Intelligent Design in Iowa State University

While intelligent design is a very appealing concept on a religious level for many people, it is not appropriate for a state funded school. Religion is discussed as part of music, art, history, anthropology, psychology, sociality, and philosophy -- in those venues religion can be looked at academically. In nearly every other circumstance it would be a violation of the separation of church and state. You cannot teach a specific religious belief in a state (and federally) funded school. Many churchs provided a private, off-campus study of their faith. Those church 'campuses' would be the appropriate venue for intelligent design.

 

Well, yes; not many of us here probably take it that seriously, knowing a bit too much to fall to such a trick, but the scary thing is that I know many younger people that quite likely believe it whole-heartedly. AFAIK, although I hope I have gotten this wrong, it seems like they teach religion in some US provinces like they teach Islam in Arabia -as a fact that overrules science.

For example, check THIS topic on AnimePaper to see what I mean, and notice how some of the people there question evolution theory simply to enforce ID without even bringing out any facts.

 

This cartoon sums it up pretty well.

 

Wouldn't surprise me if some of the folks praising ID, not necessarily on that particular site , are actually 'plants' and spread the nonsense to bait stupid kids. But then, maybe I'm just a naive optimist People have to be smarter than that, they just have to.

 

Forget just biology, there are a number of people at that site that clearly don't understand the scientific method or basic scientific concepts.

There are several people that believe in ID just because they do not want evolution to be true. Evolution is just a theory, but it is the best one we have at this point. If in the future, some other theory proves to be more likely, then the scientific community will move to accept it.

For the topics of this particular debate, I agree with the majority of the posters here. ID belongs in the Theology department, not the Science department.

 

So you Aetheists can't even allow for the teaching that you might be wrong? And you whine about George W. in the oval office...

Why is it that you insist on using your displeasure with a change in one University's curriculum to attack Religion?

Now you want to condemn and cut this school to ribbons because they oppose your theories and condemn the religious folks for the Spanish Inquisition--oh, wait, that belongs in the Hypocrisy thread.

You Science folks are always yammering that your conclusions come from the facts. Why not look at the curiculum being taught then make your attacks? What you (the critics of ID) are doing is no different than those that wanted to condemn Darwin to Hell for his theories because they contradicted Scripture...

 

Yep. dmc is quite right.

I have no problem with creationism - I learned that in my catholic catechism. Creationism or ID teached in religion or theology classes or sunday school I don't have a problem with at all.

But it is not science and to make it something it isn't, by attempting to teach it in science classes, suggests you don't know what science and schientific thinking is all about.

Refusing creationism or ID as non-science isn't atheism. It's just putting things in their right place and context.
It just amazes me that we do have a discussion over this strikingly simple point the third or fourth time now.

 

The letter started as,

There are some ridiculous ideas being taught here at ISU, among them, Socrates' "some people are born as slave". This ridiculous argument is being taught in the class of Ancient Cities instead of genetic 101.

 

I don't quite get your point.

Sure, from today's perspective that bit from Sokrates, as a general statement, in ridiculous. But maybe you just didn't understand it. Does that means it shouldn't be teached? Hell, no.

You cannot look at these things with a modern perspective and simply dismiss it - people then weren't where we are now. To do that would be just as silly as the Creationist's method to look at science with a pre-enlightenment approach and dismiss science as heresy and suggest their faith-based approach as equal instead.

That bit from Sokrates you mentioned is important to understanding the philosophical dispute in ancient Greece during that time, and important to understand the social structure of ancient Greece. Philosophers have always also supported or challenged the social systems they lived in.

Considering the influence of ancient greek philosophy on western philosophy, it is also interesting for the development of philosophy afterwards, especially for the role and place of mankind in the world and the evolution of the philosophy of individual freedom from that.

And besides, I don't quite see a place for the genetic 101 in 'Ancient Cities' classes anyway. Not to mention that, as ancient Greece *did have* slavery, Sokrates' simply provided an accurate observation.

[ August 30, 2005, 08:59: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

One trouble with teaching ID as a valid scientific theory is that the 'intelligent designer' (who may or may not be called god) is the answer. No matter what the question. It makes asking questions all a bit pointless really; in fact, even thinking could be a bit redundant.

Organised religion - always seeking control of knowledge, which is after all, power.

 

lasgalen,
that's the flaw: Creationism and ID argue deductive and start with the axiom that there is a designer and that's the answer to all question regarding the origins of life and such -- which leads you nowhere as far as science is concerned.

