Intelligent Design vs. Darwin's Theory of Evolution

same as always. both sides try to reduce the other to a caricature and misrepresent it through the prism of political agendas.

i sometimes doubt we're capable of claiming either one -- that something intelligent wasted its time in setting us in motion or that we're evolved.

i sometimes doubt we're capable of claiming either one -- that something intelligent wasted its time in setting us in motion or that we're evolved.

Click to expand...

I often wonder of what value it would be to resolve the matter. It doesn't change anything either way as I see it. Just an academic exercise.

practically speaking, you're right of course.

but philosophically, it's the holy grail.

The buzz, in a nutshell:

Evolution - science. Whether right or wrong, a theory born of scientific methods and research, and most importantly, with the key element that it exists to be proved wrong, should it prove to be. Its place: in the science classroom.

Intelligent Design, aka Creationism - a religious theory. By definition, intended to be treated as the absolute truth, with any evidence that goes against it intended to be converted until they fit the theory, never to challenge it (for example, dinosaur fossils as a test of faith, rather than conclusive proof that the world is over 6000 years old). It's place: in RE lessons, along with Hindu creation myths, Greek creation myths, Mayan creation myths, Native American creation myths, and any others you see fit to teach. Personally, I'm in favour of the Olympians, if only because the Greeks made it cheerily easy to nip up there and see the distinct lack of gods around on the top of Mount Olympus. If only all religions were as accomodating...

The problem: Religious folk trying to move the boundaries from scientific questions ("How did this happen?") to philosophical ones with unprovable pre-suppositions ("How/Why did God make this happen?")

'Intelligent Design' is not a scientific concept. It's religion, retrofitted to sound scientific, but not passing any of the tests to be taken even remotely seriously as a scientific theory (which just to be clear, doesn't simply mean 'This is what I think is the case'. It's not science, even if you're a scientist who believes it to be a cast-iron fact of the universe), and it never will be.

This isn't a battle between Darwin and Creationism, it's a battle between Science and Religion. The only way that the two sides are likely to come to an agreement over this involves a big convention to discuss the matter, and a well aimed hydrogen bomb.

I often wonder of what value it would be to resolve the matter.

Click to expand...

Well, for starters, it would help stop schoolkids being indoctrinated into a fundementally faith-based view of the universe, which as a long-term athiest and practical skeptic, I'm all in favour of. You can believe in whatever you want to believe as far as I'm concerned, so long as you aren't pushing it on others - and Intelligent Design advocates, and those people who insist on warning stickers on textbooks, are clearly failing that test.

great analysis, richard, though i feel that you may have drifted into a strawman in your profile of the intelligent design believer. the truth is, there are many educated adherents of ID, including physicists.

one can walk in lockstep with evolution theorists all the way from the big bang forward, and still muse on the possibility of intelligent design within that framework without thinking the earth is 6000 years old and that dinosaurs were, as jimmy fallon on SNL put it, "jesus horses".

Not really. I said nothing about the validity of ID as a concept (I'm an athiest and personally believe it to be complete bunk, but that's not relevant here). The fossils and dates examples are simply a couple of the most established aspects - after all, I didn't bother giving a full explanation of evolution either ;-)

Either way, it's a fundemental part of faith based theories that the evidence simply isn't allowed to override the core belief. The same applies to scientists of parapsychology or faith healing or whatever else you like. The key of a scientific theory is that it exists to be proved wrong, not to be proved. That's clearly never going to happen with ID believers - the most that can happen there is that they lose their faith and change what they believe in. The basic theory could only be proven inaccurate by cast-iron proof of the non-existence of a deity whose existence cannot currently be scientifically proven.

This has nothing to do with how valid it may be as a theory, simply that the whole concept of Intelligent Design is a religious idea with scientific elements, not a scientific one based on religion. And scientists believing in something, no matter how smart they are, doesn't change that.

