Keep this junk out of the science class rooms.
Science is about things that can be proven, religion is dubious at best and down right silly at worst.
The government has announced that it will publish guidance for schools on how creationism and intelligent design relate to science teaching, and has reiterated that it sees no place for either on the science curriculum. It has also defined "Intelligent Design", the idea that life is too complex to have arisen without the …
Keep this junk out of the science class rooms.
Science is about things that can be proven, religion is dubious at best and down right silly at worst.
A good, clear decision from the Government.
Now they should take it to the next logical step, and remove religious schools from the state system. State funds should not be used to promote one religion over another. If parents want that, they can pay for it themselves in a private school.
hurray! one small victory for intelligence over ignorance.
Seriously, about time. Now we just need Bush to get out of office so the US can follow suit and we won't be poisoning the minds of our youth with this propaganda BS. There is plenty of other propaganda BS to fill their minds with!
Methinks Mr Rocks is being decidedly disingenuous whenever he says ..."He wrote: "Creationism & Intelligent design are...being used disingenuously to portray science & the theory or evolution as being in crisis when they are not..." ...unless he is referring of course to evolutionary theorists and scientists painting the picture to protect their integrity/credibility/tenures/reputations.
They can be the most arrogant and closed-minded/one track minded of Pushy Bullying Opinion.
And whether 'tis Scientfic or Religious or Technological or Scientological or whatever, the red lines are only being drawn by the old systems of thought because to admit to the possibility of another would be tantamount to an admission that what was believed before was a fraud ..... which may very well be deliberately perpetrated as a Global Conspiracy which could warrant it being thought of as a Masterful/Criminal Exercise, depending upon your own subjective reasoning either in support and acknowledgment of such a Scam as being probable and necessary or you could waste your time in pursuing and highlighting the greed and injustice such a See has condoned/manufactured.
In either case, presently IT is not Fit for Universal Purpose ...which means that IT is missing a Global Opportunity.
Praise be that we are not following America's lead on this one.
A few years ago, my anatomy and physiology prof said "take the appendix. That's intelligent?"
And now we have the "Creation Museum". Complete with man and raptor, living in harmony. I'm waiting for the raptor to gut the man.
Nice to know that the Brits still have it when it comes to facing facts, but as long as the backwaters of southern USA harbor a strong level of scientific talibanism, I think that creationism will continue to be a nuisance in many a school curriculum discussion.
The only danger to civilisation is ignorance, the only cure is proper education. We need to educate better, and more, before the idiots take complete control.
So getting Bush out of office won't really help the US. I figure Science (and by extension, critical thinking) is something of a lost cause here in the States. *sigh*
Oh, and I nominate the following as Best Run-On Sentence Ever.
"And whether 'tis Scientfic or Religious or Technological or Scientological or whatever, the red lines are only being drawn by the old systems of thought because to admit to the possibility of another would be tantamount to an admission that what was believed before was a fraud ..... which may very well be deliberately perpetrated as a Global Conspiracy which could warrant it being thought of as a Masterful/Criminal Exercise, depending upon your own subjective reasoning either in support and acknowledgment of such a Scam as being probable and necessary or you could waste your time in pursuing and highlighting the greed and injustice such a See has condoned/manufactured."
Do I hear the motion seconded?
I'm pretty chuffed that this has happened, its not a science however I have an interesting point to make about creationism and intelligent design.
It seems to me that religious education (a lesson from which I was excluded in school) teaches more about the witch doctoring aspects of religion rather than the real theology behind the big questions. It seems more to do with religious tolerance than education.
For instance, the main argument of most religions and with intelligent design is that God or some (intelligent) creator exists. This argument should be carried into the classroom, children should be given some information on the subject and debate the point in RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
I do subscribe to the belief that the universe is too complex to have just happened, but I don't believe that some deity has done it all, much in the same way as I think that just because some watery tart throws a septa at you doesn't mean you're the king of england.
In all seriousness the points that should be raised in RE are as follows;
Was the universe created by an intelligent being, or was it just that complexity grew from the chaos that existed before?
-- It is within the realm of thermodynamics to state that entropy will grow to a maximum value where complexity begins within an enclosed system, thereby decreasing entropy within the system. It should also be noted that the level of complexity currently visible in the universe could be party to some form of governing intelligence however this doesn't mean that the existing intelligence within the universe is the same one that created it.
