intelligent design
Intelligent design was banned today by the Supreme Court, and i just wanted to know what peoples thought about it. As a moderate Christian (one who curses, drinks, and occassionally causes mischief), basically Catholic, i believe that intelligent design was a descent idea. Since it did not involve the word God, Jesus, or Satan in it and it was simply a theory of origin, i believed it to be a good compromise in this dispute. Like if the people of Earth died off and aliens came and visited, and saw Mount Rushmore. They could say that what appeared to be perfect figures of faces were created by rain, snow, ice, and wind over millions of years to just happen to look like four perfectly formed faces on the side of a mountain in the middle of no where. Or, they could say that the motivation of an outside force created the faces. Since, after all, we have no final answer to origin and evolution is still a theory... why can't one theory be taught along with it's opposite? Is it because Intelligent design is talking about God(though God is not mentioned)? It does, however, give people a choice, or is that the problem today... are Christians no longer given the right of choice or voice?
posted by Tigre at 1:01 PM
17 Comments:
It seems silly that they would ban it seeing as it flys under the banner of THEORY. Last I checked evolution was still a theory.
2:45 PM
A few points:
Intelligent design was not "banned" by the "Supreme Court." Rather, a federal district court judge decided that it was unconstitutional for a school board to force science teachers to teach intelligent design in science class - as it would be the endorsement of religion by a public institution. All Americans are still free to discuss, believe, and evangelize in connection with ID, so it's hard to say that it's been "banned."
Further, the court's decision is really hard to argue with. ID is not science; it's religion. Simply replacing "God" with the Intelligent Designer doesn't change the basic tenets of creationism. ID is not capable of being proven false - not because it's true, but because it's based on faith. By definition, Faith is not Reason (I'm not saying Faith is not reasonable, just that Faith requires a leap beyond the point where Reason takes you). Science is about Reason.
As you and Vozdra say, evolution is a theory. Science is built on theories - basically hypotheses that have been supported by empirical evidence. Even the defendants' expert (in today's case) admitted that ID is only a "theory" in the same way that astrology is a "theory." Neither are subject to the possibility of falsification. I conclude that both are better suited to the realm of Faith.
You mention your religious affiliation in connection with your consideration of this matter. Would you be surprised to hear that the Catholic church endorses evolution? It does, and for good reason: evolution makes sense. Belief in God is not counter to acceptance of evolution. Evolution doesn't pretend to explain the first moment of life. Maybe that sums it up best: Science doesn't pretend to explain more than it can, whereas religion requires leaps of faith beyond simple Reason.
Both have a place, but Religion's place is not in public school science classrooms.
[thanks for giving me a place to get through my thoughts on this. I found you through your comment on our blog]
9:32 PM
Evolution is in direct opposition to the Christian faith. True Christians believe that the Bible is the flawless, inspired word of God. It is without error. And seeing as how the scripture tells us that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh, then that is what has happened. And since it says that He created Adam and Eve, and He created man in His own image, that's what happened.
Evolution cannot be proved true, simply because it's not. It is just a theory, and a flawed one at that. Despite what the liberal media and some atheistic scientists would tell you evolution is still just a theory with gaping holes in it. But since we cant tell this sad story to our children in classrooms around the world I can't see why we aren't able to at least say "but some people think that this is a possibility too." And then simply explain that there is a reasonable assumption because of the complexity of the universe and of the living creatures on earth that it makes more sense for there to be an intelligent designer than rather this is all just on big amazing accident.
8:24 AM
I would agree with everyone on this, and i do realize that my church endorses evolution, which i have no problem with because it is taught as a theory of science rather than a fact. Religion does not belong in school, though on a separate issue i believe that at least the morals of religion should be there. Christians came up with a compromise, and it was our first attempt in a long time to reach out to the other side and say 'hey, lets try to work something out.' Let's teach ID as a theory and not involve God, because it is a part of our system that we taught alternate ideas. Since God, nor Adam and Eve, or the idea of an all powerful being are left out of ID i believe it is at least a reasonable compromise. There is what some call a 'far fetched' idea requiring this leap of faith in ID. The idea that the motivation of some outside force, a force with the intellect to be motivated, initiated the process of life. It is far fetched for those who don't necessarily believe. To the other side it can be said that lightning, and gases, or asteroids with bacteria, or water and heat, all coming together to form the perfect "soup" started these small organisms which developed the ability to reproduce themselves over and over and eventually into functional cells, then funtional systems, and the bodies with requirements, then thought... you could say that to be far fetched. The only difference is that there are factors that make that theory a bit more believable; however just because a theory requires a 'leap of faith' doesn't mean it is religious. The the idea that the world was round required a leap of faith, the theory of relativity, and even the theory that the Bears could beat my Atlanta Falcons all required some faith... but that doesn't mean they're religion. All in all both sides still disagree, and we wait for the next clever idea to ty to compromise the debate...except this time it's up to the other side to try.
