I haven't written much about intelligent design because I've never felt it to be worth writing much about. ID is formulated so as to be neither provable nor disprovable, much like the existence of God. Thus, it is not science, or at least it wasn't before the Kansas School Board changed the definition of science to allow supernatural phenomena.
They went from "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." to "Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observations, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena." The change is subtle, but the effect is to open the door for supernatural explanations, provided they have the scientific trappings of experiments and measurements.
So, that sort of concerned me, because, as a Kansas high school science student I don't want my education viewed as sub-par the world over. Still, I figured, the school board can say whatever they want, but science teachers won't teach it. Then Salon.com told me that 50 percent of science teachers in Kansas are willing to teach creationism or ID along with actual science. That kind of surprised me because as far as I know all the science teachers I've had in high school have been atheists. In any case, there hasn't been the least hint of religion. Despite the best efforts of our science teachers, though, some students simply refuse to listen or, as the Kansas Board of Education instructs, 'enhance critical thinking and the understanding of the scientific method' by tolerating a little cognitive dissonance. It is my understanding that students are now allowed to opt out of the evolution unit, to avoid damaging their fragile little brains.
I wonder what benefit the religious community receives from placing themselves in the realm of science. By trying to arrive at scientific proof of the existence of god, they have placed their supernaturalism on the same plane as, say, the thermodynamic principle. I think it would be natural for religion to try and stay as far away from science as possible, because when religion is judged by the standards of science it fails. Does the religious community want to go on to explain the virgin birth, the parting of the waters of the Red Sea? Because from a scientific standpoint these are impossible without impractically large fans and a full laboratory; equipment that didn't exist during the time period.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Nancy
"In science there is only one set of facts." LOL, obviously you have never seen/heard a bunch of paleontologists at a convention going at it over extremely "iffy" fragments of some hominid or other! Worse than Dems vs GOP.
2 - Shannon Lewis
From a philosophical perspective, the fact that Atheism IS a religion (at least, broadly defined, as the word is being applied to the ID movement as well - which includes Agnostics - those who don't know - and the rest who fall FAR from the evangelical Christian camp) is the main reason ID theory came about: Science, in fact, was becoming anything BUT a science, but instead simply an extention of the Atheist religious belief in a materialistic worldview. If your philosophy of Science only stands on a leap of faith - in the case of materialistic science that leap is "there is no God, or at least, even if there might be, we'll do science as though He/She doesn't exist or have any contact with the universe he/she may or may not have created" - how is that Science any better than creationism. ID, however, asks some very good questions, sets up some unique programs of study and inquiry, and looks as though it may be very helpful to the future not only of it's own movement (who knows - if ID theory is wrong, it's own methods will disprove itself), but of the Scientific community as a whole. Scientists have long had too much faith in themselves - ID theory adds a helpful dash of skepticism to the mix.
3 - shannon lewis
From a philosophical perspective, the fact that Atheism IS a religion (at least, broadly defined, as the word is being applied to the ID movement as well - which includes Agnostics - those who don't know - and the rest who fall FAR from the evangelical Christian camp) is the main reason ID theory came about: Science, in fact, was becoming anything BUT a science, but instead simply an extention of the Atheist religious belief in a materialistic worldview. If your philosophy of Science only stands on a leap of faith - in the case of materialistic science that leap is "there is no God, or at least, even if there might be, we'll do science as though He/She doesn't exist or have any contact with the universe he/she may or may not have created" - how is that Science any better than creationism. ID, however, asks some very good questions, sets up some unique programs of study and inquiry, and looks as though it may be very helpful to the future not only of it's own movement (who knows - if ID theory is wrong, it's own methods will disprove itself), but of the Scientific community as a whole. Scientists have long had too much faith in themselves - ID theory adds a helpful dash of skepticism to the mix.
4 - Vern Halen
"The goal of science is to be left alone to do science, and then to convey scientific knowledge to subsequent generations. The goal of religion is to make science subservient, to make the observable subservient to the unobservable."