Is religion a method of spreading peace and harmony, or xenophobia and hate?
In the 90% of war which has begun with religious difference has religion offered any positive influence great enough to displace some of the negativity of war?
And when the RE class has finished answering those questions, we become a secular nation :)
Reminds me of the old dilbert jargonator.
of Americans may be Creationists, but the trick is to employ more scientists as teachers and in positions of authority - eventually it'll change. And getting Bush out of office is a good start.
(re...the best run-on sentence - I would love to second the motion, if I knew what on earth it was talking about....!)
Intelligent Design actually refutes itself quite nicely, like this:
If a complex universe like ours can only result from the actions of a designer, it follows that the designer must have pre-existed and has to be at least as complex as his creation. So, who designed the Designer?
....and the whole Intelligent Design thing disapears recursively up its own fundament.
Guess it only works if they believe what you do, eh?
Personally I believe that the general best-fit theory of evolution should be taught, but I don't believe that this general anti-religious feel in the comments here should be passed on in the classroom.
Most religions teach general well-being and strong family ties.
So, does this mean Brits will not learn about the FSM in school? That's a big blow on Pastafarianism!
Anyway, it looks like HM Government is redneck-proof ... unlike the US which has a coked-up redneck as prez to begin with.
"...and the whole Intelligent Design thing disapears recursively up its own fundament."
Do not confuse science with belief. Science is provable (or disprovable). Belief is just that. It is because it is.
After years of asserting his theory on black holes, Stephen Hawking has changed his mind and positted a new theory. That's science in action.
"I do subscribe to the belief that the universe is too complex to have just happened, ..."
Not that I'm accusing you of being a theist or deist but this is one of the most common misrepresentations about how our (present - but let's leave that for another fun discussion) universe got here today. The whole 'just happened' thing is where people really don't have any concept of how much time the universe actually had to get to it's present state.
The universe didn't 'just happen', it took somewhere around 14 billion years which is a bloody long time and way too much for most of our million year old evolved monkey brains to comprehend. Even just two minutes of thinking about it gives me the Total Perspective Vortex willies.
"...teachers [are expected] to be able to answer pupil's questions about 'creationism, intelligent design, and other religious beliefs' within a scientific framework."
And that, mesdames, mesdemoiselles, and messieurs, is the key point in this article. Or so it seems to me.
By categorizing these belief systems as *religious*, it puts them on a par with, say, belief in transubstantiation, a core RC belief denied by many (or all?) Protestant churches, and undoubtedly also denied by Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and Moslems.
Or to put it another way (I'm having a hard time verbalizing my thoughts), just as the particularist beliefs of "other" religions are not taught in science class, likewise ID&C are not taught there. There are, after all, many good Christians who do not believe in ID&C. What the current pope believes is uncertain.
The other side of this coin is that evolutionary theory is implicitly defined as a scientific theory, not a "religious belief". This seems appropriate, given that there are no churches of St. Darwin, but more importantly because evolutionary theory has been developed in accord with the scientific method and must always keep itself on all fours with the observable real world.
It would seem to me that a kid asking about ID&C in science class would present the teacher with a golden opportunity for discussion of the philosophy of science.
I hope I'm making sense!
I want to see the theory that we came from pond scum or apes out of the curriculum too.
Attributing human motivations (e.g. selfishness) to a set of self-reproducing biochemical protein factory templates (i.e. DNA) isn't scientific as it isn't testable. In practice genetic selection pressure is equally likely to code for altruism particularly in respect of carriers of genes similar to your own, starting with blood relatives, including other members of your own species and ending up with all other species upon which we are interdependent.
While it may be reasonable to extrapolate the natural selection idea to biology as a whole (Darwinism), this doesn't adequately explain either how biology got started in the first place or how the laws of science, including all the various constants (e.g. the speed of light or the charge on an electron) happen to be just right for life as we observe it to exist. That is unless you choose to believe that the laws of physics to be analogous to the result of infinite monkeys typing until one of them comes up with great literature (the infinite random universes hypothesis.
