Will Intelligent Design be taught in our schools? Never.
October 18th 2006 10:37
Darwin and ID
The proponents of intelligent design feel much better now that the President of the United States thinks that it ought to be taught in American schools.
He is quoted by the Washington Post as saying,
"Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about," he said, according to an official transcript of the session. Bush added: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."
Spokesman for ID
We could ask on this website whether the subscribers think that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools but the results of that survey will be as irrelevant as one determining whether we should have Capital Punishment or not. Intelligent Design is never going to be taught outside the United States of America, nor should it be.
What is Intelligent Design? In the theoretical egg shell that makes up the anthropoid cranium, it means that certain biological phenomena are just too complicated to be explained by evolution. The organ most cited seems to be the eye. How could the complex organ or vision arise from a series of mutations which are favoured by circumstances in such a way that more and more complicated eyes evolved and those creatures who had less complicated eyes got “factored out” by the selection pressures imposed by an environment? Survival of the fittest means that if your eye is better you survive while something that cannot see as well does not. To the Intelligent Design proponents our eyes are just too good to be explained in that way.
This may seem reasonable to the non-scientist. The proponents of Intelligent Design say that their scientists are just as scientific as evolution scientists. Are they? In fact Intelligent Design Scientists not only represent a tiny minority of the scientific community, they are usually in the wrong field. By this I mean that their representatives are invariably not biologists. If they are, they are not developmental biologists and so on.
Paradoxically the greatest flaw in the Intelligent Design Theory is not scientific it is theological. By theological I mean the study of “God” in all of his manifestations.
The basic assumption in the Intelligent Design argument is that God is continually interfering in the world. He is continually giving things a helping hand. He is adding a fin to a fish and an extra whisker to a rabbit. He is “designing”. To the theologian this means that there is no science, no development occurring in nature and, more importantly there is no Free Will. There is no right and wrong because, after all, God is doing everything so we can’t be held responsible for our sins. This very primitive form of fundamental deism has no place in modern religion and certainly no place in our class rooms.
| 131 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Lily
Ars Poetica
your post titles just get better and better as they go up --if that makes sense; be sure i'll read some more..
~Lily
Comment by spain01
Juan Carlos
spain again
While your'e about it
Viva l'difference
Fire News Blog
Cities dying of thirst.
Not only are your comments most welcome it is clear that you appreciate the importance of
commenting on and, if necessary, correcting other blogger's work. Few people appreciate
the importance of these posts. Look at the effects in the US.
Regards
Comment by Lily
Ars Poetica
~Lily
Comment by Homer Joyce
Whenever I meet someone who subscribes to Darwin's Theory of Evolution, I tend to look them up and down, and say, I can see why you think we evolved from apes, but personally, I believe in Creation.
Homer ...
I don't recall reading in Genesis where God created apes and said go forth and evolve into man ...
Comment by spain01
Juan Carlos
spain again
While your'e about it
Viva l'difference
Fire News Blog
Cities dying of thirst.
Comment by The Voices in my Head
The Voices in my Head
Am I wrong or has legitimate science, after that whole debacle eons ago of facing the embarrassing admission that the world was, indeed, round and not flat, now just come forth, just recently and admitted AGAIN, that they have have been wrong again in regards to the planets? Which one did they get wrong? Better yet, do they simply have more information than they once did, and can now intelligently acknowledge the error?
My point? Well, is it possible...JUST possible that someday, science will find they were wrong about evolution? It is the only theory I am aware of that is argued as fact that has as large a hole in it as a "missing link". Surely, intelligent men and women do not subscribe to any theory which suggests they are supremely right in this matter?
The truth is this...as much as it is a matter of faith to believe in creation, it is just as much a matter of faith in science to believe in evolution. Perhaps a suitable solution would be not to teach either one. It will save all that embarrassment later on, wouldn't you agree?
I think it a much lovelier idea to teach children that there are still mysteries to be discovered in this world...and that we do not know everything.
I will end with this...I would rather live my life as though there were a God and find out there isn't, than to live my life as though there weren't a God and find out that there is.
Great post, very thought provoking. Well done!
Voices~
Comment by spain01
Juan Carlos
spain again
While your'e about it
Viva l'difference
Fire News Blog
Cities dying of thirst.
Such perspicacious and thought provoking responses cannot go unanswered. Evolution is not atheistic and many of its early adherents were very religious men. It is anti-biblical and this was why Darwin went through such agony before coming out with it. A side effect was the acceptance of mainstream religions that the bible is allegorical. It was only the near publication of Wallace that caused him to publish first. Wallace gallantly acknowledged Darwin’s contribution in an age when there was no competition for Nobel Prizes. You need faith in God and then hope that somehow he/she will work it all out for our confused minds. This was the quandary of St. Ignacious and St. Augustine. The big problem with creationists is all of the fossils and all of the extinct species, most species became extinct. It makes no sense that God would create all of this stuff and the sedimentary layers unless there was a natural selection process. Why would he/she make a fossil of an animal that never existed. As I outlined, the creationist has to posit that God is continually interfering in and designing the world as we do along. He cannot make mistakes because he is omniscient, so the trial species cannot be mistakes. He cannot move our limbs around and put temptations in the way of some and not others. You either have determinism or you have free will. This is the creationist's biggest dilemma.
