Excellent Letter To School Board On Intellegent Design Teachings

Hardrain

Thoughts on this? From a Kansas resident.

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

(graph not copied)

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

PDN

Actually Intelligent Design theory doesn't specify who the designer might be - it simply states that certain features in organism appear to require a designer. That would hold true equally if the Designer was the Judeo-Christian God, the FSM, or an alien called Billy-Bob from a UFO.

So it isn't really an excellent letter at all. It is somebody trying to be smart and instead producing an epic fail - which is entirely consistent with most of the people I met on my last visit to Kansas.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

Actually Intelligent Design theory doesn't specify who the designer might be - it simply states that certain features in organism appear to require a designer. That would hold true equally if the Designer was the Judeo-Christian God, the FSM, or an alien called Billy-Bob from a UFO.

So it isn't really an excellent letter at all. It is somebody trying to be smart and instead producing an epic fail - which is entirely consistent with most of the people I met on my last visit to Kansas.

?
I was under the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that ID no longer specifies the designer in the hope that it would it be classified as science. Up until that point the designer was unquestionably seen as the Juedo-Christian God.

The point of the above letter was 'well if you teach our kids ID as science then our FSM creation idea should also be taught as science'

At this point ID is simply not accepted as science and nit picking evolution does nothing to help its cause.
I barely understand evolution (though I'm learning) but each time I've look up ID all I've got is Reducible Complexity and flaws of evolution is that it? ID depends solely on those motor bacteria thingy ma bobs??
Evolution offers wayyyy more info.

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

?
I was under the impression (correct if I'm wrong) that ID no longer specifies the designer in the hope that it would it classified as science. Up until that point the designer was unquestionably seen as the Juedo-Christian God.

The point of the above later was 'well if you teach our kids ID as science then our FSM creation idea should also be taught as science'

What it used to be is neither here nor there. Copernicus' and Gaileo's theories were based on their Christian beliefs, but that does not make them any less valid.

ID theory as it stands is a variation of the teleological argument - that certain features in the universe are best explained by a designer. Now, you are free to disagree with that premise, and if it can be disproved on scientific grounds then it has no place being taught in schools - but the identity of the designer is a separate issue altogether.

Think of it this way. Proponents of theistic evolution are happy for evolution (a scientific theory) to be taught in schools - the matter of whether evolution is triggered by the action of God or not (a faith proposition) does not alter the scientific theory. In the same way ID (a scientific theory, whether it be correct or incorrect) should not be affected by beliefs as to the identity of the designer (a faith proposition).

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

In the same way ID (a scientific theory, whether it be correct or incorrect) should not be affected by beliefs as to the identity of the designer (a faith proposition).

That's just it though, Thus far I have seen NOTHING that qualifies ID as a scientific theory it it's own right.

What it used to be is neither here nor there. Copernicus' and Gaileo's theories were based on their Christian beliefs, but that does not make them any less valid.

Your comparing apples and oranges there..again I may be wrong but holding ID with the respect of those 'greats' seems to be an insult to them at the moment.
If ID is correct then I'll retract that statement, but again I reiterate thus far it has shown very very very little. In fact, what scares me most is that it's still been pursued (which led me to think that their is sound theory behind it unfortunately,again, I say, thus far I've found nothing)

Fluffybums

PDN wrote: »

What it used to be is neither here nor there. Copernicus' and Gaileo's theories were based on their Christian beliefs, but that does not make them any less valid.

I think that you will find that both Copernicus and Galileo's findings directly contradicted church teaching of their time.
Copernicus proposed the sun centric solar system in 1514 based on his observations, at the time this was not in agreement with church teaching. Galileo's observations supported Copernicus' model.
So Copernicus' Christian beliefs, I assume he believed in the the teachings of the time as he was a priest, were in contradiction to the model he proposed and Galileo's observations likewise were counter to Christian belief on the time.
Fortunately both men relied on observation and logic rather than blind faith.

As for ID, it should be taught but in RE as it is based on faith not evidence, where as evolution is based on evidence, be it DNA, fossil etc.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Now, you are free to disagree with that premise, and if it can be disproved on scientific grounds then it has no place being taught in schools

Actually it is the other way around, if you can disprove it (if the theory is falsifiable) then it is science and could be taught in schools.

As it stands Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory as there is no way to test it, ie no way to demonstrate that it is wrong. It is simply a guess or opinion with no experimental dimension. There isn't even any maths behind it, no model, that some of the hypothetical physics hypothesis such as M-Theory could claim. That is why it should not be taught in schools.

PDN wrote: »

but the identity of the designer is a separate issue altogether.

Technically yes, but you would be hard pushed to find a proponent of Intelligent Design who does not believe that the designer was God. We had this discussion on the mega Creationist thread a few times, that the universe if anything looks like a flawed design, and therefore a god is not the likely designer. Needless to say didn't go down too well with those pushing Intelligent Design.

The "beauty" of Intelligent Design (if that is the right word) as a way of sneaking Creationism into science class rooms is that because it is totally untestable the person is left free to insert any deity or being they wish in as the "designer". You cannot test if one designer was the designer or not because there is no tests. It is telling though that suggestion that the designer wasn't God is met with hostility among ID proponents.

