Is teaching "Intelligent Design" as a philosophy still wrong?

1. 60

   Capable Womanposted 15 years ago

   My question is what's actually wrong with the Intelligent Design theory? I find many aspects of it quite forward thinking and interesting.
   
   I know it was roundly disparaged in the media as almost some kind of joke...but why? Is it because those who propound the theory want it taught in place of science or as actual science or because as an idea as a whole it's no good?
   
   I am in no way in favor of teaching anything as science except actual science, however I think kids would benefit from some form of philosophy or critical thinking instruction in grade and high school. Could Intelligent Design be a part of that?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      It is a thinly disguised attempt to introduce creationism as a science. It has no basis in science, which is why it is laughed at by most of the scientific community and media.
      
      Perhaps you could explain how it could be taught as a "philosophy" because I do not understand that idea.

      replyreport
   2. 67

      aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I am all for ID. Creation(ism) is truth for me. There are many here on HP who are vehemently opposed to it. Not the least reason for that is the claim that "theory" can be tested,and (possibly) falsified. ID cannot. (Well, that's the argument I got from opponents of ID, whenevr I tackled this subject).
      Believe me, it's been debated before.
      What branch of the military are you in?

      replyreport
2. 60

   Capable Womanposted 15 years ago

   This is from the NCSE website as part of their description of Intelligent Design:
   "the idea that the appearance of complexity in nature categorically cannot be explained through natural causes; it requires the guidance of an "intelligent agent."
   
   OK, so now take away all the rhetoric for a minute. Forget that this is a political wedge to introduce creationism in schools as a replacement for evolutionary biology, because I know that's the case, and just consider this as a stand alone theory.
   
   Dr. Michio Kaku, a well known and respected physicist has made some similar allusions. As have many scientists. A "prime mover" of some sort behind nature and evolution.
   
   Again, not science, but why not worth discussion as philosophy?

   replyreport
   1. 67

      aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Have a quick look at my thread on this issue, called "please explain", in the science topic.
      The link    http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/13127

      replyreport
   2. 59

      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      What do you mean discussion as a philosophy?
      
      You mean the idea that anything that comes about must have been created by an intelligent designer because......
      
      well, it just must have been?
      
      But - you cannot just dismiss this underhanded approach to introducing creationism as an alternative to real science.
      
      What sort of a philosophy is that? Lying and cheating is OK if you can get a few more believers on your side?
      
      Once you understand evolution - you can only come to the conclusion that there can not have been an intelligent designer directing the process because that renders the theory invalid.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Capable Womanposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Once you understand evolution - you can only come to the conclusion that there can not have been an intelligent designer directing the process because that renders the theory invalid.
         
         But why does it render the theory of evolution invalid? Why can't evolution have happened (and still be happening) AND there be a designer?
         
         Don't you ever think about how the same perfect mathematical principles govern not just everything in this world but the entire universe? Perhaps this is the language of the "designer"?
         
         As to sneaking stuff in to schools in the guise of science, I agree 100%. That's what I meant when I said forget all that for a sec and just look at the theory. Neither Intelligent Design nor anything close to it will ever be taught in public schools becasue of the political stigma and the inherent agendas.
         
         Kids do not get taught how to think critically in our schools. Too bad for them and for us.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            This needs a longer answer than I have time for right now, but the essence is this:
            
            You are assuming a planned destination. If there is a "designer" there must have been a "design." That is not how evolution works as we currently understand it. What you are in effect saying is that evolution is not adaptation to change. It was already decided before hand that everything would end up this way. 
            
            Philosophically - why on earth would an "intelligent designer," do that?
            
            Sounds like a pretty crappy design to me. Rather than build it - throw it in a pot and wait millions of year for it to eventually evolve into what we see today.
            
            I am more in favor of the un-intelligent designer theory. If I was god - I would have done just that - thrown some chemicals in a soup and see what turned out.
            
            And I am all in favor of teaching children critical thinking.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Capable Womanposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               Philosophically - why on earth would an "intelligent designer," do that?
               
               Sounds like a pretty crappy design to me. Rather than build it - throw it in a pot and wait millions of year for it to eventually evolve into what we see today.
               
