Should ID be taught in schools?

[JUGGERNAUT]

First let's clear up misconceptions of what Intelligent Design (ID) is. It is not biblical-creationism. It is rooted in scientific facts. It challenges Darwinism.

 

Neither Darwinists or IDists dispute the fact that man evolved from non-intelligent life.

The dispute lies in how man evolved. Darwinists believe that mutation arising from natural selection is the primary influence for that evolution. IDists believe that the complexity of mankind's being is a magnitude so much greater than everything else that natural selection is at best a secondary influence for that evolution. The primary influence(s) remain unknown.

 

IDists arrive at that conclusion based on scientific facts. The differential in the genome of a chimp & a human pales in significance to the differential in their brains. The complexity of the human brain is so much greater than that of a chimp's that natural selection is at best a secondary influence in it's evolution. Likewise the frequency of mutation that occured within man's evolution is many million times greater than that of a chimps.

 

The science of genetics is based on calculations of probability matrices & complexity of design. Such calculations are proving that it is improbable to suggest that mutation arising from natural selection is the primary influence in man's evolution.

 

So that is essentially what this debate is about. Should the misguided, improbable, & unsubstantiated claim that mutation arising from natural selection is the primary influence in man's evolution continue to be taught in our public schools or should it be downgraded to a secondary influence & the primary influence remain unknown?

 

Treating natural selection as a secondary influence opens the door to enlightening the students to what we know about other influences & how they affected our evolution. Based on recent polls 64% of Americans believe ID should be taught in the classrooms.

Edited September 4, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[Nokona]

No.

No.

No.

 

How many scientists truly believe in ID? How many that aren't directly affiliated with a church somewhere?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

ID is a pseudo-science. You have to hand it to the fundamentalist Christians, they're evolving.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

Why is this a weekly argument on here?

[KipWellsFan]

Okay, so the universe is supposed to be expanding constantly at the speed of light right? But the odds of a single cell evolving into what we've become on only one planet in what may be an infinite universe is an unreasonable thought?

 

I think teachers should always mention and explain the belief in creationism but stick with what seems like the majority of scientists around the world believe. But then I really think about it, how the hell is some young kid at the age kids are taught about evolution supposed to understand any of this in the first place.

 

Hell I'm pretty sure I don't have half of the knowledge to really form a sound opinion on this.

Edited September 4, 2005 by KipWellsFan

[Rex Kickass]

Since when is the scientific equivalent of "Nuh-uh!" a theory?

Edited September 4, 2005 by winodj

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 4, 2005 -> 04:23 PM)

So that is essentially what this debate is about.  Should the misguided, improbable, &  unsubstantiated claim that mutation arising from natural selection is the primary influence in man's evolution continue to be taught in our public schools or should it be downgraded to a secondary influence & the primary influence remain unknown?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, because it is based on the scientific model, not the bible.

 

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 4, 2005 -> 04:23 PM)

Treating natural selection as a secondary influence opens the door to enlightening the students to what we know about other influences & how they affected our evolution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That sounds fine and dandy, but I don't want my tax dollars paying for non-science to be taught is school.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Sep 4, 2005 -> 04:23 PM)

64% of Americans believe ID should be taught in the classrooms.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who cares what % of americans think it should be taught in school? It's not a science. I'm willing to bet the percentage was much higher below the bible belt than in New York, LA or Chicago.

 

Juggs, if 80% of a town thinks that children should be taught that 2+2=5, does that mean math teachers should change their teaching methods? Science is not a democracy.

Edited September 4, 2005 by santo=dorf

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(winodj @ Sep 4, 2005 -> 05:11 PM)

Since when is the scientific equivalent of "Nuh-uh!" a theory?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When the creationists can't use the bible to back up their claims.

[santo=dorf]

Should history teachers start teaching about how the Holocaust didn't happen because a certain % of people believe it didn't take place?

 

Answer that one for me juggs.

[JUGGERNAUT]

What is science? According to some of you that which is ONLY supported by majority opinion in a scientific community. :rolly

 

Science is the exploration of our universe & everything in it. We explore it through observation, & calculation. From that we derive laws & theories that govern that exploration.