Black Swan

The letter cited in the OP I believe to be a poor attempt at parody. It not so subtly questions ID as science when proposing that The Flying Spaghetti Monster be included with it, should ID be allowed as an alternative to evolution within the science curriculum.

ID/creationism is a belief not based upon the scientific method, and therefore should not be included in science curriculum (nor should The Flying Spaghetti Monster parody).

Evolution is a theory, which has received support and continues to be revised over time by the use of the of the scientific method. This method requires phenomena which is directly observable, measurable, and can be operationalised for testing and analysis against existent theory (e.g., differential reproduction, variation, etc., can be measured in lab and natural field studies and has received support).

ID/creationism is problematic from a scientific standpoint because it fundamentally assumes that natural phenomena was designed by something (i.e., God) that is not directly observable, measurable, and cannot be operationalised for testing and analysis in lab or in field studies.

Furthermore, as a theory there is a problem when attempting to operationalise God, per se, because there are vast differences evident in his conceptualisation between religions (past and present), and within different denominations of the same religion. Such inconsistencies extend into the treatment of evolutionary theory by those differing denominations of the same religion (e.g., Lutheran ELCA has not rejected evolutionary theory as a possible explanation, as opposed to the Lutheran Missouri Synod that strictly rejects evolutionary theory, insisting on creationism/ID as the only possible explanation).

PDN

Fluffybums wrote: »

I think that you will find that both Copernicus and Galileo's findings directly contradicted church teaching of their time.
Copernicus proposed the sun centric solar system in 1514 based on his observations, at the time this was not in agreement with church teaching. Galileo's observations supported Copernicus' model.
So Copernicus' Christian beliefs, I assume he believed in the the teachings of the time as he was a priest, were in contradiction to the model he proposed and Galileo's observations likewise were counter to Christian belief on the time.
Fortunately both men relied on observation and logic rather than blind faith.

No, actually Copernicus and Galileo both contradicted the scientific orthodoxy of their day - which was based on the teachings of Aristotle. The reason the (Roman Catholic) Church got involved was because the Church in that day was pretty well the only place where you could find any education or scientific knowledge - so the Church unfortunately got into the business of propping up scientific orthodoxy.

Copernicus and Galileo (like most other great scientists in the last 2000 years) were both motivated by their conviction that a universe created by the Judeo-Christian God would be a place of order and consistency, not a place of chaos, contradiction or confusion. Therefore they applied logic and assumed that observations were repeatable and that the principles observed were transferable.

Their teachings were able to be propagated because of the freer intellectual climate in places like Holland, where the Reformation had retained belief in an orderly creation but was prepared to cast off the slavish adherence to Aristotle that prevailed in the (Catholic-run) Universities of the day.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

Copernicus and Galileo (like most other great scientists in the last 2000 years) were both motivated by their conviction that a universe created by the Judeo-Christian God would be a place of order and consistency, not a place of chaos, contradiction or confusion. Therefore they applied logic and assumed that observations were repeatable and that the principles observed were transferable.

I'm a little confused by this,

How was the Greeks view of the universe chaotic when they saw everything as revolving on 'perfect' spheres/discs?
How is Galileo's view not chaotic when he hypothesises that the Earth is not at the centre of the universe? Also remember in Galileo's time the planets and moon were a little bit more chaotic than they are now (Galileo noticed some pretty erratic stuff) - they still are chaotic but that's beside the point

Morbert

PDN wrote: »

Actually Intelligent Design theory doesn't specify who the designer might be - it simply states that certain features in organism appear to require a designer. That would hold true equally if the Designer was the Judeo-Christian God, the FSM, or an alien called Billy-Bob from a UFO.

So it isn't really an excellent letter at all. It is somebody trying to be smart and instead producing an epic fail - which is entirely consistent with most of the people I met on my last visit to Kansas.

Intelligent Design theory does specify who the designer is (God), as Intelligent Design Theory is primarily based on the creationist book "Of Pandas and People", which mentions creationism multiple times.

The following is an interesting chart recording the subtle word switching that went on across the various editions of the book.


So it is evident that, while contemporary proponents are reluctant to mention God, there is no meaningful difference between ID and creationism.

Furthermore, ID is not a theory even if we ignore its creationist roots. To be considered scientific, a theory must explain data in a manner that spawns testable hypotheses. IDers, instead of doing this, have merely compiled a set of objections to evolution that have been addressed by the scientific community countless times. So while Copernicus and Galileo may have believed the universe was created by God, this was a personal philosophical opinion that did not hinder their scientific inquiries. It is a belief completely unrelated to the ID movement referenced by the letter.

monosharp

Hypothesis
A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

Theory
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Law
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations.

Intelligent Design is NOT science. It is NOT a theory in the scientific sense.

Even IF Intelligent Design was 100% correct and God appeared to us all tomorrow and told us it was 100% correct it still would NOT be science because we CAN'T test it, there is no evidence to support it and we can't disprove it. ergo it is NOT science and does NOT belong in a science classroom.

Evolution is a fact the same way as gravity is a fact.
Gravity -> Stuff falls.
Evolution -> Organisms change over time.

