Intelligent design not science: experts [70,000 Aussie Scientists liken I.D. to 'spoon bending']

Sydney Morning Herald ^ | 21 Oct. 05 | Deborah Smith

[gobucks]

Intelligent design is as unscientific as the flat Earth theory and should not be taught in school science classes, a coalition representing 70,000 scientists and science teachers has warned.

Yesterday they expressed "grave concern" that the subject was being presented in some Australian schools as a valid alternative to evolution. Proponents of intelligent design claim that some living structures are so complex they are explicable only by the action of an unspecified "intelligent designer".

But the scientists and teachers say this notion of "supernatural intervention" is a belief and not a scientific theory, because it makes no predictions and cannot be tested.

"We therefore urge all Australian governments and educators not to permit the teaching or promulgation of intelligent design as science," they say in an open letter to newspapers.

"To do so would make a mockery of Australian science teaching and throw open the door of science classes to similarly unscientific world views - be they astrology, spoon bending, flat Earth cosmology or alien abductions."

Advertisement AdvertisementThe signatories to the letter include the Australian Academy of Science, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies and the Australian Science Teachers Association. The coalition was brought together by the executive of the faculty of science at the University of NSW, led by its dean, Professor Mike Archer.

The president-elect of the Australian Science Teachers Association, Paul Carnemolla, said concern had been sparked by the strength of the intelligent design movement in the US, which has the backing of US President, George Bush, and the availability of slick American DVDs presenting the concept as science.

Australian science teachers were not opposed to it being taught in religion or philosophy classes. "But we felt it was important that, as scientists and science educators, we made it very clear to students and parents where we stood on this issue."

At Pacific Hills Christian School in Dural intelligent design is taught in science classes. The school's principal, Ted Boyce, said he was not persuaded by the Australian scientists' and teachers' stance and it was appropriate to teach it as an alternative explanation for the origin of humanity.

"We believe it is as valid to do that as to teach evolution. It would be unacademic and unscientific not to do so," Dr Boyce said.

The chief executive of Christian Schools Australia, Stephen O'Doherty, said intelligent design was likely to be discussed in science classes in many Christian schools and this was beneficial for learning.

It was a complex issue, he said. "The idea that there is an unexplained scientific hole in evolutionary theory … is a debate some scientists are having. To have that discussion in class is good and leads to questions like: how does scientific method work and what is science?"

The Federal Minister for Education, Science and Training, Dr Brendan Nelson, alarmed scientists earlier this year when he said schools should be able to teach intelligent design, but he later clarified his position, saying it should be restricted to religion or philosophy classes.

Australian Nobel laureate Peter Doherty told the Herald recently that intelligent design had no place in science classes.

[Liberal Classic]

Pardon my vulgarity, but I can't spell "shenanigans." ;)

[Zionist Conspirator]

What else would you have scientists object to in this manner? Are there any other areas of science under attack from a movement such as ID/creationists? I'm sure if and when the day comes that creationists turn their sights on plate tectonics in the classroom, geologists will not be found wanting.

There appears to be no logical connection between this post of yours and my last one to you. Does this constitute punctuated equilibrium?

And the point is not that a number of scientists won't object to creationism, but that they wouldn't be quite so loud in objecting to the pre-scientific beliefs of "politically protected" groups.

[GOPPachyderm]

"Evolution is not in conflict with the idea that first life was created."

And ID is not in conflict with the idea of evolution within species. The creation of life without an designer is a pretty big hurdle for evolutionists, no? It is incredibly difficult to believe that all of the complexity of the universe and the beauty that we see each day comes about by sheer chance.

[gondramB]

"And ID is not in conflict with the idea of evolution within species. The creation of life without an designer is a pretty big hurdle for evolutionists, no? It is incredibly difficult to believe that all of the complexity of the universe and the beauty that we see each day comes about by sheer chance."

That's right. I belive in ID. But science class is about science and there is no scientific evidence of an intelligent designer. There are problems and open questions but not evidence.

