Kansans vote: Teach evolution or intelligent design or both

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14137751/

If I voted, it would be both to give a broader opinion instead of strictly evolution.

No. Intelligent Design is not science, and therefore should not be taught in the science class. I would be all for having it in a Philosophy class, as that is where it belongs. Evolution is still cosidered a theory, but it is damn close to being fact. Both natural selection and microevolution have been observed (are fact)

If someone wants to debate me on ID being science, I'll stop them right now.
The internet is being a jackass, so I'll have to link to the definition Here. Note the first word after 'the' in 1a. observe. Can you observe a designer? I don't think so The theory revolves around the supernatural, that which cannot be defined by science.

That's right. Intelligent design is just a theory, with nothing to really back it up. Darwin's theory of evolution, published in 'Origin of Species' gives enough detail and physical evidence to really back up the evolution, therefore it gives its followers the ability to keep studying it. Evolution is a science. I.D. can't be, because there is nothing to study except for heresy and religion.

First of all, I can't believe here it is, 2006...and teaching "intelligent design" in a science classroom is even up for debate much less an official ballot. If someone wanted to teach in a public school that Horus or Freya created the universe as science, he'd probably get his tail fired. But since it's the Judeo-Christian god, it's all the sudden a scientific theory? And they wonder why other countries are kicking our American butts when it comes to academics.

I have no problems with exploring religion as far as objective historical record or philosophy. But to put it on the same level as the fossil record, which we have actual physical proof of, is ludicrous.

In science, a theory is an explaination that has been tested repeatedly, under a wide variety of conditions, and by a diverse group of highly qualified people, and which can be used to predict the behavior of real world systems. Theories include respiration, gravity, electricity, thermodynamics and thermochemistry, cellular theory, fluid dynamics, strength of materials, mathematics, apples not being very good conversationalists, the list goes on.

Evolution is a theory in this sense, subject to roughly the same level of doubt as the the theory that humans usually have nipples and the theory that fire is hot. While one is free to disagree with the theory of evolution, it is roughly the same activity as disbelieving the existance of sunlight. Evolution underlies the entire science of modern biology and genetic engineering, it has been reproduced under laboratory conditions and verified endlessly in the field, and our understanding of it's nuances increases daily. It's evidence is present in every place and in every being, and our understanding of it is the basis for modern medicine, anthropology, and agriculture.

- M

The problem though is that the teaching of evolution is not based on it being a theory but on it being a proven fact - just look at some of the comments of previous posters. Pure scientists should be interested in the truth - not trying to make the truth fit the theory. Suppression of ideas does not promote science, neither does encouraging students not to defy the staus quo. You can not try and say one belongs in religion or philosphy class and one belongs in science because knowledge can not be compartmentalized. Those who refuse to allow any mention to contradict evolution "in the name of science" sound very hypocritical. I think teachers lose their credibility when they try claim that they are holding a "science" class without mentioning the controversy or other ideas besides evolution regarding the formation of this world. Students are well aware of what is going on in the world and the controversy surrounding this and need to be treated like their are intelligent participants in learning - not just to recite information back to their teacher like parrots. THAT has been the REAL dumbing down in this country - to not question or think for yourself.

I.D. technically isn't a theory, it's a construct. It includes statements that are non-testable and therefore lie outside the discipline of science.

The thing you don't seem to understand is the degree of certianty whith which the theory of evolution has established. Within the scientific community, there's no debate about whether evolution happened, just how it happened. The only "controversy" about I.D. vs Evolution is by die-hard religious zealots who won't admit defeat. Creation is horse$hit religious dogma, it should be treated as such.

Please read my previous post.



This is precisely the point. The truth, all facts and all evidence, fit this theory. The 'alternative' is not supported.



Again, incorrect. Science is the process of investigation of answerable questions by means of observation, hypothesis, falsification testing, reproduction of known experimentation by different agencies, blind prediction of natural phenomena, and extensive peer review. Those data which fall within this framework are referred to as 'science,' and no other data are in this category. Intelligent design is not something which can be tested, falsified, reproduced, or observed, therefore it is not science and cannot be discussed in any scientific setting.

