I would also like to see open ended debates on many other subjects in our high-schools, but as the husband of a teacher, I know that these kids aren't showing up with enough information from other sources to make the debates meaningful.
Occaisionally, you will get a few students with enough interest in the subject matter to have a meaningful discussion, but for the majority of high-school kids biology is an "is this on the test" subject.
If anyone can show me an intelligent multiple choice question which could be asked to test wether a high-school student understood the theory of Intelligent design, then this discussion might be worth something.
The problem I see is that if we allow "Becuase God created it that way" to be the correct answer to one question, then aren't we infringing on religous freedom by declaring it the incorrect answer to other quesitons.
Also, the whole conversation and discussion is meaningless. The ability fo of the wrench to fufill it's purpose is not better served if the wrench knows where or why it was manufactured. The same is true for the human.
I'll ask again:
Which journals, which articles, and written by whom?
You know, God or gods could be the hand that wrote us into existence - unlikely, but possible - so this is all quite simple: if you want ID in the science classroom, then tell us how you'll measure it, falsify it, what the hypothesis is and how it might be tested.
So far, all we have is "Oh, that's really complex, must be God behind it."
Sorry, that isn't science, so it doesn't belong.
Once again, we allow ourselves to be distracted from the real issue - government schools. Get rid of the government monopoly on schools and then parents will have more control over the quality of their children's education.
For a religous person you do have a very interesting take on all this which I have not encountered in detail ever before.
I will catch up on all your recent posts about it and join in later.
As I have said before "What the Bleep" was like the definition of enlightenment as well as an explanation of behavioural evolution and particle physics in a film.
It almost gave me back my lost "God concept."
The "complexity of organisms" isn't something that is unexplained at all. It isn't specifically brought up because there is no part of evolution that would stop it from happening. Even if it isn't explained, you don't just propose a theory of "well, we don't understand it, so we'll just make something up". This is what you are proposing that kids are taught. It's just back-door creationism. Go to a religious school if you want to learn that. The rest of the world is laughing at us, and rightly so.
Here's a skeptical review or two of What the Bleep Do We Know. Let's just say they aren't very kind to the pseudo-scientific nonsense within:
http://skepdic.com/channel.html#bleep
It is getting entertaining to see the same caricatures of ID constantly thrown about.
Really Mark! Andy and Erik, you are doing exactly what the NRO article says people like you do.
Andy, why don't you e-mail NRO and ask them exactly which scientific journals and academic presses have these theoreticians findings?
Then you could actually READ what they have to say not just a defense of it by bloggers like myself.
Poor Andy... already tired of arguing this and I just pull you right back in...Heh.
It is getting entertaining to see the same caricatures of ID constantly thrown about.
Caricatures? I've made a rather simple request of the ID crowd, which they seem unable to address. How very unexpected indeed!
It's not my job to make NRO provide information for their articles. Even the laziest of bloggers will usually link to where they are getting their information, but NRO can't? Interesting!
isn't the answer 42?
lol
.
Andy,
The information you seek is available online at several ID websites and very easily located in a decent bookstore.
isn't the answer 42?
*buzzes in*
"Uh, Alex, what is the IQ of the average creationist?"
"Ooh, no, sorry, Andy - that would be 35. 35."
Andy, this is the difference in our arguments. I am saying that I personally believe in the evolutionary process and that God created the universe. I do not claim to understand the scientific details of each theory. I know the outlines of what I have read, but my point is that they SHOULD be read and looked at and talked about.
Your argument is simply that ID is stupid and not scientific, but you haven't even attempted to read what the ID theoreticians have written. You choose to quote creationists who don't even believe in fossils! You critize what you haven't even read! NRO isn't exactly uneducated fundis you know. When they say that these ID theories have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals I doubt they are referring to Bob Jones University type journals!
All I am asking is for us to really look at these arguments from the scientific community.
andy you uncultured swine. I am a mix creationist/evolutionary dude. I think that god made the evolutionary process, why shouldn't he?
in the meantime, "42" is the answer to the universe.
We just don't know the question.
(that link is to wikipedia about Douglas Adam's third book The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything)
Clueless. Basically, the argument is, "We don't understand what science is, but these nice propagandists here have something to say about the issue."
Meanwhile, America is quickly losing it's lead in science and technology to other nations. Are we sure the Discovery Institute isn't being funded by China and India? 
RWS -
Your argument is simply that ID is stupid and not scientific, but you haven't even attempted to read what the ID theoreticians have written.