This is indisputable, the evidence is everywhere and even the ID/Creationist people accept this. They just differ on its extent.

The WHY and HOW something happens are theory's and theories must be backed up by evidence and it must be possible to disprove them.

The theory of evolution = HOW/WHY organisms change over time. i.e > Natural selection etc. These are backed up by evidence to support them which is why they are part of the theory. If natural selection was disproven tomorrow then it would be out of the theory.

The theory of relativity is the HOW/WHY of gravity. There are many possible explanations for gravity backed by evidence.

If tomorrow I said evolution happens because invisible undetectable Z-rays from jupiter effect and change unborn children in their mothers womb then it would be just as plausible as Intelligent design because noone can prove or disprove it. My 'Hypothesis' will never become part of the theory of evolution because its impossible to prove or disprove.

If tomorrow I said gravity works because Zeus holds us all down to the ground with a magical rope it is just as plausible as ID is.

JimiTime

monosharp wrote: »

Intelligent Design is NOT science. It is NOT a theory in the scientific sense.

Just wondering if the big bang is science? If it is, I'm assuming its based on the hypothesis that the universe is expanding, leading to some concluding that the evidence points to a starting point or beginning. So we are seeing an effect, and theorising a cause. So why is it not scientific to look at something as complex as life, and all its programming and not view that the evidence points towards design?
Sure, from a certain perspective you may rather say, 'We don't know how the programming got here, or how life arrived.' However, just as we see the effect of an expanding universe and talk about the big bang, why not see the effect of life and talk about a possible designer?

Turtwig

JimiTime wrote: »

Just wondering if the big bang is science? If it is, I'm assuming its based on the hypothesis that the universe is expanding, leading to some concluding that the evidence points to a starting point or beginning. So we are seeing an effect, and theorising a cause. So why is it not scientific to look at something as complex as life, and all its programming and not view that the evidence points towards design?
Sure, from a certain perspective you may rather say, 'We don't know how the programming got here, or how life arrived.' However, just as we see the effect of an expanding universe and talk about the big bang, why not see the effect of life and talk about a possible designer?

Of course you know the Big Bang is science. The expansion of the universe is no longer a hypothesis there is EVIDENCE to support it. Nobody knows what the singularity was, as our laws of physics breakdown so we can only speculate. Therefore, I speculate, that the universe had no beginning it was always and will always be eternal. My speculation will become science if I create a physical model that works for everything already explained and explains the singularity in a way that allows others to test my idea's physcially. My theory has to have some nail in the coffin' by which it can be thoroughly disproved. As far as I am aware, ID doesn't allow for nails (or coffins for that matter).

There are only MINUTE amounts of evidence (if you can call it that that) that support the idea of life being programmed - it isn't. Even Christianity admits this in it's idea of God giving us 'free will'. Nature chooses by processes of natural selection : that is what the evidence tells us and we must follow that until/if it leads us otherwise .

Edit: Forgot to add we can test conditions just after the big bang in particle accelerators - That Big Ring at Cern, for example:)

prinz

Without getting into the substance of the letter, because I really couldn't be bothered - plenty of threads on this already, can I just say that this is not an "excellent" letter. It's pretty childish actually. In an effort to be funny and glib the author actually succeeded in nothing more than making himself into a bit of a laughing stock IMO. Whatever about the merits of his stance his manner in conveying his concerns leaves a lot to be desired.

dvpower

The letter has got widespread and sustained attention. I'd say that more people are aware of the FSM as Russell's teapot. So a success in that respect, even if is just a rehash of old ideas.

prinz

dvpower wrote: »

The letter has got widespread and sustained attention. I'd say that more people are aware of the FSM as Russell's teapot. So a success in that respect, even if is just a rehash of old ideas.

Would you classify the X Factor, Big Brother etc as "excellent" television. Successful, widespread but excellent.....meh.

dvpower

prinz wrote: »

Would you classify the X Factor, Big Brother etc as "excellent" television. Successful, widespread but excellent.....meh.

I'd give it an 'excellent', but only in the Bill and Ted sense.

monosharp

JimiTime wrote: »

Just wondering if the big bang is science?

Of course it is. There is concrete evidence, overwhelming evidence that it is true. The 'HOW' and 'WHY' is of course not fully understood. e.g > What started it all ? We don't know.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

If it is, I'm assuming its based on the hypothesis that the universe is expanding, leading to some concluding that the evidence points to a starting point or beginning. So we are seeing an effect, and theorising a cause.

No we are not. Might I suggest reading about it and evolution while your at it.

We are using the evidence to theorise a 'HOW' and a 'WHY'. Before you start down this path you need to actually read what the big bang theory is, NOT what TV/Science Fiction has told you it is.

e.g > Most people think the big bang began with an explosion.

Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

The earliest and most direct kinds of observational evidence are the Hubble-type expansion seen in the redshifts of galaxies, the detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background, and the abundance of light elements (see Big Bang nucleosynthesis). These are sometimes called the three pillars of the big bang theory. Many other lines of evidence now support the picture, notably various properties of the large-scale structure of the cosmos which are predicted to occur due to gravitational growth of structure in the standard Big Bang theory.