Never heard about this being a goal of religion. Citation, please?
Is it a problem to make the observable subservient to the unobservable? Observable: murder. Unobservable: justice. Maybe not the best example, but I hope you get my drift.
5 - Sam Jack
What I meant when I said, "There is only one set of facts" is that only observable phenomena are taken into consideration. That was the 'one set' that I was referring to; sorry if I wasn't clear.
6 - Sam Jack
"if ID theory is wrong, it's own methods will disprove itself."
I see little chance of that happening.
7 - Bliffle
The faithists may regret inserting ID into scientific discourse because inevitably it will lead to ID being treated to the same rough examination as science principles, like, indeed, evolution. And if you think evolution has holes and inadequacies and gets treated rough by ID fans, just wait until ID gets the same treatment: talk about holes in theories!
Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
8 - Bliffle
Lewis:"From a philosophical perspective, the fact that Atheism IS a religion (at least, broadly defined, as the word is being applied to the ID movement as well - which includes Agnostics - those who don't know - and the rest who fall FAR from the evangelical Christian camp) is the main reason ID theory came about: Science, in fact, was becoming anything BUT a science, but instead simply an extention of the Atheist religious belief in a materialistic worldview."
Wow! There's a bunch of Big Claims, which should, accordingly, have Big Proofs. To start with "Atheism IS a religion" seems to me untrue as the atheists I know are unconcerned with religion in any form. Do you know of something like a "Universalist Atheist Church" that has meetings, doctrine, scripture, etc.?
9 - The Fifth Dentist
Sam Jack: You have some impressive writing skills. Are you seriously still in high school? If so, I'm fucking impressed.
Shannon Lewis: You have no idea what your talking about. I presume that you've actually completed High School. If so, you may want to go back and re-take a few classes. Maybe the kid who wrote this article could tutor you.
10 - Bennett
Luckily for the world of (US) science, yesterday's scathing and eloquent ruling puts it all to rest. Science is science, and ID is creationism dressed up to fool fools.
Sorry, no deal here.
11 - Baronius
Anyone remember the Darwin Fish? You still see it around on the backs of cars, the fish with feet (sometimes with the word "Darwin" written inside). It was a response to the Jesus Fish which identified the driver as a Christian. The Darwin Fish said that the driver believes in evolution instead of God. Note the thinking here: evolution as an argument against God.
It's obvious that some of the support for ID comes from frustrated Christians. It's equally clear that ID is opposed by people who see it as a threat to naturalism. Have you ever read any Richard Dawkins? He hates religion. While many people see evolution and religious faith as compatible, there are people on both sides of the debate who don't.
I hope this doesn’t sound like the classic playground argument about who started it. But we should be honest. Both sides are motivated by beliefs. ID theory is less partisan at its core because, while Christianity doesn’t need creationism, atheism requires some means of spontaneous generation.
But science is fool-proof, based on hard evidence, right? Sadly, no. Here, I can believe that Sam Jack is a high school student, because of his unfamiliarity with the debates within science. The ultra-Darwinists and supporters of punctuated equilibrium theory are fierce opponents. Physics is in open war over the theory of everything; geologists settle timeline debates by purging departments; statisticians fight dirty over Bayesianism. Scientific arguments are won as often by tenure denials as by analyses. The academic response to ID theory carries a familiar stench.
Finally, let me point out that ID theory isn't opposed to science. It is a collection of evidence which points to the improbability of random organic development within the required time frame.
12 - gonzo marx
Baronius...i'm going to say only one thing to your well written comment
I.D. is NOT a Theory by scientific definition
American Heritage dictionary sez...
*A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.*
I.D. is an unprovable hypothesis...and thus falls into the field of metaphysics, even philosophy...but NOT science
i do hope that helps...defining things accuratately is just kinda...well...scientific
Excelsior!
