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

[Servant222]

Some quick points (remember, I'm still trying to finish overdue reports!).

To a Christian, it is an absolute given that God exists; the question of whether science could disprove the existence of God is only relevant to an atheist. It is certainly something that never even slightly crosses my mind.

Second point: it is us human beings that determine what can and cannot be taught in a Science classroom, or for matter, any classroom. So why should I, as a Christian, artificially limit what can be taught in a science class in a Christian school? God certainly has no limits.

Third, I don't view setbacks as a hit to my faith- in that regard, I totally trust that God is in control. I 100% believe that God is able to guide me, and so I trust that if something doesn't go the way I think it should, it is because God has a better way.

Us human beings are terribly bad at putting things in their proper perspective- we immediately think "crisis" when things appear to go bad. What we need to do in situations like that is put a little time and prayer into our thinking before we react, and trust to God. I am sure there are many people like me who have gone through things that they thought at one time were bad, but in the overall picture, were in fact good things. Mountain climbers may go through all sorts of trials and tribulations as they ascend- but those who persevere are then richly rewarded once they reach the summit.

BTW, I appreciate your comments, and those of the other posters here- definitely thought provoking and respectful. And we're even learning something about science too.

 

[ReformedChapin]

There is no question of defining *science*, there is a question of defining the *scientific method*.

"Science" is simply the collection of the best results the scientific method has produced at a given time.

The scientific method works in terms of evidence and hypotheses which can be compared to each other in terms of the evidence. That is to say science consists of evidence, hypotheses, and statistics.

I'd be interested to see the analysis of the evidence where the notion of "creator" can be formally analyzed as a hypothesis and compared to other hypotheses and weighed scientifically, and conceivably disproved.

Or to put it another way:

If you really believe the notion of a creator is scientific, *and* you believe in the scientific method, then you have to be prepared to say "I will no longer believe in God, if the scientific evidence points in that direction."

So anyone that is willing to renounce their faith in God if the evidence points in that directions, is the only one with enough intellectual honesty to postulate a creator as a scientific hypothesis.

Who is willing to renounce their faith on the basis of scientific evidence?

Can you please tell me how the scientific method disproves God? Because like Huge Ross I think that science, points more to God than anything else.

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning.[1]

Based on both deductive reasoning and emperical evidence what is a better explination for the cause of the universe than an intelligent designer. The complexty of life and the laws of physics show it more than anything else.

 

[ab1385]

Some quick points (remember, I'm still trying to finish overdue reports!)

I'll try not to be too lengthy then!

To a Christian, it is an absolute given that God exists; the question of whether science could disprove the existence of God is only relevant to an atheist. It is certainly something that never even slightly crosses my mind.

I sort of agree with you. The whole point of nearly everything I post about ID is that science simply cannot cooment on whether God exists. It is a tool for examining the natural world, and anything 'supernatural' simply cannot be examined by it. Thus whether God can be disproved by science is not applicable to Christians or atheists. Science disproving God crosses my mind about as much as science proving God - both are well beyond the scope of the scientific method.

Second point: it is us human beings that determine what can and cannot be taught in a Science classroom, or for matter, any classroom. So why should I, as a Christian, artificially limit what can be taught in a science class in a Christian school? God certainly has no limits.

We as human beings have a duty to educate our children, in fact that is one of the fundamental human rights. We have a duty to teach them appropriate and true things.

I, personally, would not consider limiting science lesson to science to be artificial. God has no limits, true, but should we therefore teach non-science in a science lesson? Should we teach other philosophy (since that is essentially what ID is) in a science lesson?

I do not feel it limiting to say that science lessons should teach science, and that if you want to teach philosophy it should be taught in a philosophy lesson. Why do you feel that this is limiting? Is it that you feel that ID is at all scientific?

Third, I don't view setbacks as a hit to my faith- in that regard, I totally trust that God is in control. I 100% believe that God is able to guide me, and so I trust that if something doesn't go the way I think it should, it is because God has a better way.

This is a fair enough, and in fact Godly, way of thinking. The only thing is that you cannot view positives as a sign of God, and yet view negatives as not. From a scientific point of view I do not see this as an issue, because, as I keep stating, science cannot make any statements about anything that goes beyond the natural world.

However, it is intellectually dishonest with yourself to say that if someone showed you evidence (not that I'm quite sure what that could be) that there is no God, that you would ignore it. I would say that faith must be capable of scrutiny, otherwise it is not really an intellectually sustainable viewpoint. Since I don't believe this will happen it's kind of academic, but I still think it is quite an important point.