[Youngblood]

1.You said you "don't see scientists protesting anything else". I asked what else you would have them protest.

2.If those pre-scientific beliefs of "politically protected" groups were being presented as viable challenges/alternatives to evolution or some other robust and universally accepted scientific theory, then I'm pretty sure the objections would be swift and loud.

[gondramB]

"What else would you have scientists object to in this manner? Are there any other areas of science under attack from a movement such as ID/creationists? I'm sure if and when the day comes that creationists turn their sights on plate tectonics in the classroom, geologists will not be found wanting."

It is also going on in geology - many of the same people pushing ID also argue that the earth is only 10,000 years old.

[Liberal Classic]

And the point is not that a number of scientists won't object to creationism, but that they wouldn't be quite so loud in objecting to the pre-scientific beliefs of "politically protected" groups.

Your point goes much further than that. In post #133 you said:

It is not my claim that evolutionist scientists would be "snookered" by the Left, but that they would see an alternative creation story as an ally in the war against Genesis. [Emphasis mine -LC]

Here you have unequivocally painted science as at war with Christianity. This is both insulting and wrong. Way insulting and way wrong. Given this, and your screed about "rednecks" and "little brown people," I don't know what else to say. In fact, I think I said it best in post #122.

[toadthesecond]

I'm sure if and when the day comes that creationists turn their sights on plate tectonics in the classroom, geologists will not be found wanting.

They've already started on geology - the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1053891/posts?page=1,100

[GOPPachyderm]

I would like to have the problems discussed in a classroom environment and debated in scientific communities. And I'd like to hear programs on television state: scientists theorize [or propose or suggest]; or it is thought [or conjectured.

But that's not what we hear and those with a dissenting opinion aren't even allowed in the cluhouse.

[Youngblood]

The mind boggles!

[Liberal Classic]

That's right. I belive in ID. But science class is about science and there is no scientific evidence of an intelligent designer. There are problems and open questions but not evidence.

Thank you so very much. This issue is not about science making war on religion. For the record, I have no problem with prayer in school, prayer by students at commencement, etc. I have no problem with students learning about creationism and intelligent design in philosophy class, writing about creationism and intelligent design in Engish class, depating creationism and intelligent design in forensics club, and so on.

But science class is for science. Science class must teach basic science geared toward the prevailing scientific viewpoint. The actual number of hours in which students receive science education is very limited, and there is simply not time to address alternative theories and minority viewpoints. Furthermore, the point of science classes is to prepare students for continuing education. As such, science curriculum should be designed to adequatedly prepare students for the subjects as they will be taugh at university.

[gondramB]

"I would like to have the problems discussed in a classroom environment and debated in scientific communities. And I'd like to hear programs on television state: scientists theorize [or propose or suggest]; or it is thought [or conjectured.

But that's not what we hear and those with a dissenting opinion aren't even allowed in the cluhouse."

In scientific circles you talk about whatever you want to. When fellow physicists find out I am a Christian it often leads to a discussion of why and how.

When I explain it is because of a personal experience and that God has not left me with definitive scientific proof of his existence I've never had a hostile reaction.

In contrast, when I married to a liberal (15+ years ago) and I went with her to a couple of her Greenpeace meetings I got a severely hostile reaction for being a Christian and for daring to actually apply scientific knowledge to a discussion of nuclear power. In fac, they quickly banned me for life.

[Zionist Conspirator]

1.You said you "don't see scientists protesting anything else". I asked what else you would have them protest.

I was referring specifically to politically-correct non-Western mythologies, not another area where scientists get their jollies by pounding the Book of Genesis, and I find it hard to believe you didn't understand this.

2.If those pre-scientific beliefs of "politically protected" groups were being presented as viable challenges/alternatives to evolution or some other robust and universally accepted scientific theory, then I'm pretty sure the objections would be swift and loud.

I doubt that very seriously. Besides, did you notice the other day when a group of scientists (who couldn't bring themselves to utter a squeak against eco-pagans who demand a "planetery society" to save the earth) suddenly found the 'ovnayim to attack Pat Robertson by saying that our current storms, earthquakes, etc., are simply the same things that have always happened?

