Should ID be taught in public schools?

[Yerda]

What I am talking about is just the basic facts that many brilliant people, scientists, philosophers etc have looked out at the world that they could see and concluded that there must have been some form of design.

What do you think is worth saying on the matter?

 

[blackout]

Kids can be taught of it for sure, but not taught it as a truth.

Well, neither can evolution be taught as more than a theory? no?

 

[camanintx]

Well, neither can evolution be taught as more than a theory? no?

As long as we understand the scientific definition of theory.

"a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomen"

 

[blackout]

As long as we understand the scientific definition of theory.

"a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomen"

and confirmed

I'm not a science type,
so please don't think I'm being a smart a**.

If something were confirmed,
then it would not be a "theory" ?
Would it?

Or is everything in life really a theory.

 

[tomspug]

Technically, gravity is a theory, but then again, so is relativity.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

If ID is taught in public schools, it ought to stay out of the science class completely. It just doesn't qualify as science.

At most, keep it in religion classrooms in order to show that it is a religious perspective, not a scientific one.

Yeah....what you said.....:yes:

 

[camanintx]

I'm not a science type,
so please don't think I'm being a smart a**.

If something were confirmed,
then it would not be a "theory" ?
Would it?

Or is everything in life really a theory.

Evolution, like gravity, is a fact in so much that we can observe it happening. Darwin's Theory of Evolution, like Newton's Theory of Gravity or Einstein's Theory of Relativity, attempts to explain and predict what we observe. No matter how much the evidence confirms it, it will always be "just" a theory.

 

[tomspug]

I have yet to see anything remotely close to being described as "observing it happening" when it comes to evolution. I've seen a handful of graphs and world full of unexplained mysteries.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not a science type,
so please don't think I'm being a smart a**.

If something were confirmed,
then it would not be a "theory" ?
Would it?

Or is everything in life really a theory.

Here's a good explanation of what the term "theory" means when speaking in terms of science:

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

Source - Wiki

 

[rocketman]

I'm not a science type,
so please don't think I'm being a smart a**.

If something were confirmed,
then it would not be a "theory" ?
Would it?

Or is everything in life really a theory.

The ID crowd wrote a recent article to help people like yourself, if you are interested.

CSC - Is "Evolution" a "Theory" or "Fact" or Is This Just a Trivial Game of Semantics?

 

[fantome profane]

The ID crowd wrote a recent article to help people like yourself, if you are interested.

:no:
No! The so called “Center for Science and Culture” is not out to help any people. This article was not written for the purpose of helping people understand. At best it is written to prevent people from sounding stupid, but not to actually educate them. The “Center for Science and Culture” is not out to support scientists, it is not out to develop scientific theories or understanding, it does not support actual research, and it does not support scientific education. It is an organization that strives to destroy scientific education and understanding in favour of anti-science propaganda.


Here is an article written by a scientist who dedicated his life to helping people understand.

Evolution as Fact and Theory by Stephen Jay Gould

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Here is an article written by a scientist who dedicated his life to helping people understand.

Evolution as Fact and Theory by Stephen Jay Gould

Excellent, fantome!! :clap

Here are two quotes of interest from the link:

The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution. First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice. Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."

And......

........ creationists claim that "the dogma of separate creations," as Darwin characterized it a century ago, is a scientific theory meriting equal time with evolution in high school biology curricula. But a popular viewpoint among philosophers of science belies this creationist argument. Philosopher Karl Popper has argued for decades that the primary criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories. We can never prove absolutely, but we can falsify. A set of ideas that cannot, in principle, be falsified is not science.

The last statement in bold, I think, is so incredibly important for us to consider when debating whether something is under the realm of "science" or not.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

.... and ID currently can not back up it's claim.

For now .

Exactly.

Just as soon as God comes back, we should be able to gather plenty of evidence ...

 

[tomspug]

:no:
No! The so called “Center for Science and Culture” is not out to help any people. This article was not written for the purpose of helping people understand. At best it is written to prevent people from sounding stupid, but not to actually educate them. The “Center for Science and Culture” is not out to support scientists, it is not out to develop scientific theories or understanding, it does not support actual research, and it does not support scientific education. It is an organization that strives to destroy scientific education and understanding in favour of anti-science propaganda.


Here is an article written by a scientist who dedicated his life to helping people understand.

Evolution as Fact and Theory by Stephen Jay Gould

A well-thought out evaluation of the current condition.

One thing I would like to say, however, on behalf of creationists (of which I continue to include myself, and not, in my opinion, to be standing in contradiction to science yet).

