The teaching of Intelligent Design as science in the U.S.

hairyheretic

I'm just wondering if anyone has been paying attention to the ongoing fun and games in the U.S concerning the teaching of Intelligent Design as science in schools.

For those unaware of it, ID is creationism with a scientific overlay, the theory that the world / universe / whatever is so unusual and complex that it can only have been formed and guided along by an exterior intelligence (and given that the main supporters are the christian right wing I'm sure you can guess which intelligence this might be).

They want it presented as an opposing theory to evolution. Opponents are argueing that it is religion, and should be presented as such (not science).

Anyone been watching this, or have any thoughts on it?

Dades

I've certainly been watching it.

Every type of following has their extremes, and these particular brand of Christians give the faith a bad name. I doubt they garner a lot of support outside of their particular communities, and certainly not on this board I hope.

Lets hope common sense prevails. Science class for science, Bible School for religion.

dalk

Intelligent design has been gathering support from some amusing quarters. Remember the Raelians? They received a lot of free publicity a few years ago with their unsubstantiated claim that they had cloned a human baby... They are also popular for their belief in 'free love' and that Aliens engineered planet earth.

And now they are advocating the teaching of ID in classrooms... Of course the 'Intelligence' behind the design that they believe in is alien...

The Raelian Movement would like to underscore that the Theory of Intelligent Design does not lead to a supernatural designer but to an extraterrestrial human civilization designer

hairyheretic

I think this is my favourite response to the whole ID issue

http://www.venganza.org/

Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?

Goodshape

And lets not forget the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Perfectly outlines the sillyness of the wholething I think.

Damn. too late

Excelsior

I may be decried by some of the hardlining Christians on this forum as a heretic in monkish robes but ID is nothing more than a cynical attempt to protect a Bible that doesn't need such flimsy half-truths and intricate codologies to buttress it. The Bible can take care of itself just fine without these inane shenanigans.

The vocabulary I am using here is quickly making me sound like one of dad's farming neighbours in south Leitrim but Intelligent Design is supported by the Raelians, Islam and any other number of worldviews that have no particular interest in fundamentalist Christian's literal reading of the first 3 or 400 words of the Bible.

Regardless of its truth value, ID is a philosophy, not a scientific theory. Science class at secondary school is probably not going to furnish any of us with the space to discuss the philosophies that have been inferred from science. Stick to the numbers and drop the inferrances (whether they are fundamentalist Dawkins-esque atheism or fundamentalist Ham-esque theisms) and we'll be better off.

robindch

> ID is nothing more than a cynical attempt
> to protect a Bible that doesn't need such flimsy
> half-truths and intricate codologies to buttress it

At last, Excelsior, we find something to agree upon! Al least up until the second line, anyhow

While it's clear that many creationists heavily advertize themselves (see Ham's byline at http://www.answersingenesis.org) as pious propper-uppers of the holy word of god, it seems a touch pointless to do this in a country where this text remains unquestioned, even by intellectuals.

Rather, I see creationism as an attempt to undermine and destroy any possible trust in a system of organized knowledge and reason (science) which exists in direct competition to religion, which is why evolution is closely and emotively linked with atheism, at least in the minds of creationists. Also, the fact that it takes no more than a few seconds to explain and understand the entire basis for creationism, does make it an attractive creed for the lazy and the thick who are unable, or simply don't want, to make an effort to understand anything, and prefer their beliefs handed to them by their holymen.

As well as that, there's the well-known creationist tie-in with a Republican administration actively involved in undermining the work of scientists (See, for example, here and here) who constantly point out that the administration's utterances upon almost every topic are either meaningless, or simple lies. What could be better than being able to propagate the notion of a holy and faultless reason to distrust these scientists, these atheistic unpatriotic libruls, filled with book-larning?

> fundamentalist Ham-esque

Ham did appear in UCD back in March and lectured to a hall less than one-third full (see this report), but having seen him on video since (thanks pH!), I'm quite sorry that he couldn't muster up the kind of fire and brimstone and very literal heavy-handed bible-thumping which he can in more convivial circumstances. Quite a shame

For anybody interested in the specifics of ID (proponents are apparently referred to as IDiots, btw), the following link gives a good rundown on what's on offer:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne05/coyne05_index.html

OfflerCrocGod

hairyheretic wrote:

For those unaware of it, ID is creationism with a scientific overlay

IT'S NOT SCIENCE.
It pure religion, OK? It doesn't even have a "scientific overlay" so don't besmirch science by calling that crap science

Asiaprod

I am putting my money on the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Peter K