               I am more in favor of the un-intelligent designer theory. If I was god - I would have done just that - thrown some chemicals in a soup and see what turned out.
               
               And I am all in favor of teaching children critical thinking.
               
               
               
               Well, I were God I would have just asked you what you thought we should do first..
               
               If there is a God or a designer or a Prime Mover or whatever, the one thing I think we can be 100% sure of is that our trying to understand or second guess would be like something akin to trying to explain space travel to a house cat.
               
               And so we stumble forth...

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  
                  
                  
                  
                  Which is a damn good reason not to teach "intelligent design," - and your original question - which I attempted to answer was "what is wrong with the intelligent design theory."
                  
                  This is one thing very wrong with it. That some how we are able to understand and see this design and have decided it is intelligent. Even though any designer worth his salt would have done things very differently. I myself - would have put our testicles on the inside

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Ron Montgomeryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                     Yeah,what's up with that? God must be one vengeful bitch.
                     Many proponents of Intelligent Design point to quotes from Albert Einstein as support for the theory:  “To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man” and “God who reveals Himself in the harmony of all that exists”.  Einstein seems to have bridged the divide between science and mysticism without supporting any particular religion.  I don't think we have a chance of understanding the designer in this lifetime, and self serving attempts to do so such as various versions of "The" bible can mask the knowledge that may exist.  But something is making it all work.  Why else would we be psychologically hard wired to believe in deities? (read Weisel and Frankl)

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                        Not familiar with those. Could you leave a link please?
                        
                        As to why we are "hard wired," my favorite explanation is Douglas Adams' puddle:
                        
                        imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.
                        
                        

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           countrywomenposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                           If I imagine myself to be that puddle then I better get a hold of my life before I disappear (or my boss catching me now)

                           replyreport
3. 60

   Capable Womanposted 15 years ago

   OK, not to belabor the point but..
   
   Why attempt to teach ANY philosophy then? I'm just saying that Intelligent Design as a PHILOSOPHY (not science) is valid.
   
   No?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Well - I do not understand that - which is why I asked you what you meant in the first place. How do you teach intelligent design as a philosophy?
      
      ID is a pseudo scientific "theory" - and I use the term loosely.
      
      What are you proposing to teach exactly?

      replyreport
4. 59

   Tricia Leeposted 15 years ago

   I do not believe in intelligent design. But when it comes to debating it with those that do, you end up going around in circles. As for idea of teaching critical thinking, I'm all for it. If I'd had a better knowledge of critical thinking, maybe it wouldn't have taken years for me to come to some conclusions.

   replyreport
5. 59

   Ron Montgomeryposted 15 years ago

   No web link that I'm aware of; the books are Night by Elie Wiesel and Man's Search for Ultimate Meaning by Victor Frankl.  Both are holocaust survivors who write about the necessity of faith in seemingly hopeless situations.
   
   Two reasons that Mr. Puddle's faith failed him.  The evidence that it was based on was both immediate and circumstantial.  Many Christians make this same mistake, disregarding Job's teaching not to.  If the lazy ass puddle had taken the time to contemplate the butterfly effect that the creator put into place to enable his existence, as well as his rebirth as part of a cumulus cloud after his apparent demise, his faith may have been validated.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Nice. That is the most intelligent response I have ever heard on this forum. I like it so much, I may take the trouble to explain to a few of my christian friends that being reborn as part of a cumulus cloud is not quite the same as living in eternal bliss because you made the "right" choice. Or perhaps that would not work....
      
      I will also look these two up. Thanks.

      replyreport
6. 56

   Bob Cedarposted 15 years ago

   It's the same thing as saying "Fok Off". It's not exactly the thing that shouldn't be said, the but the meaning behind it is still the same. Well let me back that up. It's actually ok to believe in Intelligent Design if that is your thing, but using it to teach kids in school or set up laws or other avenues that aren't supposed to mix with religion is where it's like the example I gave.

   replyreport
7. 60

   Colebabieposted 15 years ago

   "Night" is an amazing book. I had the privilege of meeting Mr. Wiesel when I was in grade school I think we read the book in 6th or 7th grade. Anyways... a must read.

   replyreport