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

[ArnautDaniel]

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.

If God is formulatable as a scientific principle, then it is entirely possible for a scientist which doesn't believe in God to come to the conclusion that God exists. The evidence could conceivably lead that way.

If God is not formulatable as a scientific principle, then the existence of God is irrelevant to science.

So, no, the scientist that doesn't believe i n God is no more biased than the scientist that doesn't believe in geons.

It is a matter of where the evidence points when analyzed in a strict fashion.

 

[Servant222]

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.

But the point is, why shouldn't the subject of God's role in creating the Universe and in creating life be a topic of discussion in a science class in a Christian school?

 

[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?

Still feeling ignored...

 

[ArnautDaniel]

But the point is, why shouldn't the subject of God's role in creating the Universe and in creating life be a topic of discussion in a science class in a Christian school?

A science class should be teaching science and not wasting time with theology.

A christian school is perfectly capable of having a separate theology class to address this.

What is being said is that, while it can be taught, it can't be taught as *science*.

 

[Servant222]

Talked with one Christian friend today and told him about this discussion- he was flabbergasted. He has several kids in Christian schools and he not only wants, he EXPECTS God to be an integral part of EVERY class.

 

[Servant222]

"What is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?'' Heb 2:5¤

 

[ab1385]

Servant222, have you watched any of that video I posted?

 

[dcyates]

Well as you are teaching a science class, I'd assume you would teach *science* which is to say theories representing various views within the scientific commune as identified through the peer-review process.

Throwing in creationism about like a world history teacher saying: "Oh, by the way some people think space aliens built the pyramids".

I'm sorry but this is a nonsensical equivocation. Do you honestly believe that declaring God created the cosmos is on par with claiming aliens built the pyramids? C'mon!

Of course it should be perfectly acceptable to teach intelligent design in a Christian school. If any theory of origins cannot claim to be scientific, it's Darwinian evolution. One simply cannot observe the intricate and minute functioning of any living organism and from that declare, "There is no God." That's not science!

 

[dcyates]

A science class should be teaching science and not wasting time with theology.

A christian school is perfectly capable of having a separate theology class to address this.

What is being said is that, while it can be taught, it can't be taught as *science*.

I don't think you understand what ID teaches, at all. ID is not theology. It doesn't claim to be theology. It makes no attempt at formulating any theological statements. It's simply an inference to the best explanation: The incredible complexity displayed in both the macro- and micro-universe leads us to posit that, more likely than not, an intelligence lies behind it.

Given the science as we understand it now, that makes far more sense than engaging in all the mental gymnastics necessary in order to take that intelligence out of the equation.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

I don't think you understand what ID teaches, at all. ID is not theology. It doesn't claim to be theology. It makes no attempt at formulating any theological statements. It's simply an inference to the best explanation: The incredible complexity displayed in both the macro- and micro-universe leads us to posit that, more likely than not, an intelligence lies behind it.

Given the science as we understand it now, that makes far more sense than engaging in all the mental gymnastics necessary in order to take that intelligence out of the equation.

On the contrary, I understand ID better than most of its advocates.

There was a time when I was looking into algorithmic complexity theory and information theory, and ID interested me as an attempt to apply similar principles of analysis to physical systems.

In as much as it is a science it is germinal at best. Any grandiose conclusions about a creator are years and years down the road and wholly unjustified at present.

It might be interesting mathematics, and it might illuminate some aspects of biology, but it isn't a science of creation.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

I'm sorry but this is a nonsensical equivocation. Do you honestly believe that declaring God created the cosmos is on par with claiming aliens built the pyramids? C'mon!

Of course it should be perfectly acceptable to teach intelligent design in a Christian school. If any theory of origins cannot claim to be scientific, it's Darwinian evolution. One simply cannot observe the intricate and minute functioning of any living organism and from that declare, "There is no God." That's not science!

This is a statement about methodology.

No reasonable and acceptable historical methodology with the evidence to date yields that space aliens built the pyramids.

Similarly no reasonable and acceptable scientific taken with current evidence yields a proof of a creator.

 

[Servant222]

Servant222, have you watched any of that video I posted?

I feel really bad saying this- but no; I just haven't had an hour to spare. But now that you've reminded me, I shall try tonight.

I apologize.

 

[Servant222]

There was a time when I was looking into algorithmic complexity theory and information theory, and ID interested me as an attempt to apply similar principles of analysis to physical systems.

But couldn't one demonstrate on the basis of mathematical probabilities that God exists? That happens all the time in science and engineering, does it not? Even lawyers use that approach- "on the balance of probabilities, your Honor, I submit that my client, God, MUST have created the Universe."

In as much as it is a science it is germinal at best. Any grandiose conclusions about a creator are years and years down the road and wholly unjustified at present.

WHAT- you're implying that this IS a solvable problem. So when will we have the answer???

But more to the point, why can't I talk about these two possibilities (probability and future science) NOW, in a Science classroom?? What have the students got to lose except their belief that it was all a big accident?

 

[mooduck1]

So you're saying that if I'm a teacher in a senior geology class, for example, talking about the origin of the Earth and the Universe, I should not be allowed to say that an alternate belief to the Big Bang theory proposed by astrophysicists is that God created it?

