"Intelligent" Design
For some reason I've been thinking about so-called "intelligent design" theories that are supposed to replace evolution in the school curriculums, and I have a problem. I have a problem with the fact that I can't imagine how a teacher could have more than 15 minutes of teachable material with intelligent design. Actually, all I really have are about 15 seconds: "And on the first Day God created the Universe." How do you test that? Question 1) Who created the universe? Question 2) What did He create?
I don't see how it can work from an educational standpoint. You can't call it science, because there are no theories that can be tested, no model to which data can be compared. Evolution is not testable, but it is a working model that changes and is updated as new information works within the model without contradicting the model.
Intelligent Design, to my knowledge, doesn't have what it takes to be called science, and doesn't fit in the science classroom.
Now, I do believe that every high school student in this country should take at least a semester or a year of philosophy. Preferably in their Freshman year. Get them thinking and teach them normal philosophical thinking, classic logical arguments, and yes, Intelligent Design is welcome in a philosophy classroom, because it is a philosophy that comes close to being a religion. The great thing about philosophy is that it allows students to speak their minds, and back things up. Students who believe in God can talk about the foundation of their belief, and hte students who don't believe in God can talk about the foundations of their belief. In a controlled environment, this could work.
I know that high school students have a lot of opnions, they are trying to forge their own independant identites apart from their parents to prepare them for adulthood. Philosophy, which is really a study of thought processes, would be very helpful to students in this process.
I don't see how it can work from an educational standpoint. You can't call it science, because there are no theories that can be tested, no model to which data can be compared. Evolution is not testable, but it is a working model that changes and is updated as new information works within the model without contradicting the model.
Intelligent Design, to my knowledge, doesn't have what it takes to be called science, and doesn't fit in the science classroom.
Now, I do believe that every high school student in this country should take at least a semester or a year of philosophy. Preferably in their Freshman year. Get them thinking and teach them normal philosophical thinking, classic logical arguments, and yes, Intelligent Design is welcome in a philosophy classroom, because it is a philosophy that comes close to being a religion. The great thing about philosophy is that it allows students to speak their minds, and back things up. Students who believe in God can talk about the foundation of their belief, and hte students who don't believe in God can talk about the foundations of their belief. In a controlled environment, this could work.
I know that high school students have a lot of opnions, they are trying to forge their own independant identites apart from their parents to prepare them for adulthood. Philosophy, which is really a study of thought processes, would be very helpful to students in this process.
posted by Josh English @ 10:52 AM
2 Comments:
At 2:01 PM,
mynym said…
I have a problem with the fact that I can't imagine how a teacher could have more than 15 minutes of teachable material with intelligent design. Actually, all I really have are about 15 seconds: "And on the first Day God created the Universe." How do you test that? Question 1) Who created the universe? Question 2) What did He create?
I don't see how it can work from an educational standpoint. You can't call it science, because there are no theories that can be tested, no model to which data can be compared. [...]
Intelligent Design, to my knowledge, doesn't have what it takes to be called science, and doesn't fit in the science classroom.
ID is the science of using systematic thought and/or mathematics applied to empirical evidence to detect intelligent agency. It is applied in anything from forensic science, archaeology and SETI to biotech copyrights. Darwinists want to make a special exception of principles already known and used in other sciences for their special case of historical biology in order to protect the power and orthodoxy that they have built there. It's a false distinction and a propagandistic game of definitions to say that science can touch on ID in many ways, yet when it comes to historical biology and the mythological narratives of Naturalism typical to Darwinists no one is allowed to use it to refute their rather ignorant position.
Take an example,
In forensic science there can be evidence of a naturalistic accident as opposed to an intentional act of the mind. I.e., the person fell, they were not pushed. In archaeology there can be evidence of a naturalistic happenstance in rock formation, vs. purposeful formation by a mind. In that case we know it when we see it most of the time, yet when working with artifacts that are more alien in nature a closer study of information would be necessary to detect what is a formation of Nature vs. an artifact design. I.e., the rock is worn by water, it is not engraved. In SETI formation of Nature is evidence of solar pulsars, etc. I.e., the radio signal is not based on any sort of code or encryption written by a mind, it is of natural process.
In contrast, Darwinist will not allow their numerous hypotheses to be falsified in the same sense. Instead, in the face of evidence for design in biological organisms they just make another hypothesis because their sort of anti-design dogma is unlike all those other instances. They make a special case for it.
Of course students could engage in a fruitful dialectic based on ID vs. Darwinism, yet it may be a bit much to expect public schools to teach much of anything these days. I would note that he history of science shows that the dialectic will be fruitful. And most students will have their minds engaged by any Socratic metaphysical or transphysical focus, as that is the nature of the mind.
How much State funding did Socrates need? If the schools are not "allowed" to talk about ID, supposedly according to documents like the Declaration and Constitution which are both founded on an ID type of philosophy, then perhaps they should be allowed to talk about metaphysical notions like justice. Perhaps they won't be allowed to talk about that either as it is subtlely spiritual, given the closed minds of atheists combined with the textual degenerates of the Judiciary.
At 10:34 AM,
Josh English said…
in the face of evidence for design in biological organisms they just make another hypothesis because their sort of anti-design dogma is unlike all those other instances.
I would like to know what evidence there is for design in biological organisms. Design implies a goal. What is the goal of Design? I'm a religious person by nature, so I believe that the universe was created and has a purpose. I don't know what that purpose is, but I believe it exists. Whatever God's purpose is is a mystery to me.
I will accept the notion that the goal of any species is to survive. Homo Sapiens survived by killing off the Neanderthals and a host of other branches of the Homo Erectus family. (I may have those terms mixed up, it's been a while since I've looked at human taxonomy and I know it's been updated since I learned it.)
I know that smaller animals adapt to their environment through a process of natural selection, and some other process that makes the organism more efficient. The human appendix is on its way out, and possibly a few teeth as well. Dark skin is one of those things that humans didn't need in the colder northern regions, so the skin faded and the body spent energy on other survival traits. Is this evidence of intelligent design? I don't think so.
Post a Comment
<< Home