Petition: Teach Science, Not "Intelligent Design"

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/919965448

 

I won't sign that ... and here's why:

It says, "Teach science, not 'intelligent design'."

But intelligent design was never taught in a science classroom. Only said to be an alternative conception of the Earth and universe.

The petition's purpose is misleading.

 

i don't understand, hikaru. the petition says,

...as schoolteachers rebel against being forced to teach creationism in their biology classrooms along with evolution.

At issue in Dover, PA, is a new policy requiring all ninth-grade biology teachers to read a statement on "Intelligent Design" before teaching evolution lessons.

i think that 'intelligent design' need not be abandoned completely, but rather be placed as a topic in philosophy classes instead of science. it is absurd to have a biology teacher stand up before a class of students and begin talking about 'God', 'Adam and Eve', 'Allah', 'Big Mother Wolf' or any of these things.

 

Intelligent Design is not Creationism. ID simply says that there is too much "coincidence" that happens to be just so in order for life to exist. For example, the strange fact that ice is less dense than water, that the earth just happens to be in the "life zone," that our atmosphere allows just enough radiation through, the size, rotation and distance of the moon, etc. There are thousands of things that if they were altered by even a small amount, life as we know it would be impossible. ID theory says that this is indication of intelligence in the fundamental setup of our universe. To believe that all these coincidences are the product of true randomness is a real leap of faith. At the very least, it is no smaller a leap that the recognition that it is possible that there was an intelligence guiding the formation of our universe.

An interesting corollary is the idea that the most probable place for life to occur is also the best place for scientific discovery (particularly astronomy and astrophysics). If our universe is the product of randomness, then that would not be true.

 

Fact is, ID doesn't add much to the science lab. There's no method or any variables testable.
It'd be good for a philosophical subject, or in religious education. Science is more concerned with how things work rather than why.

Do ID supporters claim the intelligent design is that of the Christian god or is it just any god/higher power? I think the idea is generally thought of by Christians who are desperate to get god in the science lab by any means necessary.


If it stays out of the science lab and isn't specifically the Christian god, I don't have a problem with it at all.

 

Intelligent Design is a logical fallacy - that of correlation implies causation, also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc. It states that we are here so there must be a reason that we are here. Yes, if one small change were made in our physical surroundings, we would not exist. This proves what? We are here because we are here.

 

Americans teach faith in science class? Weird.

Here in the UK, faith is only taught in RE (and Christianity was barely touched upon in our school).

Science lessons are strictly about science only, and that's how they should be. Natural evolution is by far the most compelling theory for how species originate and is widely believed to be true, so this is logically the only thing we should be teaching children about in science class.

You can't teach the alternative (creationism) in science class because it contradicts just about everything else in science. Creationism is supposedly a miracle from God. By definition, miracles defy science, and are therefore not part of science, and therefore should not be labelled as 'science' to children.

Could you explain that in more detail, please?

 

ID is creationism in disguise. And no matter what anyone tells you, neither is science. There is no way to disprove ID, because it rests on the notion that there is an undefined designer somewhere out there (god), and you can't prove or disprove god scientifically. The theory then becomes immune to the scientific process, because it cannot be falsified or proven.

This is fine philosophy, but science? Not by any means.

 

You are a logical, sensible, fair-minded individual - you would never fit in the US (grin)

 

Teaching ID in science is ludicrous because it asks the question "who created the universe and why?". And science is only the study of how the universe works, not who's running it.

 

Same could be said of macroevolution being used as an explanation of the origins of life. And that is the key issue. It isn't that proponents want ID taught in the science classes exclusively. What they want is that it is given as an opposing theory to evolution when speaking of the origins of life. Evolutionary theory is complex and varied (Darwinist vs. neo-Darwinist, for example) and should be given an thorough examination in schools. But it is currently taught as "fact" and as the only theory. Most curriculums don't even delve into the difficulties the theory has had in the past. There is debate even in the secular world regarding evolutionary theory. But in the classroom, these topics and the reasons for the debates are never addressed. ID proponents would like to see that changed so that students have the opportunity to make up their own minds.