Us human beings are terribly bad at putting things in their proper perspective- we immediately think "crisis" when things appear to go bad. What we need to do in situations like that is put a little time and prayer into our thinking before we react, and trust to God. I am sure there are many people like me who have gone through things that they thought at one time were bad, but in the overall picture, were in fact good things. Mountain climbers may go through all sorts of trials and tribulations as they ascend- but those who persevere are then richly rewarded once they reach the summit.

This is true. We are, however, equally good at attributing good things to God which later turn out not to be so, or turn out to be bad. I find it easier to not look for supernatural explanations for things where they are unwarranted, and only turn to look for a supernatural explanation for things when they are unexplainable by natural processes. This does not mean that I do not see God as working, just that He is constantly working through natural processes. I think people attach more phenomena to God acting outside the normal way of the universe than is really called for. He obviously very much normally works through natural processes.

BTW, I appreciate your comments, and those of the other posters here- definitely thought provoking and respectful. And we're even learning something about science too.

And I appreciate yours, although I have thought through these issues much before it is interesting to discuss them, especially if you are willing to consider that you are not 100% right as you consider the issue. I was, once, strange as it may seem, a YEC of sorts. It was only through considering why other people thought that this (and other positions) was an untenable position that I could not hold whilst being honest to myself.

I really think we (as a religious whole) need to challenge our beliefs and preconceptions far more than we do at the moment - not that they are necessarily wrong, but where there is debate then half of us must necessarily be wrong - it is only by looking honestly at another's viewpoint that we can decide which of us is dogmatically sticking to something illogical or untrue.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Can you please tell me how the scientific method disproves God? Because like Huge Ross I think that science, points more to God than anything else.

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning.[1]

Based on both deductive reasoning and emperical evidence what is a better explination for the cause of the universe than an intelligent designer. The complexty of life and the laws of physics show it more than anything else.

I never said the scientific method disproves God.

I said that if you are going to introduce God as a scientific principle, then you have to do so in a way that allows that it is possible to disprove God.

Every scientific postulate must be falsifiable.

So, as I said, whoever introduces God as a scientific explanation, has to also be able to say under what circumstances God would be scientifically disproven.

 

[Servant222]

I, personally, would not consider limiting science lesson to science to be artificial. God has no limits, true, but should we therefore teach non-science in a science lesson? Should we teach other philosophy (since that is essentially what ID is) in a science lesson?

I do not feel it limiting to say that science lessons should teach science, and that if you want to teach philosophy it should be taught in a philosophy lesson. Why do you feel that this is limiting? Is it that you feel that ID is at all scientific?

Perhaps that is the crux of the problem- we have become too specialized in our education programs. So perhaps we do need to be more holistic- not be worried about bringing some philosophy into a science class. Then we wouldn't need to worry so much about defining where the line between science and religion is.

And I appreciate yours[viewpoints], although I have thought through these issues much before it is interesting to discuss them, especially if you are willing to consider that you are not 100% right as you consider the issue.

I really think we (as a religious whole) need to challenge our beliefs and preconceptions far more than we do at the moment - not that they are necessarily wrong, but where there is debate then half of us must necessarily be wrong - it is only by looking honestly at another's viewpoint that we can decide which of us is dogmatically sticking to something illogical or untrue.

Dogma is a big problem generally, and probably even more so in Christian circles. I like Ralph Waldo Emerson's comment: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

I think we should always be striving to find the best possible answer to a question, realizing that establishing ultimate truth is something that is likely not achievable. But seeking ultimate truth is an iterative process that requires that a multitude of different ideas be placed on the table. So ideas- whether they are right or wrong, eventually adopted or discarded, are fundamental to the process of trying to define ultimate truth.

When the expression of ideas is stifled because of dogma, undemocratic political systems, intellectual bullying, artifical boundaries on discussions; or whatever, the quest for ulltimate truth is inhibited. So we always need to be open minded, we always need to be a little reserved in our thinking and opinions, and not inhibit the free flow of ideas.

So this is why I don't think it is ever a bad thing to bring God into a classroom- any classroom. The artificial constraint that a secular high school has is that a discussion of God may offend students with other relgious convictions; o.k., I can understand that- but we need to realize that that kind of limit does at least to a degree stifle the free flow of ideas.

Don't get me wrong- I'm not suggesting that every class should become a free for all; of course a Physics class should primarily be there to teach physics. I'm just saying that we should place a high value on ideas, and not be afraid to allow ideas to stray beyond preconceived limits.

