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

[teishpriest]

Science is agnostic? OUCH! God does not have to work within the physical laws of the universe, He's the one who WROTE them, LOL! The Bible tells us that the heavens declare the glory of the LORD. Of course creation reflects the Creator. The pursuit of any knowledge must begin and will end with God.

BTW, the physics posts are starting to make my head hurt, LOL! I knew I should have taken physics instead of chemistry!

 

[ArnautDaniel]

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.

On the other hand suppose the child in question is an aspiring research into neuroscience and the workings of the brain.

If the student is told, "the brain works that way because God made it that way" that is the end of the question. There is no reason to look any further, since God, by definition, acts at a level beyond natural law. If God made the brain that way, then there is no reason to do research into how such a structure might arise from deeper principles.

On the other hand, if the student is trained to see the structure of the brain as the outcome of deeper physical principles, then the future researcher will look into identifying those deeper principles from which the structure arises.

The postulate of God in fact is a wall to deeper inquiry, and prevents the progress of science.

 

[Mallon]

Science is agnostic? OUCH!

Yes. What's the matter with that? Science does not require that its practicioners be Christian in order to make it work.
Do you think the guy that created the microprocessor in your computer was necessarily Christian? Or do you think he could have done it without sending up a prayer and seven hail-marys?

God does not have to work within the physical laws of the universe, He's the one who WROTE them, LOL!

Indeed. And yet we see God working within the physical limits of the universe everyday! You don't need to remind me that God works with miracles, though I often find myself reminding YECs that He also acts providentially via the natural system He set up.
I'm not denying that miracles can and do happen. But when someone claims that a particular miracle had a particular physical effect on the earth (as in the case of Noah's Flood), then we should be able to examine the earth for ourselves for that effect. If we come away noting that no physical consequences were found, then it is very likely that the miracle did not occur. Recent news aside, the positive finding of Christ's body would completely negate his bodily resurrection.

The Bible tells us that the heavens declare the glory of the LORD. Of course creation reflects the Creator.

And it just so happens that the heavens and the earth mutually attest the old age of the universe. So why not use this scientific finding to help inform our understanding of God, as you suggest?

 

[teishpriest]

Might I recommend the book "Starlight and Time" by Dr. D. Russell Humphrey. It is an excellent book for both the scholar and layman. It is a great explaination of how the universe really isn't as old as some believe that it appears. If you look up the Answers in Genesis website they have a number of terrific scientific books on apologetics.

The point that I was trying to make when I said that God wrote the physical laws, was that by definition, He created science, therefore, it could not possibly be agnostic.

Of course not all scientists are Christians. That IS one reason why there are so many scientific projects (like cloning) that are not what God would have us doing. However, some of the greatest scientists in history were Christians who realized that God is at the very center of scientific study.

I find it impossible to remove God from ANY area of life, be it science, politics, or relationships.

 

[ReformedChapin]

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.

Id doesn't prove God, it proves in intelligent uncaused cause. Although any rational being would have to conclude it is God, but that has more theological implications. And it can be falsified, showing some other structure in which the universe can come toghether.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Id doesn't prove God, it proves in intelligent uncaused cause. Although any rational being would have to conclude it is God, but that has more theological implications. And it can be falsified, showing some other structure in which the universe can come toghether.

Actually, ID doesn't prove anything of the sort, since it relies on an ill-founded argument from complexity to design.

 

[Mallon]

Might I recommend the book "Starlight and Time" by Dr. D. Russell Humphrey.

Will do. Might I also point out that his science has been debunked by other physicists (and creationists) and recommend you read this (and the links therein);
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/distance.html#humphreys
I might be even more inclined to read the book if you could convince me that these counter-arguments are fruitless and reading the book won't be a waste of my time.

I find it impossible to remove God from ANY area of life, be it science, politics, or relationships.

I'm not suggesting that you do. I am a scientist, myself, and ascribe all glory to God. But pigeonholing God into the scientific methology is not only poor science, it is dangerous theology. You are free to believe that God is behind it all, but to pretend that such a belief is scientific is just foolish. God is a spirit, and science does not deal with the supernatural realm. You will never find a bike repair instruction manual that tells you to pray that God miraculously put your bike back together.

(And for what it's worth, the separation of church and state is a biblical concept. The role of the church is detailed in Matthew 28:19-20; the role of the government (state) is detailed in Romans 13:1-7. Notice their roles are different.)

 

[Servant222]

In my work, I occasionally need to go out with archeologists to assess whether trees in a proposed logging cutblock have been- as they call it- "culturally modified" by ancient First Nations people. Usually, the archeologist will also look around for other signs of First Nations' presence- possible stone tools, for example.

Now in many cases, I am always amazed at how very scant evidence is interpreted to suggest the presence of ancient intelligent people.

Now some culturally modified trees (CMT's) are no-brainers- if they have been carved to make a half-completed dugout canoe, then it is pretty obvious that they are human-made.

But usually, the evidence of human habitation is pretty skimpy, and the interpretations pretty sketchy- but that doesn't stop the scientists from discussing and speculating on the possibility of intelligent presence.

So if this is the case, why can't the much more overwhelming evidence of an intelligent universe or life maker be discussed in a science class in a Christian school?

 

[ArnautDaniel]

But usually, the evidence of human habitation is pretty skimpy, and the interpretations pretty sketchy- but that doesn't stop the scientists from discussing and speculating on the possibility of intelligent presence.