I'd say it's more irrational than stupid, although I will grant that plenty of the ID crowd is kind of stupid, when one reads what they have to say about evolution.
And, yes, I've read a fair bit of what Behe has to say, and some of Dembski. When you've read a chapter or two of a book on evolution (written by scientists, not by lawyers like Phillip Johnson), let's talk.
Henry -
Yes, I know what 42 is, but my answer was funnier.
And, sure, God could have created evolution, and I've said as much before. Now, just get around to proving God and I'll take ID seriously.
"Also, the whole conversation and discussion is meaningless. The ability of the wrench to fufill it's purpose is not better served if the wrench knows where or why it was manufactured. The same is true for the human."
Not so. Wrenches are inanimate lumps of metal, with no form of life inherent within. Of course it serves no purpose for it to be told where it came from.
Humans, on the other hand, are by nature inquisitive. In general, we're ALWAYS trying to find out answers to things that may (or may not) have answers. "Where did I come from" is a fundamental in humankind. It's that search for knowledge that has advanced us as far as we have.
"Is there God?" That's what it boils down to, and as an unbeliever, I'm intensely interested in the answer.
Andy,
I'm not arguing against evolution. That is the difference in our "reading" of things.
I did finally see two scientists today on Fox News arguing. I wish they would have given them more time because they were just touching the surface when they cut them off. But I did learn something new. THe ID scientist pointed out that we now know that there is a genetic code in our cells, something that was not known in Darwin's time. Much like the codes we use in computers, which we all know need a programmer to create the code.
I know that is a simplistic way of putting it, but we are dealing with regular people here who need things explained in a way they can understand.
Ron, I am sure many called Darwin a propagandist and worse at the time. I cannot believe that you think that just because you disagree with something that it shouldn't be seriously looked at.
Look, maybe the scientific perspective of ID isn't the way to go. Evolution has many gaps as well though, I just don't see the problem with looking at all possiblilites of the orgins of life. Like the Tech article says, I would hope we would never shut down the open ended debate.
Just in what has been argued so far, I have learned more than I knew before. Imagine how kids might react to it. Passions invoke motivation. And in education that is a good thing. We will never fall behind in science and technology as long as we have passion. That is what we are lacking.
Wonderduck,
Well, your curiousity can now be satifisfied. The answer is yes.
There are many theories in quantum physics: string theory, 11 dimensions, Higgs boson, etc. None of these have been proven. Should all of this part of physics and all other theories that cannot be proven be banned from the classroom as well?
Global Warming has never been proven. Should Global Warming be banned from the classroom? BTW, IMHO this theory is currently mother of all junk sciences. I think it's used to keep scientists employed.
A lot has been written about these subjects and yet the theories remain unproven. So does this mean that the ID critics I see on these threads also think all of those other theories (string theory, Global Warming) should be treated with same degree of skepticism and disrespect?
RWS -
I know that is a simplistic way of putting it, but we are dealing with regular people here who need things explained in a way they can understand.
If regular people don't know about DNA, dear, then they have absolutely no place offering even the smallest opinion on evolution.
Goldeneagle -
Theories in science are never proven anyway - they only get disproven. Now, they may reach a point where there is so much evidence in their favor that to think otherwise would be irrational, but it would still take just one bit of counterevidence to cause the whole thing to be rethought.
Which brings us back to ID not being scientific, and thus not having a place in the science classroom. I have asked repeatedly for one of you to tell me how we could falsify ID, and I've yet to see an answer.
Why? Because no matter what is found, the answer can always be "Huh, I guess that darn designer just made it that way!"
That is not science.
OK Andy. read your skeptic view of "what the bleep." I met Johan Hari recently. He was shouting at George Galloway you will all be pleased to hear.
I do have a problem with Ramtha school of enlightenment and a lot of new age stuff.
"This message is especially appealing to people who feel like misfits."
possibly
"I put up a photo of a child with Downs Syndrome. I asked if this child was free to create any reality he wanted. Was this child responsible for his condition, I queried? Arnzt responded that in fact he is to blame for his disorder--he is paying for transgressions in a previous life."
very disturbing
"They are suffering from psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia, or they have ingested large amounts of drugs or alcohol"
quite possibly. but this and mrs sparkles ID/Evolution stuff here is bringing me closer to a concept of God than I have been since I was a kid.
I don't mind if you or your skeptic.com mates don't like that, because you can't answer the original question.
Why are we here?
