<p>Perhaps, but even your post is indicative of the problem. We are talking about irreducible design; not the theological implications and extensions of a designer (how would you know such things based simply on the observation of facts, i.e. the design), nor are we musing on epistemology, nor moral and ethical problemswhich remain the domain of religion and philosophy in practical matters.
Moreover, I am speaking to the content of the posts, which, with no exceptions (including your last post) show not the slightest understanding of what is being considered here.</p>
<p>Your own posts displays the difficulty everyone seems to have in grasping the concepts
As you undoubtedly know, all of the above postulate design. And since there are no theological implications to knowing that something is designed (with no psychological profile of the designer available in science), like say a watch or a mouse trap, there is no viable scientific disagreement in explanations of the designer or its moral or ethical preferences. People are free to speculate on what the motivations of a designer might be, but this is not science but rather it is theology and philosophy. I am not aware of any serious thinker in this debate that advocates teaching religion in science.</p>
<p>I myself have read Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker and The Ancestors Tale William Dembski and Michael Ruses Debating Design: from Darwin to DNA ( Dembski is pro design, Ruse is a Neo-Darwinistthe book is highly recommended), and Michael Behes Darwins Blackbox.</p>
<p>I recently attended a symposium at Dartmouth by U of W Professor Elliot Sober who is extremely critical of design. I am quite interested in both perspectives, which would make me the rarest of posters in this thread.</p>
<p>I am also a big fan of the now deceased Berkeley Professor of the Philosophy of Science Paul Feyerabend (Poppers heir) and his singular take on science in a democracy.</p>
<p>Beyond the standard knee-jerk reaction, what have you actually read of a serious nature about design?</p>
<p>FS: how exactly would you go about testing the idea that life is designed?</p>
<p>Because SCIENCE requires that an idea be testable. ANd if it’s not science, it doesn’t belong in science class, and by definition is a matter of faith. I have nothing against faith; it doesn’t belong in SCIENCE, however.</p>
<p>As a friend of mine with a PhD in physics pointed out years ago: there is no way of proving that the universe wasn’t created 10 minutes ago.</p>
<p>I do believe however that core knowledge must be there- before you can debate philsophical issues.
I cant debate whether I should vote to limit malpractice awards- until I understand what has gone before-
I can’t agree to open up the search for a new math curriculum, until I see some objectives and criteria for evaluation of same
and I can’t encourage teachers to introduce the idea that an intelligent designer “planned” and “anticipated” life on earth and in the universes, in a biology class.
If Mormons didn’t change their teachings when DNA evidence proves that the Book of Mormon is not to be taken literally, why should scientists have to spend time on a theory that is untestable?
<a href=“http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_migr1.htm[/url]”>http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_migr1.htm</a></p>
<p>“there is no way of proving that the universe wasn’t created 10 minutes ago.”</p>
<p>exactly, so why are we teaching that it was created several billions of years ago as if it’s an absolute truth? </p>
<p>i believe you understand very well that there are things that we annot explain according to what the school teaches about the origin of the universe. You understand very well that it is not an ABSOLUTE TRUTH yet. Yet it is taught as an absolute truth. </p>
<p>if we teach ID along with the modern theory students will get the chance to even know understand that it is not an absolute truth. Students will understand the unexplained things, and that will probably arouse there interest to look for solutions in those unexplained things. </p>
<p>There are unexplained things. ID is all about them. Just because the modern theory is the best one we’ve got we cannot just hide the things that cannot be explained. If that is so when are students ever going to try to explain them?? That itself is leading to the stagnation of modern science. </p>
<p>So far we are teaching students to just ignore what we can’t explain and believe in whatever the text book tells them; that sounds more like your definition of religion than science to me.</p>
<p>It could have been created 10 min. ago or 1 second ago. We had that conversation last night. 12 year old D kept asking “what is an alternate universe?”</p>
<p>seashells on mountains sounds like Noah’s ark to me!!! what’s supposed to be a test of my faith ended up strengthening my faith.</p>
<p>i’m greatly anticipating what you have to say to that emeraldkity~ obviously you are criticizing you don’t understand - even supported the other theory while thinking it was an attack. if it was just a joke, please drop your indirect attacks on faith with stuff like “test of faith”.</p>
<p>bneg, in my rush I didn’t clarify my point. Science presents us with a great deal of evidence for a 13-to-15-billion-year-old universe, and many predictions can be made using scientific theories. That is one kind of knowledge of our universe.</p>
<p>OTOH, if you believe in an omnipotent god–which is a belief and not a scientific theory–there is no way to prove that that omnipotent god did not create the universe (and all that scientific evidence) ten minutes ago (or 1 sec or 4004 BC or whatever).</p>
<p>In a science class, we teach scientific methods of looking at the universe and all things in it. </p>
<p>In a religion or philosophy class, we examine other methods of looking at the universe and all things in it.</p>
<p>“and many predictions can be made using scientific theories” I like how you used the word predictions. </p>
<p>I have seen a some stuff supporting an old universe. However, are any of these things direct? Carbon dating may be the only direct thing (as in not deduced with theories like ID!), and i know that the data has been calibrated since we now know that the atmosphere has changed since the beginning of the formation of earth (that sure makes me very confident about this method!). Just because there’s something done to the data we’re supposed to accept it as an absolute truth now? Sounds like what College Board expects students to do. </p>
<p>In science class, we are not teaching the unexplained things. ID is all about those unexplained things. I agree that ID does not have a lot of supporting evidence. It is, at best, a hypothesis. However, it points out many things in the modern theory that are unexplained. i don’t mind if we never teach that there is a Creator in a science class (but wait, continue reading); however, I don’t think there should be any hints of there not being a Creator taught along with other material in a science classroom. Nor should we teach science ignoring all the unexplained things!!! ID is gathers the complex mysteries along with other contradictions, and reasons that intelligence is involved in the formation of the complex universe we have right now. Drop the final conclusion about there being an intelligence and just use the part pointing out the unexplained stuff if you like - that would offer a complete view of what we know to the students already - whether or not we should teach the “intelligence” part is not that important, but it does serve to balance the atheistic message that has been sent as part of modern science for so long. </p>
<p>interesting thing to think about: by completely ignoring God (faith) in our science classrooms, we are indirectly advocating another faith - atheism. so why should only one faith be “taught” in a science class room? Is it wrong to balance this for a more comprehensive, unbiased message???</p>
<p>seashells…
are you talking about Plate tectonics?
