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.
I'd venture to say he'd disagree with you if he were able to.
Posted with TapaTalk
No, he wouldn't.
Carl Sagan loved SCIENCE. He loved the thrill of discovery, the joy that accompanies the Eureka! moment. For him, this was a spiritual experience. The solving of a puzzle, the way science is prepared to dump a theory on its rear when new evidence is discovered, for Sagan this was living on the edge. With endless wonders revealed, and undiscovered worlds and universes just over the horizon. Sagan thought science was the ultimate adventure, and that the way scientific theories evolved was elegant and beautiful. In the same way that hackers and computer programmers will describe certain code to be elegant and beautiful.
Intelligent Design isn't Science. And Carl Sagan would have taken pleasure in pointing that out.
I think intelligent design should be taught in schools, but not as a scientific alternative to evolution. Maybe as part of a Comparative World Religion class?
Intelligent design makes more sense than, and actually compliments, creationism and evolution. Considering that by the end of this century, humans (if still around) will be exploring personally what lies beyond our solar system, it should be given attention. You never know what is out there and it is huge!
Put it this way: We can now create life in a test tube. Stem cells can be used to grow new organs. Cloning has been accomplished but needs perfecting, to find a way to become more stable in its production and certainly causing genes to mutate by command or chromosomal pre-programming is already being worked on. I'm fairly certain there are other races and species in the galaxy who utilize technology much farther advanced than what we have and they would seem like celestial gods descending from the heavens to a bunch of primates/primitives who came in handy for research trials the same way rats and (the very same?) chimps come in handy for ours today.
So yes, explore the religious aspect of intelligent design along with a more realistic approach as to what all these ancient faerie tales about gods indicate alongside the natural changes that species make as they adapt to their environment for a more rounded appreciation of what we are and were and will be.
Creationists need this and so do evolutionists. The time that either theory is held as absolute has come up and a new look at these fields is needed ethically, if humans care about our origins honestly.
Not in context of a science course, because evolution has a significant amount of scientific basis and evidence in support of it. Intelligent design is just a belief outside the realm of scientific evidence. As such, it belongs at most in context of a social studies or religion course.
Actually from my readings of Carl Sagan, he seemed to think more like there was Intelligent Design before the term was ever phrased.
Posted with TapaTalk
Then you are reading into his writings something that isn't there.
Sagan was an agnostic.
He didn't take a position one way or another on a god.
What he did take a position on was the incredible beauty and innovation in the universe around us. That doesn't mean that he saw any need for there to be a creator for such beauty and uniqueness to exist.
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.