I'd probably balk at most of the non-obvious cases.

Look, as you may have noticed, I'm basically math-logic type guy. To me science is hard science and it all comes down to how the ideas get expressed in a rigorous form (i.e. in some sort of mathematical or logical structure). When you are going to bring God into a theory, that is tantamount to saying:

Okay, at this point something happens for no reason whatsoever, it just happens and no amount of mathematics or logic can explain it.

That is to say that the invocation of God represents an *end* to reasoning. A boundary beyond which one can reason no further.

So when you bring in God that is tantamount to putting science in a box with boundaries at which it ceases to apply since that is where God can start to do arbitrary things without any need for rhyme, reason, or consistency.

 

[lopez23]

In another thread, the question was asked "Should Intelligent Design be Taught in Public Schools?"

I would like to ask the same question with regard to Science classes in Christian schools. I would also like to assume a broader definition of "Intelligent Design" to include any discussion of God's hand in creation in a science class.

So, to reiterate, here is the question:

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

ID is not science.

It should not be taught in sceince class. There is no evidence supporting it. None at all.

I have no problem if creationism or ID is taught in history class though. As long as its taught along with every other society and cultures views on how everything came into existence.

 

[intricatic]

On the other hand suppose the child in question is an aspiring research into neuroscience and the workings of the brain.

If the student is told, "the brain works that way because God made it that way" that is the end of the question. There is no reason to look any further, since God, by definition, acts at a level beyond natural law. If God made the brain that way, then there is no reason to do research into how such a structure might arise from deeper principles.

On the other hand, if the student is trained to see the structure of the brain as the outcome of deeper physical principles, then the future researcher will look into identifying those deeper principles from which the structure arises.

The postulate of God in fact is a wall to deeper inquiry, and prevents the progress of science.

If that's true, then why did I love science when I was younger? For that matter, why am I studying computer science right now? The answer was always "God made it this way" - but the idea was to learn about the world that God had made. It never seemed to be too complicated to me.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

If that's true, then why did I love science when I was younger? For that matter, why am I studying computer science right now? The answer was always "God made it this way" - but the idea was to learn about the world that God had made. It never seemed to be too complicated to me.

C'mon, computer science is engineering.

I am addressing scientific questions getting at first principles of nature.

Questions of God are never going to effect how you think about structuring a computer. They are going to effect how you are going to setup your theory of how the genome works (since creationism supposes "types" which will be evident in the genome), or how cosmology works (since creationism makes claims as to how the universe came to be).

 

[intricatic]

C'mon, computer science is engineering.

I am addressing scientific questions getting at first principles of nature.

Questions of God are never going to effect how you think about structuring a computer. They are going to effect how you are going to setup your theory of how the genome works (since creationism supposes "types" which will be evident in the genome), or how cosmology works (since creationism makes claims as to how the universe came to be).

It's not going to stop an interest in that, either. Maybe from a dogmatic perspective, but I don't like those when it comes to creation. I guess I must be an anomaly in that regards.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

It's not going to stop an interest in that, either. Maybe from a dogmatic perspective, but I don't like those when it comes to creation. I guess I must be an anomaly in that regards.

So you think a person that adheres, say, to a young earth creationist dogmatic model is going to be able to take an honest look at cosmological data without their belief in God effecting how they look at things?

 

[intricatic]

So you think a person that adheres, say, to a young earth creationist dogmatic model is going to be able to take an honest look at cosmological data without their belief in God effecting how they look at things?

I think dogmas in general regarding something so difficult to discern as the point of creation are only beneficial insomuch as they help to clarify the ordering of the natural world as we see it today. I rely on a reading of the Bible to be strictly literal in interpretation as any other form yields an inconsistent theology, but I don't think science works the same way.

 

[ab1385]

I would strongly suggest watching this link, if anyone here feels that intelligent design is in fact a scientifically plausible and intelectually honest POV.

It is long, the actual takl is a little over an hour, but is very interesting, and goes into the politics of ID as well as a discussion of the science of ID.

Linky to vid on YouTube

One thing I find is that whenever I post something like this it is largely ignored. If anyone here is an IDer, and has watched this, can you post to say that you did, and what you thought?

 

[Servant222]

So you think a person that adheres, say, to a young earth creationist dogmatic model is going to be able to take an honest look at cosmological data without their belief in God effecting how they look at things?

But might a scientist who doesn't believe in God also present a biased view?

In either case, dogma is never good in a science classroom- Christian or secular- all points of view should be politely and rationally discussed, and all the evidence considered.

Some of discussions here on Christian Forums on matters like evolution and young earth are like that- posters on both sides of an issue bring up all sorts of factual information to make their case. I find I learn a lot when the discussion is polite and not dogmatic.

 

[Servant222]

Well, not quite- the dogma can be quite entertaining actually.

 

[markbelieves]

If evolution is being taught that it is just random mutations that have created all of the species then I fail to see how you can hold this belief and that there is a God that created us as his own.

Now if you believe in evolution, but that it occurred within Gods plan this would be different. It would also indicate intelligent design.

So I guess my question is, if you are a Christian and believe in the random mutations, how do you reconcile that with a God that created us in his image?

 

[jsimms615]

In my opinion, creation as recorded in scripture is an issue of faith and not science. I believe God created the World the way the Bible says because I believe in God and the Bible that professes Him. It is not an issue of scientific research or discovery.