This topic has really started the blogosphere a-talking, from what I've seen. I noticed the end of a conversation at
. And, of course,
comments on intelligent design often. Much of this discussion was brought about by President George W. Bush's
that he thought intelligent design could be taught in government-run schools.
Before I provide my answer to the question, just asking this question really points out another problem. Much of the focus of the various different people and blogs that have been providing answers to this question have focused on the religious versus science answers. I don't see any difference -- there's two kinds of science: experimental and philosophical.
When you cannot produce experiments and concrete results, you're into the philosophical side -- where you have to have faith to accept the answers provided -- exactly like religion.
Asking this question, and seeing the general results of the populace says that some people like religion and others are vehemently opposed to religion. That's fine -- but how do you reconcile that with government schools? There's only ONE way to reconcile it -- let the government take a position and stick with it. This they have already done.
Currently the US government and their agents, the government schools, have taken up their position and completely, 100% support the religion of naturalism. It is a religion, exactly like every other religion, and they do not want any competition. It's not neutral -- it takes a position.
Therefore, the only logical step is to get government out of the business of supporting religion. They cannot teach evolution and naturalism without declaring that is their official religion -- government has shown it is not capable of running schools effectively, and they cannot run them without promoting their own religion -- government should NOT be running the school system.
I know it's a radical idea, but it is a very good idea -- shut down all government-run schools. And I mean every one -- from pre-K to the state-run Universities. Do you really think no one will get educated? I submit that not only will we become a MUCH more educated society, but we will actually become a much better informed society as people can gather together freely and learn without being forced one way or another.
Alas, my solution is far off, if it does ever come to fruition. So, if we do have to have government-run schools, should they teach intelligent design?
Absolutely.
Intelligent design is real. Science is showing that to be the case. This has nothing to do with religion, only scientific evidence. However, those opposed to this, and those who subscribe to naturalism refuse to accept the fact that anything can actually BE done except through natural processes -- they refuse to even entertain the theory that has more evidence for it than any other.
1
I agree that ID should be presented as an alternate theory. As long as we're teaching the "big bang theory", we should present other reasonable theories AS "theories" in the schools. What's wrong with making the kids think, after all?
Posted by: Gun-Toting Liberal at August 10, 2005 11:43 AM (Er9BL)
2
Thanks, GTL -- see we can agree now and then!
Currently we can't because there are competing theories and the state-sponsored religion of naturalism is the only permitted religion in classrooms today.
If you think all of earth's history is not religion, next time you see a self-proclaimed "expert" on the earth, ask them to explain uniformitarianism.
Posted by: Ogre at August 10, 2005 11:47 AM (/k+l4)
3
err...that second sentence should be can't teach ID...
Posted by: Ogre at August 10, 2005 11:47 AM (/k+l4)
4
As I've noted on my blog - and as others have pointed out - ID simply isn't a theory in scientific terms. Evolution is. We can perform experiments in evolution, but in the main it is observational, like astronomy. It's still science; there's no such thing as "philosophical" science; and ID cannot ever be science because its fundamental assumption is counter to the fundamental assumption of science. (Metaphysical naturalism.)
That post you link to is nonsense. Pure and simple. It states "In order to believe the naturalistic theory, the origin of life is either a natural process or pure chance. However, both of those options only lead to structures with extremely low information content." and that just plain isn't true.
Intelligent design is real. Science is showing that to be the case. This has nothing to do with religion, only scientific evidence.
Sorry, no.
There is no evidence supporting Intelligent Design. None. Not one iota. And an absolutely
vast amount of evidence supporting Evolution.
But let's stick with the claim that ID is science. A scientific theory must be falsifiable; it must explain something; it must make predictions.
ID says, in essence, that evolution happens except that some things couldn't have evolved naturally and therefor The Designer must have intervened at this point.
Since ID says only that "some things" couldn't have evolved naturally, it can't be falsified. Every
specific claim that it has made has been shown to be false, but that doesn't falsify ID itself. So ID is not a scientific theory.
ID doesn't explain anything. It doesn't tell us what The Designer is, or how it works, or when it will intervene. So ID is not a scientific theory.
ID doesn't predict anything. Evolution
does. Evolution makes quite concrete predictions about how species will respond to selection; about the genetic relationships of species with certain evolutionary relationships; and many other things. These predictions have been borne out time and time again by hard evidencce. ID says "sometimes The Designer steps in and changes things", which doesn't allow us to predict
anything. So ID is not a scientific theory.
ID is religion. You can teach it as religion, if you like. But every time it's presented as science, every scientist in the world will oppose it. Not because it's wrong - we can never know whether it's wrong. Not because it's useless - though it certainly is. But because it's not science.
However, those opposed to this, and those who subscribe to naturalism refuse to accept the fact that anything can actually BE done except through natural processes -- they refuse to even entertain the theory that has more evidence for it than any other.
Metaphysical naturalism is the underpinning of all of science. If it's false, all of science is false. But there's no evidence - none - that this is the case.
It's not a question of refusing to accept evidence; it's a question of there not being any.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at August 10, 2005 01:14 PM (4N+SC)
5
"Metaphysical naturalism is the underpinning of all of science. If it's false, all of science is false."
