How do you "teach" ID?

O

Onceler

New member
Let's face it; it isn't science.

What is there to teach? Wouldn't it just be a mention, during the teaching of the theory of evolution, that "oh...and there might have been an intelligent designer behind all of this?"

Or is it an excuse for some teachers to start bringing the Bible into the classroom?

I really don't know; does anyone know what they have in mind?
 
Teaching of ID without using the bible would be extremely vauge.

Out there somewhere is the ultimate superior being that created everything and designed how everything would work. How creatures and humans would evolve due to their surroundings. Who would work for McDonalds and who would get aids, who whould be a criminal, etc...

No need to do anything it is all preengineered anyway.
 
How many creation stories are there? That is how I would do it, comparative literature!
 
Onceler said:
Let's face it; it isn't science.

What is there to teach? Wouldn't it just be a mention, during the teaching of the theory of evolution, that "oh...and there might have been an intelligent designer behind all of this?"

Or is it an excuse for some teachers to start bringing the Bible into the classroom?

I really don't know; does anyone know what they have in mind?
Click to expand...

Once you have examined the theory on how scientists think species evolved, the principles of science dictate you ask how this process originated. There are principally two hypothesis about this, and we will probably never have a defined theory unless one of these hypothesis can be substantiated with scientific evidence to observe and evaluate.

Abiogenesis is one hypothesis, it supposes life began between 4.4 and 2.7 billion years ago with the mixture of carbon, iron, and sulfur, and with water and light, it produced photosynthesis, and all life emerged from here.

Intelligent Design is the other hypothesis, and it supposes life, and supporting environment for life, is too extremely complex, intricate and diverse to not have been intelligently designed.

Atheists tend to believe one hypothesis and claim it is a theory, and non-Atheists tend to believe the other hypothesis and claim it is a theory.

...Class dismissed.
 
Onceler said:
Let's face it; it isn't science.

What is there to teach? Wouldn't it just be a mention, during the teaching of the theory of evolution, that "oh...and there might have been an intelligent designer behind all of this?"

Or is it an excuse for some teachers to start bringing the Bible into the classroom?

I really don't know; does anyone know what they have in mind?
Click to expand...

I agree that ID could, in no way by an ratonal or objective person, be considered science. I have no problems with it being taught under two conditions.

#1. It could not be taught in a science class as the only purpose that would serve would be to undermine sound science education.

#2. If taught in a social science class or philosophy or comparative religion it must be taught in a manner that passes the lemon test.
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
Once you have examined the theory on how scientists think species evolved, the principles of science dictate you ask how this process originated. There are principally two hypothesis about this, and we will probably never have a defined theory unless one of these hypothesis can be substantiated with scientific evidence to observe and evaluate.

Abiogenesis is one hypothesis, it supposes life began between 4.4 and 2.7 billion years ago with the mixture of carbon, iron, and sulfur, and with water and light, it produced photosynthesis, and all life emerged from here.

Intelligent Design is the other hypothesis, and it supposes life, and supporting environment for life, is too extremely complex, intricate and diverse to not have been intelligently designed.

Atheists tend to believe one hypothesis and claim it is a theory, and non-Atheists tend to believe the other hypothesis and claim it is a theory.

...Class dismissed.
Click to expand...

There you go again Dixie proving you don't know what science is, again. ID is not a hypothesis because it cannot be tested.
 
ID is an actual destruction of science. It's an encroachment of an allegedly intellectual foundation for an imagined future theocracy of New Age into the curriculum, though it's nothing but hokum and ignorance.
 
ID is the elite controllers once again dumbing down the populace to make them more amenable to manipulation by the various control systems, which work in tandem to keep mankind hard at work on the machinery of his own enslavement.
 
AssHatZombie said:
ID is the elite controllers once again dumbing down the populace to make them more amenable to manipulation by the various control systems, which work in tandem to keep mankind hard at work on the machinery of his own enslavement.
Click to expand...
I'd have to refute that sort of conspiracty theory. First, ID is coming almost purely out of the evengelical christian camp and is, in fact, just a new name for creationism. Second, there's not a single, not one, accredited University or College in this nation that teaches ID in its biology program.

Certainly the evengelical community has a long and sordid record of being anti-science and anit-intellectual and I guess that could be defined as "dumbing down."
 