Perhaps people would be more open to the theory of evolution as a science if it were not already so convinced that it was right. It seems to me to be common practice for proponents of evolution to act as if there IS no logical reason to doubt evolution. Well, excuse me if I don't respectfully disagree. If there is anything that is consistent about science, it is the mystery of science and the abundance of LACK of knowledge. We do our best, of course, to try to make sense of what we have gathered. So it is no wonder that the scientific community holds evolution as its best-effort.

HOWEVER, in my experience, I have found that the common man's belief in evolution to be nothing short of religious. There ARE criticisms of current evolution theory, and they are scientific (and in the scientific community!). The idea that there is no debate is an exercise in willful ignorance.

Were you aware of the criticisms of carbon-dating? Of course, if the ideas of the Cretaceous and Jurassic are so ingrained in your understanding of the universe, maybe you can understand exactly what a Christian goes through when they are told that Jesus never existed...

Is Carbon Dating Accurate?
The method

 

[Mike182]

ID is a fraud. It is not philosophy, and it is certainly not science.

an ID can be reached through ontological, teleological and cosmological arguments, are these not to be found in the field of philosophy? they were when i studied it at school

As for teaching it in school, would someone like to suggest a 6-12 session curriculum? For example ...

Session 1

1. God did it.
2. Let us pray.

Session 2

1. Recall session 1.
2. Let us pray.

Session 3

• etc.

Perhaps we could fill in the remaining time with discussions about alien abduction ...

ID would not be a curriculum all on it's own, it would be incorporated into a wider curriculum on world religions or theology.

 

[Mike182]

I am opposed to teaching ID as either a science or a philosophy. It's clearly not up to the standards of either. If you want to teach it, teach it in a logic class as an example of what not to do.

how so, Phil? I see it as a decent standard of theology - of course, i'm talking about the theological justifications for the existence of God which infer that said God is the architect of the world as we perceive it. i suspect a few people on here are not thinking of ID in terms of Paley, Augustine, Descartes, Aquinas, Anselm etc, and more in terms of Falwell and Robertson. I condone teaching the former in a class on philosophical inquiry, and condemn teaching the latter.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

an ID can be reached through ontological, teleological and cosmological arguments, are these not to be found in the field of philosophy? they were when i studied it at school

Then you should have paid greater attention. Inferring God is not the same as demonstrating ID, nor is positing a goal-driven quality to natural processes.

ID would not be a curriculum all on it's own, it would be incorporated into a wider curriculum on world religions or theology.

Yet the proponents of ID make no claim to it being a religion. Interesting ...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

:no:
No! The so called “Center for Science and Culture” is not out to help any people. This article was not written for the purpose of helping people understand. At best it is written to prevent people from sounding stupid, but not to actually educate them. The “Center for Science and Culture” is not out to support scientists, it is not out to develop scientific theories or understanding, it does not support actual research, and it does not support scientific education. It is an organization that strives to destroy scientific education and understanding in favour of anti-science propaganda.


Here is an article written by a scientist who dedicated his life to helping people understand.

Evolution as Fact and Theory by Stephen Jay Gould

Now you just keep it up and I might frubal you......See how you like that!!!

Good post though.....

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Were you aware of the criticisms of carbon-dating? Of course, if the ideas of the Cretaceous and Jurassic are so ingrained in your understanding of the universe, maybe you can understand exactly what a Christian goes through when they are told that Jesus never existed...

Is Carbon Dating Accurate?
The method

I think it is unwise to rely on biased sites for our information. The very next paragraph, after the article about carbon dating:
What do you think?

We have all sinned and deserve God's judgment. God, the Father, sent His only Son to satisfy that judgment for those who believe in Him. Jesus, the creator and eternal Son of God, who lived a sinless life, loves us so much that He died for our sins, taking the punishment that we deserve, was buried, and rose from the dead according to the Bible. If you truly believe and trust this in your heart, receiving Jesus alone as your Savior, declaring, "Jesus is Lord," you will be saved from judgment and spend eternity with God in heaven.

The article you linked is correct, in that there is a limit to the accuracy of Carbon dating past a certain time limit. The article claims that carbon dating is only accurate to a few thousand years. The truth is that it is considered very accurate to about 60,000 years.

Beyond that, radiometric dating is used, and it is very accurate, assuming that proper care is used in handling the samples being tested. Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Yet the proponents of ID make no claim to it being a religion. Interesting ...

Precisely.

ID was established as a way to introduce creationism into public schools, by the very removal of religion from the premise.

The "saving grace", if you will, for those that are trying to pound this round peg into a square hole, is that the Intelligent Designer is quite possibly an alien life form that has visited us in the distant past.