Apart from an infinity of universes, this also requires a belief in the existence of randomness, which also can't be scientifically proven or disproven any more than God can be, and so is just as much a leap of faith as to believe in God.
I fully agree that science and religion should be taught separately, but few who ridicule faiths which have been held for thousands of years have given much thought about what they themselves take on blind trust, often straining at gnats whilst swallowing camels.
There is a massive gulf between Darwinism (a scientific and reasonable position) and the discredited atheistic fundamentalism preached by Richard Dawkins, which extrapolates evolution way outside biology where this theory belongs into areas of cosmology and human culture where it doesn't, and for which there is no scientific foundation. I personally don't want Dawkin's atheistic religious fundamentalism taught in schools as if it were science.
The most intelligent people are quite comfortable accepting that humanity shares an ancestor with the great apes, whilst the least intelligent among us need to believe they are the spawn of a superbeing in whose image we are made. One would think the intelligent would have the greater arrogance and inflated sense of self, not vice versa.
Maybe both parties are partially correct, and God does indeed exist. It's just that he looks like a chimpanzee.
Dear Richard Kay
Do you think it would be at all possible to cram any further logical fallacies into one argument? Or is that why you started resorting to ad hominem attacks?
In paragraph 2 alone, you imply that somehow evolutionary theory is supposed to explain abiogenesis (it has never claimed to), and then link that in the most beautifully schizoid way to the anthropic principle. Sweet.
Your last paragraph shows your true colours wonderfully. Cheers for that.
People who see science as proving things should be more careful about their beliefs. The empiricists believed that they were proving their theories by making observations, but it's worth reading a bit about Karl Popper who pointed out that science only disproves theories - it never proves them.
All experiments are observations. Looking back, one of the best physics lessons that I had at school involved looking for Brownian motion. We were asked by the teacher to say what we saw through a microscope. Everyone claimed to have seen smoke particles being buffeted by the air. The teacher insisted, to everyone's initial discomfort, that all we had actually seen was shifting light patterns. We had simply interpreted it as smoke particles, knowing in advance what the expected "correct" answer was.
We can produce theories that are self-consistent, and appear to explain observable phenomena, but it's important to remember that the theory isn't necessarily describing the truth. The great power of science is not in its ability to prove, but rather its ability to disprove a theory: any theory that cannot explain an observed phenomenon is shown to be untrue. And any theory that can predict phenomena successfully is just a good theory.
There are days when I feel no small measure of shame at how we do things here in the U.S. The whole debate about teaching creationism in schools is just such a cause for shaking my head in dismay.
But at least in the U.K. they've got their heads screwed on properly in this regard. The government has officially ruled that intelligent design is not science and has no business being taught in schools as science.
As someone who has made a life's mission out of bringing my belief in both God and science into a workable harmony, I personally believe in a cosmology that is a variation of the intelligent design model. But I'm quite clear about the difference between what should be taught as philosophy and what should be taught as science.
While it's true that science is a philosophy, not all philosophy is science. Intelligent design is philosophy, not science. As such, the ideas have no place in science class.
So science has ruled out the possibility of intelligent design or has it? Math is said to be the language of science, especially used in chemistry, physics, astronomy, etc. Once you can prove a fact is not correct *then* you may dismiss it.
We assume intelligent design is false, a higher power cannot exist? Why not? Couldn’t a higher intelligence have sculpted the “big bang”, evolution, etc. etc. well...yes.
Descartes a famous mathematician tried to prove what existed and what didn’t. First he proved he existed (cogito ergo sum) even if he was just an intelligence imagining the world and everything in it. Next he set out to prove or disprove everything else existed. Sadly he failed, everything could be fake, like a dream.
If it can’t even be proven that the screen you are reading this on exists (which I think it does) what is the point of dismissing intelligent design? Science may think it has eliminated I.D. as a possibility by *vote*, but mathematics cannot yet as math *is* truth.
Where do I stand? I am a true scientist refusing to dismiss anything (as offensive as it may be to me or others) until completely proven to be false. Thus I believe in a higher power and in teaching *all* possibilities of our existence in schools. QED
Amazing how many people are so happy, being ignorant of the fact that religion was the knowledge prior to science which is based on theory and challenges to methods it can capture and predict, but where science being so young relative to belief and trust in eminent truth, has no more facts then the original knowhow, developed by the very first human-being to discover The Wind as an entity among homo-sapiens with animalistic drive only, special knowledge we have not yet shared with these happy sceptic fools.