That's what absolutely scares the living daylights out of current naturalist scientists -- what if they are wrong? They simply cannot accept that idea at all. The recent evidence that the speed of light may not, in fact, be constant has them questioning everything that's been learned about science. They are terrified that their world IS coming down around them.
I understand your reasoning that ID is not science -- if that is the case, then applying the same principles to evolution will destroy it as science just as quickly. Evolution claims that things evolve -- sometimes. Sometimes they evolve quickly, sometimes slowly. So you can't prove evolution any more than you can prove ID using that criteria.
That's why I say that evolution is philosophical science -- it simply cannot be proven. There is zero actual, concrete evidence of evolution. There is nothing that evolution has predicted that has come true.
There's a reason that zero "intermediate" specific have been found. If there truly were fish that walked out of the sea to become mammals, why is there zero fossil evidence? That's the part of evolution that can't be falsified.
The biggest problem with naturalism is that it says that everything had a natural cause -- this begat that begat this other thing. And it all came from the big bang. But what CAUSED the big bang? No one has been able to answer that, and scientists, atheists, are starting to realize there may be some things that simply CANNOT be explained by natural processes. That's why ID only makes logical sense.
It takes more faith to believe in naturalism than to believe in ID.
Posted by: Ogre at August 10, 2005 01:44 PM (/k+l4)
6
I'd like to see students understand the concepts of thermodynamics and gravity and biological classification and micro-evolution before they go talking about big bangs and string theory and the like. Why not study well documented science, and leave the unprovable theory out?
As for ID as a scientific theory, my understanding is this: a scientific theory must be falsifiable. There must be a way to prove the theory incorrect. There is no way to prove ID incorrect. Therefore, not a scientific theory.
(*)>
Posted by: birdwoman at August 10, 2005 02:10 PM (vR7Sl)
7
Oh, and Ogre, OT, you'd be so pleased. Our pennsylvanian legislators are one by one overturning the pay raise they gave themselves at 2am a few weeks ago. Guess some of them do have shame after all!
(*)>
Posted by: birdwoman at August 10, 2005 02:11 PM (vR7Sl)
8
Students want to be taught these topics because everyone wants to know where they came from and why they are here. Naturalists provide them the official state-sponsored religious answer.
And using your criteria for what is a scientific theory, evolution (and naturalism) are not a theory either -- how can it be proved incorrect (at least any more than it already has been)?
If your legislature is like NC's, they'll revoke the pay raise only to pass it again in a few weeks when they think no one is watching!!!
Posted by: Ogre at August 10, 2005 02:49 PM (L0IGK)
9
Well sure. They should teach "intelligent design" along with tarot, astrology, and Cherokee creation narratives.
Posted by: Karlo at August 10, 2005 03:31 PM (r65rq)
10
We should teach those ideas, Karlo, as soon as you provide actual evidence for any of them. There is no evidence that opposes intelligent design other than the naturalist religion. Therefore, if you don't support teaching tarot, how can you support teaching the naturlist religion?
Posted by: Ogre at August 10, 2005 03:46 PM (L0IGK)
11
Actually, evolution is completely falsifiable. That's why there's so much debate about macro vs micro evolution and great leaps in evolution - these all falsify pieces of the original theory.
There's no way to prove there's no creator.
I do believe that ID should be taught - creation, in a comparative theology class. There's nothing wrong with teaching creation - most religions in the world believe it to be truth. It just doesn't belong in biology or physics.
(*)>
Posted by: birdwoman at August 10, 2005 06:55 PM (Sc2Wh)
12
Ok, but if you can't teach intelligent design in biology or physics, then you shouldn't be able to teach evolution, either.
Posted by: Ogre at August 10, 2005 07:02 PM (L0IGK)
13
I agree - ID is not a scientific theory. It is a theory that can explain some of the failings of evolutionary theory, but it is not scientific. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the progression of life on Earth, but does NOT explain the origins of life, the universe and everything (evolution, abiogenesis, and the big bang are totally different theories).
The best thing we could do for our children (besides getting government out of the education business) is to present them with a good overview of the prevailing theories - scientific and philosophical - including the problems with them. Teach the science in science classes, teach the philosophy in whatever classes would be most appropriate. There's nothing like knowing that there are still mysteries out there to spur intellectual curiosity.
Posted by: Elisa at August 10, 2005 08:03 PM (LP2Sk)
14
If you're speaking of micro-evolution as a valid science to be taught in science classes, while teaching both ID and evolution as philosophical theories, barring getting government the heck out of schools, I can go with that.
Thanks for stopping by, and I don't envy you actually intentionally watching Boxer!
Posted by: Ogre at August 10, 2005 08:12 PM (L0IGK)
15
Thanks, Ogre. There are days my self-appointed job is really painful. Like today. Just finished fisking another Boxer "speech" that I'll be posting as soon as my hosting site is back up.
And yes, that's pretty much what I was speaking of. Micro-evolution is observable, so you'd have to be in another plane of reality not to "believe" it. Macro-evolution is not observable, reproducable, or, I think, disprovable, but could still be taught as a theory with the proper disclaimers.
Posted by: Elisa at August 10, 2005 10:00 PM (LP2Sk)
16
Isn't Boxer up for re-election this year? Oh wait, that's her sister, Frankenstein, this year.
Posted by: Ogre at August 11, 2005 05:37 AM (L0IGK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
