Intelligent Design in Schools

[Sinistral]

I live in Kansas, and recently my AP Government class has begun a debate over the constitutionality of requiring intelligent design to be taught in [biology, science] classes as an alternative to evolutionary theory.

 

I was suprised (and disappointed) to learn that the majority believe in unobjective fairness. That is, that because intelligent design theory has been presented, it is a valid alternative to the "biased" education of evolutionary theory.

 

The argument over the validity of intelligent design (ID) theory as a science is important not only because it would decide the fairness issue (that is, the argument for fairness would be fallacious if ID theory were proven to be scientifically illegitimate), but because it would decide the constitutionality of keeping intelligent design out of federal/state mandates concerning "origin education."

 

So, here's the question: has ID theory been recognized as a valid scientific theory?

 

My strong prediction (expectation) is that it is not, but I am looking, specifically, for statements on the matter from qualified sources. So far I'm having trouble finding a "legitimacy meter" that tracks the general scientific community's position on its validity, and I'm quite certain one will never exist. Anyway, thanks in advance for help with this seemingly ignorant question.

[insane_alien]

has ID theory been recognized as a valid scientific theory?

 

No. the legitimacy meter exploded when it went too far into the negative.

[the tree]

It is not falsifiable, it is not observable, there is no evidence for it, there is overwhelming evidence against it. Make your own judgement on wether it's valid.

[swansont]

Look at the transcript/results of the Dover trial (Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District; here is a pdf of the decision). It was noted that ID does not meet the standards of scientific theory:

 

"...we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science."

 

Currently, however, that recognition is only legally binding in a small part of Pennsylvania.

[silkworm]

I'm from Kansas too. Thank God I'm not in High School now, but I was in High School when this whole mess started brewing around 1998.

 

ID by no stretch of the imagination science, and teaching it is not only a detriment to a person's scientific education (which a person who has accepted ID has signalled to me they are militantly ignorant) but education in general. It's only supported by people who have no reference to science at all and regurgitators of the skewed and misrepresented material the ID groups publish and sell in order to arm their army of idiots with arguments that they don't understand but were misrepresented at them in the first place.

 

You can't test it. It's not falsifiable. And it's based in the supernatural (although the argument can be made that the part that aliens could have created life on Earth is not supernatural, but the possibility of God doing it (which is what this creationist movement in a labcoat is aiming for) all disqualifies it from having any validity whatsoever. So, make the distinction, it's not that it is a radical idea. It is an invalid idea (from a scientific perspective) and can't possibly have anything to do with science.

 

Scientists have tried to goof on this whole mess symbolically with the spahgetti monsterism, and every scientist that I know personally boycotted the mock trial in Topeka because they felt there is nothing to argue, and they're right.

 

As for the support argument, I bet if a poll was taken those who watch The Bachelor, Survivor, and NASCAR also support ID and are the largest part of their group. Behe (a PhD) supports it. I don't know if he's had a stroke, or he's been in a car accident, or he feels he's lived a mediocre life and feels the need to lie to himself and others in order to feel better about himself, or that he'll do anything for a little celebrity. Even if it does make him a boob.

 

Also for the teach the controversy I like to say in response, "I totally agree. And more importantly we also need to kill all the unicorns because unicorn molestation is the leading cause of homosexuality, which is an abomination to God." Some get it, some don't.

 

Watch out, they're aiming for library books now. Did you know that the school board chair has called "Beloved" pornography? That's frightening and it's the brewing campaign.

[pcs]

So, here's the question: [b']has ID theory been recognized as a valid scientific theory?[/b]

 

Not by the broader academic and professional science communities.

[silkworm]

My strong prediction (expectation) is that it is not, but I am looking, specifically, for statements on the matter from qualified sources. So far I'm having trouble finding a "legitimacy meter" that tracks the general scientific community's position on its validity, and I'm quite certain one will never exist. Anyway, thanks in advance for help with this seemingly ignorant question.

 

No no. Rest very much assured that the vast majority of those who are real scientists very much see ID as invalid. The ID movement attack is against evolution which very very few scientists disagree with, especially when something as preschool as ID is used as a replacement. Evolution is undeniable and most scientists understand that. Make a note too, that engineers do not count as part of natural scientists, as ID publications like to claim. I love engineering, but it's a very different thing.

 

I also suggest you read the opinion on the Dover Trial. And it has already been established that teaching creationism in schools is unconstitutional (I can't remember the case) and this whole movement has been designed to divorce itself from a Christian God and sneak into schools by allowing a broader definition of a creator than just God. Teaching ID in school is unconstitutional because it's promoting religion in public schools, even though it's trying to be sneaky about it.

[ydoaPs]

Not by the broader academic and professional science communities.

because it isn't science. Behe's definition of science includes astrology. he even admitted that himself.

 

 

a theory must:

1)explain all the phenomena it's predicessor did

2)make predictions

3)be testable

4)have a mechanism that exists

 

lets see, ID is 0 for 4.

[apologia]

It is not falsifiable, it is not observable, there is no evidence for it, there is overwhelming evidence against it. Make your own judgement on wether it's valid.

If there is no evidence at all, there's obviously no evidence against it.

 

Its not a scientific theory because it has no scientific models, predictions, or identity.

[Specusci]

Do you got a public/non-specialized highschool? IE, is your highschool part of a catholic school board or something straying from the norm? If not, I say ID should definitly stay away from the classroom...it is unproven, untestable, and takes a definitive religious standpoint (to my understanding, at least for Canadian public boards, public schools are not allowed to teach material that leans to one religion. I do not know about Kansas, though), at least in a direction that supports the idea of a Christian/Catholic/Polytheist idealism. I say go ahead if it is a Private school or a Catholic school, but if it is a government funded public school, I would be apalled if it was to be taught. Maybe in a world religions course or a political/ethical studies course, but definitly not in a science course. Its just wrong.