Deviation from the truth is more then 3800 years old, and why our holy forefathers as well as us who know today, are not applauding any Government seeking to serve its subjects and appease them while we are watching the erosion and not evolution of the blessed creation, in the image of the creating forces of the entity we refer to as Alohim.
Yes, you can laugh, but the smile is on my face!
Like money can not buy you happiness, and you will not be saved by modern tools or gadget or by following new trends for fame and glory, and accelerate the deviations process by implementing manmade changes; and like new fashion and/or diet as well as new medicine and including modern computers which can not talk or listen, in English or by ascii limitations, we are risking the poisoned minds of our children and next irresponsible generations, unless they are permitted and do capture the eminent truth of all, and grow to be sensitive to the despairing full glorious twin-rainbow, facts we know, like that there is no life outside from this special warm and wet planet, life we know, not some imaginary life form potentially found in space, a joke for us who know the ruth, truth science can not face or accept, as it will put them all on the unemployment lines....
All I see, is one more step towards evil by the British Government, still creating havoc in the Middle East they have created by no Godly right they seem to take so freely, doing as the Romans did to your people and our people. Unlike us, you have not yet learned the wrong from The Romans and The Church, and I think Italy has!
.. a Dr. Bill Softky once said "The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bull$&!+."
If one thinks about it, this would explain the evolution of any form of religion, as we see them today.
The same could also apply to politics as well....
If you read this piece without intent of your own, you'll see some logic in it. Religion is the practice of filling in the blanks with facts-on-stilts derived from empathy. As we learn more, it (should) change.
We honestly do not know _as_a_matter_of_science_ what to think. Patterns observed are strong indicators, but we don't know.
The schools should differentiate between _right_ and _correct_ , one can change the other is an eventual state. Until its reached, they just care not to teach it altogether. I don't see a major problem with that.
I don't feel that its _right_ given how strongly the evidence suggests one direction, but it might be _correct_ for them to have done this.
To avoid needless resentment, I just won't form an opinion on the matter.
As a 31 year old father of an 8 year old, I find this news encouraging. I would rather my son view the world through questioning eyes, wishing him to form opinions and then test them through sensible observation, and/or trial and error. I want him to develop his sense of morality with help from his friends and family (because we are good people) and his social environment (because that's normal).
I do not want him learning from a book with 200+ authors and no vaguely provable basis in fact. This is not religious intolerance this is just good old fashioned common sense. As his family, we're good people and have never needed an imaginary police force to tell us not to kill, steal, covet our neighbours’ asses etc.
When my son's troubled, scared, hungry or in pain, I want him to know that he can come to us at any time or place and we will do everything in our power to help him. This will be real, concrete and quantifiable. Hopefully, this will prevent him from needing an invisible emergency service that doesn't actually work, or do any tangible good.
I don't blame religion for the excesses of its followers; I blame their stupidity (an all too common human complaint). I don't think the curse of human stupidity should be encouraged in our young.
Science is common sense, taking the nearest possible thing to proven, as fact. Religion is like believing in lord of the rings; comforting, but fairly daft if you think about it properly.
Mr Gregorie has brought up an old but nonetheless brilliant argument that puts a stake in the heart of Creationism and its pseudoscience spawn, Intelligent Design.
More than two-and-a-half centuries ago, the great Scottish philospher, David Hume, showed that the Creation story collapses on its own due to the fallacy of infinite regression. The illogicality of a supreme being was further exposed by Bertrand Russell with his Celestial Teapot argument. Yet today, millions continue to cling to an old myth.
It's not really a problem if people choose to delude themselves with fairy tales. Unfortunately, most of the major religions urge their followers to impose their beliefs on others and, if necessary, by force. To make things worse, the most powerful nation on Earth just so happens to have a fervently religious population who isn't shy about training their sights on "heathen" nations - preferably those with plenty of long-dead organic matter.
The Reg should run more stories on this topic, because the astoundingly splendid kookiness of some of the comments. Check out:
"Amazing how many people are so happy, being ignorant of the facts of eminent truth"
"Bonfire of the Vanities"
I still miss spam poetry. More please.