Nope. There are a large number of Christian supporters here in the US, of course. But overall, they come from many faiths and some are even atheists, agnostics, and deists.

Glad you are open minded. Proponents simply want other options discussed in the class when specifically speaking of the origins of life, that is all.

In an post hoc fallacy there is a correlation between two events that happen in a successive order. What is the order of events in the statement "we are here so there must be a reason that we are here"? Where is the second event? If you only have one event, then you have no post hoc fallacy.

Also, you have set up a straw man. ID generally says nothing about how it "must" be. Every ID proponent that I have read or heard about discusses probability, likelihood, and the possibility that there are explanations beyond what we currently know through naturalistic investigation. These are not words of hard deductive reasoning, but of inductive reasoning.

 

Sorry bro, but biology is science, and science class is for science, not religion and philosophy. There are lots of religious explanations for how the world/life began, but they're religious, so they aren't discussed either. You can't change the name of your religious idea and suddenly have it as real science.

As it is, ID still is centered around a mystical designer. This makes it unscientific.

 

Until the proponent of intelligent design can show how the existence and workings of this intelligent designer are demonstrable in a way that is testable through repeatable experiment and can show what sorts of successful predictions may be made on the basis of this view, it has no business in a science class. Even mentioning it as a competing view in a science class is not warranted. If we're talking about a science class, then the competing views mentioned should only be scientific sort of world views.

For the umpteenth time, no scientist worth his salt takes a position (as a scientist) on the existence of God or some general Creator.

If intelligent design belongs anywhere, it belongs in a humanities class (which, in addition to science, is also a valuable subject area). Moreover, since a number of people are (or claim to be) proponents of intelligent design, this view deserves mention among the history of ideas. But it is not, based on the definition of science, a view that is scientific in nature.

 

That's the thing. Schoolteachers HAVEN'T beenforced to teach creationism, in the slightest. That's why I won't sign it. It's misrepresenting the issue.

If Intelligent Design is not Creationism, then it damn well is not science.

Intelligent Design says "there must be some intelligent force that designed the universe." This theory is UNTESTABLE. Therefore, it does not classify as any form of science whatsoever. Not even theoretical science, because there is no evidence to suggest that this is true; only human belief and intuition.

And yet these can all be explained by science. Ice is less dense than water because of the polarity of water molecules. The Earth happens to be in the life zone because of the ozone which formed while there was a LOT of O3, back when there was *no life*. The size doesn't really matter that much, nor the rotation, and the moon ... is that so hard to believe? Mars has two moons, Jupiter and Saturn have another handful.

Maybe life would be *different* if things were altered ... maybe it wouldn't even have come this far ... but maybe it'd have gone further if things were different, you never know.

And yes, change a few things and life probably wouldn't have arisen, at least not the way it is. But in a universe that's been around for billions of years and for such a long rate has been expanding in two directions at virtually the speed of light ...

ID doesn't state that it's an indication ... the idea of belief behind ID is that "there is some intelligent creator behind the universe's design." It's not a simple "indication."

Or a leap of 15 billion years. You probably haven't lived more than 50 years. And people who have lived that long ... have seen computers go from "2 plus 2" on punch cards to games like Doom 3 today. A lot can happen in fifty years' time.

Not to mention with experiments that form protocells from what scientists think was approximately the Earth's atmosphere while it was forming.

And it takes the same leap of faith to believe in some intelligent creator, who is certainly of more complexity than we are if said creator is capable of creating and designing this universe, in all its complexity.

How did that creator come about, anyway? Intelligent Design can't answer questions like that, because the questions are so farfetched.

There is only one difference between both leaps of faith. That, my friend, is called Occam's Razor, the prinipal of parsimony.

It makes more sense to say:

Life evolved from a growing and expanding universe.