9:08 AM
risen_soul, your comment provides us with the perfect means to frame the issue.
Your first paragraph sets forth your beliefs. You believe that God created the world and all its creatures (apparently in modern form) in six days. You believe this because the flawless word of God tells you this in the form of sacred scripture.
I think it's safe to say (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that nothing anyone says would sway your faith in the flawlessness of these scriptures (and the flawlessness of your interpretation of them?).
That's faith. And don't get me wrong - I admire faith. I aspire to faith. But faith is not science. Indeed, it can be antithetical to science. Any scientist (or student studying science) who starts his inquiry with a statement of his bedrock faith - to which his scientific findings must conform - is fooling himself about the quality of his investigation.
Now you say that "evolution cannot be proved [sic] true, simply because it's not." That's a good summary of why the two sides of this "debate" are missing each other. If you're satisfied with saying that x can't be proven true simply because x is false, then we're destined to continue our disagreement, and I wish you well.
God bless.
9:19 AM
tigre, you say: "Since God, nor Adam and Eve, or the idea of an all powerful being are left out of ID i believe it is at least a reasonable compromise."
Are you contending that there is some other intelligent designer that is not God?
I also think you're missing the point about leaps of faith. Let's say a scientist comes across a piece of evidence that doesn't conform with his theory. If he's not bound by faith, it's no problem - he adjusts his theory. If he believes that the bible is the flawless word of god, however, there might be a big problem if his evidence doesn't conform. He can't adjust his theory/faith, and if he doesn't, he stops being a scientist because he's not considering evidence with an open mind.
I had a theory that the Bears would beat the Falcons. This theory was based on the Bears having the number-one defense in the country and the game being played in the cold. Had the Falcons won, I would look back and say, "huh, I guess my theory was flawed." That would be the scientific approach.
If it had been a matter of faith, and if the Bears had not won, then I would have had a problem. Either my faith was flawed or I misperceived reality and the outcome of the game was different than observed.
Bottom line: true science doesn't presuppose the answer.
9:37 AM
I'm using faith as a common ground, If someone is given an option they must have the faith in it to lean to that side. not only, i am saying, does ID involve faith, but so do other theories like evolution. Except evolution has a lot more things to back up the faith, like cell division, specialization, and funtional organelle at the cell level and above. At one point it was considered, but at the very least given a chance. People were given choice of theory. ID has to be defined as theory, even if evolution has more science to back it. ID was proposed as a theory that leaves room for interpretation, like the outside force is undefined[x] and allows those who do not believe to view an alternate theory that doesn't speak of good vs. bad, or sin and moral, or God and Satan, or Adam and Eve, or the end of the world...simply a theory that rather than a perfect turn of events making life, that there also exists the idea that the perfect events may have been influenced by an outside force or that an outside force designed the life itself. Just like ID evolution still has possibilities open to it. People will always argue. I will always agree to keep religion out of Federal schools, but will always disagree with the idea that students can't be given an alternate theory because its interpretations 'could' lead to the idea of God... when they don't but depending on the student they could.
11:11 AM
Tigre, you didn't answer my question: do you contend that there is some other intelligent designer that is not God? It sounds like you're being intentionally vague on that point.
I'm also troubled by your definition of "faith." In the common-ground sense that you're using the word, "faith" is what causes a scientist to choose one option over another. Science also has a word for that: it is called a hypothesis. Once he forms a hypothesis, he tests it. Mercilessly.
He has no faith in that hypothesis in that he won't (or at least shouldn't) hesitate to alter or amend it if he encounters evidence to the contrary.
Scientific theories about the origin of life on earth will continue to change as we learn more. That's the beauty of them. That's also the key reason why ID/Creationism is not science. Creationists have faith in the final answer, and no amount of evidence will sway them.
That's fine. I admire their spirit, but you cannot seriously contend that such a mindset belongs to science.