"We assume intelligent design is false, a higher power cannot exist? Why not? Couldn’t a higher intelligence have sculpted the “big bang”, evolution, etc. etc. well...yes."
That is quite possible. It is also possible that Ming the Mercyless is poised to invade earth and that our new prime minister will save us in a Flash. Possible but unlikely. We can go around the world and consider all of the creation myths, but which one do we choose ? Use your eyes and ears: what evidence do we have ? We will be left with a large number for which we have no evidence to disprove, so what do we do? Use that tool of rationalism: Occam's Rasor: classify the complicated as unlikely and choose the simplest explantions as most likely.
Invoking a 'higher power' is always more complicated since it means that we need to explain the existance/origin of that higher power.
"Thus I believe in a higher power and in teaching *all* possibilities of our existence in schools."
Wow: there are a lot of creation myths out there - that would take a lot of time. However: you are right in that there is little rational basis in choosing the Jewish/Christian/Muslim myths over all of the rest down to, and including, the rantings of Ron Hubbard's scientology: none have any refutable, repeatable evidence or make predictions that are, realistically, repeatably testable.
Its just like a Microsoft v Apple. Windows v Linux. IE v Firefox.
You're all the same kind of people with a different way of seeing the world but you each fanatically believe that the other is wrong that you kind of forget the point that life is for living.
Its not what you use its how you use it.
Creationism and Intelligent Design are not Science and most Intelligent Christians agree to this. They are Theology and should be presented as such.
I think the big problem is Science lessons are presenting Evolutionary Theory as FACT when it clearly isnt. There is no emphasis on the fact that all science is based on theories they just haven’t been disproven yet.
Granted there are many core theories that have stood the test of time so we can be pretty confident about them but many of the theories around evolution are based upon theories based upon theories going back hundreds of years that nobody has any interest in even trying to disprove. In fact students are discouraged from doing this. You could go far as to say that current day scientists theories depend on the faith and belief of those who came before them, sound familiar?
Now Adams point about not teaching religion at all in school is not necessarily a bad one. Being taught a specific religion to the exclusion of others is going to cause a problem for followers of different faiths as would be trying to teach a little bit of it all. I do think it’s important that children know that different religions exist though so we can understand about the different cultures of the world and there still needs to be some coverage on issues of morality as this is often neglected by parents.
Maybe Moral and Theological studies ?
If there is a God, then why does he let a creation created in his own image to inflict centuries of pain upon one another?
Wars have been (and still are) fought over whose variant is more righteous. Face it, religion should be about how one treats one's fellow human being , not about believing that no matter how bad one's life is conducted, a few prayers to a deity on one's deathbed will abolish a life of sin.
It surprises me to say this, but, "Well Done to the UK Government".
As for the poetry...
The boast of heraldry, the pomp of power,
And all that beauty, all that wealth e'er gave,
Awaits alike th' inevitable hour:-
The paths of glory lead but to the grave.
Kudos to the UK though for showing some balls, and putting Science ahead of superstition. People have to right to believe whatever they want to make life easier and all, but keep it out of schools, courts, and government please!
Hopefully the rest of the EU will do similar - despite the risk of growing tensions with our more religious brothers and sisters to the east and to the west.
Richard Kay Quote "While it may be reasonable to extrapolate the natural selection idea to biology as a whole (Darwinism), this doesn't adequately explain either how biology got started in the first place or how the laws of science, including all the various constants (e.g. the speed of light or the charge on an electron) happen to be just right for life as we observe it to exist".
Reminds me of the puddle of water that knew there was a god, beecause the hole in which it resided was just the right shape for it...
I am regularly amazed at the kooks that come out of the woodwork when articles like this come out on a forum that allows comments.
To them I say: My invisible sky daddy is infallible and magical and loves you all despite your heathen "rationality".
Here in the US, schools are administered locally. Our constitution made no provision for a national educational authority and under the Tenth Amendment, the power to regulate education is left to the individual states. In fact, there are people who consider the existence of a federal department of education a violation of the federal constitution.
