Why isn't Intelligent design not allowed in public schools?

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Ron Arndt, Dec 21, 2005.

  1. Ron Arndt

    Ron Arndt
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    0
    Call me dumb or whatever, but why isn't intelligent design taught in public schools along with evolution, so the kids can decide what is more believable? How do public school educators have such a stronghold on denying discussion of intelligent design to even be discussed? Is it the parents of the children who are against this or what? I just don't understand this. Would someone more informed please explain this to me. Thanks.
     
  2. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    ID isn't science. It's philosophy. It shouldn't be taught as science. It should, however, be taught as philosophy. And, personally, I think that as a philosophy, it's quite good.

    OTOH, some will say that ID doesn't point exclusively to the Christian God, so as such, it should not be permitted in public schools.
     
  3. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    Correct me if I am wrong, but I heard on the news last night that the judge ruled that Intelligent Design could be taught as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution.
    DHK
     
  4. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    You heard wrong. He said it couldn't.

    I think it can be considered Science to measure a property of an organism, and to observe natural changes and the like, and conclude there is no evidence that suggests this property did evolve from any known mechanism we have observed.

    It is not science though to simply conclude that a higher being must be involved. At this point, we can only include the first hypothesis was wrong. We can hypthezise that something more power must have created, but it does not serve as a test to say, "just because it is so complicated!" Upon concluding the evolutionary theory as we now understand it is unlikely, we are still left with 1) we were created by God 2) we were created by Aliens 3) we evolved under a mechanism that we do not yet understand 4) we evolved under a different set of physical laws of which we don't understand 5) something that is neither evolution or creation that we have not even considered yet.

    [ December 21, 2005, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Pete Richert ]
     
  5. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Intelligent design can be mentioned in school in social studies or history.

    It can't be mentioned in the science classroom as an officially endorsed viewpoint, it isn't even science. Its philosophy or religion or both.
     
  6. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Why isn't intelligent design taught, and is now, in effect, banned from being taught? Because of the New-Age-Liberals Clinton appointed to federal benches. In their infinite wisdom, these judges try to enforce freedom FROM religion, something the "founding fathers" never intended. It's clear to my from my studies of American history that these men intended that the govt. not interfere whatsoever in the free exercise of religion except where such exercise could harm someone.

    The evil ACLU fought in Congress FOR freedom of religion for certain Indian nations to fry their brains with psylocybin and mescaline, and have defended Moslems' right to bow toward Mecca and pray 3 times a day, no matter where they are.(Obviously this doesn't include operating a motor vehicle, etc!) They've battled Intelligent design from the gitgo. While they support pagan religious practices, they fight tooth & nail against anything CHRISTIAN or JEWISH. Down with the ACLU!

    Whatever else Dubbiyeh mighta done wrong, he has done right by appointing judges who uphold everyone's right to perform reasonable religious practices. However, we're still infected by many Clinton appointees. (And not every Bush appointee has been a paragon of justice, either! In fact, I think Judge John E. Jones, who ruled against intelligent design, was a Bush appointee!)
     
  7. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    How then can evolution be taught scientifically if we KNOW that it is false and completely not true?
     
  8. Jeff Weaver

    Jeff Weaver
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    2,056
    Likes Received:
    0
    umm. Judge John E. Jones, jurist in the Pennsylvania case, was appointed by G. W. Bush.

    See Biography of Judge Jones
     
  9. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree that creationism and ID is not science...but neither is macro evolution.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  10. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sure it is. Those of a particular religious persuasion can argue that it's bad science, and possily make a valid point. But it is science nonetheless.
     
  11. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good science is something that is observable. Nobody that I know of has actually observed an animal changing from one species to another. They have lots of great speculation, however, based on millions of years of change.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  12. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Speciation of plants and animals has been observed. Speciation is now considered to be a part of microevolution, and no longer considered as a requisite for macroevolution.

    Not taking a side either way, just commenting.
     
  13. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    I agree that nobody has observed this, but this is not evolution. Once an animal is born, it remains in the species it was born in and does not change into another species.

    Animal populations do evolve into separate species and this has been observed in the following instances:

    Talk.Origins : Observed Instances of Speciation
     
  14. Bunyon

    Bunyon
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is real easy to say ID is not science, but so far no one has actually shown that it is not. They have just blindly repeated the mantra "ID is not science."
     
  15. Bunyon

    Bunyon
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gold Dragon, without even looking at your sight I can tell you it does not prove anything and does not show one species becoming another species. Because if it did, evolution would not be a theory anymore.
     
  16. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree that nobody has observed this, but this is not evolution. Once an animal is born, it remains in the species it was born in and does not change into another species.

