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.

[tallhappy]

If the Great Dane and chihuahua were wild animals that existed as seperate populations then they would be classified as seperate species.

More incredible ignorance.

As I read these threads it is more and more apparent that those claiming to be for science are just ignorant dolts when it comes to actual biological issues.

[Virginia-American]

...should acknowledge that the mechanism which brought about their reproductive isolation and hence their "speciation" was intelligently designed by breeders, no?

The breeders change the environment in which evolution works. So you could call the process guided evolution or something like that.

If the breeders had actually designed chihuahua genes ahead of time and inserted them into the genome, then youd could call it intelligent design. At least that's how ID appears to be used elsewhere.

[bobdsmith]

"If the Great Dane and chihuahua were wild animals that existed as seperate populations then they would be classified as seperate species."

More incredible ignorance.

As I read these threads it is more and more apparent that those claiming to be for science are just ignorant dolts when it comes to actual biological issues.

It's absolutely true tallhappy. Notice the conditions I mentioned. IF they were wild animals. IF they existed as seperate populations (ie didn't interbreed and merge into one over time). In that case if man had come across them we would have labelled them seperate species as they are very differently shaped creatures, easily distinguishable from each other. Many seperate species in nature are almost indistinguishable.