin' fantastic) post. Open discussion about who in the monkeys (;)) our creator might have been would've been fantastic when I was still in school. Forcing a particular view into a field it has no place in, in my opinion, is wrong.

[Dan L]

Two of the most brilliant insights into this subject I've seen in a while comes from an unlikely source :p

[url="http://www.boasas.com/?c=498"]http://www.boasas.com/?c=498[/url]
and
[url="http://www.boasas.com/?c=508"]http://www.boasas.com/?c=508[/url]

The problem in many ways, with intelligent design is that people already feel like they know exactly what they're going to conclude, before they even look at any results. And bizarrely enough, despite the fact that it is generally Christians who do this, God had very little time for people who had closed ideas of what the world was like.

By "closed ideas" I'm not talking about people who have morals, and aren't "open to new things" which might be potentially harmful- I mean people who just plain think they already have the answer, they're just searching for the questions.. for them the answer is "Evolution is wrong"... and they're looking for questions like "If people evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Which is a load of bull anyway :p

Now then.. I have nothing against Intelligent Design.. I don't even have anything against Creationism in principle, but I do have something against the means by which many people go about supporting them.

I mean.. come now.. God is really, really big, right? (I think you'll find that's a technical theological term :p) So how is it that he needs us to back him up?- How is it that he needs some little man to go and prove that he is real and that he created people-- because otherwise people might not believe it? And the last thing he needs is to be backed up by flimsy arguments, cos that makes him appear to be a flimsy God, yes?

[QUOTE=Revue][color=darkgoldenrod][size=1]What if the evidence for ID has been staring at us right in the face all along?

No, no. Just think about it. What if we misinterpreted some data relevant to the discovery of ID and took it as evidence for, say, the existence of neutrinos? The Big Bang Theory was founded from the red shift phenomenon; who's to say that some other undiscovered forces are interacting and meddling with what we're receiving here on Earth? Given the vastness and uncertainty of the Universe, it's possible that in our quest to find proof for the BB theory, we applied the wrong principles and consequently misread data.

We sound like bunnies who see nothing but the single carrot dangling in front of them.[/size][/color][/QUOTE]... OK... so just how does red light prove that we were all created by God..?..

Though frankly, if we were to discover that there's some "undiscovered force" meddling with our data.. I'd be more worried about the fact that there's probably some fool with a red spotlight out there trying to convince us that everything's moving away.. That'd be a good one for the papers.. :p