[JustStuit]

I sure hope it was for Catholic schools. This makes me very angry. It's not a science - they CANT teach it. Sometimes I hate people. How could that teach that in a science class? If I was a teacher that was forced to teach it I think I would go crazy. argh

[Hegemony]

As one of my professors put it, "People that think ID is valid haven't done their homework."

[wpenrose]

So' date=' here's the question: [b']has ID theory been recognized as a valid scientific theory?[/b]

 

 

Intelligent Design can be taught in political science, religion, English, or any other classroom than science. If it is not subject to refutation by experiment or observation of the natural world, then it doesn't meeting the basic definition of a science.

 

Otherwise, ID is a perfectly valid world view, even if it is a product of cult thinking. It just ain't science.

 

Dangerous Bill

[Dr. Dalek]

Don't be too hasty,

I quote here a NASA Scientist named David Grinspoon and his opinion on Intelligant design . "If we reject these theories out of hand just because we find the ideologically repulsive, then we are practicing pseudoscience."

Granted it is hard to refute or confirm the possibility through experiments, however it must also be said it has never been tried.

[insane_alien]

Dalek, but ID isn't a theory as has been explained previously in this thread and in countless others.

[JustStuit]

To sum it up for you, a theory must be testable and able to be proven wrong or right.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Just because a reputable scientist said it's true doesn't mean it really is.

[ecoli]

Just because a reputable scientist said it's true doesn't mean it really is.

 

yes... and who is a reputable scientist, but a scientist who somebody is using to back up a claim.

[Dr. Dalek]

I say this having done some review insane_alien, ID is probably more opinion than fact. More religion than science.

However ID may have a place in the future when science is more advanced.

A book called "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" by Gary Zukav, is an over view of modern physics. At one point it compares Hindu Beliefs to Quantum Physics. For instance on page 309 Gary says "While it would be naive to overstate the similarities between Bohm's physics and eastern philosophies, it would be foolish to ignore them."

Perhaps when science is more advanced and our understanding of who or what the “intelligent designer” might be (god, space aliens etc.) is more developed, someone could describe ID in the form of a theory based on their new found understanding that could be proven incorrect or otherwise through experimentation or observation. Nevertheless perhaps it would be best for ID to take a back seat to other theories for now, theories with more credibility.

 

And Ecoli is right, I often read newspapers and see news footage about science related topics, when they mention almost as a foot note, the opinions of these “credible scientists” and the mysterious “experts” who always seem to appear out of no where just for the report.

[FreeThinker]

I say this having done some review insane_alien' date=' ID is probably more opinion than fact. More religion than science.

However ID may have a place in the future when science is more advanced.

A book called "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" by Gary Zukav, is an over view of modern physics. At one point it compares Hindu Beliefs to Quantum Physics. For instance on page 309 Gary says "While it would be naive to overstate the similarities between Bohm's physics and eastern philosophies, it would be foolish to ignore them."

Perhaps when science is more advanced and our understanding of who or what the “intelligent designer” might be (god, space aliens etc.) is more developed, someone could describe ID in the form of a theory based on their new found understanding that could be proven incorrect or otherwise through experimentation or observation. Nevertheless perhaps it would be best for ID to take a back seat to other theories for now, theories with more credibility.

 

And Ecoli is right, I often read newspapers and see news footage about science related topics, when they mention almost as a foot note, the opinions of these “credible scientists” and the mysterious “experts” who always seem to appear out of no where just for the report.[/quote']

 

I will keep my theory of the "Giant, intelligent, flamengo who made this world to suit his needs for a blue planet in the universe" to myself until science is "advanced enough" to prove it.

[Phi for All]

A book called "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" by Gary Zukav, is an over view of modern physics. At one point it compares Hindu Beliefs to Quantum Physics. For instance on page 309 Gary says "While it would be naive to overstate the similarities between Bohm's physics and eastern philosophies, it would be foolish to ignore them."

Gary Zukav was not including Intelligent Design in this assessment. This was *not* the message Mr. Zukav was trying to get across, and if that's what you came away with after reading The Dancing Wu Li Masters I feel sorry for you. Science should have no problems maintaining skepticism about whether or not a god is behind the physical principles we observe. It's when young earth creationism, masquerading as Intelligent Design, tries to supplant a miraculous designer in the place of a very credible and very observable process like evolution that scientists must put their collective foot down.

 

ID is not another scientific opinion which deserves a place in public schools. It is religion and has it's place in church where students should feel free to examine it without it being muddied up with all that scientific evidence and stuff.

[Dr. Dalek]

I wasn't trying to say that Gary Zukav supports intelligent design I was just giving an example of how science has found similarities with religion before and suggesting that it could, note I say COULD, happen in the future.

Needless to say there is a good chance it won't, but you can never be sure.

[RyanJ]

Nope, nope and tripple nope. ID is not a science and has no link to any science at all. Haven't we had this question lot of times before...?

 

Its not going to happen, ever. Religion and science should be kept apart and ID is not part of science at all.

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[swansont]

I wasn't trying to say that Gary Zukav supports intelligent design I was just giving an example of how science has found similarities with religion before and suggesting that it could' date=' note I say COULD, happen in the future.

Needless to say there is a good chance it won't, but you can never be sure.[/quote']

 

Religion is often so amorphous that it can always be shaped to look similar to the outcomes of science. But it's always after-the-fact; there is no predictive power. It's not science.

[Dark Photon]

i am strongly against creastionalist teachings from a young age, further more, ID is not a scientifically valid theory, as there is no evidece, and its based on faith alone.