In all this, bear in mind that I am not even remotely suggesting that evolution, for example, should not be taught in a Christian science program; quite the contrary, it should all be included.

 

[ADRose]

I think it's odd for someone to claim to be saved, yet box their personal relationship with God into a compartment called "religion" and then seperate it from science. If one believes that God is true, real, what is not scientific about saying that God is Creator, as the Word of God says He is? Jesus Christ, for those who know Him personally, is more than just a religion or a mundane tradition. If you believe that God is real, that He is above all things and before all things - delve into science knowing that He is first. One who says that God doesn't belong in science is either confused about what science is, or they lack a real faith in the Lord.

 

[ab1385]

I think we finally come to some sort of agreement. It is not the discussion of ID that I am against, more the teaching of it as if it were a vaild scientific theory, which it is not. Once you accept there is a creator it makes sense to see the beauty in nature and be thankful for it. It just only works that way round, it is illogical to see the beauty in nature and assume that therefore there is a God. That line of thinking does not make logical sense, nor is it science.

I do not see it a problem to discuss ID even in science class in the context of a discussion of the philosophy of science. I do feel quite strongly that to hold that science can answer questions about the supernatural is wrong, and that teaching this as fact is therefore also wrong, both from an atheistic and a Christian point of view.

I think that educating kids in a well rounded way is actually very important. ID is very widespread in America at the moment, and so not discussing it would actually be a gap in education. However, I do feel that it should be pointed out that it is not science, and should be taught as such. It is not a provable fact and therefore should not be taught as such. Etc. The same is probably true of young earth creationsism, it should be discussed, if only so people who are exposed to it are exposed to a fair and rational explanation of it, rather than much of the dogma that goes with it.

I guess I just believe that kids should be able to be exposed to a real idea of what the theory of evolution and the idea of a (very) old earth really are based on. People will at some point be exposed to these ideas, and in order to understand where people are coming from kids need to understand what evolution actually is, why people think the earth is very old, and why the ID argument doesn't hold any water. Kids should be taught the actual basis for these ideas, rather than a distorted version promoted by creationist propaganda which is so prevalent in society today. I would say it is actually negligent in our education of children if we do not discuss these issues, but we must discuss them from a realistic viewpoint, one that is accepted by the majority of scientists worldwide.

 

[ab1385]

I think it's odd for someone to claim to be saved, yet box their personal relationship with God into a compartment called "religion" and then seperate it from science. If one believes that God is true, real, what is not scientific about saying that God is Creator, as the Word of God says He is? Jesus Christ, for those who know Him personally, is more than just a religion or a mundane tradition. If you believe that God is real, that He is above all things and before all things - delve into science knowing that He is first. One who says that God doesn't belong in science is either confused about what science is, or they lack a real faith in the Lord.

Sorry dude, but I think you here have misunderstood what science is. Science is nothing more than a tool by which we can examine the batural world. Science simply cannot be used to comment on the supernatural, at all, ever.

This does not mean that we cannot look at the world and be amazed by what God has done through these natural processes, or give thanks and praise to Him for it. What it means is that we cannot use science to show that He was involved. If we assume He is involved from other reasons to believe He exists, and then view the world through that lens, then this is different. But God should never be limited to what science cannot explain, as per the ID argument. God is behind everything, from advanced genetics and that which we do not understand, to basic Newtonian physics and that which we do. Just because we cannot explain something is not a reason to invoke the need for God, just as a knowledge of a scientific process does not preclude God's involvement. Science itself cannot, nor ever will be able to, comment on anything supernatural, including God. ID, and disucssion of God, should therefore never be taught as a proof of God, nor should science ever be used as a proof against God. It is simply outside the role and usefulness of the scientific method.

 

[eye776]

It should, absolutely, however NOT in it's current form!

It should be an OPTIONAL or LEISURE study since a true study of "Intelligent Design", means, IMHO understanding the innerworkings of Creation (as far as we can) and why only the Lord posesses this ability of which we manifest a primitive, non-conclusive form (ask an artist or an A.I programmer).

If we can make a child understand it (stripping all the advanced calculus and physics that REALLY proves it.) YES, PLEASE and BY ALL MEANS DO, otherwise NO, I DO NOT WANT TO SEE kids pushed into being ZEALOTS.

 

[eye776]

It should, absolutely, however NOT in it's current form!

It should be an OPTIONAL or LEISURE study since a true study of "Intelligent Design", means, IMHO understanding the innerworkings of Creation (as far as we can) and why only the Lord posesses this ability of which we manifest a primitive, non-conclusive form (ask an artist or an A.I programmer).

