Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, my dictionary defines "theory" as a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world." And, to the best of my knowledge, there is no such wellspring of serious evidence supporting any sort of grand, intelligent, omniscient force--like a God. To the vast majority of biologists, Darwin's theory of evolution and selective inheritance works just fine without need of such a nebulous deity. (Notice how Darwin's idea earns the moniker "theory"--since it is indeed well-substantiated; on many levels. For a quick example, just look at the lowly virus, or bacteria!)
I think ID is just a cop-out, or a compromise offer from Creationists, who, deep in their collective heart, know that their explanation of man's origin is only an absurd myth.
Of course it doesn't qualify as a threory. It isn't even a good hypothesis. The old "Godidit" is a total cop-out as far as critical thinking is concerned.
No. Teaching Irrational Design as a 'valid' theory in science class is on the same level as teaching the bumblings of holocaust deniers in history class. ID doesn't qualify as a theory. It qualifies as absurd nonsense.
I read some book relational to Intelligent Design and I found it intriguing. This angered some I knew online, but I didn't say I found it correct or even plausible. I just said I found it intriguing. Many things are intriguing yet flawed or wrong. Granted the one I read was not from a Christian, but an Orthodox Jew.
One thing I came away with is it is possible to have Intelligent Design that is not like Creationism in any normal sense. The version I read seemed to imply God used an elaborate system of selective breeding and mutation to create Man. Now if you're going to have a massive selection/mutation experiment anyway you could just as easily believe that we were "Intelligently Designed" by those aliens the Raelians revere or an intelligent nebula or something. Or even that all intelligent life springs from something like "The Nibblonians" of Futurama who just happened to emerge after the Big Bang with intelligence.
To be honest I found this theologically/morally weirder than I think the guy intended and since reading him most ID I've read is essentially similar. The idea of human life as the end product of a kind of massive science-experiment is interesting, and has been in science fiction for generation, but it is not exactly fitting my image of God. Perhaps this is my prudishness and I should be fine with God selective mating apes for thousands of centuries, but I don't care for it. If you want creationism I think you might just be better off with Creationism straight up.
Now there's the form of "Intelligent Design" that's more about the rarity and purpose of the Universe which appealed to me more, but I might agree this is more philosophy than science.
The problem in addressing this question is the confusion over what Intelligent Design actually is. The Creationists co-opted the Intelligent Design idea and tried to use it to surreptitiously get their Creationist ideas into science classrooms. The Discovery Institute was their willing accomplice and co-conspirator. This was made clear in court proceedings.
However, the Intelligent DesignER idea is and has always been an alternative to the "random mutation" construct in Evolution theory. Mathematically we have created a construct (that doesn't really exist) . . . randomness . . . as a tool to deal with our ignorance of the cause of things we cannot discern any pattern to. We call them "random" and have developed mathematical distributions to enable us to assign probabilities to those things we remain causally ignorant about. Not all evolutionists accept the "reality" of our artificial mathematical construct of randomness . . . though they use it routinely because it is all we have.
The difference is, of course, belief in "guided" mutation and an Intelligent DesignER . . . who is also responsible for the existence of DNA, RNA and the "Code" that they use to perform their evolutionary magic using natural selection and the survival instinct. There is NO scientific way to refute this alternate view and IT is the true Intelligent Design point of view . . . NOT the Creationists or their conspirators in the Discovery Institute.
Concepts first, labels afterwards. What do we mean by 'Intelligent design' and what do we mean by 'evolution'? And what do we mean by 'Theory'?
Intelligent design is strictly a hypothesis - a suggested explanation for observed data. That is putting aside any preconceptions that might suggest a particular hypothesis. There is a certain amount of evidence to support it but that is not so much based on knowledge but on unanswered questions. Where did matter come from? How is it that conditions are just right for life?
There are some answers to that but they are just suggestions as in one case we don't really know and in the other case it doesn't quite explain everything.
Apart from that, all the facts support evolution (in either the scientific or the ID usage) and ID does not so much use science but try to discredit it or misuse it to allow ID explanations. It is certainly not science and should not be taught as science.
Evolution, in both senses (1) and (2), is a theory is the correct sense. It is supported by evidence, it makes predictions which have also been supported by evidence and it describes a mechanism which has been proven even, it cannot be too often repeated, accepted by the proponents of ID.
At the risk of boringly harping on the same thing. Even if ID were to be proven, it would make no effective difference to the science we have. We might be reporting how the way things work show a universe ordered rather as Einstein envisaged. The Holy Books would still have no place in the science class.
I might say, Mystic P. that so far as I can tell creationism didn't arise from id but ID was Creationism re-packaged to make it look scientific, as though not based on the Bible. The Dover case saw through that as it became clear that it was no more than Bible - based creationism dressed up in a white coat and hornrimmed glasses.
(1) the development of biological life-forms (scientific and correct use)
(2) The naturalist explanation for where did everything come from. (The Creationist and incorrect usage)
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-19-2009 at 03:36 AM..
Reason: Ps to Mystic.
For those that refuse to accept the difference between a theory backed by scientific evidence and a creationist attempt to disguise religion as "science" in order to infiltrate public school, maybe you accept that the federal court says that the teaching of ID as a scientific theory is illegal.
See Dover v. Kitzmiller, 2005.
The ID folks (discovery institute) have already abandoned that tactic and have been attempting their push their religious agenda under the guise of "acedemic freedom". That's been shot down in every state it was attempted except for Louisiana.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