So why is it not scientific to look at something as complex as life, and all its programming and not view that the evidence points towards design?

Because that's not the scientific method regardless of your misconceptions and you need overwhelming proof to back up a theory in science. There is NO evidence for ID.

Now my question. Why would you think for a second that life needs a designer ? What makes you think that ?

Sure, from a certain perspective you may rather say, 'We don't know how the programming got here, or how life arrived.' However, just as we see the effect of an expanding universe and talk about the big bang, why not see the effect of life and talk about a possible designer?

Ah that almost sounds reasonable .... to a child. And therein lies the problem of feeding this kind of rubbish to children because they are likely to believe it.

Lets change to the origin of the universe since you are so fond of it.

The simplest scientific explanation of the big bang theory.

"In the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler."

Ok so how did the universe begin ?
Science -> We don't know yet.
Religion -> God did it.

So how/why is the universe expanding ?
Science -> We don't know yet.
Religion -> God did it.

So how old is the universe ?
Science -> We're pretty sure based on observational evidence that its about 13-14 billion years. i.e > we're not sure.
Religion -> 10,000 based on the word of God. Scientific evidence is wrong.

Science takes the evidence and builds a theory around that evidence to explain something. Its not afraid to admit holes in its theory or revise the theory based on new evidence.
Religion takes the 'something' and builds a theory around it based on nothing. For every gap or hole, some supernatural being did it.

"Mom how do my presents get under the Christmas tree ?", "Santa/God/Thor/Mickey Mouse did it".

Its ridiculous that this is even worthy of discussion. Anyone who would teach their children this way should be ashamed of themselves.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

So how old is the universe ?
Science -> We're pretty sure based on observational evidence that its about 13-14 billion years. i.e > we're not sure.
Religion -> 10,000 based on the word of God. Scientific evidence is wrong.

Mod's Note: Let's have less of the false generalisations about religion please.

JimiTime

monosharp wrote: »

Of course it is. There is concrete evidence, overwhelming evidence that it is true. The 'HOW' and 'WHY' is of course not fully understood. e.g > What started it all ? We don't know.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html



No we are not. Might I suggest reading about it and evolution while your at it.

We are using the evidence to theorise a 'HOW' and a 'WHY'. Before you start down this path you need to actually read what the big bang theory is, NOT what TV/Science Fiction has told you it is.

e.g > Most people think the big bang began with an explosion.

Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.





Because that's not the scientific method regardless of your misconceptions and you need overwhelming proof to back up a theory in science. There is NO evidence for ID.

Now my question. Why would you think for a second that life needs a designer ? What makes you think that ?



Ah that almost sounds reasonable .... to a child. And therein lies the problem of feeding this kind of rubbish to children because they are likely to believe it.

Lets change to the origin of the universe since you are so fond of it.

The simplest scientific explanation of the big bang theory.

"In the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler."

Ok so how did the universe begin ?
Science -> We don't know yet.
Religion -> God did it.

So how/why is the universe expanding ?
Science -> We don't know yet.
Religion -> God did it.

So how old is the universe ?
Science -> We're pretty sure based on observational evidence that its about 13-14 billion years. i.e > we're not sure.
Religion -> 10,000 based on the word of God. Scientific evidence is wrong.

Science takes the evidence and builds a theory around that evidence to explain something. Its not afraid to admit holes in its theory or revise the theory based on new evidence.
Religion takes the 'something' and builds a theory around it based on nothing. For every gap or hole, some supernatural being did it.

"Mom how do my presents get under the Christmas tree ?", "Santa/God/Thor/Mickey Mouse did it".

Its ridiculous that this is even worthy of discussion. Anyone who would teach their children this way should be ashamed of themselves.

LOL. Its amazing the presumptions some people make when someone simply asks a question, all be it based on my relatively poor knowledge of the subject matter. As I'm sure you've gathered, I'm no scientist and my question was genuine. Personally, I couldn't care less about ID, creationism yadda, yadda. I'd actually prefer if it wasn't taught. I never had it taught. I went to a RC school and was taught evolution. No bother with me tbh. Though, your arrogant smarmyism was good for a laugh, so thanks for that.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

Mod's Note: Let's have less of the false generalisations about religion please.

Not meaning to argue with a mod or anything.

But this is something that confuses me alot. I understand where you're coming from in that the bible doesn't say how old the universe is, but as many believe it to say so is it not now a part of religion?

Yes, I know, you're gonna retort that many believe that the big bang happened. Thing is I can TEST to see whether the big bang happened. These people believe the bible says so (which, as far as I know, it doesn't state anywhere how old the world is?) , therefore it MUST be true and therefore never look for proof, do they?

Not really a false generalisation is it?

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

Not meaning to argue with a mod or anything.

But this is something that confuses me alot. I understand where you're coming from in that the bible doesn't say how old the universe is, but as many believe it to say so is it not now a part of religion?

Yes, I know, you're gonna retort that many believe that the big bang happened. Thing is I can TEST to see whether the big bang happened. These people believe the bible says so (which, as far as I know, it doesn't state anywhere how old the world is?) , therefore it MUST be true and therefore never look for proof, do they?