Comment by Lilla
Enviro Warrior
An Extra Ordinary Life
Dream Herald
In Australia (maybe in other places too) there is a system of education called the Steiner System. It tends to teach about epochs, through a non-denominational perspective or doctrine - rather than solids, concrete one black one white.
As a researcher I have always found that study over long periods of time produces visible patterns and that as the bible says in Romans somewhere that - Ever since the creation of the world, the invisible existence of God and His everlasting power have been clearly seen by the mind's understanding of created things. [excuse the horrible reference to God being only He and not She aswell, for our more enlightened readers].
Surely this means linking science, nature and spirit ... to observe patterns.
Henry Cornelius Agrippa wrote something about
For in all things.
The Oracle of things to come are hid,
But those are the chiefest -
Which omenal birds shall foretell
Shameless plug for my new book on Augury there, sorry.
Lilla
Comment by The Voices in my Head
The Voices in my Head
If you will allow me to go on and on...I would like to respond to some stands taken in your comment.
"The big problem with creationists is all of the fossils and all of the extinct species, most species became extinct. It makes no sense that God would create all of this stuff and the sedimentary layers unless there was a natural selection process. Why would he/she make a fossil of an animal that never existed."
Are you of the assumption that Creationist believe there were no dinosaurs or what exactly? I do not follow. I suppose this, too, is the biggest challenge of Creationists...the need to explain that, as with science, there are variations to beliefs. The fact that some scientists believe that God, did in fact, create the world and everything in it by design surely differ from those who do not, yet are they not all labeled scientists?
"As I outlined, the creationist has to posit that God is continually interfering in and designing the world as we do along. He cannot make mistakes because he is omniscient, so the trial species cannot be mistakes."
Again, with all due respect, no, I do not believe this to be the case at all. Whether you believe in God or not, the fact that babies, for the sake of argument, are born with birth defects does not mean their Creator, be it the child's parents or God depending on your belief system, made an error.
On a side tangient, this begs an interesting question, and I do hope you can give some thought on this matter, I have so enjoyed our discussion so far...
The world is so full of hate and violence...so full of wrongs and pain filled existences...how do we know for certain, that children born with disorders such as downs syndrome, children so purely sweet and loving, are not evolutions way of correcting a past mistake? The mistake of men so intelligent, they believe themselves worthy of the "envy of God." Men who believe they are so intelligent that they can know all about all...makes one wonder if those men are fallen angels, doesn't it? I digress...my apologies.
My point is that how do we know that what we call mistakes...are actually mistakes simply because we do not understand their purpose. This is the slippery slope that we find ourselves on when we try too hard to define who and what God is and IF God is...
Voices~
PS. I read the "envy of god" statement recently. It was written my favorite author and it profoundly impacted me...is not utterly profound?
Comment by Homer Joyce
Was it Darwin who coined the term 'family tree'?
Did he ever do his own?
Homer ...
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
The problem with theories is that they are not absolute proof and can be discredited if new data is discovered.
Comment by spain01
Juan Carlos
spain again
While your'e about it
Viva l'difference
Fire News Blog
Cities dying of thirst.
Such lyrical comment hardly requires an answer but is totally apt.
Dear Voices,
Yes it is certainly fair enough to say that there are variations in faith, just as in science and even in Creationism. There is probably partial creationism where you suggest say that animals evolved but man was created. The reason this is very fair is that it is in the one area of mankind where evolutionists struggle to explain the difference between Homo Sapiens and predecessors, which all seem scarcely human after all, there is a strong ID point.
Yes and you are right to clarify the issue of “mistakes”. Mutations are only “mistakes” as we might label them, if they do not convey an advantage. A tendency to produce Downs Syndrome children does not convey an advantage in our society (they don’t breed anyway so it’s not really a good example) but in another society having this trait could convey an advantage though it is hard to imagine how. So, good point, “mistakes” is a pejorative and God may be making mutations for his/her own good reasons.
Excellent points,
Juan
Comment by Homer Joyce
In reference to Damo's comment.
Why did Darwin himself call it a theory, yet so many people accept it as established fact?
Didn't Darwin say that if he couldn't find the missing link, his theory would always remain a theory?
What a shame he wasn't born later when George W Bush was alive ...
Homer ...
Comment by Lilla
Enviro Warrior
An Extra Ordinary Life
Dream Herald
Read Genisis revisited ... and Stitchen and a few others on this topic first though ...