No idea is being suppressed. You are free to believe in intelligent design, or in the racial inferiority of Jews, creationism, or in the sun orbiting around the earth. We, as a society, refuse to present information in a scholastic setting which we know to be wholly unsupported by evidence, wholly without merit.



Controversy is addressed by instructors in many places and in many ways. In each case, a controversy presented to students is one where each side has presented a point of view which is not clearly false. The statement that intelligent design is science or that it is supported is clearly false, and therefore is not included. There is controversy on many topics, including abortion, racial quota, and resource conservation, because no side is clearly and obviously incorrect.

We, as a society, believe that we are motivated by a duty to our children to provide them with correct information. With limited time to present information to students, we must discriminate between those conclusions which are supported by evidence and those which are unsupported or directly contradicted. We also compartmentalize information into sets, such as those sets of information which we can rely on as true (because the theories being presented are the theories used to construct the building that the students learn in, and are used to grow the children's food) and those sets which we can regard as untrue (such as the belief that Fenrir the Wolf will one day swallow the sun and the Lord Odin and the Great Fire Demon Surtr will do suicidal war on the plains of Ragnarok until Baldur the Good is ressurected to create the new and perfect world). Intelligent design falls into the later category, and so it can be taught only in a class on modern mythology.

Regarding this 'controversy', see "Project Steve" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve.

- M

Eeep! Meep!

Where to go, to add something that might be more light than heat?

Perhaps firstly to note that none the positions in this area is monolithic.
"It's not as simple as that" is rarely a popular message, but it not infrequently needs to be said.

Ideal science is not necessarily what happens in school science teaching, or elsewhere.
"The scientific method" is not a simple, neat thing.
The concept that living organisms betray in their structures evidence of conscious design does not necessesarily infer the Christian deity, or any deity at all...

But those holding one particular position may not understand the variations and the ramifications of opposing views, or even the variations of ones near their own.

Then there's dishonesty, prejudice and laziness.
And I'm not attributing that solely to one side or the other.

It is possible to frame a proposal for the concept of intelligent design in cool scientific terms, but any delving into the modern origins of the movement reveal that there is much more to it than that. There is, underlying most proponents, a core Christian belief.

On the other side, it is clear that in many schools and colleges evolution has had an easy ride as "the accepted norm" and the challenge to go back to first principles and really present the evidence and think it out is not very welcome. (If only because of the implications for timetables and the curriculum: there is just so much to teach!*) Familiarity, repetition, laziness, can all creep in. "Why do we think this?" "Because most people do, because it's in the text book, because it's the orthodoxy" are answers not fully scientific, at the least.

Am I just saying it's a mess, or refusing to commit myself?
I think the evidence for evolution has met and overcome the case for young earth creationism, and that "intelligent design" has produced no good evidence that has survived peer-review to challenge the inherent randomness and contingency of the classic evolutionary model.
I could be wrong, but I know what I should currently believe. Provisionally.



*Is it safe to assume anything, or has everything got to be questioned down to first principles, and those discussed? Surely we have to take some things on trust, as at least provisionally "given", or almost not progress would be possible. But then, assuming "givens" which turn out to be less than absolutely true also has the potential for disaster.

Last edited by Emettman on 03 Aug 2006, 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I don't think you understood most of the posts: ID isn't science! If we had a theory that was scientific, and not a buch of hogwash, I'd be all for debate in the science class room.

Ah Kansas the home of the next generation of great American scienctists:lol:

And people wonder why American students do so poorly in academics when compared to other countries. ID isn't scientific as it's based on religion which is a form of philosophy that many people believe. Evolution on the other hand, has plenty of evidence to back it up, so it belongs in science class.

Outside the Bible belt like here in New England they realize that and treat it accordingly

Hahaha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

I'm more inclined to the Great Green Arkleseizure myself, even if that is not a view widely held outside of Viltvodle VI.