Point of information?

[scarfman]

I realize that the Intelligent Design school of thought is the creation of creationists. Literalist Christians want equal time in the science class. Religion doesn't belong in science class, so this is what they came up with. But what does the doctrine of Intelligent Design specifically teach? Did they in fact remove all the religion from it? Does it teach only a theory that there may be a greater mind behind the universe - or does it teach that God created the world in six days, male and female made He us, and on the seventh day He rested? Because, if the former, what's wrong with it? How isn't it science to say there may be such a being? How is it even incompatible with evolution theory to say there may be such a being? Seems to me, a designer who could come up with evolution is pretty intelligent.

What are the details? Do you even know?

Comments

[antikythera.livejournal.com]

Seems to me, a designer who could come up with evolution is pretty intelligent.

I once listened to a lecturer from the Vatican Observatory talk about just that. His attitude was basically that understanding (through observation and logical thought) how God made nature leads to a better understanding of God. Evolution and the big bang didn't contradict his belief in God in any way; they're just how God did stuff.

[kail-panille.livejournal.com]

(Hi. I'm here from the Brigade, if you were wondering.)

My understanding is this: the reason that ID isn't science is that it's not falsifiable.

The scientific method, grossly oversimplified, is as follows:

1. Make an observation.
2. Take a guess as to why the event you observed happened the way it did.
3. Design an experiment to test your guess.

Rinse, repeat, etc.

Well, you can't arrive at Intelligent Design from this method. Steps one and two are there:

1. "I observe that life is complicated."
2. "I figure it's too complicated to have arisen randomly, so there must be an intelligence behind it."

Step three, though, is right out. You can't test it. You can't prove or disprove the existence of God, or a God-compatible being. As the FSM (http://www.venganza.org/)-ers will point out, any "scientific" evidence regarding the existence or non-existence of an omnipotent omnipresent critter is vulnerable to manipulation by His Noodly Appendage.

Even if ID had arisen without the intervention of the crazy fundies, I would personally oppose its inclusion in science classes, because it's just not science. It's philosophy. Put it in a philosophy class, or a comparative religion class (as KU almost did (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/01/AR2005120100904.html)).

But to answer your other question, it's not, in and of itself, a strict Biblical creation narrative. There does seem to be a good deal of nudging and winking going on any time an ID-er is discussing the subject outside of a courtroom, though.

[scarfman]

Thanks. That answers my questions, and is more than any other ID detractor I've ever read has troubled to say.

[angryricecooker.livejournal.com]

Man, beat to it while I was spell checking. And with numbered lists!

[kail-panille.livejournal.com]

Bwaha!

*does the victory dance*

[scarfman]

Just don't get yourself killed at the zebra crossing, okay?

[antikythera.livejournal.com]

I'll add to that...

Science is based on deductive reasoning. You learn about the world from observing it and thinking about what the observations mean, and all of your observations add up to a theory or model of the world as a whole. If a new observation contradicts your theory, it might mean your theory is wrong and needs to be revised or scrapped.

Creationism starts with a theory (a creation story, e.g. the book of Genesis) and tries to make the observations fit it. Observations that contradict it are ignored or dismissed; the flaws in the theory get swept under the rug.

Scientific thought builds up a more and more accurate picture of the world as we make new discoveries and observations. If you apply the same kind of logic to Genesis (or any other creation story), it doesn't hold up under the evidence. There are too many contradictions.

This is the same kind of logic that's used in, say, a police investigation. You look at the evidence and figure out who it points to. You don't pick the person you like best for the crime and make the evidence point to them.

[trinalin.livejournal.com]

Bravo! Bravo!

[angryricecooker.livejournal.com]

The problem is, that it seems to you and me that the complexity of the universe implies an intelligentcreator does not constitute scientific evidence. That hypothesis is not falsifiable. There's no experiment that can be done to prove or disprove that the universe is too complicated to be created randomly. Therefore, the answer to that question doesn't belong in a science class. It's not that it isn't a valid way to approach truth, it's just that it isn't a scientific way to approach truth. Just as it would be inappropriate for a school to teach that science means that (G)god(s) do(es) not exist, it is inappropriate for the school to teach that science means that God exists.

The OTHER problem is that people seem to have difficulty answering your question, of what intelligent design really means. In the recent intelligent design court case, one of the experts supporting intelligent design admitted that parts of the textbook the school was using did not fit with his idea of intelligent design. This is a textbook he contributed to.

So there's lots of issues.

[larksilver.livejournal.com]

I take exception to Intelligent Design being taught hand in hand with Science. No one is suggesting that kids be taught in Science class how Raven stole the Sun from a mean woman who had been keeping it in her lodge, or that kids do experiments to see if they can isolate elements from Tiamat .

So why should any religion's Origin Fable be considered Science? The two are .. well, it's apples and potatoes. Not that the creation story isn't a beautiful parable, because it's pretty cool, and certainly enduring. In fact, there might be elements of Genesis which are pretty darn close to what really happened.. but how will we ever know? The whole thing is a parable anyway. Origin Stories tend to, all in one fell swoop, set the tone for a culture, and to educate about who its people are, and why they do what they do, and I love them for it, from the Aztecs with Quetzocoatl and the gift of corn, to .. well, to lots of others (I'm trying, and failing, to be brief here - ha!). They have their place, their mystery, and their use, but not in Science Class.

It's all silly, anyway, this eternal conflict between Religion and Science. They're not mutually exclusive. I know that rainbows are made by the refraction of light on water droplets in the air; does this mean I can't also see their beauty and ponder whether an intelligence greater than myself did that on purpose? Of course not. Thus, the one doesn't have to spoil the mystery and wonder of the other. Who's to say that a monkey stepping out of a tree and learning to walk on her hind legs was not encouraged by Divinity?Can we know that, just by examining the cells? Of course not. Who's to say that this first ground-walker didn't live in a lush, beautiful environment, or meet up with a gorgeous Serpent Man... that would have to be a matter of Faith, and perhaps of one's power of imagination.

So often, Religions fight against anything which doesn't agree that the world works just like in their book (whichever book it is).. but books are naught but the word of Man, right? And even the Bible has, admittedly, been altered and adjusted over the little time it's been around, to suit the needs of the communities and cultures who have told those Origin Stories. Shouldn't we be open to the possibility of updating our own Origin Story?

Spirituality is not Anti-Science, but too often, Religion is. Too bad, too...

[larksilver.livejournal.com]

augh, and I strike again. Sorry about the might Page O Text up there.