-
Want to help us with this year's BoS Trials? Let us know before 30 June. See this thread for details -
Looking for HSC notes and resources? Check out our Notes & Resources page
Intelligent Design Theory explained. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Not-That-Bright
- Start date
loquasagacious
NCAP Mooderator
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 3,636
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2004
Alternate ID: http://www.venganza.org
nwatts
Active Member
Ah, that was in my sig not long ago. 
"Remember, we are all His creatures."
"Remember, we are all His creatures."
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
HEY, FUCKTARD, YOU STOLE MY FSM PIMP. *points to Non-School*loquasagacious said:
loquasagacious
NCAP Mooderator
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 3,636
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2004
I was only obeying the commands of my noodly master.
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
I accept your apology. The Noodly Master knows all.
SashatheMan
StudyforEver
hahahaha fuking love it
SashatheMan
StudyforEver
hey they should do some scientific experiments in scripture classes, i believe i should be able to choose whether i want listen about how i sin or blow stuff up in a testtube.
mr_brightside
frakfrakfrakcackmackshack
hahaha. aaack..the fact that some people believe intelligent design
The way I see the difference between ID and Neo-Darwinism is that ID has God, Neo-Darwinism may not. Therefore it's a decision of faith to believe one or the other.
I gained the distinct impression from reading the Bible that God wants us to have a real choice in the matter of believing in God or not.
So, if Evolution was as much of a straw man as some would have us believe, then those who were interested in the Beginnings would have no choice but to believe in God. But God wouldn't want that. So it's neccessary for Neo-Darwinism to exist, in order that people can choose between it and ID.
I gained the distinct impression from reading the Bible that God wants us to have a real choice in the matter of believing in God or not.
So, if Evolution was as much of a straw man as some would have us believe, then those who were interested in the Beginnings would have no choice but to believe in God. But God wouldn't want that. So it's neccessary for Neo-Darwinism to exist, in order that people can choose between it and ID.
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
No you can look at it analytically. What you're saying could be applied to anything... "The romans were right, the sun in the sky is our God and it is just a matter of 'faith' to believe that over believing science".
I'm operating under the conception that ID and Neo-Darwinism work with the same proofs and general ideas as to the Beginnings, but that ID attributes those proofs to God, and that Neo-Darwinism doesn't. If I am mistaken in this, please show me some ID materials which refute this conception.
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
This doesn't really answer what you've said, but eh.malkin86 said:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
See the section that addresses ID.
Kaiser Zero
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
- Messages
- 157
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2005
It's not that much of a joke, ID has the potential to kill science, starting with america (killing it even deader than it is) They're beginning to teach it side by side with evolution in some unis over there, giving students the 'choice'
'so yeah evolution wtf.. ID IS THE FUCKING TRUTH THE WAY AND THE LIFE!!!'
'so yeah evolution wtf.. ID IS THE FUCKING TRUTH THE WAY AND THE LIFE!!!'
I can't say I agree on giving ID the same prominence and time as Neo-Darwinism in Science time. It is important for science to acknowledge that it is still part of a wider society, but equal prominence to a 'pseudoscience' is not the way to do this. Mentioning other creation stories, and the importance of not quashing those creation stories, I think should be taught.
Why not take a look at how alternatives to evolutionary theory are taught in our own schools?
Why not take a look at how alternatives to evolutionary theory are taught in our own schools?
Kaiser Zero
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
- Messages
- 157
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2005
They aren't - unless you go to some backward school.. or you're abo
tWiStEdD
deity of ultimate reason
Intelligent Design has NO PLACE being taught at any level of science for the following reasons.
ID and Science
Were ID true, then surely we would have something physical to use a thermometer to measure its core temperature, a ruler to measure its height and and/or a beaker to carry around samples of it in.
Now, sure... we have humans; but it is widely accepted that God has cleverly (and some say suspiciously) left no trace of himself on earth. I do not accept that the bible is good enough. It is a history book documenting events at its most basic level, but it is not worth any more regard than any other 2000 year old novel. Egyptian historians documented the wars with the Persians and (i think i have it the right way around) it was said that to merely tap the back of a Persian's head would result in it caving in. Obviously, that is just false; but it made the Egyptians the great heroes and the Persians weak, feeble little men. Why, then, do we place so much emphasis on a book which will obviously talk up a much loved individual who could have just as easily been a psychotic or the worlds first (and greatest) con-man. Science cannot prove the existance of god, and nor can it disprove it. History cannot prove he exists, but it can deconstruct the Bible. Philosophy cannot prove his existance, but they'll keep trying.
Philisophy and Theology
The ID arguement was originally proposed by Pascal, if I remember correctly. He also, as an aside, put forward what is known as Pascal's Wager, which any gambling enthusiast should take quite a liking to.
To take a modern example of the arguement, imagine you're walking through a plain with a few trees, flowers, animals and so on. You're in 'nature' (remember that place?). If you found an iPod in the middle of that field it would make sense to you that someone created it and placed it there for some reason: It does not quite 'fit' in the current context. Now, why is it not amazing that a conscious, intelligent and rational (in some cases) being is walking through that field looking around, contemplating his surroundings? This is the jist of the ID arguement. It could go further and include genesis "let there be light" etc. Okay. Intelligent Design goes too far at that point. We are now speaking in hypotheticals, pure hypotheticals. Science does that... but then it gets out it's beakers, thermometors and rulers and starts making rational sense of things. If the students can't make a practical out of this aside from making a real-life nativity scene or similar role-play, I don't see why it should be included in the science curriculum. If students wish to look into it then they should take Philosophy. The arguement SHOULD focus on why Philosophy is not more widely taught in Schools. Too often we are taught facts and what we should think on issues. Modern History is a classic example. We should teach students how to think and how to analyse.