The scientific method observes and makes conclusions based on these observations, to perhaps determine laws and rules based on that, it's about gaining knowledge. Contrary to that, the ID approach to a conclusion they dont like is to refer to an intelligent designer. They have the Holy Bible and know all answers already.

Looking at a theocratic country like Taleban run Afghanistan that suggests an explanation why they got nowhere using approximately the same approach.

It is not about power, it's much more subtle: It's about values like having faith and believing in the Holy Bible.

Let's be frank, creationists and IDists cannot bear the idea that evolution theory suggests that man descendend from apes - because in the Holy Bible there is the book Genesis about how god made Adam and Eve. As evolution theory in their view contradicts the Holy Bible they try to fight this vile heresy -- it is nothing less. The theory of evolution to them is a threat of modernity to the Holy Book, as it offers an alternative and scientific explanation to the origins of life -- and thus questions faith, questions the Holy Bible.

Creationism and it's spin-off ID are the tools they employ in that ideological war. It's about preservation of faith.

That also explains their frantic persistence. Science is their enemy at the gates. Taking the Holy Bible literal, they show that they are simply fundamentalists, much like the Taleban.

Scientists and teachers can consider themselves lucky that they only rave and harass them with their preposterous theses -- in the Middle Ages heretics have been burned at the stake for much less.

[ August 30, 2005, 13:44: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I guess the arguement is going on everywhere:

Evolution vs Creationism

 

Ok, I'm going to regret stepping into this, but I feel I must make a point.

My understanding of ID is that its not Creationism. Creationism supports God Made The Earth in 7 Days, and even I as a card-carrying Christian haven't bought that since I was 12. So quick clarification, I believe in God but I also believe the Bible is allegorical, not literal. I also believe in evolution.

ID says, at least as it was explained to me, that evolution and all that science teaches us is true, however whereas some presume that all of this took place because of a cosmic accident and random mutation, ID purports that "the universe is too darn orderly to be just a big accident!" (and I'll give a thousand cool points to the person who can tell me which fictional scientist had that "moment of wild abandon").

Now if this ID being taught is merely Creationism in disguise, then yes by all means, get it the @#$% out of the Science department. If its my conception of it, then I'm not sure HOW its being taught. All it should be is, on the first day of class, the prof/teacher making something similar to this statement.

"There are two theories behind the order of the universe, one supports a cosmic accident and random chance, the other supports the belief that some higher power guided that which we are about to cover. The point of this class is not to tell you which is right or what to believe, the point of this class is to show how we and the planet and the universe have changed over the eons. Odds are by now, you already believe one or the other and nothing I say is going to change anyones mind. Now, get your notebooks out..."

Intelligent Design isn't a theory, its an alternate way to look at evolution without necessarily denying there's a God/Goddess/Whatever. It also isn't a way to slip that ridiculous 7-Day theory back into schools. ID should be there to show that science and faith aren't necessarily at cross-purposes. Just stop taking one book thats been rewritten and mistranslated over the centuries as literal truth.

Quite frankly, this should please all but the extremists on both sides of the issue, and well it'll be a cold day in Hades before any of them accept anything less than complete and utter validation of everything they've ever believed, so sod 'em.

 

But that's exactly what makes in unscientific. It's untestable. It's unquantifiable. In fact, what does that statement even mean? It's too orderly compared to what? Other universes? It's like people who say that water is necessary for life to exist anywhere else in the universe. While that may be true, we are basing that statement on a sample size of one. To the scientist, whether you are saying God created the world in 7 days or say that the universe was ordered by a divine creator, it's still inherently unscientific.

I don't think the arguement here is what are the merits/faults with Creationism or Intelligent Design, but rather whether or not they belong in a science class. I for one, believe that they do not.

 

I would have to say yes, because I have yet to take a science class where the professor/teacher didn't make it a point to ridicule religion at every point in the Evolution section of the class. I would drop dead of shock if someone actually said in class "ok, we're covering evolution here; this is not a discussion of whether its divine in origin or an accident, we're covering just the facts."

Instead I get, "Ok, class we're covering evolution now. If you're stupid enough to belief in some kind of god, just sit there and bear it, because I'm going to show you how evolution refutes the existence of God at every juncture."

I currently live with a pagan and an aethiest and well get along reasonably well. How? Simple rule: we believe what we believe and there's no point in "converting" anyone. People ridicule all religions for their overzealous attempts at converting nonbelievers. I wish scientists would cut us the same slack. I believe in evolution, stop calling me an idiot just because I believe in God too.

 

Any teacher who ridicules someone else's beliefs has something wrong with him/her. Science is not about proving or disproving the existence of God. If teachers are not allowed to mention God in a positive way then they should not be allowed to say anything negative.