That, and ALL the theories around that question should be the central focus of EVERY classroom in my opinion, only I would actually ask the kids what they thought before teaching them any of it.
andy, I am very confident that no one will provide an approach for falsifying ID in the short term. From that, you appear to conclude that because a falsification method cannot be provided, that it's not science.
Ok, can you provide a falsification method for Global Warming? How about one for Higgins Boson? How about multiverses? For the ones you cannot provide a falsification method, are you going to use the same logic and say those theories do not belong in science?
Within science are many assumptions and theories that it is built on. For example, the speed of light has always been thought to be constant. Now that's being challenged. Why was it "rational" to think that the speed of light was constant? ... because it fit nicely into the equations. Frankly, as we learn more about the qunatum world we live in, I believe the universe will look completely different to us.
So, andy, why are you willing to accept so many assumptions and theories that cannot be falsified, yet are not willing to extend the same courtesy to ID? That's not only inconsistent, but hypocritical.
dave, gee. I am honored that anything I might be saying is bringing you closer to a concept of God. I try hard not to do any preaching here. My goal was always to offer a view of someone who has longed for truth and have found happiness with faith.
Ok, can you provide a falsification method for Global Warming? How about one for Higgins Boson? How about multiverses?
Can I? Sure, it goes like this:
"If hypothesis X is true, we should expect to find outcome Y."
Then we go look for it. In the case of the Higgs Boson, we're already planning the next super-colliders that should allow us to detect it. If it's not there, well, it's back to the drawing board.
"Global Warming" is a bit of a catch-all for several different hypotheses, each of which, I would imagine could be tested. As for the multiverse, mathematics predicts what we should see if we go looking for its effects (e.g. matter accelerating at the edges of the universe).
Now, tell me how you falsify "it was designed that way!"
I won't hold my breath.
For example, the speed of light has always been thought to be constant. Now that's being challenged. Why was it "rational" to think that the speed of light was constant? ... because it fit nicely into the equations.
Odd, the only thing I have read is that the speed of light is a constant in the dimensions we perceive but could hypothetically be faster or variable in another dimension. Of course, if these other dimensions exist, we should be able to detect their effects, or at least imagine how we could detect them (even if the technology is not yet present to do so).
This doesn't mean that you can say "we just need to build a God detector!" You'll have to describe some expected effects to be detected and by what mechanism you think they can be found.
So, I'm hardly being hypocritical. I think ID will have a place in science as soon as the ID crowd can make it scientific. When they do, I'll welcome it. I didn't run away from science when it took me away from the Church, so I'm not going to run away if it happens to lead me back.
In the meantime, I'll be waiting.
General falsification is understood. You failed to provide specific falsification methods with the exception of Higgs Boson.
Right, a super collider is being used to detect the existence of Higgs Boson. The Higgs Boson was considered a scientific theory long before anyone knew how to come up with a way to detect it. Why can't ID be treated in the same manner?
There is no falsification method for Global Warming. The scale is too large for our limited knowledge about the earth. By your logic, it is not science.
Mathematics doesn't prove the existence of multiverses or string theory. We don't have falsification methods for many cosmological theories. By your logic, cosmology is not science.
You give many scientific theories that cannot be tested a pass, and yet, refuse to accept ID as a scientific theory because it can't be tested. Why?
Andy,
Good to hear. No real thought or belief can walk through a closed door. Glad to hear yours is still open.
"I cannot believe that you think that just because you disagree with something that it shouldn't be seriously looked at."
Correct. However that doesn't apply in science. In science, opinions don't matter. Science is not democratic. There are standards of evidence, logic, methodology, and ethics that makes science what it is. Intelligent design creationism meets none of these standards, so it's not science. The people promoting intelligent design aren't even trying. Instead, they're just trying to fool people who don't know or care what science is. They're doing an excellent job.
How many things throughout scientific history were challenged in the same way? How many ideas were considered ridiculous until they were actually proven? Too many to count. Like I said before, maybe ID isn't science, but we won't know if we don't pursue the line of thought. As I posted in the above comments, the people involved here are no uneducated idiots. These are men and women of Science and I just don't believe that ALL have been somehow hoodwinked.
Sorry,that just doesn't fly.
How are they fooling us, Ron? Can you provide one specific example?
Are you saying that the scientific process is pure and clean, and not affected at all by politics, money, agendas, etc? I guess that saying, "publish or perish" is no longer true.
How do you explain Global Warming? How did it get a pass?
Sparkly, care to offer some proof?
backatcha.
Commenting by HaloScan
