Intelligent Design

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Deacon, Dec 20, 2005.

  1. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,925
    Likes Received:
    111
    HARRISBURG, Pa.
    December 20, 2005

    In a blow to creationists today, the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court determined that the school district of Dover, PA was undermining biological science education by raising doubts about evolution and offering "intelligent design" as an alternative explanation for life's origins.

    Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District was the first legal test for the intelligent design theory.

    Intelligent design supporters maintain that Darwin's theory of natural selection can’t fully explain the complex origin of life and its diversity; a higher intelligence must have designed them.

    Opponents of ID say the theory is only used as a wedge to introduce religion into the classroom and that it lacks scientific evidence.

    Rob
     
  2. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Religion is already in the classroom. It is simply a matter of which religion!
     
  3. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    If they were to teach intelligent design, does who that designer is depend on the teachers beliefs? Has their intelligent designer got a name? If he' she' it is named God of the bible, then it isn't the biblical God thats being taught as that intelligent designer. Most cultures and religion have soem stroy of creation, and it's their 'god' who created, not ours.
    I see this as the same as prayer in scholl, no guarentee that it's going to be the christian God.
     
  4. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    ID is a great philosophical tool, and I favor it being taught. But it should be taught as philosophy, not as science, because it is a philosophy, not a science.
     
  5. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,925
    Likes Received:
    111
    Philosophy? Well yes, but the underpinning of the materialistic theory of evolution is philosophical.

    The lawsuit centered around these words that were added to the Dover school curriculum

    "Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory of Evolution and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of life will not be taught."

    Rob
     
  6. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is sad....but, we should not be surpised that the world is headed in the direction that it is. [​IMG]
     
  7. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Never talked to an IDer who wanted to talk about life on earth being seeded by space aliens.
     
  8. hillclimber

    hillclimber
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's for sure Helen.

    ID should be taught in at least the same level as Darwinism, as it is a more believable. Neither are scientific but ID is intuitively and logically more believable.
     
  9. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    What does "believable" have to do with science?
     
  10. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    What does "intuitive" have to do with science?
     
  11. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,591
    Likes Received:
    256
    You may be right, but


    "The cell confirms our expectations from design. Our DNA contains incredible amounts of encoded information. Living cells transform this encoded chemical message into machines which are engineered to perform necessary biochemical functions. The conversion of DNA into protein relies upon a software-like system of commands and biochemical codes. This is an information processing system which Bill Gates has described as “like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.”

    that doesn't sound a whole lot like philosophy to me. :confused:
     
  12. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    DonnA, no, the designer is not taught. The point of intelligent design is not a philosophical one, as John has mis-stated. It is a use of the basic scientific method to look at parts of the natural world and ask if they give more evidence of intelligent design than they do of time and chance.

    But because so many parts of the natural world DO show evidence of intelligent design, it terrifies the evolutionists who will use any lie possible to keep it from being considered. For while ID does not walk through the theological door, it does deposit one on the doorstep and that is totally unacceptable to secular science which depends entirely on the atheistic point of view to proceed (whether or not those who subscribe to their conclusions are atheists).

    [off topic: AND WHAT are about a hundred robins doing in our yard and our neighbor's yard this time of year in southern Oregon????]
     
  13. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's plain false. ID is not science. It's philosophy. It's good philosophy, imo, but it's philosophy. Even Bob Jones University denounces ID as science.
     
  14. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    I don't care who denounces it, John. I have worked with the men for too long not to know what I am talking about! The Dembski filter is NOT philosophical, nor is an examination of irreducible complexity. Both are scientifically examinable and falsifiable. You can look at ID philosophically, but the field itself is pure science -- it's just that it's science that secular science doesn't like.
     
  15. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,591
    Likes Received:
    256
    I assume we all know the Biblical creation story and it is of concern to me that thinking Bible believing Christians, after reading about "intelligent design", would contend that the two are the same.
     
  16. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Carpro, that has been one of the main points I have hit in my lectures which I have given to church groups. ID is NOT the same as Christianity or creation. It should not be mistaken for such or criticized by Christians for not being such. It is using the scientific method to examine natural phenomena.
     
  17. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    In all fairness to the Discovery Institute (the founders of the ID faith), they did not want their religion taught in public schools, and did not approve of the Dover School Board's actions.

    It was the doing of a few extremists, not the ID community as a group.

    It appears that ID is trying to move away from faith doctrines, and is trying to find a way to make their ideas compatible with science. Their position on the Dover issue was that until ID can be developed as a science, it should not be taught in public schools.

    "Discovery Institute continues to oppose efforts to mandate teaching about the theory of intelligent design in public schools," emphasized West.
    http://tinyurl.com/d5eaj

    They don't mind a voluntary discussion of ID, of course.

    Creationists are understandably not happy with them.
     
  18. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'm a creationist and I'm perfectly happy with them. Please don't attribute to us how you want us to feel, OK?
     
  19. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,475
    Likes Received:
    34
    If the total truth were taught and the students allowed to form their OWN (very important point) beliefs based on evidence, I have no doubts that by far the majority would opt for some form of intelligent design over "chance"! Now how many would accept God is open to question, but that's another topic

    The key is for the teacher/professor to be as neutral as is humanly possible, and just present the theories/facts.

    But we know how neutral they would be, don't we; from the almost panic reaction to even QUESTIONING the big E.
     
  20. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Bingo
     

Share This Page

Loading...