Mottleydude said:
I'd have to refute that sort of conspiracty theory. First, ID is coming almost purely out of the evengelical christian camp and is, in fact, just a new name for creationism. Second, there's not a single, not one, accredited University or College in this nation that teaches ID in its biology program.
Click to expand...
Yet.
Certainly the evengelical community has a long and sordid record of being anti-science and anit-intellectual and I guess that could be defined as "dumbing down."
Click to expand...

Our whole education system has been dumbed down, with esteem based systems where stupid kids can't be made to feel stupid. Feeling stupid is a big motivator.
 
I mean, spending two days making eco-fascism propaganda posters is considered a valuable learning experience these days. It's trash.
 
Dixie said:
Once you have examined the theory on how scientists think species evolved, the principles of science dictate you ask how this process originated. There are principally two hypothesis about this, and we will probably never have a defined theory unless one of these hypothesis can be substantiated with scientific evidence to observe and evaluate.

Abiogenesis is one hypothesis, it supposes life began between 4.4 and 2.7 billion years ago with the mixture of carbon, iron, and sulfur, and with water and light, it produced photosynthesis, and all life emerged from here.

Intelligent Design is the other hypothesis, and it supposes life, and supporting environment for life, is too extremely complex, intricate and diverse to not have been intelligently designed.

Atheists tend to believe one hypothesis and claim it is a theory, and non-Atheists tend to believe the other hypothesis and claim it is a theory.

...Class dismissed.
Click to expand...


Correct me if I'm wrong, rube, but aren't they proposing teaching ID as a counterpoint to the teaching of the theory of evolution, for which there is loads of evidence?

Why do you fundies always mix the teaching of evolution up w/ the origins of life?
 
The simple matter is that Intelligent design is not science. Therefore, it does not belong in a science class. No more than hamlet belongs in science class.
 
Dixie said:
Intelligent Design is the other hypothesis, and it supposes life, and supporting environment for life, is too extremely complex, intricate and diverse to not have been intelligently designed.
Click to expand...


This is what the stupid and ignorant have clung to for thousands of years. "I dont' understand it - so god did it."

The sun was not a chariot riding across the sky. Lightning wasn't god's magic fingers. The planets move around the sun because of gravity, not because god wills it that way. The tides are controlled by the rotation of the earth and the pull of the moon, not because god makes the seas part everyday.
 
Grind said:
This is what the stupid and ignorant have clung to for thousands of years. "I dont' understand it - so god did it."

The sun was not a chariot riding across the sky. Lightning wasn't god's magic fingers. The planets move around the sun because of gravity, not because god wills it that way. The tides are controlled by the rotation of the earth and the pull of the moon, not because god makes the seas part everyday.
Click to expand...

Intelligent design theorists have much more going for their hypothesis than.. I can't explain it, so God must be responsible. I have made several valid scientific arguments supporting the hypothesis, without ever mentioning a God.

What is stupid and ignorant, is refuting something on the basis that you don't believe it possible.
 
"I have made several valid scientific arguments supporting the hypothesis"

They're only valid because you say they're valid, but they all boil down to things you can't explain, so you insert God (you don't mention God, but the implication is as clear as can be).

For example, when you say that many has always worshipped something, you assume that must mean there "is" something, and fail to consider other possible reasons for man's history of spiritual belief (fear, explaining the unknown, the need to bring order to what is an incomprehensible universe, etc.)
 
Onceler said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, rube, but aren't they proposing teaching ID as a counterpoint to the teaching of the theory of evolution, for which there is loads of evidence?

Why do you fundies always mix the teaching of evolution up w/ the origins of life?
Click to expand...


I'll correct you because you are wrong. How can a theory on origin be a counterpoint to a theory on species evolution? I can't speak for fundies, since I am not one, but there is no basis for mixing a theory on origin with a theory on evolution, they are two completely different things and one doesn't refute the other in any way. Evolution is a valid scientific theory for evolution of life, not origin of life, and there are two possible hypothesis for origin, the intelligent design hypothesis has some scientific basis to be considered a theory, and so does the abiogenesis hypothesis. You can deny science and pretend it doesn't qualify or count, but that is dishonest and detrimental to knowledge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top