No, science is broad and cultural with only generally agreed rules and some legit scientists not employing any given one. Besides, no scientific method will every give us leverage on issue of faith.

richard, i understand and agree. i'm an atheist, too, and i see a canonizing of IS ideas under the banner of fundamentalism, but that is not to say that anyone who ponders how and why we are here outside of the known scientific realm is either approaching it from a strictly religious viewpoint.

and rich, yes you're spot on about the agreed-upon processes of scientific research.

i'm not disagreeing with anything you guys have said - i'm just pointing out that there's a great deal of hostility toward ID, not because of what it does (or could) consist of, but rather because of the people who have taken up its banner in their battle against secularism.

richard, i understand and agree. i'm an atheist, too, and i see a canonizing of IS ideas under the banner of fundamentalism, but that is not to say that anyone who ponders how and why we are here outside of the known scientific realm is either approaching it from a strictly religious viewpoint.

Click to expand...

Ah - but that's not what I said ;-) It's quite possible to look at the evidence and then tie it back to the belief, but that's simply approaching the same non-scientific concept from a different angle. While the core boils down to 'God did it', it's not science. Period. On the other side of the coin, just because it's reading the Bible that gives you the idea that the Earth orbits the sun, doesn't automatically stop any subsequent theory you come up with about that being good science in its own right.

(Of course conversely, if that theory is 'God wanted to create the seasons, therefore he span the world around the sun' or something similar, the faith angle isn't automatically validated because you're right about the solar system's orbital patterns.)

Are you guys talking about people or cars?

Rob

The theory of evolution, as applied to cars

rich said:

Veinglory, true science is not cultural, and is never based on generally agreed upon rules.

Click to expand...

I don't understand. I was saying it doesn't have generally agreed rules. But there is also unmistakably a cultural aspect to identifying as a scientist. I have just spent the week at a scientific conference complete with typical dress, in jokes etc.

To Rich,

You said:

Veinglory, true science is not cultural, and is never based on generally agreed upon rules.

Click to expand...

What exactly is true science and could you please give examples of what you mean? It comes across, to me, as if your statement is based on an assumption that man did not first ponder possibilities before he could prove them.

Gehanna

Richard said:

(Of course conversely, if that theory is 'God wanted to create the seasons, therefore he span the world around the sun' or something similar, the faith angle isn't automatically validated because you're right about the solar system's orbital patterns.)

Click to expand...

Of course, I've also heard people dismiss things in the Bible because we have a scientific rationale...rainbows are one I can think of right off the top of my head.

I don't understand your meaning. You mean the one that was supposedly shown to Noah?

There's certainly nothing magical about a perfectly normal phenomena that any kid can produce with a garden hose and no omnipotence. Now, if a leprechaun suddenly appeared at the end of one with a big pot of gold, well! I think folks looking to play debunker would generally be more interested in that 'entire Earth covered with water' or 'two of every animal in a boat' aspect, or the many other obvious examples of how that legend cannot even conceivably be true.

On the other hand, a few quid on a calendar of solar eclipses...

I knew I should have stuck to providing links to cars with jet-engine modifications...

Science, like religion, can be taken to extremes to close the mind. I've certainly seen it. When this happens, science functions much like religion. When there is an empty place in man's understanding (because we do not yet know), do we say, "This place is not yet known, so I am open to considering all hypothesis...pondering, looking at evidence, considering" or do we say, "This place is not yet known, so I am open to considering all hypothesis -- well, except this one because I hate that one and I won't consider it and if you consider it you're an idiot -- pondering, looking at evidence, considering." If we do the first -- that's true science -- if we do the second, that's turning science into religion. Atheism is a religion because it's based on faith -- it says, in those unknown places, I do not know what exists but I have faith that YOUR THOUGHTS ON WHAT EXISTS ARE WRONG WRONG WRONG.

You do not have to believe EVERYTHING by every stray religous person on the planet to consider that intelligent design might be what is in that empty spot in man's knowledge -- not the BIBLE, intelligent design. They aren't the same.

