God in Schools?
For some inexplicable reason, our illustrious leader seems more eager to change the country's biology curriculum than to settle world affairs. What the president and the rest of the religious right is pushing for is to put the theory of intelligent design into the classrooms. I have several main problems with this.
1. Intelligent design IS NOT SCIENCE! Science implies that there is a proven basis. If the fanatics wanted intelligent design to be placed in a philosophy course, that would be fine. It ponders one idea about the creation of the world and the universe. The main argument for intelligent design is that many elements of the universe are too complex to have formed 'randomly'. The formation of the universe, rather than being random, happened according to the laws of science and nature. Keep science in science classes and philosophy in philosophy classes!
2. Many supporters of intelligent design say that it is a theory, as is evolution. What they do not realize, however, is the scientific meaning of theory. In the layperson's sense of the word, theory can mean "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge, a conjecture." (~dictionary.com) The scientific definition of theory, however, is much more exacting. A scientific theory may be taken as fact, it is just not so indisputable that it may be considered a "law." While it is not absolute truth, it is as close as humanly possible. Intelligent design, however, has not passed the rigorous testing that is needed for a theory. The hypothesis of intelligent design would be a more correct title.
3. Int
elligent design is creationism hiding behind another label. While its proponents claim that it is not religious in origin, I doubt they would be happy if teachers began to teach that the Earth (or the universe!) were the experiment or design of an alien species!4. Okay, so what is up with putting religion back into schools? The current government's agenda stinks of a Middle Ages theocracy! Are we going back to the days in which
scientists were arrested, tortured, and even killed for speaking out against the Church? Galileo was put under house arrest because he said that the sun and moon had spots, and therefore not the sublime heavenly bodies that the Church said they were. Today, more and more science has become illegal, and the U.S. is falling behind in scientific discovery. If South Korea can get further in stem-cell research than we, there must be something seriously wrong. What happened to our great nation of discovery and exploration? Putting 'intelligent' design into schools is a great step backwards towards the Dark Ages.If you feel differently, or have other supports, please debate with me!
posted by Dalamar | 5:59 AM
8 Comments:
I am pleased to see the blogger pointing out some of the falacies behind "Intelligent Design". The scientific definition of "theory" is, in my opinion, too often overlooked. Darwin, Mendel and all of the scientists who followed them, weren't just thinking aloud when the Theory of Evolution was solidified. This was after many years of collecting and analyzing data. The ID backers' claim that because there are some missing bits of information within that data (supposedly invalidating the scientific importance) is a transparent attempt on their parts to lend scientific weight to a religious cause. Keep up the good work, blogger.
Dalmar does a good job summarizing the "controversy." One must wonder at the argument that the complexity of life requires an intelligent designer since any small change will prevent the organism from functioning. That doesn't sound very intelligent! Redundancy is a hallmark of intelligent design and yet the proponents of this religious notion hiding behind a new facade say that the missing redundancy "proves" their untestable hypothesis. This is science? Keep up the good work, Dalmar!
Very well argued. I'm not about to disagree with you! I read an interesting essay the other day http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0116-21.htm
about how Darwin may not have gone far enough. The author states that the earth is evolving also, just like the organisms that inhabit the planet. Too bad we don't have real thinkers running this country.
Ok, two things from the first two. (1) Theory does not mean fact without quite enough proof. It just means that most scientists accaeot it as fact. However, it is not proven correct. Gravity is a law. Evolution is a theory. Warp tunnels is a hypothesis.
(2) Intelligent design should be taught as an alternative to believing what a very large number of people disagree with (personally, I don't like "Intelligent Design" because it implies that evolution still exists). If one wants to state the hypothesis of creation, that should be in a theology course; however, intelligent design could be a plausible explanation to the illusive "big bang" theory that makes as much sense as pounding my thumb for pleasure.
If evolution was not still occurring, how do you explain the appearance of drug-resistant bacterial infections or new diseases such as bird flu?