... than it does to say:

Life evolved from a growing and expanding universe that was designed by a being of higher intelligence which cannot live in this universe.

Simply because, the simplest answer is most likely to be truer.

And even if there is some intelligent force behind it, that doesn't change the fact that we still evolved and that there is a studiable method behind it all ...

Go to any other planet in our solar system ... you can still see all the stars, the galaxies, everything.

This certainly isn't the "best place" for scientific discovery, particularly with space. ANY planet is virtually the same with that.

And ... we have gravity. But so do other planets. Wouldn't the moon have been a better place to evolved to study mechanical physics, because there is less gravity to get in the way of it?

That is flawed reasoning.

Have you ever heard of the theory of a Variable Speed of Light (VSL)?

It's gaining popularity at the moment, but we still teach a fixed speed of light in our classes.

You have to understand, Darwin might have PIONEERED and set a FRAME for the evolutionary theory, but science ALSO evolves with time.

We started by thinking everything was made out of earth, fire, water, and wind, the four elements.

Now we know about protons, neutrons, and electrons.

But we also now know that the circular models that we use for each of these constructs, is flawed, and they probably shouldn't be viewed as miniature planets.

Just because something isn't perfect and a few people disagree with it doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught in schools.

Wrong here. When I was in high school (not long, a year ago), I was never taught that evolution is "fact." I was taught that a THEORY THEORY of evolution is backed up by archaeological and scientific evidence (which it is).

YES there are anomalies.

But shit happens. You can't expect there to be no anomalies whatsoever in a planet that has been around for BILLIONS of years!

You know ... few of us are close-minded about intelligent design. If it were taught in a religion or philosphy class, I'd have absolutely no problem with it.

But intelligent design is not science. It is not testable. There is no evidence to suggest it. It is, at best, a guess based on intuition and belief.

Because of this, it does not *belong* in a science classroom.

Would you teach history in a math class? NO!

Would you teach reading in a writing class? NO!

Then why would you teach intelligent design in a SCIENCE class?

Science is "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method"

Science does not exist to explain how we came about. It exists to explain how things work NOW. If it can suggest how we came about by showing the state of things as we are now ... then that's fine. But that's not the point.

He didn't say that it was a post hoc fallacy, dude.

Re-read what he said: "cum hoc ergo propter hoc"

You're thinking of "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

Edit: According to Wikipedia, 'You commit this fallacy if you argue that "A happens together with B. So A is the cause of B".'

The argument is that reason exists along with life, so some reason is the cause of life.

It doesn't have to be an event that you are speaking of.

 

isn't there huge debate in kansas over all of this and it has actually been ruled in court that schools have to teach ID? isn't that the whole reason behind pastafarianism? since kansas has to teach ID they shold have to teach all models of it, including the giant speghetti god

 

So it would be fair to say that until a proponent of macroevolution can show how the existence and workings of common ancestry are demonstrable in a way that is testable through repeatable experiment and can show what sorts of successful predictions may be made on the basis of this view, it also has no business in a science class.

So a worldview based on philosophical naturalism is okay, but not one based on a theism? If we eliminated the origins aspect of evolution (keeping the adaptive aspects in place), could you still teach biology and have a working knowledge of biological systems? Absolutely, it was done for years before Darwin. So what are your reasons for wanting the origins of life discussed through philosophical naturalism in a class, but not one with philosophical dualism?

Am I making sense? The issue boils down tothe idea that teaching common ancestry is not teaching science, it is teaching a theory about history in scientific terms. Anything that a theist says occurred in the past can be explained by a naturalist within his own world view. The reverse is also true. Either way, they are both discussing history.

Let me go on record as stating that I have not made up my mind on this issue. I am simply pleading the devil's advocate in order to understand both sides of the discussion. Again though, the issue boils down to that division between adaptation (functional evolution) and common ancestry (theoretical historical evolution). I am coming to the conclusion that neither ID nor common ancestry should be taught in the classroom as they seem more based on scientific philosophies (yes, there are more than one, and many of them make good arguments) and presupposed world views. Perhaps both belong in a humanities/philosophy class?

