Should Intelligent Design Be Kept Out Of The Classroom?

[Speckled Frost]

Why not teach the ID theroy?

 

In fact, why such blind faith in science?

 

It seems to me somewhat ironic that, at one stage, people had a real distrust of science, so much so, that they despised the findings produced by such charlatans and pranksters.

 

Now, there seems to be a growing hatred for religious, particularly Christian, teachings with a similar unreasonable and dismissive attitude.

 

There is still plenty out there science has yet to explain so why not give alternatives?

 

There is nothing more criminal than simply denying children a wide base of knowledge and theory on the grounds of society's prejudices.

[weasel]

I agree that we now have a "blind faith" in science.

 

 

So much so that if there is no "scientific" explanation for something, then it doesn't happen, or doesn't exist.

 

 

"Science" is just a collection of therories about the world we live in, and those therories constantly evolve and change with time.

 

 

As for ID - don't we have religious education anymore?

[Charles Flynn]

It is important that the work of generations of teachers of Christianity going back 2000 years is not just brushed aside. It is also vital that we are knowledgeable about science upon which much of our present well being has been brought about.

 

Instead of automatically rejecting one or the other why not at least try to learn what each has to give?

 

If then an individual cannot accept certain theories, myths etc at least some effort has been made. It is up to the educators to allow this to take place. Teachers who do not do this are depriving children of a right to know.

[Lonan3]

'Intelligent Design' is nothing more than Creationism dressed in a cloak of pseudo-scientific respectability. Science is a subject that deals with 'provable' theories and, as such, should include the basic disciplines of physics, chemistry, biology etc.

The problem we have is that Religious Education/Instruction is still a component of the educational when it ought to have been replaced, long ago, with the more generalised subject of Philosophy as a study of theories attempting to explain some of the mysteries of life and development. Creationism/Intelligent Design, along with other belief systems, would have a place in such studies.

[cheesemonster2005]

'Intelligent Design' is nothing more than Creationism dressed in a cloak of pseudo-scientific respectability. Science is a subject that deals with 'provable' theories and, as such, should include the basic disciplines of physics, chemistry, biology etc.

The problem we have is that Religious Education/Instruction is still a component of the educational when it ought to have been replaced, long ago, with the more generalised subject of Philosophy as a study of theories attempting to explain some of the mysteries of life and development. Creationism/Intelligent Design, along with other belief systems, would have a place in such studies.

 

I agree entirely with Lonan3's post. ID/C has no place in the science classroom. If taught it should be dealt with in philospohy class. Hardly any schools offer philosophy to students before 16 which is a shame. They all offer the terrible RE which is a subject which quickly turns any student off religion and religious theory for life.

[Charles Flynn]

'Intelligent Design' is nothing more than Creationism dressed in a cloak of pseudo-scientific respectability. Science is a subject that deals with 'provable' theories and, as such, should include the basic disciplines of physics, chemistry, biology etc.

The problem we have is that Religious Education/Instruction is still a component of the educational when it ought to have been replaced, long ago, with the more generalised subject of Philosophy as a study of theories attempting to explain some of the mysteries of life and development. Creationism/Intelligent Design, along with other belief systems, would have a place in such studies.

 

I agree entirely with Lonan3's post. ID/C has no place in the science classroom. If taught it should be dealt with in philospohy class. Hardly any schools offer philosophy to students before 16 which is a shame. They all offer the terrible RE which is a subject which quickly turns any student off religion and religious theory for life.

 

Depends on the syllabus and the teacher. Of course with so much pressure on students these days I doubt if they would be able to fit in philosophy which like religions of course will have its detractors. I think philosophy is not included becase it is felt it is a subject for maturer students.

 

Any change in students studies would have to be approved by Parliament.

[weasel]

Science is a subject that deals with 'provable' theories

 

 

I am asuming that you are not sure those theories are "provable"

 

 

Science relies on the results of experiments to prove its theories. It take just one different result, and you need a new theory to explain it.

 

But how many experiments are enough?

 

 

There is a theory that light behaves like particles.

 

There is also a theory that light behaves like waves.

 

 

Both can be "proved" experimentally - so which one is right?

 

 

Back to ID - i agree that it should not be taught as part of science, and your suggestion of philosophy sounds right to me.

[cheesemonster2005]

Science relies on the results of experiments to prove its theories. It take just one different result, and you need a new theory to explain it.

 

True but at least there are some things to prove scientific theory unlike religious theory.

[Charles Flynn]

Not dealing with the same thing.

 

Scientific methods which prove or disprove theories are completely different to acts of faith which depend on belief systems. The Bible for instance is an historic document detailing the early history of Israel and the belief in God. Some things can be proved to be fact from archeological evidence, the writings of historians etc but when it comes to God, Jesus Christ etc it is a primarily a matter of faith of how He has been revealed to believers. Most believers have moments of doubt e.g. Thomas because they have questions which cannot be answered as the evidence cannot in this age be seen. It really is a matter for the individual to accept or reject the idea of a omnipresent God. The teacher of religion in this country hasa difficult job to do but even for those who do not accept God the study of the Bible and the teachings of the men and women of faith down the generations has a great deal to offer in terms of wisdom and the nature of mankind just indeed has the study of philosophy - the study of wisdom.

