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

[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!