In the UK, it's apparently possible for a single group of sensible government ministers to put creationism and 'intelligent design" in their place...outside of the science curriculum. In the US, nationally-based lobbies are able to argue this non-issue individually and interminably in the legislatures of each of the 50 states and the thousands of local school boards. There is no one national-level authority that can settle the question, so the attack on the science curriculum will probably go on indefinitely.
"I am a true scientist refusing to dismiss anything (as offensive as it may be to me or others) until completely proven to be false. Thus I believe in a higher power and in teaching *all* possibilities of our existence in schools. QED"
Parody: "I am a true scientist refusing to dismiss anything (as offensive as it may be to me or others) until completely proven to be false. Thus I believe in a unicorns and in teaching *all* possibilities of unicorn existence in schools. QED"
Fallacy: possibility does not entail probability.
While "cogito ergo sum" is often put forward as a proof of existence, "I think therefore I am", I was always under the impression that Descartes was far less arrogant. My understanding is that Descartes did not prove his own existence but rather demonstrated that “All that I know if my existence is that I think”.
Hmm, let's compare.
Religion - You are told what to believe and also told that you must not, under any circumstances, question what you have been told.
Science - You are told what to believe but you are allowed, and sometimes actively encouraged, to question those beliefs at any/every opportunity.
Darwin stated in Origin of Species
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down"
This is when he understood a cell to be a simple blob of protoplasm. We've now found that there exists many complexities within these cells with functions that need to exist in their entirety. I've read/heard some really stretched arguements on how these complex parts can form "slowly and surely" and some are really stretched.
There is always the question...what always existed? There has to have been something that always existed to have set these things in motion. The big bang? What existed prior to that.
I have a new religion that teaches that nature is eternal, nature is the cause for life and ruler of life. Basically, nature is omnipresent, omniscience, and omnipotent. If you do not obey the laws set forth by nature, you shall surely perish. Nature naturally selects or in other words has set things in motion, the doctrine of predestination.
You have one set of people who call nature God and attribute it's attributes to him.
Another set of people who say that nature's name is not God, but simply nature.
I prefer to believe in the god that I see, that is nature. Nature is eternal and I believe nature is intelligent enough to have designed a process where it can display all of it's glory. Nature is eternal and thus a god.
This so-called evidence still takes faith. We've discovered so many new things in the past century that would make Charlie Darwin marvel, and yet he tought he had the answer. Who's to say we won't find something new in the next century that says evolution is a false theory and that nature does have an intelligence.
Irreducible Complexity (what you described and as coined by Michael Behe) is flawed.
The Mullerian 2-Step provides a mechanism whereby.
1. A superfluous part is added to a system with no negative consequences.
2. The system undergoes a change such that the part added in step 1 becomes necessary and its subsequent removal becomes catastrophic.
Do you understand now?
Human beings are children of God.
As such, we have the innate ability to create, to design, if you will. To deny the existence of a being greater than us is the ultimate expression of human pride and ignorance. We claim that we seek truth and understanding through science.
If that were so, then we could not possibly deny the POSSIBILITY of our earth being created by a person with greater intelligence than ourselves, WITHOUT PROOF. We claim we are scientific, in that we require proof to show the truth of an idea. Yet some will readily deny an idea without proof to the contrary.
As our understanding of science and technology increases, is it not possible that we might one day reach the point where we are capable of organizing matter in such a way that we could create a planet, and through genetic manipulation, new life-forms to inhabit that planet?
If we continue to progress technologically, what is to stop us? Nothing.
God is real. We are his children. We have infinite possibilities. Intelligent design is not a myth. God is a perfected human who created our world, and WE are on trial to determine if we are pure enough to handle the kind of power that he has. The proof is in our actions. If we are pure of heart, it will show through how we live. If we are not, we won't be given the kind of power that he has.
In response to an earlier comment, God allows his creations to hurt one another because God isn't the one on trial. WE are. God won't take away our free will.
Evil people are allowed to do evil deeds so that they can be justly judged when the time comes. Much like the movie "Minority Report" has shown, it's unjust to punish someone for a crime they have yet to commit. By allowing evil people to commit evil deeds, he is able to justly judge and punish evil people when judgement day comes.
