Intelligent Design Now Comes to Australia ( Issue is Going International)

Sydney Morning Heralkd ^ | Aug 11,2005 | AAP

[SirLinksalot]

Nelson brings intelligent design debate to Australia

August 10, 2005 - 7:47PM

Education Minister Brendan Nelson supports the teaching of a controversial new theory of creationism, but only if it is balanced by the instruction of established science.

President George Bush has started a debate in the United States over the teaching of evolution in school by suggesting a theory known as "intelligent design" should be taught in the classroom.

It proposes that life is too complex to have developed through evolution, and an unseen power must have had a hand.

Dr Nelson said he had met the proponents of intelligent design, in addition to watching a DVD on the subject.

"Do I think it should be a replacement for teaching the origins of mankind in a scientific sense? I most certainly don't think that it should be," he told the National Press Club in Canberra.

"In fact I would be quite concerned if it were to replace it.

"Do I think that parents in schools should have the opportunity if they wish to for students also to be exposed to this and be taught about it? Yes. I think that's fine."

Intelligent design differs from biblical creationism in that it is not tied to a literal interpretation of the biblical book of Genesis.

Nevertheless, intelligent design points to the role of a creator, and it has become increasingly influential in Christian circles.

AAP

[Ditter]

A "NEW" theory? *snort* This is what Mr. Ditter and I have always believed, and guess what? So did our parents.

[Sax]

Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddism all believe in a higher power. Intelligent design is a generic idea saying a higher power is involved in our existance. What percentage of the global population already believes this?

Common sense is not your enemy.

[Sax]

existance = existence

[Alter Kaker]

Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddism all believe in a higher power. Intelligent design is a generic idea saying a higher power is involved in our existance. What percentage of the global population already believes this?

Intelligent Design does not say that a higher power is involved in our existence, it says that a higher power created the world as it is, in situ. This is not supported by the evidence, but that doesn't stop those misguided who believe that their religion says something it doesn't say. In fact, it's odd that Intelligent Design is probably the only thing wackjobs of all stripes agree on, from Osama bin Laden to the Raelians.

[Mylo]

Covering the Intelligent Design Hypothesis can be done in about three hours maximum. There simply isn't any more to it. The theory of Evolution through natural selection, and the hypothesis of abiogenesis (separate subjects, despite the ignorance of those who hate and fear both, but understand neither.), however, cannot be covered in its entirety even if you kept those kids in science class all day every day of their High School years.

So if by "alongside" you mean that ID is mentioned and discussed once or twice, no problem.

If by "alongside" you mean that equal time should be given; your poorly serving our already undereducated kids in public schools. They will not learn about one of the central tenets of Biology in depth, and they will waste time mucking about with a philosophical question that has little, if any, bearing upon our understanding of how Biological systems operate.

[Sax]

Well if that is the case, I've misunderstood. I would think that a generic 'involvement' wouldn't conflict with any major religions' ideas. Of course I don't have any interest in entering into Science vs. Religion or One Faith vs. Another Faith type arguement. My personal philosphy is to strive to be a living example of what your faith embodies - talk is cheap and no one really listens anyway.

[Diamond]

Intelligent Design does not say that a higher power is involved in our existence, it says that a higher power created the world as it is, in situ.

What exactly do you mean by "as it is, in situ", in this context?

Cordially,

[Diamond]

...abiogenesis (separate subjects, despite the ignorance of those who hate and fear both, but understand neither.)

You understand abiogenesis? That would be a remarkable tacit claim on your part. Are you, like many, loathe to discuss it even though your world view depends upon it?

Cordially,

[js1138]

Common sense is not your enemy.

Common sense says the sun revolves around the earth. Skepticism about common sense is not the enemy. Not being curious about the way things work is the enemy.

[shuckmaster]

It proposes that life is too complex to have developed through evolution, and an unseen power must have had a hand.

Anyone who falls for that crock has no business calling themselves an educator.

[little jeremiah]

Moral Absolutes Pinger.

Hmmm - Intelligent Design is spreading about like the sweet smell of roses carried by the breeze.

Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.

Or like the early light coming from the sun, even though it is not yet risen.

[Mylo]

I am a Molecular Biologist and I understand about as much as there is to understand of the HYPOTHESIS (you left out the preceding word) of Abiogenesis. Much like the hypothesis of Intelligent Design, there isn't much to the Abiogenesis hypothesis, and it could be covered in about three hours as well.

And my world view does not depend upon abiogenesis; just replicable data that supports a scientific theory. Abiogenesis doesn't have much data, but Intelligent design has even less.

[From many - one.]

I find it hard to come up with 3 hours worth of ID content.

Here's my take on curriculum

Grade 1. These are dinosaurs. Either something made them, or not.

Grade 2. These are dinosaurs and sabertooth tigers. Either something made them, or not. No, we can't talk more about it because we have to give equal time to both sides and there is nothing to say on one side. No, we can't tell you which side.

----skip to---
Grade 12 (in some foreign language) You survivors of the bio-wars must now be grateful to us. We did not kill you, you may now work for us and we will feed you. Funny, you used to have the lead in the biological sciences.

[Mylo]

Like I said, Three hours MAXIMUM. There really isn't much to it, and it is a philosophical question not a scientific one; especially as the proponents presuppose a supernatural causation while all our progress in better understanding and predicting the universe through the scientific method has been dependent upon the discerning and quantifying of NATURAL causes of observed phenomenon. Those whose ideas for understanding and predicting the universe were dependent upon supernatural causation have NOT led to any advancements in our ability to observe and predict the universe.

[Mylo]

Like I said, Three hours MAXIMUM. There really isn't much to it, and it is a philosophical question not a scientific one; especially as the proponents presuppose a supernatural causation while all our progress in better understanding and predicting the universe through the scientific method has been dependent upon the discerning and quantifying of NATURAL causes of observed phenomenon. Those whose ideas for understanding and predicting the universe were dependent upon supernatural causation have NOT led to any advancements in our ability to observe and predict the universe.

[curiosity]

First Holland and now Australia. The cancer spreads..

[curiosity]

Covering the Intelligent Design Hypothesis can be done in about three hours maximum.

Actually, that's probably not true. They'll insist lots of time gets spent reviewing supposed example after example of "irreducible complexity." Hours will be spent covering every detail of Demski's convoluted notion of "specified complexity." Probably several lecutres will be devoted to the "cambrian explosion."

It's all rubbish, but intelligent design "theorists" have no trouble filling loads of time with it. What do you think they do at their conferences?

[js1138]

Covering the Intelligent Design Hypothesis can be done in about three hours maximum.

It can be done in a lot less time than that.

I have spent the last four days posting a simple request on these threads. I would like for an ID proponent to state what the content of biology education would be if ID proponents ran the entire curriculum. So far I have not received a single response.

We know at a minimum that ID is proposed as an alternative to natural selection as the cause of variation. Random mutation is declared inadequate.

This takes ten seconds to read.

But what are the areas that ID holds in common with mainstream biology? Is everything else taught in biology and geology correct?

[curiosity]

See post 18. They have more than enough rubbish to fill time with. I'm sure they could come up with a whole semester's worth of material. What do you think fills all those books and conference proceedings they have?