If we can make a child understand it (stripping all the advanced calculus and physics that REALLY proves it.) YES, PLEASE and BY ALL MEANS DO, otherwise NO, I DO NOT WANT TO SEE kids pushed into being ZEALOTS.

 

[ab1385]

It should, absolutely, however NOT in it's current form!

It should be an OPTIONAL or LEISURE study since a true study of "Intelligent Design", means, IMHO understanding the innerworkings of Creation (as far as we can) and why only the Lord posesses this ability of which we manifest a primitive, non-conclusive form (ask an artist or an A.I programmer).

If we can make a child understand it (stripping all the advanced calculus and physics that REALLY proves it.) YES, PLEASE and BY ALL MEANS DO, otherwise NO, I DO NOT WANT TO SEE kids pushed into being ZEALOTS.

I'm sorry, "advanced calculus and physics that really proves it"? That one really needs further explanation. Since it is reasonably obviously illogical, I fail to see how on earth you believe that calculus and physics "proves it"...

 

[eye776]

Woo boy! This is quite a tough nut to crack but I'll try anyway. It regards the wave theory and relativist physics. (Just studied in college this year). Practically speaking there is a certain effect that causes the existance of particle waves in the void of the space.

However there is no difference in Energy between two points in space. For forces to have any meaning potential or cinetical energy needs to exist, therefore a plane (or more) of pressure has to be applied at one point to encourage the disturbing of these waves.

I think I'll stop here for now (I have to grasp the whole concept better). I know this sounds like pseudoscience but It's the best explanation of an external unknown intervention upon the void of space to create something.

 

[teishpriest]

I'm not 100% familiar with the ID theories, so I'm not sure if it should be taught. However, the Bible does tell us that all of creation was created by God. Science does support this belief. The best thing to teach kids is the Scientific Method. They will then be able to see the flaws in theories such as the Big Bang theory for themselves. Books by Ken Hamm are an excellent resourse! I attended a seminar by him when I was in High School and it was definately worth going to!

 

[ADRose]

I completely agree with teishpriest. The Bible says that if something doesn't proceed from faith, it is sin. It also says that except the Lord builds the house, those building it, labor in vain.

This doesn't mean we should make science into a big believing frenzy - it means that scientists should EXAMINE what is here and what God has made, to understand creation. This is science.

For example, it is unbiblical for a scientist to be a Christian on Sunday and then go to work on Monday saying, "now let's put away faith and take out my reason." If one is saved, they are called to continue in salvation. If your mind is transformed by the renewing of your mind, in Christ (Rom 12:2), you would probably have a different mindset than the world. It is possible to be an objective scientist who believes in the Word first, and that all else stems from the Truth in God's Word. Science is a mindset. Looking at science without first acknowledging God as the Creator and Author of creation would be like wearing sunglasses at night and trying to describe what you see.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

I completely agree with teishpriest. The Bible says that if something doesn't proceed from faith, it is sin. It also says that except the Lord builds the house, those building it, labor in vain.

This doesn't mean we should make science into a big believing frenzy - it means that scientists should EXAMINE what is here and what God has made, to understand creation. This is science.

For example, it is unbiblical for a scientist to be a Christian on Sunday and then go to work on Monday saying, "now let's put away faith and take out my reason." If one is saved, they are called to continue in salvation. If your mind is transformed by the renewing of your mind, in Christ (Rom 12:2), you would probably have a different mindset than the world. It is possible to be an objective scientist who believes in the Word first, and that all else stems from the Truth in God's Word. Science is a mindset. Looking at science without first acknowledging God as the Creator and Author of creation would be like wearing sunglasses at night and trying to describe what you see.

The scientist must look at the problem at hand, and the evidence at hand, and set aside everything else.

A scientist may well love his wife, and that may form a huge part of his identity, but that has nothing at all to do with whether, say, space-time is discontinuous on the Planck scale.

Or do you think one's faith in God is going to inform an answer to a question of the continuity of space-time on the Planck scale?

Maybe you prefer biology. Let's say another scientist is working on the effects of a certain protein on a certain biological process. How exactly is his faith in God going to effect his work?

Another scientist is perhaps working on certain effects in the atmosphere and cloud formation. Where is faith in God going to fit in there?

But you'll say, I'm not interested in the kinds of little problems the working scientist is concerned about, I'm concerned with the big questions of creation and evolution. However to the scientist any answer to these questions comes from the piling of little question upon little question as worked out above. So if you if you aren't applying your faith in God to the little questions, you can't do it in the bit questions.