In all seriousness, ID is not a religion. It is not neo-creationism. It is built on the idea that is already used in archaeology, geology and the SETI project that says that somethings due to their attributes carry with them the appearance of design. Design, for example, can be seen in the difference between a stone arch and the St. Louis Arch. If we didn't know it had been constructed, how would we be able to determine one is designed and one isn't? What about the pyramids? How do we know that they are designed as opposed to natural structures? We know because we have the ability to examine something and see the earmarks of design.
ID builds on that premise that we can see when something is designed and takes it into other areas. The problem is that when it comes to bringing those principles into the area of biology, ardent evolutionists shiver and object. Why is that? It seems to me that if this is so blatantly wrong, the evolutionists should simply demonstrate that it is erroneous and be done with it. Of course, they haven't and they can't.
Moreover, it is not religion. It makes no claims to be able to identify the designer. It doesn't claim the designer is God. It may be that the designer is some alien life form. It may be that the designer is some unknown intelligent force. Perhaps it is Gaia (which seems to be an acceptable religion among those of a scientific bent). To claim that it is "religion" merely because it points out that observations of nature reveal that something intelligent has been involved in design is simply ridiculous.
Really, before attacking ID as non-science, it would be helpful to actually understand it. The people who attack it use language that demonstrates that they don't have a clue.
Oh, and I should add that most of the arguments on this page mischaracterize religion. One that I thought kind of summed up religion was by Jim and read:
"Religion - You are told what to believe and also told that you must not, under any circumstances, question what you have been told.
Science - You are told what to believe but you are allowed, and sometimes actively encouraged, to question those beliefs at any/every opportunity."
In fact, Christianity, understood correctly, applauds those who question what they have been told. Those who teach that Christianity is some type of leap to blind faith ascribe to a type of Christianity that is decidedly unbiblical. In contrast, at least in the area of evolution, science is apparently the place where you are told what to believe and also told that you must not, under any circumstances, question what you have been told. After all, ID raises questions about evolutionary theory, and apparently you can't raise those questions!
Here's an interesting article.
Also highlights the fact that the Judeo mythology is just one among many.
"We are all atheists. You just believe in one more God than we do."
That's a common statement by skeptics who oppose the work of thinking.
I get so tired of the ID brigade, and their misrepresented and selective evidence.
It's funny how they mention the 'irreducable' systems, but ignore the simpler predecessors that only have have some of the sub components of these 'irreducable' systems
Where I come from people who suffer such selective vision (& memory loss) are often called dishonest
Dear Richard Kay,
As you say life as we observe it, so what can you not cope with a happy set of circumstances ? In another universe perhaps water & carbon arnt required for life
If one of these variables (that all these ID & creationists insist on bringing up) had been different, perhaps another variable change (so far unlisted by the spirit of the universe people) would have counter balanced it? Perhaps other forms of life would have evolved, or the universe would have collapsed and another "big bang" would have to occur again with a better "roll of the die" ? How many rehersals have there been to get here ?
Dear "Amazing how many people are so happy, being ignorant of the facts of eminent truth" and also "WE intelligently design things"
I'm afraid your rambling nonsence dosn't appear to have a beginning, middle or end (or indeed any noticeable point). Therefore I assume you have nothing to contribute
Dear "Help me understand this"
Quoting "We've now found that there exists many complexities within these cells with functions that need to exist in their entirety." You should read more (or be more selective in what you read) as that is simply not the case. Same as the figures quoted by the ID 'experts' of chemistry of life are based on modern DNA sequences spontainously springing into existence. Rather than the much more primitive 'living molecules' that we are 'probably' decended from. Basically the ID people blatently misrepresent the mathematics.
People seem to be afraid of the phrase "We don't know, Yet"
Science tries to find out and is happy for questions to be asked. Religion simply says I have the answers but don't ask questions, or you are toast !
Anything based on faith is broken beyond repair and will remain broken. In the case of science broken theorys are fixed or replaced
You seem to be confused.
Evolution (you could use the word environment) itself is the designer.
You can certainly raise questions within science, however stupid questions are not appreciated. If you want to believe in Gaia, god, Shiva or whatever then thats your choice. But please don't insist that your personal belief (which has no more going for it than pixies in my pants) is on equial footing to something that has this trivial stugg like evidence.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017