13 - Bennett
No, I think that most of us who are opposed to ID being inserted into science classes are opposed because it ISN'T science.
People of all faiths, of no faith, and of undetermined faith, all have a vested interest in the quality of our children's education. We don't want to muddy the waters of science by adding psychic mumbo jumbo, or anything that confuses the task at hand.
Teach our kids what we KNOW, as best we can, using established scientific knowledge, and let them get metaphysics or comparative religion classes when they go to college.
This is about biology and geology classes, not nuclear physics. Quit trying to frame a rejection of this ID crap as some kind of attack on your church or your personal belief system.
You get the kids (of your faith) on Sunday, do what you will. But Monday through Friday the kids learn the three R's, history, and Science.
Indoctrination is not education.
14 - gonzo marx
Bennet sez...
*Indoctrination is not education.*
best...line...of....the....Day!!!
the cookie is on me
Excelsior!
15 - Bennett
Thanks Gonzo! Yummy!
16 - gonzo marx
de nada, hermano
i know..i am WAY overdue for sending you a long e-mail...my Apologies, and soon come
Excelsior!
17 - Bennett
Looking forward to it!
18 - Sam Jack
About Richard Dawkins: I am almost as unimpressed with him as I am with the ID people. Dawkins has had an important role in explaining evolution to the general populace, but to do so, he has departed from pure science by making aesthetic judgements. It doesn't matter that I happen to agree with him; Dawkins does escalate the conflict. He does attack religion.
Dawkins came by his notoriety in much the way that Scalia did: by espousing an absolute philosophy and defending it wittily. There's a place for that to happen, and far be it from me to stop Dawkins from expressing his opinions, but I think that he's working counter to the goal of most scientists, which is, as I said, to be left alone to do science. Destroying religion isn't on their plates, and the fact that Dawkins is prominent as both an evolution and atheism advocate just mixes them up together.
I think that religion and science need to draw a truce at "non-overlapping magisteria," and in his unwillingness to make that his position, Dawkins is doing just as much to escalate the conflict as Michael Behe and the Dover School Board.
-Sam
19 - Shark
Baronius: "Both sides are motivated by beliefs. ID theory is less partisan at its core because, while Christianity doesn't need creationism, atheism requires some means of spontaneous generation."
What a load of deluded bullshit.
READ A FUCKING DICTIONARY and get back to us.
Every "explanation" requires "spontaneous generation -- God is no better answer than "the big bang" -- except that we have a ton of evidence for the big bang -- and not a hint of evidence for "God" -- despite over 2000 years of folks like you studying His Instructions.
ID explains "complexity" by positing a creator [inevitably resembling the Christoid Yawah, Abba, Lord God, Big Daddy, etc] at the "beginning" -- yet they [IDiots] are left with the same dilemma they mock evolution for: who made the "complexity".
ID needs to answer one question:
WHO/WHAT MADE GOD?
=======
re: Richard Dawkins -- Dawkins is hostile toward religion for a number of good reasons, the main two being
1) "religion" [especially American Christoidanity] has recently declared war on science
2) the Islamic Terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the subsequent "crusade" by G.W. Bush are both sides of the same RELIGIOUS COIN.
Shark says, "Gawd Bless Dawkins!" for having the balls to stand up and say Evolution is a FACT -- and that Christiods and Islamics are equally dangerous to the life of the mind and the future of humankind and its science.
20 - diana hartman
as a graduate of the kansas school system (the first 8 years in catholic school), i am floored by the continuing effort to interject ID into any curriculum other than humanities...and why aren't the ID'ers persuing that option?
even in catholic school we were taught about evolution, that God created the process and that that process could not only be studied but observed...sister helen marie used mold as a starting point for that lecture...she went from mold to penicillin to antibiotics to what they treat to what they would no longer treat to why they could no longer be treated with the same antibiotics...i was more interested in the guy sitting next to me than evolution but sister helen marie seemed pretty excited about it...
i will never understand the whole debate...my beliefs don't conflict with my science because i wasn't taught a conflict between them...
come on creationists, throw us a bone (bearing in mind that the theory of gravity might hamper the effort)...
