"Intelligent Design" - Scientific Theory?

[Motokid]

When I hear the phrase “Intelligent Design” my mind immediately goes to religion. Yet Mr. Behe says that’s not the case.

Read here: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/19/evolution.trial.reut/index.html

I have trouble seeing it as anything but religious. I suppose that taken to extremes the argument could just as easily be made that alien visitors from Planet X D) could have come to earth a few million years ago and provided the planet with the basic ingredients needed to start the process…but even then all paths will eventually lead to any life, regardless of planet, solar system, dimension, or what have you, had to have gotten a start from some where/some thing. Which all leads back to some theory of a GOD like entity. Which to me means, religion.

Kids are in public school in America for roughly 180 days. Most parents know that there are many days where they are only in school for 3 or 4 hours, but for the sake of argument I’ll go in the conservative direction and say every kid is in class (not lunch or recess) for 7 hours a day, for 180 days a year. That’s 1260 hours a year a kid is supposed to be in school. There are 8760 hours in a 365 day year. 1260 divided by 8760 equals only 14.38% of the entire year is spent in school. Sure seemed like much longer than that to me. There is no reason to bring religion into public schools. If parents want their children to have some religious guidance/knowledge/upbringing they have the other 85.62% of the year to give them that.

Since we are supposed to stay away from religion and politics, I think this topic is ok. I’m asking for someone to explain how “intelligent design” is not religion.

Behe states “Creationism is a theological concept but intelligent design is a scientific theory," "One can be a creationist without any physical evidence. That's 180 degrees different from intelligent design.”

Please explain to me the scientific theory of this. If you can. Or, tell me why or why not you see this as advantageous to the public schooling process. What will the children gain from adding something like this to their already hectic school day?

 

[abecedarian]

Well, if religion WERE being kept out of school for those 180 days, most Christian parents would not object. The problem is, religion IS being taught under the banner of multiculturalism and secular humanism and meditation practices. As many see it, the only religion barred from the public school system is Christianity. Even in history classes, if the Church (including all branches and flavors here) has been relegated to a minor role or painted as the great evil behind every historical misdeed.

I haven't read all the stuff associated with this great debate over ID in the public schools, but I think all "they" are asking is for teachers to teach evolution as just one of the many theories. Christian parents are tired of having evolution crammed down kids throats and touted as the only intelligent viable option. We have Christian scientists who have published manuscripts arguing against the current evolutionary viewpoint as taught in most schools. I think kids today are smart enough to handle a variety of views so they can make up their own minds what they believe to be true.

As for teaching our "religious" views outside of class..what do you think we've been doing for over 2000 years?

 

[abecedarian]

I won't be around much this weekend due to a very hectic schedule, but I'm looking forward to seeing how this thread plays out!! So if you don't see me much, don't think I've gone away mad..

 

[Motokid]

Evolution is being taught as a scientific theory. Which it is. There is nothing but science behind it. It's part of science class just as ice-water-steam...

What I fail to see is how ID is scientific.

 

[abecedarian]

The ID design people are using science to prove that the theory of evolution is wrong, and that there is evidence which points to ID.

 

[moonshot]

You can have religion with God and God without religion. The two do not have to go hand in hand. Religion is to blame for much of the trouble in the world....not God.

 

[SFG75]

Yep, no religion being discussed here........

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

Just because science is used to try and prove that the theory is valid does not mean that it is a scientific theory. I don't see how ID could possibly be called a scientific theory - I'll be watching this thread closely also.

 

[Aardvark]

Intelligent Design theory is a new concept to me but whether it is biased to religious or scientific belief is going to be a very subjective question to answer. From the few web postings I’ve now read the ID theory looks to challenge our current thinking on the Darwinian model of evolution. If the argument is robust enough it may sway opinion and in time become the accepted model but somehow I’m already duobting that.
Has anyone read Behe's book? Darwins Black Box, see link for a review. http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml

 

[Motokid]

Living organisms do evolve. That's a proven fact. The issue here is what started the process, and Darwin's theory might have some holes in it as far as how life on the planet actually began.

Scientists might be trying to prove one thing or another, but please explain how the idea of something intelligent designing the very creation of life on a planet is not based completely on religion and or a GOD like entity.

Even if aliens brought the building blocks of life to earth, where did the aliens come from? It's a never ending circle that has to come back to a supreme entity or force. It has to come back to an original intelligence.

I'm not sure science as we know it now could ever "prove" an original creator. Chin up though...a few hundred years ago the earth was flat and the sun revolved around us.....

 

[Libre]

Any system of belief that is based on faith and tradition rather than evidence, investigation, and logic is at an extreme disadvantage, in my view.
While it is true that even if organisms evolve, that does not explain how they originated in the first place, but the scientific approach does not seek to answer everything, as the religious approach does. It seeks to obtain knowledge and answer questions one by one.

 

[Motokid]

Right, so teaching science in science class is fine. Just as teaching math in math class is also fine.

So where does "intelligent design" get taught? If it's taught in science then I want to know what's scientific about it.

The main figure in the current court case states "intelligent design is a scientific theory" which to me means this will be subject matter in the science classroom. This is the foot in the door that allows religion to enter the science class isn't it?

So my question still stands. Can anybody explain how ID can be a scientific theory? How does one scientifically explain the origin of all life as we know it, and that it must have come from some sort of intelligent designer. That designer really can't be anything other than, for the lack of a better term, GOD, can it?

 

[moonshot]

We must seperate Science, Religion, and God, and not keep linking religion to God unless we are able to keep a balance by occasionally linking science and God as well.
If God is out there and if he did create us all, giving us free will and giving us the tool of science to solve the puzzle, then we should use both together.

 

[amcartoon]

look what some guy thinks about "Intelligent Design"

http://www.venganza.org/

 

[Zolipara]

Behe states “Creationism is a theological concept but intelligent design is a scientific theory," "One can be a creationist without any physical evidence. That's 180 degrees different from intelligent design.”

He dont consider it religious because he needs proof that the evolution is guided, and not random. In addition he does not make any claims as to what or who guided the evolution. A religion would try to claim to know more about the hand guiding us and what he/she/it wants us to do.

But he has not offered anything in the way of proof, or possible ways to detect that this theory has any kind of merit. In other words he simply believes that there must be something guiding evolution, much like a creationist believes god created earth. Behe is simply a creationist with more knowledge of biochemistry than your average creationist. He does not believe in the basis of the theory of evolution, that complex systems can be produced by small gradual modifications of a previous system. However there are many ways this can happen, and it has been proven to happen. So in the end Behe is just another creationist. The difference is only that he is a biochemist, and as such the church can use him as a sort of figurehead in the "battle" against the darwinists.

I find it disturbing that creationism and "intelligent design" are taught in science classes as a equal theory to Darwinism. Luckily they are not doing so over here.