I highly recommend you see the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." I found it to be very educational.
I do have a problem with multiple points you tried to support, but I'll stick to one.
"The formation of the universe, rather than being random, happened according to the laws of science and nature." What about the law of entropy? Nature is predisposed towards falling into disarray and decay; which of course greatly weakens the argument for life having come about by accident.
And to the last anonymous comment: There is a great difference between macro and micro evolution.
First off, I'm not a I.D. advocate. I'm just a Bio student, but I'd like to raise a question to you, if "Science implies that there is a proven basis," what is the proven basis that that is what Science is? I understand that Science only looks to describe the natural, repeatable, empirical evidences of the earth... but one must admit that for science to be confined as such is nothing more than a mere philosophy, because there is no empirical information we can gather from the earth that says it is so. It is our philosophy that science is that way and that's fine. That's what we have created it to be since Darwin grew a pair and published his work out against the accepted philosophies at the time.
Theories. Yes, and theories are a wonderful part of science, aren't they? I've amused myself to realize that every single attempt to account for the origin of the earth is nothing more than story telling. And to decide which story is true for you depends on your worldview, the talent of the story teller, and the facts on which they base their story. For instance, the story that the world was created by a giant, flying spaghetti monster is discredited to me in that I think it is an awfully talentless story. Imaginative, yes. But still totally awful. Darwin composed a lovely tale, his is very methodical and when I step back to look at it, I see the very framework that governs the male mind itself at work. We have religious stories that the earth was seeded by an alien race (but where that race came from, who knows?) Of course there is Intelligent Design to say that it was all some "it" (religious, yes, but specific, no, and you can ask any religion whether or not they can work with nonspecifics and you'll find that in the end it cannot align with any religion.) and, let's not forget the story Moses wrote, a man who reports having crossed a once-wet-now-dry sea and having spoken directly to the face of the God who accomplished the creation.
Now, as for me and my house, and let me make this very clear, we side with the man who saw God. Because, in my rationale, that is the most convenient answer. I mean, the man saw God. Darwin saw finches, I.D. saw a flagellum (even before dyneins and kynesins), but Moses saw GOD. What's more, is that myself, in this state of accepting his belief and further learning of my sin that separates me from God and God's magnificent plan to remove my sin by sending His SON to die for me and that ALL I have to do is BELIEVE? I mean, that's crazy. Absurd. No other religion in the world would let you slip by on that one.
Since believing, I've seen the throne of God. Call it a delusion, but I've felt His presence, and that's not something Science can take away from me. It is not, however, empirical evidence. So I honestly hope it does not convince you. In fact, I hope nothing convinces you. I hope you can believe without having seen, because it would be better that way. (But it does, indeed, happen the other).
Because, if you really think about it - how foolish! How foolish that one man could die to save us all. How foolish that a buttload of prophecies with a 1 to 10^17 chance of ever all being fulfilled have been fulfilled by one man. Absurd. Check it out.
Ah! I digress. I almost forgot I was going to mention that our forefathers left that same tyrannical tyranny for the freedom to worship and founded this nation on the Word of the only Everlasting God.
Scientists! We must stick together.
I have to disagree. I wonder if maybe you haven't thoroughly looked at the THEORY of intelligent design. The fact is that in many ways it makes more SCIENTIFIC sense then evolution ever could. More and more scientists are looking at the facts and reevaluating their beliefs. We're not just talking about some fairy tale people created to feel good. We're talking about cold hard reality.
As to the last user's comment we have NO proof that anything EVER evolved from one species to another there has been adaptations such as in Darwin's finches and in the example you provided, but never outside of the actual species.
I myself do believe in Christianity and that God created the world. I would like to talk to whoever is willing about my beliefs if you wish.
I just wish that people wouldn't throw away ideas such as intelligent design as being false simply, because they might include a religous view point. Look at the facts with an unbiased view point.
Post a Comment
<< Home