Should Intelligent Design be Included in Science Classes in Christian Schools?

[rachel06]

Unsure, need more information.

 

[ab1385]

Unsure, need more information.

Unsure of what? Whether ID should be taught in Christian schools?

What more information would you like? You never know, someone might be able to help.

 

[Servant222]

A key missing ingredient in this discussion are comments from those who are there- students or teachers in Christian schools, or parents of students involved in Christian schools.

Personally, I would expect- no demand- that my kid's science education in a Christian school include a discussion of God's role in creation. What else is a Christian school there for than to provide this component of my child's education?

 

[Cygnus]

No, I don't think it should be taught in science classes.

 

[Tamara224]

I wholeheartedly agree. So why then do Darwinists claim that, based on the evidence, there is no God? As I stated in my initial post on this thread, that's not a scientific observation.

And again, as I already acknowledged, I have no problem with the concept of evolution. It's 'Darwinian' evolution that I disagree with.

I'm sure various aspects of ID will be modified and change as new evidence comes to light or is more accurately interpreted. But how, pray tell, has irreducible complexity (IC) been disproven?

No, most people are theists, and so believe that God created the cosmos (whether that god be YHWH, or Jesus Christ, or Allah, or what have you). It's Darwinian evolution that most people don't believe is true. But be that as it may, who cares? Truth is not subject to the democratic process.

Sigh. How many times do I have to say this? All that I claim (as do any of the informed IDers I'm aware of, for that matter), is that, as far as the issue at hand is concerned, the physical evidence that we currently possess could be explained in various ways, but given its incredibly intricate complexity, it is best explained by positing some intelligent, purposeful designer behind it--no more, no less. IDers do not claim that that evidence indicates God as understood within Christianity. In fact, prominent IDers like David Berlinsky and Gerard Schroeder are Jewish.
Besides, you just stated above, "I believe that God created everthing based on what the bible says...." Since the Bible declares that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men (who are) repressing the truth in righteousness, because that which (may be) known of God is manifest among them, for God manifested (it) to them. For the invisible things of him are clearly seen from the creation of the world (lit. kosmos), being understood by the things made" (Rom 1.18-20; my translation), it would seem to me that, based on the recognition of a biblical authority that we both ostensibly share, we have scriptural warrant to give God his due credit very much based on what he has created. Indeed, this text could be read to indicate that we even have an obligation to do so.

Again, how has IC been "completely disproved"?

No, ID does not invoke and 'intelligent designer' as the "only possible" cause. Rather it suggests that an intelligent designer is the most probable cause. Again, it's an inference to the best explanation.

Huh? Why would that be?
Nevertheless, this is simply not borne out in reality. Surveys of scientists today reveal that even most of them are theists. This has done nothing to compel them to simply throw up their hands each time they encounter a difficult problem and then have them conclude, "Oh well. God did it. I'm going home."

Well, then you're obviously relying on works composed only by ID's opponents, because virtually every book I have by an ID advocate(about three dozen of them) objects to it being relegated to simply a 'god of the gaps' theory. Instead, they argue it's the very opposite: design is inferred in light of the continual growth and accumulation of new evidence.
ID scientists are not proposing a 'god of the gaps'. They are proposing that God's actions in designing nature are in fact detectable in the same way as the computer software engineer's actions in designing a software program are detectable. In other words, it makes far better sense to say that life-forms or artefacts are the outcome of design and decisions, not of mere necessity and chance.
In any event, the biggest gaps right now are in the fossil record and in the understanding of origins generally. So it's just as plausible to accuse Darwinism of promoting 'transitions of the gaps'. When these transitions are found, they will reveal all things, right? Nevermind all the rest of Darwinism's 'Just So' stories.

This is certainly specious reasoning. Because its proponents object to ID being called a 'god of the gaps' theory, they're therefore implying there are no gaps?!? I'm sorry but that makes no sense at all. This would be like me accusing you of being a warmonger. When you object to being characterized that way my response is to say that by your objection you are implying that there are no wars at all. Huh?

Oh brother. I honestly don't mean to be rude, ab1385, but are you being deliberately obtuse?

How are these contradictory? As you acknowledge below, I qualify this by stating the historical fact that science quickly ossified and died in those other civilizations.

LOL. To the extent that the Christian Church has adhered to the belief that God is the Creator of the universe, it has everything to do with ID.

Many of those times when the Church has been supposedly anti-science are actually mythical stories concocted by anti-Church propagandists.

If you go back and look again at the comment you made to which I was responding, I'm confident you'll see that a fair reading shows my point bears relevance.