 

I will think about what you have said. I still have not made my mind up. To be honest, I don't think that I really care that much. However, I must point out that Occam's Razor is a fallacy in deductive logic. Why? Because it isn't true that the simplest answer is most likely to be truer. Partly because we can change our answers to add complexity. Let's try your example again:

Life and all complexity arose under the direct care of an intelligent guiding power.

or

Life and complexity arose from a series of completely random events dispite a continual increase in entropy over 15 billion years.

Not true. The atmospheres of Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus are so thick, that you cannot even see the sun. Mercury is so close, you cannot see anything else. Pluto lacks enough atmosphere to really see stars, even the Sun is dim.

On earth we have a clear atmosphere that causes light from the stars to twinkle. The sun is still bright, but we have the moon. The moon is 400 times smaller than the Sun. But for that size difference, it is also 400 times closer. That allows for perfect solar eclipses, which is how men studied the corona (and eventually the Sun itself) before modern technology. That would not be possible on any other planet.

Furthermore, our galaxy is between spiral arms. If we were in an arm we would not be able to see other galaxies. If we were near the center of the galaxy, we would not even be able to see Pluto. We are in the perfect spot for observation of our solar system and our galaxy and the universe at large. Funny that life would just happen to arise here, where we can learn about our universe.

Historically, gravity has been essential toward the investigation of physics. A significant lack thereof would probably hampered early scientists, not helped. Without the foundation of early physics, current physics would not exist.

Nah... Some greeks thought it was just one of the elements. Thales thought everything was made of water. I couldn't say about easter thoughts on science.

I agree. Note I have not said it should not be taught. I, like you, have questioned in what setting it should be taught.

I agree with your point. So common ancestry, as it is not something that happens now, could be removed to another classroom setting?

Doh! Thanks for that! Sorry

I am not sure I agree with that. Everything that I found on cum hoc (notice the correction ) still deals with two events. The difference is that with post hoc one event happens before the other, in cum hoc, they happen together. Either way, there are two events.

 

It would be both fair and correct.

No, you're not making sense (though not for lack of trying, I don't think). For one thing, I don't follow the distinction between 'teaching science' and 'teaching a theory about history in scientific terms'. I can't see any reason why non-scientific subject matter should be taught in a science course as though it were primary scientifc subject matter.

Once again, I would argue that this is (or is turning into) a lingustic issue. There are certain necessary conditions that make up science (in the same manner that having exactly two teams is a necessary condition in order to have a contested football game). Two of these necessary conditions I've mentioned in my previous post and elsewhere. Does intelligent design meet these conditions? I have argued that it does not. I can't see, then, how theists being able to provide AN explanation for certain naturalistic claims (and vice versa) is relevant.

Won't object to that attitude.

 

Let me try this as a possible hypothesis:

There is no theory regarding the origins of life that must be taught in a science classroom in order to understand the sciences (particularly biology) at a high school level.

That wouldn't eliminate the concepts of adaptation/microevolution but would avoid completely both common ancestry (naturalism) and intelligent design (dualism) as issues in high school science classes (which is what the argument is really over). High school science courses skip over much in science classes. They have to. Even my physics classes didn't go into quantum mechanics, astrophysics, or the like. My biology classes didn't delve into the minutae of genetics or immunology. Is this another subject that could be safely removed from the curriculum?

I definitely understand your point and it has given me food for thought. Have you ever read Khun? I haven't read much, but his thoughts on our scientific paradigms are very interesting. What does it mean for something to be "scientific"?

Thanks for your well written post (I wish I could write as well).

 

How kind of you to say that! In truth, there are a lot of silly ideas and traditions in America, and people. And the exact same is true of the UK. It's hard to appreciate that unless you live here because we have a reputation for being intelligent. Ha!