Intelligent Design In Science Classes

[[The Looney Bin]]

The dinosaurs are returning...

So GAU,

I'm taking this class called "Current Issues" at school...

And by the end of the semester I need to have a long extravagant presentation about a current issue...

So I decided to do "Intelligent Design in Science Classes".

So now to the point.

(I would assume that) since you're all Atheists you should probably all be against the teaching of intelligent design in science classes, so what information would you use to back that opinion? The more the merrier :].

...and they want their oil back.

 

[Myrphomatic]

Basically ID and Creationism are concepts that are securely founded in religion and thusly they are religious issues rather than scientific issues. Although it deals with the creation of the world and the development of its creatures, it deals with a possibility created by a single religious group. Science is something that has been developed, proved and disproved over time by people across colours, creeds, races and religions that have the basis in experience and accounts through history.

Somewhere in there i think i've got a logical argument! let me know if anything needs clarifying, its too late to piece together anything coherently! ;p  

[Levis Pennae]

I was supposed to take that class but then my school got rid of it. Well to start off there's always the simple "It mentions God, so it's unconstitutional(?)", but I assume you want something better then that. So then we have the fact that we have discovered all the mechanisms and there's nothing other wordly, or supernatural, or godly about it. I had some other ones, but I forgot them sweatdrop  

[ProjectOmicron88]

Because we don't put science into church, so we shouldn't allow religion in schools. Short, sweet, and to the point.  

[PickleBoy]

ProjectOmicron88

Because we don't put science into church, so we shouldn't allow religion in schools. Short, sweet, and to the point.

Hear, hear!  

[AnonymouZ]

"Evolution, creationism and other modern myths." Could explain right away what's wrong with it. Altho, it would be a bit dangerous if you don't know your biology... since in the first chapters Deloria bashes, drags and sets on fire our "cool" evolution theory. BUt like i said, the few chapters when he touches the creationism subject, he kills it too.

I guess my own argument would be that:

It's whole basis is made of something that some people have a need for, not necessarily born out of desire to know, but to just have an answer to a question that has riddled them forever. (tho... not really, since they always knew and thought they were "made") It's the answer to a question that wasn't really asked, but now that we have evidence of something else going on, it has become a justification for their beliefs. Then, beliefs and justifications to failed theories* (or gods) have no place in a room that is meant to be full of evidence, tests, and scientific results.


*failed theories = gods here, since they were assumed to be right, but were never tested for accuracy or veracity. Other theories, like spontaneous generation (or abiogenesis, whatever) were disproved rather than failed... since... at their time, their baby-"scientific" methods were observing (every now and then) that frogs and toads did indeed create from puddles of water.  

[Superior Jazz]

This is all I have to say on this matter.  

[ProjectOmicron88]

Superior Jazz

This is all I have to say on this matter.

I completely forgot about this. I approve of the pirate dress code, as well. End global warming while being touched by His Noodly Appendage.  

[Levis Pennae]

I have now fallen in love with that site heart  

[Zambimaru]

If they taught Creationism in school they would probably just make it sound scientific so it wouldn't sound like story time. If not it would just be "god created in the world and everything in it in six days". Thats pretty much it.  

[Theophrastus]

Again, ID/Creationism confuses the meaning of "theory" and "hypothesis."

Intelligent Design is not a theory, scientifically speaking, but a hypothesis. One which, one must note with some intense suspicion, is completely untestable. In the realm of science if a theory cannot be tested, it has no possibility of being proven wrong, and if it can't be proven wrong then it's not a valid claim.

It bears the same weight as claims that there is an invisible pink unicorn with us at all times (since she's invisible, you can't see her, since she's a unicorn she can use magic to disappear if you try to test her).

Evolutionary theory, accepted as fact with as much seriousness as gravity (after all, in the space between celestial bodies even gravity apparently breaks down, but we call it a fact and a scientific law), is supported by direct evidence and correlation well beyond "shadow of a doubt" and into the "colossal amounts of corroborating evidence" realm. It can be tested and proven using the same forensic methods that are applied in criminal cases to determine peoples' fate in the judicial system!

If you trust your life, land and law to the power of forensics and reasonable doubt, why is trusting what happened thousands of years ago a more troubling concern?

And as stated earlier, the fallacy of ID is that it assumes that the complex universe was made by a more complex designer while ignoring a very important question; if complex things need a more complex designer why does that more complex designer need no origin at all?  

[Zambimaru]

ProjectOmicron88

Superior Jazz

This is all I have to say on this matter.

I completely forgot about this. I approve of the pirate dress code, as well. End global warming while being touched by His Noodly Appendage.

I'm so going to get one of those "flying spaghetti monster bless america" bumper stickers.  

[CaprinaePsi]

I'm sorry, I thought science was defined as that which can be proven, not that which is a fairy tale with nothing backing it up. If it is the latter, then along with Intelligent Design we should teach the "Baby in the Mail" story too. Hell, why stop there? Why don't we put all the mother gooseries? Students need to know about the sandman, the tooth fairy, and the bogeyman, not just this "God" fellow!


How's that?  

[SkeletonPhoenix]

I agree with most here. The Evolution thoery is a well backed up claim that has been partily proven.(Micro-Evolution) But there may be some fine tweaking from more reascreach that it will need before it is completly proven. The concept of ID has no real facts or supporting evidence behind it to even come close to being scientific. So lastly the creationism bit, if you can back it up with scientific facts then get out of my way.  

[Drachefreunde]

Pretty much the only part of ID even worth paying attention to is the loop-hole searches. Their primary tactic is to say "Look! This is too big of a jump for evolution to have developed this system! GOD (or aliens?) must have done it!"

This highlights areas for serious biologists to look into, which can yield interesting results... oh, look, this master gene turns on a bunch of things at once... Hey, this protein would have been GREAT for this purpose in a simpler creature, but now it's been repurposed for something else... etc.

"Irreducible complexity" very much breaks down the more you look at it and the more we learn about biology. Even their stupid analogies fall apart pretty easily... see the reducibly complex mousetrap.