[weasel]

I agree with you Charles that religion is based on faith.

 

What I am saying is that there is an element of "faith" in science too, and I think we should be aware of that.

[Charles Flynn]

I agree with you Charles that religion is based on faith.

 

What I am saying is that there is an element of "faith" in science too, and I think we should be aware of that.

 

 

Absolutely right.

 

A scientist will arrange experiments to test his hypothesis. If it works all well and good. When it doesn't they sometimes fiddle the results - human cloning, IQ tests and racial characteristics are two examples which come to mind. Of course anyone who does this relinquishes his right to be called a scientist just as any priest who does not believe in God - not the occasional doubt - but who firmly disbelieves the doctrines he is expounding should resign.

[VinnieK]

Science is a subject that deals with 'provable' theories

 

 

I am asuming that you are not sure those theories are "provable"

 

Science relies on the results of experiments to prove its theories. It take just one different result, and you need a new theory to explain it.

 

There's some misunderstanding of both science and the philosophy of science here, either that, or a gross simplification, deliberate or otherwise, of the experimental method. An hypothesis is considered scientific not if it is 'provable' per say, it is only scientific if it can be proven false.

 

A scientist does not merely conduct endless experiments and draw a conclusion from their results, satisfied that he or she has eliminated all doubt by mere virtue of repetition. Instead, a scientist will form a hypothesis based on experimental data. This hypothesis is then tested in one of two ways:

 

1. If possible an attempt will be made to provide incontravertible evidence that it is true - an example would be a theory that some type of particle exists. Finding the particle in question would be that evidence.

 

2. If the hypothesis states some universal fact, i.e. that something is always the case, or applies everywhere, then the proof is not a matter of simple repetition, but of searching for evidence to the contrary of the hypothesis. Take the law of gravity for instance, that states that the gravitational force exerted upon a particle by another more or less obeys a precise mathematical formula that depends upon the distance between the two particles - now the scientist tries to find a contrary example. He or she keeps everything else that might affect the force exerted on the particles by external sources constant, so that distance is the only thing that changes. Now, given the reasonable assumption that gravity does not spontaneously and fluctuate wildy at random (a reasonable assumption) if he or she cannot find this example that discredits the hypothesis, then it is concluded that it must be true... and thus constitutes a 'theory'.

 

You're quite right that it could take just one example to disprove a theory, but, as shown above, you're not the first to think this (I believe Popper and Russel had a few words to say on the matter), and, unsurprisingly, Scientists are well aware of this. That's why they deliberately go out to find that one example, by all means possible.

 

Whilst yes, it is true that there has to be at least some faith operating in regarding Science, Religion, and intelligent design require, however, total and utter blind faith. ID and religion as a whole cannot be proved to be true by any Earthly experiment, nor can they be disproven by any means. That's why, in general, most are rightly happy to accept science over ID and religion as an explanation of the way the universe operates. It's wiser to believe a man or woman who can give a reasonable justification for their beliefs that you yourself can witness directly and test, than to follow someone who can give nothing but esoteric assurances, the validity of which can never be demonstrated one way or the other.

 

 

 

There is a theory that light behaves like particles.

 

There is also a theory that light behaves like waves.

 

 

Both can be "proved" experimentally - so which one is right?

 

Your provision of this example is either a mistake, or worryingly dishonest in relation to its purpose. If you already know that light behaves like particles and like waves, then you're most likely fully aware that both theories are in fact right, that the question of 'which one is right' never enters into things, with the behaviour of light dependent on the circumstances (i.e. if we're viewing this behaviour on a large or small scale). And, indeed, that both theories are not two contradictory claims, but logical concequences of one particular theory, that being the Quantum theory of electromagnetism.

 

Of course, it could just be that you've mistaken the meaning of the word 'theory'. You're correct that both are theories, but this means that they have both hypotheses that have been proven to be true. An hypothesis is speculation, a theory is an hypothesis that has been proven beyond (to use legal terminology) all reasonable doubt that it is correct.

 

Lastly, it has to be said that theories often do change over time. But is this not all the more reason to give the scientific method more credit? They change precisely because new evidence has emerged. That is not a symptom of the weakness of theories, but the advancement of science thanks to technology and previous theories. It's comparitively rare for a theory to be disproven outright, more commonly it progresses to incorporate this new information (take for instance the progression from Newton's laws to those of Special relativity). Any theory is of the form 'this is the best explanation thus found', and every such theory ultimately improves over time. This is not demonstrative that science relies upon blind faith, but that it is fully aware that it's theories have certain shortcomings but that these do not matter too much at the moment (indeed, that little can be done about them at the time) will be 'ironed out over time' given that the evidence suggests these theories are already on the right track.

[gadget]

Why do we teach kids such nonsense at school... Surely there are far more useful things they can learn. Things that will really help them in the future...