Intelligent Design

[Deacon]

HARRISBURG, Pa.
December 20, 2005

In a blow to creationists today, the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court determined that the school district of Dover, PA was undermining biological science education by raising doubts about evolution and offering "intelligent design" as an alternative explanation for life's origins.

Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District was the first legal test for the intelligent design theory.

Intelligent design supporters maintain that Darwin's theory of natural selection can’t fully explain the complex origin of life and its diversity; a higher intelligence must have designed them.

Opponents of ID say the theory is only used as a wedge to introduce religion into the classroom and that it lacks scientific evidence.

Rob

 

[Helen]

Religion is already in the classroom. It is simply a matter of which religion!

 

[donnA]

If they were to teach intelligent design, does who that designer is depend on the teachers beliefs? Has their intelligent designer got a name? If he' she' it is named God of the bible, then it isn't the biblical God thats being taught as that intelligent designer. Most cultures and religion have soem stroy of creation, and it's their 'god' who created, not ours.
I see this as the same as prayer in scholl, no guarentee that it's going to be the christian God.

 

[Johnv]

ID is a great philosophical tool, and I favor it being taught. But it should be taught as philosophy, not as science, because it is a philosophy, not a science.

 

[Deacon]

Philosophy? Well yes, but the underpinning of the materialistic theory of evolution is philosophical.

The lawsuit centered around these words that were added to the Dover school curriculum

"Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory of Evolution and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of life will not be taught."

Rob

 

[Phillip]

It is sad....but, we should not be surpised that the world is headed in the direction that it is.

 

[billwald]

Never talked to an IDer who wanted to talk about life on earth being seeded by space aliens.

 

[hillclimber]

That's for sure Helen.

ID should be taught in at least the same level as Darwinism, as it is a more believable. Neither are scientific but ID is intuitively and logically more believable.

 

[billwald]

What does "believable" have to do with science?

 

[Daisy]

What does "intuitive" have to do with science?

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by Johnv:
ID is a great philosophical tool, and I favor it being taught. But it should be taught as philosophy, not as science, because it is a philosophy, not a science.

You may be right, but


"The cell confirms our expectations from design. Our DNA contains incredible amounts of encoded information. Living cells transform this encoded chemical message into machines which are engineered to perform necessary biochemical functions. The conversion of DNA into protein relies upon a software-like system of commands and biochemical codes. This is an information processing system which Bill Gates has described as “like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.”

that doesn't sound a whole lot like philosophy to me.

 

[Helen]

DonnA, no, the designer is not taught. The point of intelligent design is not a philosophical one, as John has mis-stated. It is a use of the basic scientific method to look at parts of the natural world and ask if they give more evidence of intelligent design than they do of time and chance.

But because so many parts of the natural world DO show evidence of intelligent design, it terrifies the evolutionists who will use any lie possible to keep it from being considered. For while ID does not walk through the theological door, it does deposit one on the doorstep and that is totally unacceptable to secular science which depends entirely on the atheistic point of view to proceed (whether or not those who subscribe to their conclusions are atheists).

[off topic: AND WHAT are about a hundred robins doing in our yard and our neighbor's yard this time of year in southern Oregon????]

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Helen:
The point of intelligent design is not a philosophical one, as John has mis-stated.

That's plain false. ID is not science. It's philosophy. It's good philosophy, imo, but it's philosophy. Even Bob Jones University denounces ID as science.

 

[Helen]

I don't care who denounces it, John. I have worked with the men for too long not to know what I am talking about! The Dembski filter is NOT philosophical, nor is an examination of irreducible complexity. Both are scientifically examinable and falsifiable. You can look at ID philosophically, but the field itself is pure science -- it's just that it's science that secular science doesn't like.

 

[carpro]

I assume we all know the Biblical creation story and it is of concern to me that thinking Bible believing Christians, after reading about "intelligent design", would contend that the two are the same.

 

[Helen]

Carpro, that has been one of the main points I have hit in my lectures which I have given to church groups. ID is NOT the same as Christianity or creation. It should not be mistaken for such or criticized by Christians for not being such. It is using the scientific method to examine natural phenomena.

 

[The Galatian]

In all fairness to the Discovery Institute (the founders of the ID faith), they did not want their religion taught in public schools, and did not approve of the Dover School Board's actions.

It was the doing of a few extremists, not the ID community as a group.

It appears that ID is trying to move away from faith doctrines, and is trying to find a way to make their ideas compatible with science. Their position on the Dover issue was that until ID can be developed as a science, it should not be taught in public schools.

"Discovery Institute continues to oppose efforts to mandate teaching about the theory of intelligent design in public schools," emphasized West.
http://tinyurl.com/d5eaj

They don't mind a voluntary discussion of ID, of course.

Creationists are understandably not happy with them.

 

[Helen]

I'm a creationist and I'm perfectly happy with them. Please don't attribute to us how you want us to feel, OK?

 

[just-want-peace]

If the total truth were taught and the students allowed to form their OWN (very important point) beliefs based on evidence, I have no doubts that by far the majority would opt for some form of intelligent design over "chance"! Now how many would accept God is open to question, but that's another topic

The key is for the teacher/professor to be as neutral as is humanly possible, and just present the theories/facts.

But we know how neutral they would be, don't we; from the almost panic reaction to even QUESTIONING the big E.

 

[Helen]

Bingo