 

What any one person thinks about any one particular aspect of science is irrelevant. In order to claim something is unscientific you must disprove it's basis rooted in observation &/or calculation. If you can not then your personal opinion represents nothing more than bias.

 

ID is rooted in a sound basis of both observation & calculation. That is why you rarely hear or read any Darwinists who make arguments challenging the basis. They prefer to lump it with creationism & disregard it as religious. That's nothing more than bias & it has no place in the world of science.

 

If you choose not to believe the recent findings strongly suggesting that man is a super-species in comparison to the rest of nature then make an argument against both the observation & calculation that supports that claim. If you can not then you would be best to stay out of it.

[KipWellsFan]

If you choose not to believe the recent findings strongly suggesting that man is a super-species in comparison to the rest of nature then make an argument against both the observation & calculation that supports that claim.  If you can not then you would be best to stay out of it.

 

Ants could kick our ass.

 

In all seriousness though I think santo=dorf is missing the point as Juggs isn't saying God made us or the bible is fact. But it's probably hard for many to even consider the idea of 'intelligent design' when they see on CNN a pastor who I guess is supposed to represent those who believe in intelligent design say that the earth is only 10000 years old.

[JUGGERNAUT]

This is an example of an intelligent design finding that has NOTHING to do with the Bible:

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/...50904123314.htm

As genetic science moves forward we are breaking away from the old paradigm that mutation is the primary influence on how we evolve.

 

The genetic differential between man & the earth worm is small yet the complexity of the two organisms is vast. Mutation through natural selection can't explain that.

 

It's interesting that the article makes use of the term "Software to Life". Software implies intelligent design.

Edited September 4, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[JUGGERNAUT]

Another strong tenet of Darwinism coming under fire is the belief that mutation through natural selection strongly suggests there is intelligent life on other planets.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/...00126080531.htm

That popular belief is weakening as computer driven probability matrices strongly suggest that is not likely.

 

Brownlee: "For 90 percent of the age of this planet, life was slime at the bottom of the ocean. The underlying theme of the book is that the Earth is a very charmed planet. We know of no other body that is even remotely like Earth."

 

This is what science is about. Applying observation & calculation to explain things in the Universe. Plausible explanations that weaken traditional theories should be taught in school.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Sep 4, 2005 -> 05:40 PM)

Ants could kick our ass.

 

In all seriousness though I think santo=dorf is missing the point as Juggs isn't saying God made us or the bible is fact.  But it's probably hard for many to even consider the idea of 'intelligent design' when they see on CNN a pastor who I guess is supposed to represent those who believe in intelligent design say that the earth is only 10000 years old.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's hard to understand Juggs because I know how religious he is. I have watched specials on this debate, and to me it seems EVERY person in favor of it believes in the bible and tends to slip "God" into the conversation of teaching ID. I have never seen a supporter of ID being a cult member who believes Space Aliens created the Earth (yes there are people out there who believe that.)

 

If this was the first post I saw from juggernaut, I wouldn't have mentioned anything about the bible. I know where he is coming from.

Edited September 5, 2005 by santo=dorf

[Middle Buffalo]

Sounds boring. I'd consider it if it's taught in ebonics.

[bmags]

i have a hard time believing this statement that genetics is proving how vastly different a humans genome is from other similar animals when the human genome project just lowered the amount of genes specific to a humans body to 20000, when some plants have specific genes of 40000...

[kapkomet]

Ants could kick our ass.

 

 

 

 

That's all I had to read, right there. Sums it up pretty good.

[YASNY]

I'm willing to bet the percentage was much higher below the bible belt than in New York, LA or Chicago.

 

So, the location of a person is somewhat conducive to the value of their particular point of view? I detect a certain amount of regionally based arrogance here.

[CanOfCorn]

All I can say is...s*** Happens. I know it's very hard to believe that natural selection got us from one-celled organisms to humans that can kill each other for no other reason than liking someones 8-ball leather jacket, but if you can say there was some sort of outside force that helped us along the path (which, to me, is hard to believe), then why can't you believe that mutations along the path happened?

 

Do you disregard the chaos theory? Does everything have to be explainable? Or in a pattern?

 

And as for life on other planets...it is arrogant to think that in this vast expanse of space, there aren't lifeforms, intelligent or otherwise, out there.

