Posted on 01/06/2005 7:39:47 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Well, it certainly should not be taught as a testable theory. But the key is that it is not "illegal" to teach it. On the other hand, many "unprovable" or "unproven" hypotheses are "taught" all the time. I see no harm in at least mentioning that many scientists believe that one possible scenario for the very existence of life is that it was intelligently designed. They would be admitting that it is possible that things exist outside their knowledge or current understanding.
As the proverbial teacher said to the student that claimed he knew "there is not God." The teacher asked, "Do you know everything there is to know?" The boy said, "No, of course not." The teacher then queried, "Do you know half of everything there is to know?" The boy said, "I seriously doubt it." The teacher then said, "Well, let's assume you DO know half of everything there is to know. Isn't it possible that evidence of God exists in the half you DON'T know?"
For anyone to say ID is impossible, is to be blindly arrogant and show a strong lack of desire to open their mind to accept there are things about which they, and mankind, don't yet know. It is almost a self imposed lack of curiosity.
I think Rumsfeld said it best: "We don't know what we don't know."
So true...
I'd have no problem with that statement so long as there is no implication that ID is in any way a scientific theory or is comparable to one. For example, making that statement in a science class would be undesirable, but making that statement in another setting would be perfectly appropriate. My point was that, as far as I can see, there's very little difference between ID and evolution, at least if you leave religion out of it. From the discussions I've had with ID proponents, they don't object to the idea of common descent or the idea that life started out as a single-celled organism and gradually developed into more complex forms. The major difference they have with evolution is the belief that this process is guided by some intelligent designer and is not random. However, the theory of evolution doesn't actually state that the process is random! It simply states that the process occurs and how it happens, and completely ignores the question of whether it is guided by an intelligent being, which it must since that question is not scientific. In short, I have no problem with ID as an idea, but it is not a scientific theory and its proponents should not try to make students believe it is one. I also think ID proponents are a bit dishonest about their idea. Would they really be okay with an exchange such as the following in a public school?:
Teacher: Some people believe that life is too complex to have evolved and therefore an intelligent designer must have designed life.
Student: But who is the designer?
Teacher: I don't know for sure, but personally I think probably either Thor, Vishnu or Zeus did it.
No hypothesis in science is provable. Science doesn't work that way. They are all, however, disprovable. That is, they all give constraints on what observations are possible, and if such an observation that the hypothesis predicts to be impossible is actually observed, the hypothesis has been disproven. It is possible, at least in principle, to test ANY scientific hypothesis in this way. Sometimes it may be not be possible in practice to do so, however. In contrast, ideas like creationism and ID do not place any constraints on the observations that are possible. Therefore, these ideas are, in principle, unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific. I don't say teaching ID should be illegal. I do say that it isn't science, so another setting should be found in which to teach ID. Personally, a class in which students learn about the ideas of major world religions would be of immense value, since historically religion has been one of the greatest influences on civilization. Perhaps a class like that would be a good place to discuss ID.
>> So who designed the aliens in the galaxy far, far away, that designed the aliens that designed us?<<
So far, that is not what they are discussing in the schools, to the best of our knowledge.
>> It's just so much easier if religious people would figure out that God COULD have created evolution. <<
I am religious and I think that, in fact, God could have created evolution. But I don't like it crammed down my, nor my childrens generations, throat as the ipso-facto way everything happened.
As evidence presents itself, my mind changes, where evidence clearly demands it. I have no problem with the facts that have availed themselves over the last century, regarding ancient species, biological and geological history. It is SOME of the conclusions, and the way they are being foisted upon us, that I have a problem with.
By all means, scientists should study to their hearts content and come up with hipotheses regarding what happened long before anyone was there to record the events. They can interpret their findings as actual "recordings" but, ultimately, most (but not all) of their "findings" are mere opinion or, worse, speculation. As long as it is treated as such in our schools, I have no quarel with it whatsoever and even champion our children being exposed to such opinion. That is, in a scholastic environment that makes clear just how valid the speculations are.
And regarding ID. I love this (somewhat paraphrased since I don't still have the article) comment from Scientific American of a researcher back in the late 1980's regarding DNA: "The more we know about it, the more it looks like someone designed it."
>>Teacher: I don't know for sure, but personally I think probably either Thor, Vishnu or Zeus did it.<<
And at that point, and not until that point, it became religious.
Read the book. Maybe your sources are biased.
I agree with you that ID may not be science. On the other hand, what if it IS provable. What if we finally find a piece of matter that has, stamped on it at the sub-atomic level, the entire Bible in Aramaic, with the last line signed - God?
What if we find a babelfish.
I am making light, but am also serious. What if we "discover" a new way of thinking of the designer, outside of religion, that allows us to contemplate the whold idea of ID from a different, and completely freeing, paradigm.
Suddenly it becomes testable...perhaps. But, "we don't know what we don't know."
Something can be unconstitutional under the Establishment clause if it lacks a legitimate secular purpose. Further, a court can find that there is no legitimate secular purpose to teaching the existence of doubts about a scientific theory where the scientific community rejects the existence of such doubts, where ID theory is bad science, and where the people who are pushing to have it taught are motivated by the desire to advance their religious beliefs.
Evolution is a religious belief and its adherants believe they are entitled to some sort of a monpolistic position in schools by some sort of a devine right. They're basically monarchists.
Then again, what if Jesus really DOES return as described in the Books of Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, et-al.
I guess THEN it will be provable.
That is an intellectual stretch at best my friend.
It is orwellian at worst.
As the proverbial teacher said to the student that claimed he knew "there is no Santa Claus." The teacher asked, "Do you know everything there is to know?" The boy said, "No, of course not." The teacher then queried, "Do you know half of everything there is to know?" The boy said, "I seriously doubt it." The teacher then said, "Well, let's assume you DO know half of everything there is to know. Isn't it possible that evidence of Santa Claus exists in the half you DON'T know?"
Why, yes you could. You could say it about anything unseen and unprovable (with the technology and mindset of the day), even planets we have only recently discovered in other star systems.
So are you going to say that they didn't exist until we had the technology to see them?
Unlike ID and distant planets, nobody is seriously suggesting Santa claus exists.
Now Allah, on the other hand...
No, it isn't, it's science. And you saying it is doesn't make it so. Not even if you really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really want it to be true.
...and its adherants believe they are entitled to some sort of a monpolistic position in schools by some sort of a devine right.
Not divine right, but there is a Constitutional right to keep religious dogma, like creationism or ID, from being taught in public school. It's called the Establishment Clause.
I suppose that science teachers should also be able to make a similar mention of astrology.
So if the ACLU came out in opposition to a bill that would allow adults over the age of 30 to have sex with children under the age of 10, you would support the hypothetical bill?
The test is straight out of Lemon v. Kurtzman, which has been around for more than a couple of years now.
The analysis, moreover, merely recognizes that the legitimate scientific community does not recognize ID or creationism as science and the fact that many creationists have conceded that ID is nothing more than a cover to squirrel creationism into the schools.
Cheers.
What is really funny is that I was thinking of the Blade Runner scene as I typed that response.
I have said before that the reason people will see a decaying 57 chevy rusting away in a field right next to a decaying dead Racoon and think the 57 Chevy was created and the racoon evolved - this even though a single cell in the Racoon is infinitely more complex than the entire Chevy.
The reason? Because they KNOW the creator of the Chevy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.