Intelligent Design Ruled "Not Science"

[Mark Carras]

blane.bramble writes "The Register is reporting that the UK government has stated there is no place in the science curriculum for Intelligent Design and that it can not be taught as science. 'The Government is aware that a number of concerns have been raised in the media and elsewhere as to whether creationism and intelligent design have a place in science lessons. The Government is clear that creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science National Curriculum programs of study and should not be taught as science.'"Read more of this story (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/25/1937217&from=rss) at Slashdot.
http://rss.slashdot.org/~a/Slashdot/slashdot?i=l1SuP1</img> (http://rss.slashdot.org/~a/Slashdot/slashdot?a=l1SuP1)
http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~4/127873021

More... (http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/127873021/article.pl)

[Bonehead]

Uh....wait. Intelligent design is not science but pure, random chance is?

Now, I am not a creationist by any stretch. But I can not, for the life of me, understand how random chance and mutations are any more feasible than the idea that there is a supreme being guiding the course of evolutionary process. There is no way to prove or disprove either (and yes, you can rule out creationism for the sake of this discussion), so why can't both of these concepts be given a fair look in education?

[Mark Carras]

Uh....wait. Intelligent design is not science but pure, random chance is?

Now, I am not a creationist by any stretch. But I can not, for the life of me, understand how random chance and mutations are any more feasible than the idea that there is a supreme being guiding the course of evolutionary process. There is no way to prove or disprove either (and yes, you can rule out creationism for the sake of this discussion), so why can't both of these concepts be given a fair look in education?

Because if both are given, then we have to allow every religion's version of how it all came to be. Like Flying Spaghetti Monsterism for example. Now as a member of the FSM religion I of course have no problem with this. However, that might lead to them teaching about Last Thursdayism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism), and the Invisible Pink Unicorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn), & other so called religions which are obviously just plain silly. :fsm

I think our prophet Bobby Henderson explains it better then I could though. Read his letter to the Kansas City School Board. This actually lead to the Kansas city schools having to give equal time to the FSM religion. http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

[Bonehead]

That is not totally accurate, Mark. The entire concept of intelligent design was created to allow the idea/concept of a supreme being without getting into any specific religion. You can express the idea that there is something out there that has guided the evolutionary process without getting into any belief system. I do not support the teaching of creationism, or any other religious viewpoint on creation, nor do I happen to believe any of them.

Now, I can't quite understand the teaching of an idea as fact that has more holes than swiss cheese. Talk about unscientific! I commend those teachers that teach evolution and the Big Bang as theories, as they should be. However, anyone that teaches it as fact is unscientific at best, and absolutely wrong at worst. That is not to say that it isn't possible, just that we do not have facts in evidence to support teaching it as absolute truth. What I fail to comprehend is the total failure of the academic community to fall in line with the majority of the scientific community on the idea that intelligent design is as much possible theory as absolute chance.

[Mark Carras]

That is not totally accurate, Mark. The entire concept of intelligent design was created to allow the idea/concept of a supreme being without getting into any specific religion. You can express the idea that there is something out there that has guided the evolutionary process without getting into any belief system. I do not support the teaching of creationism, or any other religious viewpoint on creation, nor do I happen to believe any of them.

Now, I can't quite understand the teaching of an idea as fact that has more holes than swiss cheese. Talk about unscientific! I commend those teachers that teach evolution and the Big Bang as theories, as they should be. However, anyone that teaches it as fact is unscientific at best, and absolutely wrong at worst. That is not to say that it isn't possible, just that we do not have facts in evidence to support teaching it as absolute truth. What I fail to comprehend is the total failure of the academic community to fall in line with the majority of the scientific community on the idea that intelligent design is as much possible theory as absolute chance.

Well, my point (used humor) was that because I.D. tries to express the idea that "there is something out there that has guided the evolutionary process without getting into any belief system", that can be used to get any religious version of creationism in the doors of our schools. That is exactly what Bobby Henderson did with the FSM. That was his point.

[Bonehead]

I guess then the only alternative is to teach nothing at all when it comes to where we came from. If we are so closed minded to any theory other than chance, then we have no business teaching anything.

It is this type of close minded intellectual arrogance that annoys the living hell out of me. It happens in education classes, history classes, english classes, and others of course, that any idea outside of the established way get shoved aside. Especially if it makes someone feel uncomfortable. Just think of how white-washed our history has become. We are so afraid of how our children will react if they find out how we stole the country from the natives and earlier settlers, and so on. New literature with new ideas can't be taught in schools because we have to teach Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Milton. And this type of close-minded arrogance exists at all levels of education.

When will we learn that out kids will learn how to learn so much better when exposed to multiple ideas instead of force feeding them just one? That the truth and open intellectual discussion always teach more than sugar-coating bullshit and ancient texts. Aaarrgh!!!!!

Come on....kids are smart. Trust them to learn and understand by giving them the information needed to make their own decisions. I think it is total crap for any school board to say it's ok to learn this, but you are not allowed to learn that. Learning is learning, and the important thing is to teach kids how to learn and achieve, and the material is secondary.

Sorry bout the rant. As you can tell, education is something that I am very passionate about, and this idea strikes me as a type of censorship, which I abhor. Theories should be taught as theories, and left at that. I guess the problem arises when a teacher thinks that their belief in a theory overrides the concept and they start teaching it as fact. And that is a problem. Neither evolution or intelligent design should be taught as fact, but as the theories that they are.

[Mark Carras]

I can see what you are saying and I am sure it is frustrating to anyone who thinks this is the one correct version. When what you feel is the truth is not respected as even a possible truth I can see how it would drive someone nuts.

However, in life we have to have guidelines. There has to be some guideline as to what we allow our children to be taught. Otherwise we get a floodgate of absolutely rediculous theory's that we are forced to teach our children as well.

So the solution is to have a guideline. Currently, the guideline seems to be that it has to be 100% purely scientific with zero religious leanings at all. It has to be 100% scientific to be taught in science class.

Oh, and never feel like you can't let out a good rant here. I love having you here, especially when we disagree. It makes things interesting and you always have a good argument. A battle of wits is to me a good thing and I think we can learn from each other. :cool