Not really a false generalisation is it?

Yes it is a false generalisation. The vast majority of religious people do not believe the world to be 10,000 years old. Even within Christianity it is only one subsection (Young earth creationists) that believe it to be so.

It is hard enough to have a sensible discussion on this issue without hysteria and misrepresentation, and false generalisations (about science, atheism, or religion) do not help.

DeVore

I'd like to hear which organs "require a designer".


I absolutely STRONGLY oppose this idea of sliding in religious ideas into the science class room. Teach your kids religion, just be clear about what it is, because what it ISNT is science, testable, proveable, DISproveable science.

Now, to lighten the mood, I wish more people made their points in this fashion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpNoQaB2LT0

DeV.

JimiTime

DeVore wrote: »

I'd like to hear which organs "require a designer".


I absolutely STRONGLY oppose this idea of sliding in religious ideas into the science class room. Teach your kids religion, just be clear about what it is, because what it ISNT is science, testable, proveable, DISproveable science.

Now, to lighten the mood, I wish more people made their points in this fashion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpNoQaB2LT0

DeV.

Only problem is, that a catchy tune may hide the truth of the matter.
Like so::)

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Just wondering if the big bang is science? If it is, I'm assuming its based on the hypothesis that the universe is expanding, leading to some concluding that the evidence points to a starting point or beginning. So we are seeing an effect, and theorising a cause. So why is it not scientific to look at something as complex as life, and all its programming and not view that the evidence points towards design?

Because you can't test it.

The Big Bang theory originated from observational evidence that the universe is expanding. This lead to scientists to make a model of an expanding universe that originated from a particularly point. This model, like all models in science, was testable and falsifiable. A theory is basically just a model that makes predictions that can be tested.

In other words the model made predictions of how the universe would be if the model was accurate and these predictions can be compared with observational evidence.

The more accurate the model was at matching prediction (and the model had to be updated and tweaked many many times after making predictions that did not match observation) the more confidence people could have in the model being an accurate representation of what actually happened.

That is where ID falls down, almost by definition they can't model anything. They don't know what the designer was or what he is supposed to have done. They just have a vague idea that he must exist and that he must have done something. Therefore you can't test anything to find out if your model is accurate or not, and therefore it isn't science.

Testing predictions of models against observed phenomena is the key to science. It allows you to say that your model is accurate or is not accurate.

JimiTime wrote: »

However, just as we see the effect of an expanding universe and talk about the big bang, why not see the effect of life and talk about a possible designer?

You can, but until you are able to test and refine any model of this designer or what he did, all that is is talk (conjecture). It is not science.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

What it used to be is neither here nor there. Copernicus' and Gaileo's theories were based on their Christian beliefs, but that does not make them any less valid.

ID theory as it stands is a variation of the teleological argument - that certain features in the universe are best explained by a designer. Now, you are free to disagree with that premise, and if it can be disproved on scientific grounds then it has no place being taught in schools - but the identity of the designer is a separate issue altogether.

Think of it this way. Proponents of theistic evolution are happy for evolution (a scientific theory) to be taught in schools - the matter of whether evolution is triggered by the action of God or not (a faith proposition) does not alter the scientific theory. In the same way ID (a scientific theory, whether it be correct or incorrect) should not be affected by beliefs as to the identity of the designer (a faith proposition).

The problem is, in science you need to fulfill criteria for something to be a called "theory". This is described in the scientific method. In a scientific context, it is therefore factually incorrect and a very poor understanding of science to think ID is a scientific theory, because it does not satisfy the criteria.

You can make stronger arguments for there being life on other planets based on mathematical probability and science than you can for ID. It would be ridiculous if people insisted that "life on other planets and aliens theory" was to be thought in the science classroom.

monosharp

JimiTime wrote: »

LOL. Its amazing the presumptions some people make when someone simply asks a question, all be it based on my relatively poor knowledge of the subject matter. As I'm sure you've gathered, I'm no scientist and my question was genuine.

And I answered you genuinely.

To suggest that the ways scientific theories are developed could even be considered to be lobbed into the same category of "God/Santa Claus/Leprachauns did it" deserves nothing but a strong response.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Mod's Note: Let's have less of the false generalisations about religion please.

I was simply trying to point out that religion (and I didn't say Christianity, I said religion) answers questions religiously, not scientifically.

My simple point here and the reason most people should look at is this; regardless of whether or not ID is 100% correct or 100% rubbish, it CANNOT be taught in Science class because it is not Science.

Maybe there is a creator, maybe he did create it all. But you cannot disprove it, you cannot prove it, there is no evidence ergo it is not science.

You might as well try to teach Greek mythology in geography class.

Biro

monosharp wrote: »

Evolution is a fact the same way as gravity is a fact.
Gravity -> Stuff falls.
Evolution -> Organisms change over time.

Actually neither Evolution nor Gravity are "fact". They are scientific theorys. That's what Science is about.

DeVore

If I throw you off a building the scientific "theory" of gravity is going to become a very big fact in your increasingly short lifespan...

