My ID presentation. (reject, Creator, Darwin, Earth, reincarnate)

[misanthropic_clown]

As a part of my course, I have a communication skills class, and as part of the course we must make a short presentation on the topic of our choosing, and I have elected Intelligent design as a topic.

The presentation I have in mind is below. It is open to criticism and suggestions and discussion of the topic at hand, I just want to air it before hitting my comm skills group with it.

" Intelligent Design - worthy of the classroom?

Over the past few decades, we have seen a heated debate as to what positions evolution and creationism should have in classrooms. In no other place has this debate been more heated than in America. This presentation hopes to look at how the relationship between creationism and evolution has developed, and from this understand where we should stand today against creationism’s newest offering of intelligent design.

In the beginning, there was only creationism. Creationism is the belief that all life (and matter) was created by a supreme being, or beings. In its more usual sense, it relates to the Christians who subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis in the Bible. In its strongest incarnation, its followers believe that all life, and the universe, were created in a week-long period, and as a result believe that the earth is a mere few millennia old, in order to be consistent with the Biblical timeline.

This belief had stronghold for a vast length of time, being upheld by the religious masses, and it wasn’t until 150 years ago that the theories of evolution and natural selection took on their now familiar form in Charles Darwin’s work “The Origin of Species”. With this theory came the first proper contender to creationism, a theory based on scientific evidence which rocked creationism to its core. It is no surprise, then, that the creationist population treated Darwin’s suggestions with contempt, and engaged themselves in a battle against evolution that has lasted until this day.

The theory of evolution had the power to vanquish the concept of creationism, as it was known at that time at least. Not to be defeated, however, creationism has now taken on a myriad of forms in order to combat its theoretical rival.

The core one, or at least the one that can be taken the most seriously, was creation science, a series of attempts to disprove evolution by a scientific method. These creation scientists made it their work to discredit fossil records, carbon dating and other forms of evolutionary research in order to come to the conclusion that life came to be rapidly, thus refusing evolution the timescale it became increasingly evident it required. This meant, however, that as well as tackling evolution, creation science also found itself having to dispute geology and physical cosmology, which both helped prove that the universe and the earth were far older than the creationists believed, and gave evolution the vast timeline with which to work its wonders.

Creation science received criticism from both ends of the spectrum, the fundamentalist religious groups insisting that the story of creation had to be accepted on faith, not using science, often demonising scientific progress in the fields contradicting creationism as the work of the devil, at times almost laughably insisting that fossil records were implanted by God as a test of faith, or worse by the devil as a form of trickery. To these people, the ‘evil’ of using science was not worth the ‘good’ that would come from proving creationism right, if such a thing were achievable.

On the other side, the scientific community was far less than accepting of creation science as actual science. The United States National Academy of Sciences stated that “creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such”. The Skeptic Magazine wrote “the "creation 'science' movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics" and "seriously misrepresents the theory of evolution."”

As a result of its rejection from the scientific community, creation science was also rejected from schools in the US. In 1987, the US supreme court indicated that teaching creation science was of a religious nature, and as such could not be taught in public school classrooms due to the constitutional separation of church and state.

Still not to be defeated, creation science was soon reincarnated as the ‘new’ theory of intelligent design. Essentially, the theory remains exactly the same, but instead of life being a product of a creator, all reference to God was replaced with reference to this intelligent designer. It argues that certain aspects of evolution are said to be of too high a complexity to be explained away by the natural sciences, and therefore are indicative of an intelligent designer. Anyone who was in doubt of the origin of the intelligent design sentiment merely had to replace the term ‘intelligent designer’ with ‘God’ to recognise that it was merely creation science in a new box.

Thankfully, the US courts were not to be fooled, and the intelligent design movement was recognised as creation science in sheep’s clothing. Unfortunately, decisions made on a state-by-state basis still allow the teaching of intelligent design, and even the subversion of the theory of evolution, but things are looking up.

Some of you may argue that intelligent design is surely not that bad an idea. I would have to say that I agree with that sentiment. It isn’t terrible as a belief. Intelligent design is a reasonable compromise between the fundamentalist religious and the purely scientific communities. In his book Edge of Evolution, Michael Behe suggests that the power of random chance and natural selection are not sufficient to explain a variety of biological phenomena. It is a work that I found that I could nod and agree to until he got to his actual scientific reasoning, which was nothing short of fundamentally flawed. I do not have the time to extend into the flaws in his reasoning, but anyone of reasonable scientific acumen can see for themselves the limitations Behe struggles to manipulate into scientific reasoning

The conclusion we are forced to reach is that Intelligent Design is not science, but a last ditch attempt of creationists to appease the scientific community without betraying the creationist masses. Despite that, I still feel it has a place within our schools.