Roles to those with specific understanding of the subject matter
This will be a short point, but just as JFK made a mistake of drawing Khrushchev into a debate on the relative merits of Communism and the Free Market at the Vienna Conference in June 1961; Religious thinkers and Scientists alike are foolish for entering into debate on the relaive merits of creationism and darwinism.
The Hungarian constitution contains a peculiar clause which provides that only scientists will be allowed to make scientific judgements. Methinks we need something like that.
Conclusion
For the reasons i've expressed above I submit that
- It has NO grounding in science
- It is, if anything, a point of philisophical or theological debate
- Science should be left to scientists and Religion to Ministers and Philosophers
ID and Science
Were ID true, then surely we would have something physical to use a thermometer to measure its core temperature, a ruler to measure its height and and/or a beaker to carry around samples of it in.
Now, sure... we have humans; but it is widely accepted that God has cleverly (and some say suspiciously) left no trace of himself on earth. I do not accept that the bible is good enough. It is a history book documenting events at its most basic level, but it is not worth any more regard than any other 2000 year old novel. Egyptian historians documented the wars with the Persians and (i think i have it the right way around) it was said that to merely tap the back of a Persian's head would result in it caving in. Obviously, that is just false; but it made the Egyptians the great heroes and the Persians weak, feeble little men. Why, then, do we place so much emphasis on a book which will obviously talk up a much loved individual who could have just as easily been a psychotic or the worlds first (and greatest) con-man. Science cannot prove the existance of god, and nor can it disprove it. History cannot prove he exists, but it can deconstruct the Bible. Philosophy cannot prove his existance, but they'll keep trying.
Philisophy and Theology
The ID arguement was originally proposed by Pascal, if I remember correctly. He also, as an aside, put forward what is known as Pascal's Wager, which any gambling enthusiast should take quite a liking to.
To take a modern example of the arguement, imagine you're walking through a plain with a few trees, flowers, animals and so on. You're in 'nature' (remember that place?). If you found an iPod in the middle of that field it would make sense to you that someone created it and placed it there for some reason: It does not quite 'fit' in the current context. Now, why is it not amazing that a conscious, intelligent and rational (in some cases) being is walking through that field looking around, contemplating his surroundings? This is the jist of the ID arguement. It could go further and include genesis "let there be light" etc. Okay. Intelligent Design goes too far at that point. We are now speaking in hypotheticals, pure hypotheticals. Science does that... but then it gets out it's beakers, thermometors and rulers and starts making rational sense of things. If the students can't make a practical out of this aside from making a real-life nativity scene or similar role-play, I don't see why it should be included in the science curriculum. If students wish to look into it then they should take Philosophy. The arguement SHOULD focus on why Philosophy is not more widely taught in Schools. Too often we are taught facts and what we should think on issues. Modern History is a classic example. We should teach students how to think and how to analyse.
Roles to those with specific understanding of the subject matter
This will be a short point, but just as JFK made a mistake of drawing Khrushchev into a debate on the relative merits of Communism and the Free Market at the Vienna Conference in June 1961; Religious thinkers and Scientists alike are foolish for entering into debate on the relaive merits of creationism and darwinism.
The Hungarian constitution contains a peculiar clause which provides that only scientists will be allowed to make scientific judgements. Methinks we need something like that.
Conclusion
For the reasons i've expressed above I submit that
- Discussion on this issue should specifically exclude discussion on the relative benefits of creationism and darwinism unless those taking part have substantial knowledge on either issue and is willing to engage in intelligent, fair and open discussions on the topic
- for those without sufficient understanding of either topic discussion should focus on the availablility of philosophy and whether or not they believe it is something that should be taught in school
- Of further general interest should be whether or not an individual from one profession, trade or occupation should be able to make outwardly objective statements on issues that lie in the specific jurisdiction of another profession, trade or occupation
tWiStEdD
deity of ultimate reason
Ziff (who is seated just a few computers away from me and hasnt been studying all day because he's a naughty little boy) has provided me with the appropriate sections of the Hungarian Constitution.
Article 70G []
(1) The Republic of Hungary shall respect and support the freedom of scientific and artistic expression, the freedom to learn and to teach.
(2) Only scientists are entitled to decide in questions of scientific truth and to determine the scientific value of research.
So, while the science is left to the scientists there are allowances for those people wishing scientists to consider something else... but it should be defeated when the scientists say 'no'.
Article 70G []
(1) The Republic of Hungary shall respect and support the freedom of scientific and artistic expression, the freedom to learn and to teach.
(2) Only scientists are entitled to decide in questions of scientific truth and to determine the scientific value of research.
So, while the science is left to the scientists there are allowances for those people wishing scientists to consider something else... but it should be defeated when the scientists say 'no'.
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
I believe ID will remain a hypothesis.