DeV.

postcynical

OP - I wouldn't describe that letter as 'excellent'. Silly, childish, tired and clichéd maybe.

If schools are really and seriously mixing this stuff into science lessons then this kind of idiotic response will only offer the idiotic school boards a sense of vindication IMO.

postcynical

I wouldn't claim that ID is a branch of science. But how would other posters classify string theory? Does it have a similar scientific status to ID? (despite being much more plausible IMO, and this from a poster who believes that God created the universe)

Turtwig

postcynical wrote: »

I wouldn't claim that ID is a branch of science. But how would other posters classify string theory? Does it have a similar scientific status to ID? (despite being much more plausible IMO, and this from a poster who believes that God created the universe)

Strictly speaking String theory and it's successors are NOT science. Even the evangelical string theorists admit this!

However that being said String theory should NEVER be compared to ID.

Reason being is that String theory tries to unify GR and QM. It does this by explaining both GR and QM and then going one step further.
ID on the other had criticises evolution but doesn't explain that which evolution has already explained!

An excellent layman's introduction into String Theory for anyone interested :
The Elegant Universe (Recommend the book, but this docu is Good)

Edit Edit : Chapter 7, Hour 3 discusses whether ST is science or not

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

ID on the other had criticises evolution but doesn't explain that which evolution has already explained!

While some proponents of ID may criticise evolution, ID itself does not do so. ID simply argues that some features of the universe appear to require a designer - there is no implication as to who the designer might be or whether he/she/it guided evolution or used some other method.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

While some proponents of ID may criticise evolution, ID itself does not do so. ID simply argues that some features of the universe appear to require a designer - there is no implication as to who the designer might be or whether he/she/it guided evolution or used some other method.

I think you're confusing ID, with something else, seriously? ID, as far I am aware, stems from believe that all life is 'designed'. Evolution directly contradicts that and there is an abundance of evidence to support it.
Also, if the universe was 'designed' then its designer was definitely on dope or something:P
Look, I cannot argue and say for certain that the universe wasn't designed, but presently I see no reason for it being so;it's chaotic at best. This isn't an argument against God as he could just have taken a more 'hands off' approach knowing that everything would work out ok.
The ID proponents claim that the universe is fine-tuned. If so it is badly fined tuned, but more likely it just changes its tune slowly.
None of these take away arguments from theists, the 'golden' argument I think, is along way from being truly resolved. What we must not do is let one line of thought that sounds nice be followed, we must follow the evidence where ever it leads : The string theorists admit that their theory could all be for nothing, do the ID proponents admit the same??


ID is still philosophy, imo, until we can test it experimentally.

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

I think you're confusing ID, with something else, seriously? ID, as far I am aware, stems from believe that all life is 'designed'. Evolution directly contradicts that and there is an abundance of evidence to support it.

No, I don't think I'm confusing it with anything at all. I've read a good bit of stuff both pro and anti ID. ID asserts that certain features in certain organisms are best explained by proposing a designer. It does not assert that all life is designed (although some proponents may take it to that next step).

As far as i am aware evolution does not contradict the thesis that the universe, or certain elements of organisms, were designed (if it did then that would be an untestable and unfalsifiable assertion and so would mean evolution is a philosophy not science). Evolution simply argues that complex life forms have evolved from simpler organisms etc. Evolution does not address the question of design at all.

The ID proponents claim that the universe is fine-tuned. If so it is badly fined tuned, but more likely it just changes its tune slowly.

No. ID argues that certain features in the universe appear to be fine-tuned. It makes no claim about the entire universe since we are unable to observe most of the universe, therefore any overall argument about the universe being fine-tuned or badly-tuned are faith propositions and not based on evidence.

It is perfectly possible to accept the argument of ID and to believe that the universe is flawed and imperfect. There is no contradiction between the two.

To be honest, I think you are presenting a strawman in which you ascribe features of creationism to ID.

monosharp

Biro wrote: »

Actually neither Evolution nor Gravity are "fact". They are scientific theorys. That's what Science is about.

The "fact of evolution" refers to the changes in populations of biological organisms over time, which are known to have occurred through scientific observations and experiments. The "theory of evolution" refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation of how these changes occur. Misuse and misunderstanding of these terms have been used to construct arguments disputing the validity of the theory of evolution.

Evolution is a fact (Organisms change over time) and a theory (How/Why -> natural selection/adaptation).

Gravity is a fact (stuff falls) and a theory (How/Why -> relativity etc)

Thats what science is about.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

.

PDN wrote:

ID asserts that certain features in certain organisms are best explained by proposing a designer. It does not assert that all life is designed (although some proponents may take it to that next step).

That's why evolutions 'kicks it in the butt' all evidence points towards evolution : no design anywhere! One or two organisms isn't going to cut it to make it science.

Evolution doesn't rule out the grand designer but we are all mutations from something ...not designs. Whether a designer 'designed' that something is another question.ID automatically assumes an answer, evolution leaves us with the honest one : "We don't know"

PDN wrote:

No. ID argues that certain features in the universe appear to be fine-tuned. It makes no claim about the entire universe since we are unable to observe most of the universe, therefore any overall argument about the universe being fine-tuned or badly-tuned are faith propositions and not based on evidence.