21 - diana hartman
"Finally, let me point out that ID theory isn't opposed to science. It is a collection of evidence which points to the improbability of random organic development within the required time frame."
if ID isn't opposed to science, then why do ID followers reject the science behind evolution?
if ID has a collection of evidence, where is it? put everything about evolution and ID side by side on a table...take away books, opinions, papers, and the people who set them there...what do you have left? on the evolution side of the table are fossil records and petri dishes full of squishy stuff that has mutated and will continue to mutate all through the debate...on the ID side of the table is a can of endust that the cleaning lady left behind...
frankly, i don't for one second trust any sector of the american population whose grasp of our mother tongue is so lacking that it doesn't allow the understanding of multiple meanings; in this case, of the word "theory"...this one word doesn't mean many things at once; it has several different, distinct meanings just like the words "can" or "hike" ("i can stand on this can" or "i will hike to the gas station to see the hike in gasoline prices")...
ID'ers ought go back to english class before venturing into science class...
22 - Vern Halen
Interestingly enough, I heard a representative from the NCSE (National Council of Science Educators, or something like that) speaking on the radio on the way home from work yesterday. According to him, ID basically says that God "poofed" the various life forms into existence. This is simply creationism - not even a possibility that evolution might be the way life developed, and definitely not science in any form I can imagine.
23 - JR
Baronius: ID theory is less partisan at its core because, while Christianity doesn't need creationism, atheism requires some means of spontaneous generation.
So atheism didn't exist before Darwin?
And if ID is less partisan, does that mean there are more atheists who believe in ID than Christians who believe in evolution?
Think about it; does your assertion bear any resemblance to reality?
24 - Christopher Rose
I object to being called an atheist - the very word pulls me into a faith centred world view. All believers are faithists, but everybody else is just, well, not. That's why there isn't a word for people who don't believe in astrology.
It occurs to me that one of the main differences between faithists is that they believe in the existence of aliens as the very core of their world view - whereas the rest of us want to but the SETI results are still negative. Seriously.
25 - The Fifth Dentist
Since it's obviously impossible to convince the proponents of this drivel that it's not science, let me concede for the purposes of this discussion that ID is science. That concession still would not resolve the argument over whether it should be taught in public schools. Because, after all do we teach all scientific theories in the public schools? Clearly not. Specifically, to the extent possible crackpot scientific theories are excluded. That's why the Dover public school system doesn't have a module on eugenics as theorized by German Scientists of the early 1940s? That's why the Kansas school system doesn't teach genetics as espoused by Soviet Scientists in the 1950s. And I would hope that even the most misguided reprobate would reject teaching these things in american public schools. Now the question is, does ID fall into the category of these crackpot scientific theories or is it mainstream science? To answer this question we merely have to ask the mainstream scientific community and count the articles in peer reviewed journals. Based on the normal criteria to answer these questions, ID clearly falls into the crackpot class. There were probably more articles on cold-fusion and alchemy in scientific journals than there were on ID last year. You could probably find more scientists who believe that babies form spontaneously from homonculi than agree with ID. So why reject the usual method of relying on the scientific community to tell us which theories are in the mainstream? Why bypass the people who know the most and go directly to local school boards composed of real estate agents and car dealers? The proponents of ID answer "because there's bias here." "We can't trust these scientists." "They're a bunch of atheists with their own pseudo-religion." In truth, this is an attempt to politicize and religify every aspect of life. Unfortunatly, in the past we've found that this does not tend to result in good science. (See, Galileo.)Scientists don't accept the concept of bias. To them it's a logical fallacy. They rely on evidence and experimentation. I beg you, let's not go back to the dark ages.