<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics</a>
In mentioning disparities between Book of Mormon and recent scientific findings, I was referring to the lack of evidence in the fossil record that animals that coexisted in the Book of Mormon did in fact coexist in that area.
( the LDS church does actually beleive in * some sort of *evolution- but they also believe that God is living on another planet)</p>
<p>I think you are speaking from the hip here. What do you believe is un-testable? That there is a design? This is of course entirely teastable and is being done by some to prove there is no design and by others to prove that there is. There are numerous volumes of scientific literature, web sites and even scientific conferences dedicated to this very act, you should take a look before taking a position.</p>
<p>It is no different with String Theory, the so-called Anthropic Principal, bubble universes, virtual particles, imaginary time: all of them are unobservable metaphysical postulateslike design.</p>
<p>“I was just on the top of the highest navigable road in washington state- Slate Peak over 7,000 ft- scariest thing I ever did in my life( I had to get someone else to drive me back down)- we found fossils of seashells on top- so I wonder how would intelligent design explain that?
Were they put there to test faith?”</p>
<p>FYI . . . it appears that the Vatican is for evolution and against intelligent design. Here is a reference to the discussion occuring right now on Slashdot:</p>
<p>so if ID is testable
I assume that a designer has been indentified?
what are the websites that are proving/not proving the hypothesis?</p>
<p>Whether people want to believe in a 6,000 year old earth or a 4.5 billion year old earth is immaterial to me.
But we don’t teach “religion” in public schools. We can teach the study of religions- notice the plural- but to teach religion in science class- is against what this country is founded on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>a friend who is a prof of chaos theory would argue with you that it is unobservable.</p>
<p>What was the name of the person who designed your car? If you didn’t know and couldn’t find out would you assume there was no designer? or perhaps that there was no car if there was no known designer? Lets say the person who designed your car (or this web-site) will forever remain a mystery. It may yet be of interest to know whether or not there was a design, a telos. </p>
<p>This is a grave oversimplification, a Paley-lite, but it certainly addresses your line of reasoning.</p>
<p>It matters little to me, from a scientific point of view, what or who did the designing aliens from another dimension, an anthropomorphic god, a witch or warlock, a monotheistic or polytheistic deity or something no one has ever dreamt of. </p>
<p>As to the web sites, I posted a link to one above; there are of course many moresome disproving, some proving, yet all are to some degree engaging. As to Books, there are literally dozens and dozens from both points of view, for and against. I mentioned a few above. It would take less effort to find them yourself than to post a list.</p>
<p>“But we don’t teach “religion” in public schools.”</p>
<p>exactly - so if we try to keep God out of everything completely, we are indirectly teaching a faith called atheism. </p>
<p>something interesting to think about: it is not enough to say “some people have faith, some people don’t”; it might be more accurate to say that “God might be real, or it might now be, we just cannot prove in science class”. Although these two statements may seem to be identical, (both indicate that supernatural stuff are outside of the “truth realm”), yet the second implies that our “truth realm” is not complete and perfect to reach that yet, while the first implies that it is of no relevance to the “truth realm”. Pretty presumptuous!! when we exclude it completely science becomes pretty presumptuous. </p>
<p>“So does ID theory allow for a creation of a new form of matter?”</p>
<p>i guess~ there isn’t really a contradiction.</p>
<p>is science atheism?
Are people who beleive in evolution atheists?
I don’t think that has been proven
My daughter in grade school had a teacher who taught them about various winter celebrations, some had religious connotations some more secular- no one holiday was emphasized as it should be.
To teach a specific religious viewpoint- as with the Noah and the ark as an explanation of geological occurances, seems to conflict with science and with teaching religion in schools.
We can teach about religion in history and do- the Crusades, the Gaza Strip- the Holocaust…
But I just don’t see where it fits in a K-8 science class- perhaps in high school- as a philosophy of science class-but I don’t see where discussing creation or design even comes into it- when you are talking about ribosomes and photosynthesis</p>
<p>“Of course”, it is impossible to “test” if the universe was designed by Go… er, an “Intelligent Designer”. It is inherent in the proposition of “Intelligent Design” that the Designor has the ability to design the universe to look like it wasn’t designed. That’s why it’s impossible to prove that the universe wasn’t created yesterday (or just 6,000 years ago.) So, once you assume a designer, you eliminate the possibility of testing your hypothesis. That’s why ID isn’t “science.” The infinite power of a Designer exceeds the scope of mere scientific investigation.</p>