 

As for your original question...should ID be taught in schools? Only to the point where you teach a child how to learn. I'd say, teach children what the majority of scientists believe in, but say there are other ideologies out there that they can learn about if they are interested. There isn't enough time in school to cover everyone's belief systems and history and theorems as it is.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(YASNY @ Sep 6, 2005 -> 05:55 AM)

So, the location of a person is somewhat conducive to the value of their particular point of view?  I detect a certain amount of regionally based arrogance here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, you're way off base.

 

Juggernaut said 64% of americans think ID should be tought in school. I would like to see a regional breakdown in this figure because our public schoola are funded by state governments. I highly doubt 64% of people in Illinois think ID should be tought in school, and if that's the case, why should my tax dollars pay for something that few people want?

Edited September 6, 2005 by santo=dorf

[G&T]

The problem with ID is that the "other influence" is God, thus it shouldn't be in our schools.

My second point is this, from what I can tell, and I'm not a scholar on this topic, ID bases itself in evolution, then makes claims about other powers. The fact is this, you are teaching to high school students who can only go so deep into the science of evolution anyway. When I learned it, we did Punnet Squares and bred fruit flies. There was no need to talk about ID because the level high schoolers get to is not in depth enough to make them question the science.

I may be having trouble getting my point across here but all I'm saying is that high schoolers may not care about what is right about evolution or ID, and even if they do, they will learn the basics about ID from learning the small amount about evolution that they get.

Plus, I really doubt that teachers what to deal with another hot button issue like religion. I think these teachers have enough to worry about.

[YASNY]

Sorry, you're way off base.

 

Juggernaut said 64% of americans think ID should be tought in school. I would like to see a regional breakdown in this figure because our public schoola are funded by state governments. I highly doubt 64% of people in Illinois think ID should be tought in school, and if that's the case, why should my tax dollars pay for something that few people want?

 

Your original post implied as much, but you say different and I can accept that on face value. As for your tax argument, you also have a point. But you are talking on a state level. Since this is a constitutional issue, it's also a national issue. The biggest argument against this is whether or not the separation of church and state applies. Therefore, 64% of the nation is not what I consider "few people".

[Balance]

IDists arrive at that conclusion based on scientific facts.

Utter hogwash. Name a scientific fact on which ID is based.

 

The differential in the genome of a chimp & a human pales in significance to the differential in their brains.  The complexity of the human brain is so much greater than that of a chimp's that natural selection is at best a secondary influence in it's evolution.  Likewise the frequency of mutation that occured within man's evolution is many million times greater than that of a chimps.

That is not a fact. It is speculation, completely unsupported by facts of any kind.

 

The science of genetics is based on calculations of probability matrices & complexity of design.  Such calculations are proving that it is improbable to suggest that mutation arising from natural selection is the primary influence in man's evolution.

Again, that is your impression of the issue, not fact.

 

So that is essentially what this debate is about.  Should the misguided, improbable, &  unsubstantiated claim that mutation arising from natural selection is the primary influence in man's evolution continue to be taught in our public schools or should it be downgraded to a secondary influence & the primary influence remain unknown?

This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you.

Treating natural selection as a secondary influence opens the door to enlightening the students to what we know about other influences & how they affected our evolution.  Based on recent polls 64% of Americans believe ID should be taught in the classrooms.

If 64% of Americans wanted to teach our children that there are 30 letters in the English alphabet, should we teach that? If 64% of Americans wanted to teach our children that God does not exist, how would you feel about that?

 

Furthermore, what would an ID lesson look like? What would go into the book? Would the Bible be a textbook? What evidence would the lesson include?

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(YASNY @ Sep 6, 2005 -> 04:46 PM)

Therefore, 64% of the nation is not what I consider "few people".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I said I highly doubt that 64% of Illinoisians (Is that a word? ) think ID should be taught in school meaning a much lower % would support the movement. Therefore I used the term "few people" to describe the percentage of residents in Illinois that support the teaching of ID.

[Balta1701]

I said I highly doubt that 64% of Illinoisians (Is that a word?    ) think ID should be taught in school meaning a much lower % would support the movement.  Therefore I used the term "few people" to describe the percentage of residents in Illinois that support the teaching of ID.

The only question that matters is...How Many of them are named Steve?