It is perfectly possible to accept the argument of ID and to believe that the universe is flawed and imperfect. There is no contradiction between the two.

ID argues that the physical constants are fine tuned for life to exist. These constants are universal to this known universe, so please explain to me how it is possible for the universe to be both flawed and imperfect when the laws of physics are the same in all of this known universe?
Either it is flawed, or it isn't.
One simple question : would you accept a flawed designer/flawed design?

Ok, granted, I'll accept that the laws may not be universal, however that begs the question whether the universe is perfect or it isn't : partly perfect isn't perfect.Eitherway, we do not know, saying there is/isn't a designer answers nothing and is actually irrelevant as far as science is concerned. Evolution is a model of how life developed on earth, whether it was predesigned or not is not for us to answer - we just know how it evolved.

PDN wrote:

Evolution simply argues that complex life forms have evolved from simpler organisms etc. Evolution does not address the question of design at all.

PDN wrote:

therefore any overall argument about the universe being fine-tuned or badly-tuned are faith propositions and not based on evidence.

Not entirely, alot of research is being done into the physical constants to see whether they really are 'constant' or what would be the case if they were different. It's an exciting area (though every physicist says that about theirs:P) but it also leads to some startling questions most of them counter intuitive. Life may yet still exist, just not as we know that's only speculation, however there is evidence to suggest that the finestructure Alpha was different now on earth than it was several million years ago : the presence of a natural nuclear reactor supports this among other things.
Conclusion: this universe is class

Ickle Magoo

Does the way those traditionally supporting the idea of ID have to keep taking steps backwards & cramming more science into their ID philosophy so it can encompass more and more accepted scientific models & seem more credible, ultimately make the whole concept of ID less credible?

For all but a die-hard few, ironically, ID philosophy seems to have evolved. Theists and atheists are left debating what, if anything, happened before the big bang & was a God present/doing it. That's a long way from a 10,000 yo world made in 6 days & from 2 people.

I think the letter is both silly and pointless. The author would be better served rationally arguing against the teaching of ID in schools, instead of taking a badly disguised side-swipe by demanding Pastafarianism get equal footing on the curriculum.

Soul Winner

Malty_T wrote: »

I think you're confusing ID, with something else, seriously? ID, as far I am aware, stems from believe that all life is 'designed'. Evolution directly contradicts that and there is an abundance of evidence to support it.
Also, if the universe was 'designed' then its designer was definitely on dope or something:P
Look, I cannot argue and say for certain that the universe wasn't designed, but presently I see no reason for it being so;it's chaotic at best. This isn't an argument against God as he could just have taken a more 'hands off' approach knowing that everything would work out ok.
The ID proponents claim that the universe is fine-tuned. If so it is badly fined tuned, but more likely it just changes its tune slowly.
None of these take away arguments from theists, the 'golden' argument I think, is along way from being truly resolved. What we must not do is let one line of thought that sounds nice be followed, we must follow the evidence where ever it leads : The string theorists admit that their theory could all be for nothing, do the ID proponents admit the same??


ID is still philosophy, imo, until we can test it experimentally.

The theory of evolution was arrived at through the disbelief in a creator/designer by the one who first postulated the theory - Darwin. If ID can be expelled from the classroom because of an un-provable assumption – ‘it was designed’ - made on the part of the one who thought it up because it stems from a theistic worldview, then surely the same must hold true for the theory of evolution. This theory was based on trying to show the world that we don't need to appeal to a creator in order to explain the intricate workings of nature. Which means that this is a theory which stems from an atheistic world view, which means that by your own standard it too is not science.

Turtwig

Soul Winner wrote: »

The theory of evolution was arrived at through the disbelief in a creator/designer by the one who first postulated the theory - Darwin. If ID can be expelled from the classroom because of an un-provable assumption – ‘it was designed’ - made on the part of the one who thought it up because it stems from a theistic worldview, then surely the same must hold true for the theory of evolution. This theory was based on trying to show the world that we don't need to appeal to a creator in order to explain the intricate workings of nature. Which means that this is a theory which stems from an atheistic world view, which means that by your own standard it too is not science.

I'll answer your question when you answer mine:

IF ID is actually proven wrong will you accept it is as being so?

DeVore

Sorry. I think I have a question awaiting answering first...


What organs or organisism require a designer?


DeV.

Fanny Cradock

Malty_T wrote: »

I'll answer your question when you answer mine:

IF ID is actually proven wrong will you accept it is as being so?

The question rather answers itself. If something is proven to be either true or false then it is only logical to accept the findings.

PDN

DeVore wrote: »

Sorry. I think I have a question awaiting answering first...

What organs or organisism require a designer?

It's probably not been answered because it's raising a different subject. We've been discussing whether ID is a scientific theory or a faith proposition (irrespective of whether it is actually true or not). You appear to want to discuss the actual scientific merits of ID (in other words, is it true or not).

I'm much more at home with philosophy than with science, so I would not see myself as qualified to enter into a debate about the details of ID theory. I personally find the arguments about blood coagulation and clotting to be fairly persuasive - but I'm speaking as a layman with a limited understanding of science (my father, a biologist, is disappointed in me ).