Although I understand the textbook stickers are a political act and therefore work folks up, I still don't totally understand why any scientist would be bothered by them. Scientific theories change -- I know how many incredible changes have occured in my lifetime and I would LOVE to see my kid constantly reminded that scientific theory is constantly changing as our understanding and information increases. What is in textbooks ISN'T IMMUTABLE so consider it with an open mind, kiddies. Question it. Doubt it if you want (as long as you do it intelligently). Argue about it. I want my kid to grow up with the ability to question, explore, and debate -- not just to be told to swallow all the present (well actually, about 10-years-behind when you're talking about textbooks) theories. If folks are whining about stickers that tell kids to question science -- then aren't they making it a religion too? Shouldn't science be saying, "YEAH! All right...that's the attitude -- question kids. Ponder. Study. Observe. Test. Don't take anything as cannon, including the stuff we put out."

I think it's sad that we're making science the new religion. Not surprising. Man seems to have an incredible need to have a point of locked-in faith but when we take THE THING that should be most open to questions and slap those who say to question it. Personally, I see that as perverse.

Intelligent design, huh? Okay, I'll play. Who designed God? Or did he evolve from a lower being to achieve those powers?

Who knows? But isn't it a fantastic thing to ponder? The possibilities just those questions raise...wow. But who says the intelligent designer has to be God? Though any being capable of starting life on a planet would certainly seem like a god. And who started it where they're from? And then before that and before that...or is there a beginning at all? Maybe the whole idea of "beginning" is false? Sure, there is obviously a beginning for *us* but maybe "they" are so different that *beginning* just isn't a concept that is real for them the way it is real for us.

Pondering, questioning, considering.

Atheism is a religion because it's based on faith -- it says, in those unknown places, I do not know what exists but I have faith that YOUR THOUGHTS ON WHAT EXISTS ARE WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Click to expand...

Firstly, no it's not.

Second, stop being so damn arrogant. Athiests couldn't care less what you believe - it's not believing in a god, not specifically that yours doesn't exist. By your argument, Christianity is two-fingers up at Islam for saying it's not Allah, and an outright assault on Buddhism for being a monotheistic faith.

You do not have to believe EVERYTHING by every stray religous person on the planet to consider that intelligent design might be what is in that empty spot in man's knowledge -- not the BIBLE, intelligent design. They aren't the same.

Click to expand...

Rubbish. Intelligent Design means 'God did it'. It's a Judeo-Christian notion from the ground up, and if you don't believe in said deity, it falls apart.

Although I understand the textbook stickers are a political act and therefore work folks up, I still don't totally understand why any scientist would be bothered by them.

Click to expand...

Try asking a religious person how they'd feel about a note at the start of all their Bibles saying 'The book you are about to read is a socially constructed document used to control the masses and cause more suffering in the past two thousand years than any other book in history. Its contents may or may not be complete cobblers. '

Right...the unwillingness to even think about ideas doesn't make you just like the 'religious' people you so despise.

Hey, by my definition of religious (which is as valid as yours since yours seems a little weird)...a religion is a system of beliefs (that cannot be confirmed) that "fill in" the blank places where we lack proof. Faith in those beliefs is usually marked by EXTREME hostility when they are questioned (sort of like what you just did). Your system of beliefs says there is no god and belief in god is bad. You say you don't care what others believe but your very presence on this thread and your insistance at defining the beliefs of others in the most demeaning way possible says your insistance is untrue.

The science stickers don't say science is bad...they say science is a collection of theories and should be considered with an open mind. You could stick a sticker on any Bible in the world saying to read it with an open mind and no one is going to complain. Not one of the stickers says, "The contents of this book is designed to hurt people, create the distruction of the human race, and should be viewed as the work of idiots."

I don't have a problem with complaining about the placement of stickers as a political act (which it is) but the sticker itself...and the whole idea of questioning and keeping an open mind is the very heart of science. Personally, I think it's a good idea to tell kids to question religion...keep an open mind...listen, ask questions, ponder...don't accept something because it's "in" or because it's considering the "intelligent person's religion" -- ALWAYS QUESTION.

I think true science is the opposite of religion (and I love true science). Relgion says, I have the answers (even yours has the answers you want -- you want no god, your personal religious beliefs give you that). Science says we only know the tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg. Science says don't take anything for granted. Science says NEVER stop questioning, never hit a spot where you have "the answers" because each "answer" will open only new questions.