That is, of course, behind the doors of religious education classes, and far out of reach of our biology classrooms. "


thanks


m_c

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by misanthropic_clown

As a part of my course, I have a communication skills class, and as part of the course we must make a short presentation on the topic of our choosing, and I have elected Intelligent design as a topic.

The presentation I have in mind is below. It is open to criticism and suggestions and discussion of the topic at hand, I just want to air it before hitting my comm skills group with it.

What kind of class is this? Is this at a high school or university level?


I don’t know how long this piece needs to be but I think it could be filled out with some more information. Perhaps some quotes from the judge in the Dover case or perhaps something from Ken Miller. But overall I think it is a fairly well written piece.

The is one part however that I do have a major problem with. In this part you seem to contradict much of what you said in the rest on the piece.

Originally Posted by misanthropic_clown

Some of you may argue that intelligent design is surely not that bad an idea. I would have to say that I agree with that sentiment. It isn’t terrible as a belief. Intelligent design is a reasonable compromise between the fundamentalist religious and the purely scientific communities.

First you are right, Intelligent Design, or even Creationism, is not a terrible idea. There is nothing wrong with the belief in a Creator, and nothing in science directly contradicts the idea. But Intelligent Design is not a reasonable compromise! Intelligent Design is in no way more scientific than other forms of Creationism, and it is no more valid. It is as you said Creation science in sheep’s clothing (or in lab coats). But more to the point science does not need to compromise with the religious communities. Science is not democratic and science is not political. Science is a relentless, merciless pursuit of the truth, whatever that may be. But most importantly – Science must not compromise!

[Mike182]

i pretty much agree with you, ID can be taught in a Religious Education class and shouldn't be taught in a Science class.

if i were presenting it, i wouldn't feel comfortable saying "i don't have time to go into any of the scientific reasoning Michael Behe gives, so just trust me, it's flawwed". even just one example of this would suffice, otherwise people may easily be left with the assumption that you either don't understand the arguments, or haven't actually read them, but either way, are avoiding them.

other than that though, it's a good vocal presentation!

[misanthropic_clown]

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

What kind of class is this? Is this at a high school or university level?


I don’t know how long this piece needs to be but I think it could be filled out with some more information. Perhaps some quotes from the judge in the Dover case or perhaps something from Ken Miller. But overall I think it is a fairly well written piece.

It's a university class, but the exercise is purely one of communication skills, and not really about speech content. It is mean to last about five minutes, and it already runs over that so I am reluctant to add much more detail to it. It would be a good suggestion though, and I will probably add to this presentation at a later date for the sake of consolidating my ideas on the matter.

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

The is one part however that I do have a major problem with. In this part you seem to contradict much of what you said in the rest on the piece.



First you are right, Intelligent Design, or even Creationism, is not a terrible idea. There is nothing wrong with the belief in a Creator, and nothing in science directly contradicts the idea. But Intelligent Design is not a reasonable compromise! Intelligent Design is in no way more scientific than other forms of Creationism, and it is no more valid. It is as you said Creation science in sheep’s clothing (or in lab coats). But more to the point science does not need to compromise with the religious communities. Science is not democratic and science is not political. Science is a relentless, merciless pursuit of the truth, whatever that may be. But most importantly – Science must not compromise!

I see your point, I guess I need to reword it to emphasise that it is a compromise by the religious rather than anything else. Thanks for your input!

[misanthropic_clown]

Originally Posted by Mike182

i pretty much agree with you, ID can be taught in a Religious Education class and shouldn't be taught in a Science class.

if i were presenting it, i wouldn't feel comfortable saying "i don't have time to go into any of the scientific reasoning Michael Behe gives, so just trust me, it's flawwed". even just one example of this would suffice, otherwise people may easily be left with the assumption that you either don't understand the arguments, or haven't actually read them, but either way, are avoiding them.

other than that though, it's a good vocal presentation!

I wasn;t that comfortable just leaving it as that either, but as I detailed above I don't have much scope for slotting much else in. However, I can see that it is fundamental to the refuting of intelligent design that I attack at least one of its principles, so I will try and work one in. Thanks!

[3.14]

is it just me that thinks that any and all theory's about something somehow having more power knowlage than the regular man. should be banned i mean how would they know what a god intends, they don't they just use paradoxes to confuse and stop sience from advancing

[misanthropic_clown]

No, I think that the concept of a higher intelligence is by itself unharmful, and so need not be met with any hostility. If a theory surrounding that concept wishes to question current scientific understanding, then surely if science were to come out victorious, that is actually progress as far as science is concerned in that it has eliminated a potential limitation. As far as the public understanding of science goes, it can be a bit of a nightmare, but nowadays I don't think it does much in the way of halting progress within the scientific community.

Oh, and I gave the presentation, by the way. Mine stood out a little because the rest were on holiday locations, the guitar and suchlike! It was a little divisive, but it went OK and prompted some good discussion nonetheless