As for whether ID can be classed as science or not, Richard Dawkins has on at least one occasion argued that it is, in theory, very possible to ascertain, on a scientific basis, that a living organism, due to its complexity, can show unmistakable evidence of a designer. In his 'River Out of Eden' Dawkins tells a fictional story that should be possible in the not too distant future. A kidnapped biochemist inserts a string of prime numbers into the DNA of a strain of influenza so that his colleagues, when examining the influenza strain, will realise that a hidden message is, in Dawkins' words, being "sneezed around the world". This leads to greater analysis of the obviously designed DNA and, when decoded, leads to the rescue of the ingenious biochemist.

Now, illustrations and analogies are, by their very nature, extreme, so let's state the obvious - the arguments of ID proponents are nowhere near as clear cut as a string of prime numbers in a DNA sequence. But that is the separate argument of whether ID theory is good or bad science, not whether it is science at all. Such an argument would belong in a Science forum rather than the Christianity forum.

However, from a philosophical standpoint, it appears to me that Dawkins' little story skewers the objections about ID not being science. Dawkins, who presumably does understand evolution and science fairly well, is describing a scenario where a living organism displays a feature that cannot be adequately explained scientifically without positing a designer. That is Intelligent Design in its most basic form.

Now, you cannot have your cake and eat it. Either Dawkins is spouting a load of mumbo-jumbo faith propositions and pseudo-science, or else the basic principle behind ID theory can be examined as a scientific theory.

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

IF ID is actually proven wrong will you accept it is as being so?

Of course. I would be very happy to see proof that ID is wrong. That would be very welcome and much better than ad hominem attacks that think you can discredit a theory by using the word 'creationism' enough times.

BTW, I do not advocate teaching ID in the classroom. I think that it should be assessed scientifically (not ideologically) and should only make it into the classroom if there is sufficient support from the scientific community. In other words, if ID is bad science then junk it, but make sure the junking is done on scientific grounds alone.

So yes, if ID is proven wrong I will accept it as so - even though some, in their eagerness to rubbish it, claim it is non-testable and non-falsifiable.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

While some proponents of ID may criticise evolution, ID itself does not do so. ID simply argues that some features of the universe appear to require a designer - there is no implication as to who the designer might be or whether he/she/it guided evolution or used some other method.

Well actually it does, ID says that certain things such as life could not have evolved.

This is the justification in the first place for the argument that there must have been a designer, that is what they mean when they say things look designed. The term Irreducibly Complex is thrown around a lot in ID, which says that some functioning part of complex systems such as life cannot be reduced to a simpler design and still function and therefore cannot have evolved, they must have been designed and created in one go.

Anyone who knows anything about evolution will see the major flaw in that argument, but discussion of that is probably left for the Creationism thread.

My point is merely that Intelligent Design is not compatible with evolution and that is in fact the ID proponents main argument.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Well actually it does, ID says that certain things such as life could not have evolved.

No, that is not what ID says.

ID says that certain things could not have evolved without some kind of guidance. (I'm not sure what you mean by life evolving. Isn't that abiogenesis rather than evolution?)

Think of it this way. Imagine there is a one in a million chance that mutation A occurs in a hypothetical organism. There is also one in a million chance that mutation B occurs in the same organism. Fair enough - one in a million occurences happen all the time. But what if a mutation A would kill the organism unless mutation B occurred with it simultaneously? The odds necessary for the mutation to occur successfully have now multiplied to an astronomical figure.

Dawkins himself, in the story I cited earlier, says that the odds against prime numbers occurring regularly in a DNA sequence are so high as to render it impossible without positing a designer.

So, ID does not say that anything could not have evolved. It says that the odds against such evolution occurring unassisted beggars belief.

Ickle Magoo

Presumably the bio-chemist would be able to prove how they inserted prime-numbers into DNA & that would be verifiable and could therefor be called science?

Some things in the world are complex & why some people think ID was involved - that much is understandable to most; Dawkins included. That's not to be confused with being too complex or having evidence for ID, however.

PDN

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Presumably the bio-chemist would be able to prove how they inserted prime-numbers into DNA & that would be verifiable and could therefor be called science?

Hmmm, this is getting interesting.

So, let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly. The inference of a designer is only scientific if you can prove how the designed feature was put there?

However, let's assume that the biochemist who inserted the code is a whole lot smarter than the comparative dunces who are decoding his message. They have no idea how he went about putting the message into the DNA, nor can they replicate his feat. However, they can clearly read the message encoded in the DNA, "Help! This is Dr X. I've been kidnapped by an evil git and need to be rescued ASAP." Are you seriously arguing that it would be unscientific of them to conclude that the message was designed and had not occurred through random mutation?

Zombrex

Biro wrote: »

Actually neither Evolution nor Gravity are "fact". They are scientific theorys. That's what Science is about.

Well if we are getting pedantic evolution is a theory and gravity is an observed phenomena. :P

The gravitational theory parts of General Relativity (which model gravity as a warp in space time) are the current theories explaining gravitation.

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

Complex life would be the observed phenomena that Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory explains.