Religion is easy (even yours -- though some of the things it demands of you may be hard) and comfortable. True science is tough and scary and tremendously wonderful. Religion (like yours) defines a place where you mind halts -- science says there should never be such a place. But never confuse your religion with science...you're still looking at polar opposites.

Right...the unwillingness to even think about ideas doesn't make you just like the 'religious' people you so despise.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. I will quite happily think about any ideas, including any creation myth you like. I've studied many of them in the past as a former classics student. Your problem is an inability to spot that people might think about your ideas and draw a different conclusion about them - that they're bunk, and no more likely than the whole thing kicking off because a Titan's blood splashed down onto the ground.

Your system of beliefs says there is no god and belief in god is bad. You say you don't care what others believe but your very presence on this thread and your insistance at defining the beliefs of others in the most demeaning way possible says your insistance is untrue.

Click to expand...

I don't care what you believe. You can worship a pebble for all I care. Unfortunately, you're exhibiting a fairly common problem, which is to mistake people not believing in your deity for not respecting your right to do so. I've said nothing to the contrary here. However, I'm afraid to point out that you not liking what I do or don't believe in no way prevents me from debating faith-related issues. And that's what we've got here - whether or not religious beliefs should be integrated into scientific teaching. I argue 'no', and I have every bit as much right to do that as you have.

Secondly, you clearly don't understand. Athiesm is not a state of not WANTING there to be a deity, it's not BELIEVING that one exists. I doubt I'd have a problem with the idea of a benevolent God who loves the whole world, offers infinite paradise after death and is working on our behalf throughout time - I just don't believe in one any more than I believe in Buddhist reincarnation, Valhalla or the Elysian Fields.

And before you start pulling the 'belief in God is bad' schtick, I throw you 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me'. Nothing in athiesm specifically orders you to condemn it, or gives the very specific punishment of stoning to death anyone you catch trying. You'll have to hit Exodus and Deuteronomy for that.

The science stickers don't say science is bad...they say science is a collection of theories and should be considered with an open mind.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. Much like a lot of the whole Intelligent Design movement, the science stickers are very cleverly worded attacks and instruments of misdirection. What you get are things like "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things" and "Evolution is a controversial theory". They're strictly accurate, but misleading.

What's wrong with this? The key one is knowing full well what the average person thinks when they hear the word 'theory', as opposed to its scientific meaning. It deliberatly denigrates it as a concept, making it seem that any theory is as good as each other - something that is blatantly not the case. Moreover, the people putting the stickers on there are not doing so in an attempt to make kids more open-minded - the suggestion that teachers might give equal time to Genesis as they would to, say, Pangu, or Uranus, would make its proponents have kittens. That's the last thing they want, because their ultimate goal is that everyone learn creationism as - pardon the expression - gospel truth.

The words may say 'keep an open mind', but the part you're there to spot is 'Evolution is a controversial theory'. And it's a controversial theory because it doesn't fit in with the Bible, not because of competing scientific theories. In the science classroom, those are the ONLY ones that matter. Period. When a religious one can be comprehensively proven, fair enough, the situation may change - but right now, it can't. So long as it all kicks off with 'God did it', and replace God for any ID term you choose, and the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven, it's philosophy and religion, not science.

And actually, I'd be all in favour of all science textbooks including a disclaimer about keeping an open mind. It's important, and often forgotten, especially when kids are being taught by rote learning. But this isn't how it should be done. It's a political aim, from a group of people who can't stand the thought that anyone might not believe in their religion*, and will fight tooth and nail to ensure that every last child is indoctrinated into it as a kid.

(* Just to clarify - I don't mean everyone who believes in ID is a nut, even if I disagree with their view of the world - I reserve my scorn strictly for the ones feeling the need to force it on everyone under the sun through any means necessary)

You may dislike the religion-based example I gave above, but to a scientist, these stickers are every bit as demeaning, patronising and offensive. That's what you don't understand, and probably never will.