Then why are they not scientifically and/or technologically ahead of us? Obviously science did not blossom in these other civilizations as it has in the Christian West. For example, as a direct result of Christian influence, Western Europeans enjoyed a social mobility that simply did not exist in other civilizations. As well, it had also been the recipient of centuries of rational theological argumentation, and moreover believed that the cosmos was ordered by a God of order and that therefore its inner workings could be studied and discovered. Chinese society, on the other hand, was rigidly stratified and held to the belief that everything was filled with 'chi' (or 'shi', if you will). So, even though the Chinese developed such innovations as paper and the printing press prior to Europeans, there was no incentive to develop or even use them; if you were born a peasant in China and came up with the internal cumbustion engine, big deal, you were still going to live and die as a peasant. Whereas Western civilization welcomed and even actively sought the changes that come with technological improvement, the Chinese were virtually obsessed with maintaining the status quo and would therefore suppress any innovations that might jeopardize it. Additionally, it was thought wrong to study and experiment with the things of the world because you'd be messing with its chi. Similarly, you couldn't simply build a model of an object and experiment with it to see how it worked because you couldn't fill your model with chi, therefore nullifying any of your findings.

Watch the arrogance, ab. Let's keep this civil.

Yeah, in AD 1421 there were a few areas where China was more technologically advanced than was Western Europe, though not in all and not even in most. For instance, Europe was far ahead of China in virtually all agronomic disciplines. They had also harnessed the potential of the water mill and were light-years ahead of China in terms of time keeping. Nevertheless, less than a century later Western Europe far surpassed all other civilizations in science and technology.

My goodness, where are you getting your understanding of history from?!? Ward Churchill? Howard Zinn? This one single book? You need to expand your historical horizons. When Europeans first started navigating their ships all around the globe, their prime motivation was the spice trade, not conquest. And all documentary evidence indicates that as Europeans encountered various civilizations they were amazed at how very technologically advanced they themselves were in comparison to them, not the other way around.

Yeah. Right.

No, I've already identified what I mean by 'Darwinian' evolution; that being philosophical naturalism.

No, evolution is a scientific theory--and I think a good one. 'Darwinian' evolution, on the other hand, is based on a philosophical presupposition; that being naturalistic materialism.

You're telling me you don't see complex design in the universe, when even Richard Dawkins does? Forgive me, but it's really quite incredible that you're accusing me of not seeing reality for what it is!

BRAVO!! Fantastic post!

 

[PVS]

I have read some of the posts on this issue, and I wonder how many of the people posting have studied Intellegent Design enough to know what it really is. About two years ago, out of curiosity, I took a class whose central theme was Intellegent Design. It was taught by a noted Physicist. The approach to this subject was to examine the current scientific findings, and to discuss them using a scientific approach. As with much of the science at this level, the individual must examine the evidence and interpret that evidence in as non-biased way as possible, letting the evidence speak for itself. What I began to see is that much of the current evidence disproves what was believed evident in the older evidence.

Without getting into the specifice, I only wanted to say that anyone who does not feel that Intellegent Design is science based does not have a clear understanding of Intellegent Design as a study.

Intelligent Design is not just conservative fundamentalists saying that God created all, it is qualified scientists using all of their scientific tools and knowledge to look at the same evidence available to everyone and using scientific methods to come to different conclusions than have been accepted as "scientific fact" in the past.

Even the term "scientific fact" is an interesting thing, because most scientists will tell you that the word "fact" when attached to "science" is inappropriate, because so much has changed and continues to change in science. What was once accepted as fact is so often changed by ongoing discoveries that all science should be looked upon as fluid rather than static "fact," and the deeper you get into science, the more true that becomes, not just in the study of the origins of things, but in every scientific field of study. That is the beauty of science, that it does change, and new discoveries replace the old. If that were not true we would still be walking around on a earth that would be thought to be flat, or that the sun revolves around the earth. However, if we look carefully back at the time when those "facts" were thought true, getting people to accept the newer science that conflicted with those ideas was just as difficult in those days as the new Science of Intellegent Design seems to be for people to accept today.

So, is Intellegent Design real science? Yes.
Should it be taught in schools? Only when and if the teacher has a thorough knowledge of it and if they can present it in a scientific way.
Should Evolution be taught? Only to the degree it can be proven scientifically.
Should Darwinian Evolution be taught? No, it is too far out of date.
Should Schools be asking the above questions before teaching any science? yes.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

No.

For the simple reason that ID isn't science.

i could not disagree more. Science is :observation, repetition,conclusion,

ID is just that. observation,repetition, conclusion,

what make it controversal is that it concludes something different then eveloution.

We all have the same facts the ID movement just draws a different conclusion

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I did type out a lengthy answer as to why not, but I suppose the answer technically should be 'yes, of course', since to "include any discussion of God's hand in creation in a science class" would be to discuss why ID is not valid science - something that kids should know.

ID dose not talk about God in the class room. ID says an intelligence had something to do with us being here. if thaqt is god, or the martians or some other force in the universe is not specificlly defined. It may pique intrest in the direction of religion, but does not directly promote religion. it does not say hey the god of the Bible did this. it could have been the hindu god or the Actez God, the people from a galaxy far away.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

i could not disagree more. Science is :observation, repetition,conclusion,

ID is just that. observation,repetition, conclusion,

what make it controversal is that it concludes something different then eveloution.

We all have the same facts the ID movement just draws a different conclusion

No, what makes it controversial is that its methodology is unsound and doesn't support the conclusions.