11:40 AM
In terms of other than God, i can't answer that question. It is for those who choose the theory to decide. Science does change, bu there are many theories that remain the same e=mc^2. An equation that remians the same but can be expressed varaibly... just like ID am intelligent designer creates or motivates creation. It doesn't explain how, but i'm am in no way trying to deny the art of science, i love science, chemistry, biology, physics...etc. I am trying to say that in terms of the idea of creation, there is a scientific theory and that's all that is allowed. It will not change the fact that there is another theory out there, and since it will be out there no matter what it should be taught as a counter to evolution. It should be taught without violating separation of church and state, and that is what ID brings to the helm. The basic problem behind the current system is that students are not given a choice or knowledge on the idea... but they will be exposed to it on the outside. We're not teaching anything by holding back... even if it's because some people just don't like the idea. I don't like home education, but everyone's gotta learn to make spaggetti and that will never change; not even politics, beliefs, or even theory will alter fact.
12:48 PM
I should have known from the beginning that I was throwing words down a well, but now I'm positive.
If you're just going to go back to "ID is another theory, and it deserves to be taught with evolution," at least pretend to address the questions I've raised about the definition of theory.
ID is only a "theory" in the same way that astrology (i.e., the belief that the movement of the planets affects my personal destiny) is a theory. You haven't begun to address that, which is the core problem of ID.
Good luck with that. You know where to find me.
1:03 PM
I got it! Keep the definition of ID the same, except teach it in philosophy class, and just like science make philosophy a standard in schools...this way both sides are taught...one as science and the other as a theory of philosophy(along with other philosophical stuff). What do ya'll say to that?
8:18 AM
Tigre, I appreciate that you now seem to understand that ID is not science. I agree that discussion of ID is better suited to a philosophy class - or a social studies class.
I would think that to avoid Establishment Clause entanglements, though, your hypothetical teacher would have to discuss ID as simply one of the various creation myths drawn from the faiths of the world.
8:50 AM
One Time at band Camp...
Man you guys really hit on a good subject here. I am going to have to research this on the web and learn more about. I am a Catholic and I have Faith, where would we be without faith?
This subject reminds me of a question I brought up at a religious retreat I was on when I was about 16 years old. I asked the speaker and a priest what is the truth. Who came first, the cavemen or Adam and Eve? Nobody could give me an answer that was viable...they would all him and haw.
Finally somebody later on in life told me it's a matter of faith. So even though we have phyical artifacts and proof of cavemen I still have faith in God.
They suggested I read the book from "Goop to God" I never did....
NOW WHERE IS THE PUBLIC HUMILIATION PICS FROM THE BET ON THE FALCONS GAME???LOL
9:17 AM
It sounds like a compromise to me, now all we have to do is get Michael Moore, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, LA Times, NPR, and Atheists.
1:15 PM
i mean we have to get them to agree.
7:59 AM
I'm a buddy of Matt's. I have to chime in. It might clarify things if you all understood what scientists mean when they say "theory," and how that differs from how the rest of us use the word.
Clearly, the contributors to this discussion all think theory means "guess," or maybe "informed guess." Most people feel that way. When they see evolution referred to as a theory, they conclude that it's some kind of scientific hunch. It stands to reason, then, that there would be resentment and suspicion surrounding any circumstances under which such an unfounded hunch should overrule deep seated faith.
In science, however, a theory is a rare and very significant thing. There are relatively few theories in science.
What we think of hunches or guesses, scientists call hypotheses. Scientists make hypotheses, based on certain assumptions, and then they test them. Some hypotheses stand up to testing, and they gain credence. Generally, however, hypotheses get modified as the results of tests are weighed and considered. Every great once in a while, enough evidence and understanding accumulates to justify promoting a hypothesis to a theory. Theories are called theories because they so consistently are able to explain things, because they so consistently are supported by empirical evidence, and most importantly because they so successfully predict things.
The work that Newton did around motion and inertia eventually became accepted as theory. Einstein's ideas concerning general relativity are now regarded as having theoretical merit. Remember, Einstein hypothesized that matter could be transformed into staggering amounts of energy, which subsequent nuclear technology proved to be true.
And after a century's study and challenge and modification, Darwin's hypotheses about how the forces of natural selection encourage changes in the structure and behavior of organisms has so successfully stood up to testing, and has so spectacularly explained and predicted numerous discoveries, that it too has been embraced as a theory.
Someone in this thread said "Last I checked evolution was still a theory." The fact is, it is a theory, and there is nothing on this earth that is more solid, nothing better tested, no surer bet, than a theory.
Does that help?
donr
8:19 PM
It helps. Just as long as you're not one of those leftists who won't even compromise. Rather than a theory of Science, ID can be taught in philosophy, and philosophy should be mandatory like science.
12:38 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home