So, let's go with my first example, a topic that I've been interested in lately:

How shall faith in God effect one's take on whether space-time is discontinuous at the Planck scale?

 

[Servant222]

So, let's go with my first example, a topic that I've been interested in lately:

How shall faith in God effect one's take on whether space-time is discontinuous at the Planck scale?

O.K.- I'll bite.

The essential question is whether God quantized space-time, or whether it is continuous at the Planck scale. Of course, a related question of great interest to physicists is whether string theory supports the notion that space-time is quantized.

Now this debate, like so many others in science, is like a gnat trying to figure out how to pick up natural materials within flying distance and put them all together to produce a real live elephant. Oh sure, over the thousands of years of civilization, science has managed to put us just a little closer to explaining how the Universe functions; how God put it all together. But we've got a little ways to go yet, I suspect- to something called eternity.

So to a Christian, isn't that one of the essential reasons for studying science: to try and gain just the most infinitesimally small notion of how God put it all together. So why would you leave Him out of the equation?

 

[Mallon]

I think I'm going to have to side with ab1385 on this one.
In a Christian school, I would be all for teaching that God is the creator, but to say that such a view is supported by science is just crazy-talk. Science is agnostic. It cannot either attest to or detract from the existence of God.
Science, as current theory stands, says that the universe came into existence via the Big Bang, and that biodiversity came about via evolution. There is nothing unchristian about believing God operated via these means. After all, the Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.

For those who think God should be deconstructed to scientific first principles: How would you use science to test for God? What sort of experiments would you perform?

 

[ArnautDaniel]

O.K.- I'll bite.

The essential question is whether God quantized space-time, or whether it is continuous at the Planck scale. Of course, a related question of great interest to physicists is whether string theory supports the notion that space-time is quantized.

Now this debate, like so many others in science, is like a gnat trying to figure out how to pick up natural materials within flying distance and put them all together to produce a real live elephant. Oh sure, over the thousands of years of civilization, science has managed to put us just a little closer to explaining how the Universe functions; how God put it all together. But we've got a little ways to go yet, I suspect- to something called eternity.

So to a Christian, isn't that one of the essential reasons for studying science: to try and gain just the most infinitesimally small notion of how God put it all together. So why would you leave Him out of the equation?

That doesn't really get at the question.

The goal of science is to get at *how* the physical world around us works. Questions of *why* it works the way it does cease to be science anymore.

To take the favored ID example of the watch found on the beach. An individual is perfectly capable of determining *how* it works without ever bothering to consider questions as to *why* it exists at all, and *who* made it.

Once one has answered the *how* questions, one can laze around on a beach on a nice day pondering the *why* and *who* questions to one's hearts content. But this is no longer science, it is now philosophy.

What I am understanding about bringing God into science is that to do so means to postulate God as a solution to a *how* question. This makes God a scientific postulate and open to refutation.

Anyway, you never told me *how* proposing the existence of God makes me want to go one way or another on the question of the behavior of space-time on the Planck scale. In fact the way you introduced God was only to change the subject entirely *away* from the question of the Planck scale, to an entirely different and unrelated *philosophical* question.

 

[Servant222]

True- but only to suggest that we shouldn't be imposing too strict a limit on what can be discussed in Science classes in a Christian school.

So why, who, and how should all be open to discussion- I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I don't think that students are so naive that they can't distinguish between what is purely science (like, what the scientific method is, carrying out on experiment, taking a measurement, etc.) and what is more "philosophical" (still very real to me).

 

[Servant222]

Again, one way to look at this issue is from the point of view of a parent whose kid is an aspiring brain surgeon.

The kid comes home from biology class and says "Mommy, daddy, Mr. Stromatolite got the class into the most amazing discussion of how the workings of the mammalian brain are so intricate that they must have been designed by God."

So you ask your kid "But did you also do the rat dissection that you're supposed to do as part of the curriculum?" "Sure- and Mr. Stromatolite told us not to worry- questions related to God's role won't be on any college entrance exam."

So I'm supposed to be upset? Hardly- if anything, I'd sent a note to the principal congratulating the teacher for encouraging my kid to think and reinforcing the child's Christian beliefs.

However, at the same time, if my kid came home and said "Mommy, daddy, Mr. Stromatolite claims that evolution is bunk, and the scientists who claim that evolution explains why we are smarter than rats are all liers.", I would be upset.