Scientists seem to be a uniquely cowardly lot.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Here you have unequivocally painted science as at war with Christianity. This is both insulting and wrong. Way insulting and way wrong. Given this, and your screed about "rednecks" and "little brown people," I don't know what else to say. In fact, I think I said it best in post #122.

What the blazes has Seifer Berei'shit (the Book of Genesis) got to do with chr*stianity? Did I say I was a chr*stian? Did I say I was defending chr*stianity? Did I accuse science of being at war with chr*stianity? Kindly point out where I did any of these things.

In fact, chr*stianity is largely to blame for the current dismissal of Genesis (and the rest of the TaNa"KH) as nothing but ethical teaching couched in parable. There are plenty of chr*stian blowhards on Free Republic who sneer at the literal interpretation of any miraculous narrative in the "old testament" but nauseatingly suddenly fall on their knees and become "as little children" when it comes to virgins conceiving, dead people rising from the grave, or bread and wine transmogrifying into the body and blood of a man who lived some two thousand years ago. And many of these same people adhere to your evolutionary theory and beat their breasts about what an embarrassment creationists are to chr*stianity.

As to "rednecks" and "little brown people," I simply point out that certain fundamentalisms get better treatment than others. Do you deny this? Is any liberal Democrat politician going to go to a Black Baptist or Hispanic Catholic church and start making fun of "creationists" or "midievalists?" Of course not. As Jim Goad has pointed out, poor white fundamentalists are essentially no different from santeria chicken sacrificers or voodoo practitioners, but you'd never know it from the disparity of treatment. He also points out that a whole culture and a whole experience are written off as one big joke.

In closing, as a conservative evolutionist do you regard the support for your position by the ACLU to come from their scientific rigour or their dedication to Jeffersonian thought?

[laredo44]

I think the general concept of intelligent design ought to be part of a science curriculum, because if it's taught in a scientific way it can shed a lot of light on things.

Like what?

[Avenger]

"Simple question: who is the proper authority to define just what 'science' is?"

I am not an expert on the philosophy of science but I think there are generally accepted concepts which differentiate scientific from non-scientific theories such as potential falsifiability, etc. Did you see "The Matrix"? Do you think the view of reality in that film (i.e. that everything is an illusion/hallucination piped directly into our brains and spines by super-intelligent machines) should also be taught in science classes? How is teaching ID in science classes any different from teaching "The Matrix" theory?

[laredo44]

That's funny, but have you ever done reverse engineering to figure out how something works? Knowing what the designer intended helps in that process.

Feel free to fill us in with a specific or two. Or is that too much to ask? What exactly do you know about the intentions of your "Designer"? Did the designer make eyes to work with the photons of the sun or was the sun designed to produce photons for eyes?

[GOPPachyderm]

It sounds like we concur. I appreciated the definition of faith in Lee Strobel's book (the Case for Faith) paraphrased cuz I don't remember it exactly:

The RATIONAL RESPONSE to God's self-revelation in creation, scripture, the resurrection of His Son and in the changed lives of believers.

I believe we can look at his creation to see evidence of His existence. From a scientific standpoint, I believe that crediting chance and time for the complexity is preposterous. Einstein said something to the effect that he never ceased to be amazed by the God who revealed himself in the limitless details. How could such complexity come about by accident? It certainly merits discussion.

[Youngblood]

You're talking crap about scientists allowing non-Genesis creation myths to be taught as alternatives to evolution and geology. In fact, you're the first person I've ever heard even suggest something like this!

I'll agree that scientists are often reluctant to get involved in political discourse. I think they stood by for far too long in allowing creationism to go unchallenged in the public sphere. Thankfully they're getting the finger out now.

[GOPPachyderm]

"In scientific circles you talk about whatever you want to."

Ooops - I meant to respond to your statement above - I am told that those with a differing point of view on evolution find it difficult to get good teaching or research positions, and find it next to impossible to get articles published in journals.