The case for Intelligent DesignFollow

"and on the 7th day God created man" doesn't seem like much of a data set.

Edited, Mon Oct 17 13:52:02 2005 by Elinda

I agree that a line has to be drawn, but I don't think it gets drawn in the classroom. I don't think limiting a child's worldview from one view to say, four, would help her focus as much as it will help her think in black and white absolute terms about knowledge.

This reminds me of a discussion I had once with my brother. He asked me to quit speaking Spanish to his kids because I would confuse them, that English is what they spoke here and so I should only speak English to them. I was worried about the loss of our native language but I respected his wishes, so I didn't do it. Now both his children speak English and no Spanish, and he is heartbroken when they tell him to be quiet when he speaks it to us. They have learned that there is one way to talk. I have another friend who spoke both languages to her children. While they went through a phase of calling items "shoepatos" and garbling their words, having kids mock them, etc, they can now speak two languages fluently and talk to their relatives back home, and have a skill that they can use for life. Any growth requires some pain, some time of confusion, but if it's limited, controlled, and ultimately not harmful, doesn't it just enrich your child's knowledge and life? Shouldn't you as a parent, encourage it? And as far as everything in its place, well, the world simply doesn't work that way.

And you used it as a verb. I fixed it. Don't argue with me. I am being neither contrary, or a contrarian.

They are starting with a hypothesis, no differently from any other scientist. Don't argue with me, I'm smarter than you. And I don't care what you believe, I can only go on what you show me here, so my statement stands.

Ahh, but its not, you see.

Creationism is "God created the universe and all that's in it in 7 days."

End of story.

ID is "There really had to have been something responsible for the flow, as you can't explain the mechanics of life through random chance."

And yet you still feel the need to argue with me over semantics. That they reached a different conclusion does not make them any less scientific than you or your supported camp claims to be.

So what of the rest of the world's species of plant and animal, that go straighter to the heart of evolution? Yeah, shut up.

And by the way, that's not what we know. That's what we suppose. I can explain it again if you like.

I dont know enough on ID to make a comment. Can someone fill me in on one point I find relevant? Is ID considered by the majority of people, both who profess their belief in it and those who do not, to be a theory based on science or more along the lines of faith?

Wow...just wow.

But some line HAS to be drawn in the classroom, or else the finite amount of classroom time could not be used efficiently.



Again, it's not limiting a child's worldview. No one has said that parents who are so inclined shouldn't present these alternative theories to kids. But the SCIENCE classroom, which is supposed to teach SCIENTIFIC theory, theory which is arrived at using SCIENTIFIC METHOD, is not the place to do so, because they simply don't fit within the purview of what that class is supposed to encompass.



The analogy is not the same. Your brother was wrong on a number of levels, the greatest of them being that children who learn more than one language tend to do better in ALL languages. But regardless, the analogy just isn't the same.

Now, if your brother had sent his kids to school and found out they were being taught Spanish in ENGLISH class, that would have been another story. Learning Spanish language has a place: it's called Spanish class.

Teaching ID in Science class is no different from teaching Spanish in English class. Even if learning ID ultimately helps the child in his or her studies (and in the format being insisted upon, that's a big if) it comes down to the point that science class simply isn't any more appropriate a spot for a kid to learn a creationist theory than English class is for a kid to learn Spanish.

Yes. Because emotional contempt and science are great bedfellows.

Please.

That's just silly.

It's OBVIOUS that's the situation.

But, hey, maybe I was just intelligently designed this way.

No, you weren't born a liberal, you made a choice to be that way. What intelligent designer would saddle anyone with that kind of baggage?

To clear up some things.

Evolution > Creationism. We are not bringing Creationism into it.

ID does not dispute Evolutionism.

My problem with ID is that it attributes the unknowns to God rather than find an answer through reasoning.

Moes Problem is that he doesnt see evolution being able to rationally and scientifically explain itself.

To address Moes Concern:

I would have to explain human evolutionary theory as a work in motion. Its also exceedingly difficult to have an even discussion with you about it without you having a firm grasp on the current theories, anthropological words and ideas and overall mind set.

You demand the missing link between each step of the ladder. What I need you to do is pull back and look at the whole picture. We have evidence of creatures that are more like apes about a couple million years ago, then given time we have creatures that closely resemble those creature but with more human features, larger brains etc.

You have dissembled that because the little you know doesnt match up to what you expect that its flawed and not science. You dont know or couldnt keep up with me if I started to talk about how Oldawan tool tradition that spans the species barrier almost untouched has been studied and confirmed over and over.

Its not one giant grand over arching theory, there are hundreds of them that span 6 million years of human evolution each of which is a discipline itself. Then when your ignoranceof the discipline leads you to see perceived flaws you try to crucify it without understanding it.

How do we know Habilis went into Erectus? Because Habilis was around from was around from Date X to Date Y, that Erectus was around from Date Y to date Z. That they shared a number of similar traits, foods, tools, that one supplanted the other. That they are remarkably similar at date Y and noticeably different at X and Z. Because there is no other explanation for the appearance of one and the disappearance of the other in a scientific view point.

The evidence explained through an evolutionary frame work fits like no others. Portion of that theory are continually being re-examined and discussed as new evidence is coming to light. Its fluid and dynamic and changing with the evidence its not comparable to a theory such as gravity.

My conclusion (if I have one) is that the difference between what evolutionists and ID want is this: evolutionists dont mind sayin "here is the frame work its a work in progress and changing, we dont know everything" in fact any first year anthro course they will pound that into your head. What ID want is to say "here is the framework they dont know everything so we attribute it to god and leave it athat".

Surely a man of your intelligence could see the difference between the two and the dangers presented by an ID frame of mind.

To dumb it down and make it more senseable since that was written while over a period of 10 minutes often with me being distracted by something else.

1. There is a problem in being able to speak informed and in a certain professional language that makes some statements and basic notions some what abstract and that can lead to misperceptions between an anthropologist talking to a guy on the street about it. EDIT Such as Evolution, its a murky word because it can have multiple meanings and connotations such as biological change through time, the process through which a new species arises from an older one, or the theory that darwin proposed.

2. That there is an overarching evolutionary theory that man sprouted from monkey. That theory is not questioned and the evidence tends to support it. That theory is unquestioned because no other theory has been able to be as plausible.

3. That what Intelligent Design enthusiasts are trying to do is take the current debate within the anthropological community about certain aspects of how it all went down such as gradualism vs punctuated equalibrium to paint the picture of a divided and fragmented scientific field that cannot be properly explained. They do so in order to place their faith into the science and further their politics and beliefs. Much as creationist and scientific creationists have tried to do for over a century.

4. Anthropology doesnt mix with you because you fail to see that the crux of anthropology is the Comparative method. A research strategy that is based on comparing similarities and analyzing them in a comprehensive way.

Edited, Mon Oct 17 14:49:25 2005 by bodhisattva

First off, assuming that you have forgotten more than I know about this debate than I know is supposition based on unscientific data: You try again.

Secondly, I'm unsure what you are referring too in your second paragraph. The theory of evolution? That the species I mentioned are unproven? That our ancestors evolving into bipeds is unproven? Please explain.

Coincidentally, it is my humble opinion the intelligent design can go hand and hand with evolution. Hell, you can go all the way back to the big bang if you wanna. Something caused it to happen, didn't it?

I just don't think that it should be taught in schools. You can teach the science of evolution, it doesn't take anything away from various religious beliefs unless you, let's say, interpurt the bible literally.