Lilla
Comment by JakeDanger
The Matrix
1. In the original Hebrew, the word "day" is the Hebrew "yom", which could mean day, time, or epoch. So there's no neccesity to conclude that the Earth was created in seven 24-hour days in order to harmonize the Bible with the fossil record. A 4 billion year old Earth should be no threat to a Bible believer.
2. There seems to be a conflict between the idea of "evolution according to the laws of nature" and "intelligent design", meaning God violates his own laws of physics to create life through miracles. I think this is a false conflict. I see intelligent design in the content and arrangement of the laws of physics themselves - that is where the symmetry lies.
Atheist: Now that we know about the law of gravity, we know that God doesn't push the planets around the sun.
Theist: Yes he does, and scientists have described HOW he does it with admirable mathematical precision.
Point: The "laws" of physics are descriptions of observed regularities in nature, not causes in and of themselves. The law of gravitation does not "cause" an apple to fall from a tree to the ground, it's just a description of how the apple falls.
3. I was always suspicious of the idea of "survival of the fittest". How do we determine what "the fittest" is? We check and see whether it survived or not. For example, we know that a giraffe's long neck rendered it the "fittest" because we know that it has survived for such a long time. If it hadn't survived, we would have concluded that a long neck must not render a species fit. So "survival of the fittest" reduces to "survival of that which survives" which says absolutely nothing - it's circular reasoning.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
What is important is that the clonclusion is reached via scientific thinking and methodology.
I did write a post on this subject a while ago called 'Failing Science by studying it'.
Only one question bothers me about evolution and that is why does it go against the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy. If someone can explain how in a universe that is heading toward disorder we have a system that is becoming more ordered. Confused? Me too.
Comment by Lily
Ars Poetica
~Lily
Comment by spain01
Juan Carlos
spain again
While your'e about it
Viva l'difference
Fire News Blog
Cities dying of thirst.
Darwin, who came from a distinguished line of intellectuals and married into wealth (the Wedgewoods) never really had to defend himself in public against the accusations of being descended from apes. His defender, Thomas Huxley was called Darwin’s bulldog. The Ape thing has always troubled evolutionists who have now a whole series of relatively impressive “links”. To be fair, evolutionists don’t claim to be descended from apes. Homo sapiens and apes have a common ancestor. We do share 98% of chimp DNA which is disturbing. DNA evidence is always a little confusing of course. For example it indicates that Adam was born 150,000 years after Eve. Theories always remain to be contradicted by facts and when all contradictions fail, laws are established.
To Lilla,
Thanks for those extraordinary (and imaginative) comments. We are aliens of course and are made of star stuff.
To Jake,
Your comments about physics are evident in and of themselves. Excellent, what more need be said. I liked your comments about “survival of the fittest” etc. Yes it is a tautology but a tautology is a statement which is true by virtue of its logical form. The issue is one of terms rather than logic.
To Damo,
The second law refers to the Universe, not its components. An office keeps tidy records but produces a lot of waste.
To Lily,
Some bears are nicer than others.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Even with my limited knowledge of the universe I do know that entropy refers to everything in the universe. Nothing can escape it. Offices require people to actively maintain neat records or it ceases to function. We are but stored energy that should be heading toward chaos. So what is the mechanism that is causing the opposite to occur? This is a paradox.
I make no absolute claims either way with darwinism but where there is a paradox there is doubt. Where there is doubt there needs a more satisfactory answer.
Comment by Homer Joyce
To paraphrase Thomas a Kempis ...
'What does it avail a person to discourse profoundly about God if that person is devoid of humility, and therefore displeasing to God?
In truth, sublime word do not make a person holy and just, but a virtuous life makes a person dear to God.'
And to paraphrase St Teresa of Avila ...
I would rather talk to God than about Him...
Apologetics is good if it leads to something practical ... but apologetics for apologetics sake smacks of intellectual pride ...
Homer ...
Comment by Homer Joyce
If I speak with the tongues of angels and of men but have not charity ... what does it profit me?
Homer again ...
I would rather help someone out on the street than spend my days absorbed in apologetics ...
Comment by spain01
Juan Carlos
spain again
While your'e about it
Viva l'difference
Fire News Blog
Cities dying of thirst.
Yes I did not understand your very interesting point about the paradox of forces opposing the 2nd law. Intelligence is one of these perhaps, gravity which draws things together to form more complex wholes and the forces that cause complex crystals to perform and so on and so on. In the end the various laws win out. Your latter point is of course validly shown by what happened to Newton’s Laws of motion. So much for human laws. Modern politically correct thought also behaves as though there should be no exceptions, a dangerous position.
Comment by spain01
Juan Carlos
spain again
While your'e about it
Viva l'difference
Fire News Blog
Cities dying of thirst.
As usual we are all chastened by your depth of theological understanding with the quotes to back it up. I think the point about science which I suppose you are implying in your quotes is that it has this quality of arogance and indifference to the human spirit. Evolution is the ugly face of biology, perhaps.