    Animal populations do evolve into different species and this has been observed in the following instances:

    Talk.Origins : Observed Instances of Speciation
    </font>[/QUOTE]I didn't say it was evolution in general. I said macro evolution. That is changing from species to species:

    Macro-evolution

    Animals may evolve and mutate, but they never change species. That is a false assertion which cannot be scientifically proved. I don't care if a grow three legs and start roaring like a bear, and have characteristics of other species. The bottom line is that I am still human.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  17. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    I thought we had this discussion before about the scientific use of the word theory.
     
  18. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,074
    Likes Received:
    102
     
  19. Robert J Hutton

    Robert J Hutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    0
    Answer to question at the beginning of thread: for the same reason it is not taught in British state schools - the Devil wants to blind the minds of the unsaved with the belief that we come from monkeys so they won't believe in God.

    Kind regards to all.

    Bob
     
  20. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    The New York Times
    December 22, 2005
    Editorial
    Intelligent Design Derailed

    By now, the Christian conservatives who once dominated the school board in Dover, Pa., ought to rue their recklessness in forcing biology classes to hear about "intelligent design" as an alternative to the theory of evolution. Not only were they voted off the school board by an exasperated public last November, but this week a federal district judge declared their handiwork unconstitutional and told the school district to abandon a policy of such "breathtaking inanity."

    A new and wiser school board is planning to do just that by removing intelligent design from the science curriculum and perhaps placing it in an elective course on comparative religion. That would be a more appropriate venue to learn about what the judge deemed "a religious view, a mere relabeling of creationism and not a scientific theory."

    The intelligent design movement holds that life forms are too complex to have been formed by natural processes and must have been fashioned by a higher intelligence, which is never officially identified but which most adherents believe to be God. By injecting intelligent design into the science curriculum, the judge ruled, the board was unconstitutionally endorsing a religious viewpoint that advances "a particular version of Christianity."

    The decision will have come at an opportune time if it is able to deflect other misguided efforts by religious conservatives to undermine the teaching of evolution, a central organizing principle of modern biology. In Georgia, a federal appeals court shows signs of wanting to reverse a lower court that said it was unconstitutional to require textbooks to carry a sticker disparaging evolution as "a theory, not a fact." That's the line of argument used by the anti-evolution crowd. We can only hope that the judges in Atlanta find the reasoning of the Pennsylvania judge, who dealt with comparable issues, persuasive.

    Meanwhile in Kansas, the State Board of Education has urged schools to criticize evolution. It has also changed the definition of science so it is not limited to natural explanations, opening the way for including intelligent design or other forms of creationism that cannot meet traditional definitions of science. All Kansans interested in a sound science curriculum should heed what happened in Dover and vote out the inane board members.

    The judge in the Pennsylvania case, John Jones III, can hardly be accused of being a liberal activist out to overturn community values - even by those inclined to see conspiracies. He is a lifelong Republican, appointed to the bench by President Bush, and has been praised for his integrity and intellect. Indeed, as the judge pointed out, the real activists in this case were ill-informed school board members, aided by a public interest law firm that promotes Christian values, who combined to drive the board to adopt an imprudent and unconstitutional policy.

    Judge Jones's decision was a striking repudiation of intelligent design, given that Dover's policy was minimally intrusive on classroom teaching. Administrators merely read a brief disclaimer at the beginning of a class asserting that evolution was a theory, not a fact; that there were gaps in the evidence for evolution; and that intelligent design provided an alternative explanation and could be further explored by consulting a book in the school library. Yet even that minimal statement amounted to an endorsement of religion, the judge concluded, because it caused students to doubt the theory of evolution without scientific justification and presented them with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory.

    The case was most notable for its searching inquiry into whether intelligent design could be considered science. The answer, after a six-week trial that included hours of expert testimony, was a resounding no.

    The judge found that intelligent design violated the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking supernatural causation and by making assertions that cannot be tested or proved wrong. Moreover, intelligent design has not gained acceptance in the scientific community, has not been supported by peer-reviewed research, and has not generated a research and testing program of its own. The core argument for intelligent design - the supposedly irreducible complexity of key biological systems - has clear theological overtones. As long ago as the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas argued that because nature is complex, it must have a designer.

    The religious thrust behind Dover's policy was unmistakable. The board members who pushed the policy through had repeatedly expressed religious reasons for opposing evolution, though they tried to dissemble during the trial. Judge Jones charged that the two ringleaders lied in depositions to hide the fact that they had raised money at a church to buy copies of an intelligent design textbook for the school library. He also found that board members were strikingly ignorant about intelligent design and that several individuals had lied time and again to hide their religious motivations for backing the concept. Their contention that they had a secular purpose - to improve science education and encourage critical thinking - was declared a sham.

    No one believes that this thoroughgoing repudiation of intelligent design will end the incessant warfare over evolution. But any community that is worried about the ability of its students to compete in a global economy would be wise to keep supernatural explanations out of its science classes.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/opinion/22thur1.html?th&emc=th
     

Share This Page

Loading...