Sorry, I couldn't do that- I take as many opportunities as I can to tell others about God.

you could say it was an alternative belief. I'd be a belief most on this forum would agree with too! You just couldn't sell it as a form of science! Science is the study of the universe. God is outside this or any universe and therefore not appliable to the scientific method.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

But couldn't one demonstrate on the basis of mathematical probabilities that God exists? That happens all the time in science and engineering, does it not? Even lawyers use that approach- "on the balance of probabilities, your Honor, I submit that my client, God, MUST have created the Universe."

WHAT- you're implying that this IS a solvable problem. So when will we have the answer???

But more to the point, why can't I talk about these two possibilities (probability and future science) NOW, in a Science classroom?? What have the students got to lose except their belief that it was all a big accident?

I'm all for attempts at scientific demonstrations of the existence of God. Why don't you try one.

The point of science is to describe the physical world. If that means demonstrating the existence of God, fine. If it doesn't fine. But the point of science is that it should rest in empirical data and its consequences.

If you want to try to argue *from* physical evidence to the existence of God, as above, fine, let's see it and we'll see how persuasive it is.

But let's let the evidence speak for itself, let's not bias the evidence by saying (without any scientific basis) "gee the universe is so beautiful, there must be a God." I mean, what constitutes "beauty"? That is an entirely subjective and unscientific concept.

An argument from complexity might go and it might not.

But let's recall history. There have been many "proofs" of the existence of God based on the current questions of science. Various "God of the gaps" arguments.

Of course they fall apart as soon as science learns something new.

 

[dcyates]

Talked with one Christian friend today and told him about this discussion- he was flabbergasted. He has several kids in Christian schools and he not only wants, he EXPECTS God to be an integral part of EVERY class.

Frankly, I'm flabbergasted, too. After all God has done for us, why on Earth should we deny him in any area of life, much less science? Sheesh, name any scientific discipline. If it wasn't started by a Christian you can be virtually assured that believing Christians made significant, even vital, contributions to it. In addition, many of them were also teachers.

The recognized father of modern genetics is the Augustinian monk, Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), the first person to trace the characteristics of successive generations of a living thing, and who taught natural science to high school students. (Gee, I wonder if he purposefully elided God from his teachings in the classroom?).

Or there's astronomy and Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543), who was canon of Frauenburg Cathedral and who lectured in astronomy and mathematics in Rome for a while. (I wondered if he thought it inappropriate to mention God in his lecture hall.)

Or physics and Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), who was deeply devout, held the Bible to be the authoritative word of God, and who wrote more on theology than he did physics and/or mathematics. And who was also Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University.

Suffice to say, we could go on and on. Galileo, the father of mechanical dynamics, held a lectureship at the University of Pisa, and was not only a devout Catholic to the day of his death, but also donated income derived from the patents he held to support the nunnery in which his daughters served as nuns.

Johannes Kepler, one of the most important scientists in the field of astronomy, was the founder of "celestial mechanics," having been the first to explain planetary motion.
In addition to his theories on the structure of the Universe, Kepler made important headway into the field of optics, his publication Stereometrica Doliorum formed the basis of integral calculus, and he also made important advances in geometry.
In addition to these major breakthroughs, Kepler also explained how the tides were influenced by the Moon, determined the exact year of Christ's birth, derived Logarithms based on mathematics (with no reference to John Napier's work), and is responsible for finding the three laws of planetary motion.
Kepler's first Law: The orbit of a planet about the Sun is an ellipse with the Sun's center of mass at one focus.
Kepler's second Law: A line joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas in equal intervals of time.
Kepler's third Law: The squares of the periods of the planets are proportional to the cubes of their semi-major axes.
You may also be surprised to learn that Kepler was a very religious man, who found a way to credit God for each and every discovery he would make, not to mention his own life and career paths. Kepler had originally planned on becoming a priest, but was drawn into the world of science. (Just as an aside: Kepler was of the Lutheran faith, which caused him many problems throughout his life, since Germany was part of the Holy Roman Empire until its dissolution in 1806. Always being subjected to persecution by Catholic leaders, Kepler had to relocate several times due to pressure from the Catholic Church, yet he would not convert. Also, mathematicians were not in great demand at the time, and Kepler did not have very much money to support his family. He lived in poverty, and died in poverty, but one thing is for certain, he was very prolific, and his work did not die with him.)
Like so many geniuses before and after him, Kepler had never known fame or fortune, but without his perseverance and strength of character, not to mention his many important discoveries, who knows how long it would have taken for us to even begin understanding the true structure of the universe.

Heck, the recognized founder of the scientific method was Franciscan monk, Roger Bacon (1214-1294), who was greatly encouraged by his Franciscan superiors Robert Grosseteste and Adam Marsh, each of whom were fellow professors at Oxford along with Bacon.

So given all that, why should Christians shy from mentioning God in a science class again?

 

[dcyates]

This is a statement about methodology.

No reasonable and acceptable historical methodology with the evidence to date yields that space aliens built the pyramids.

Similarly no reasonable and acceptable scientific taken with current evidence yields a proof of a creator.

Those who advocate for ID don't claim that the current evidence PROVES there's a creator (much less that that creator is the God of the Holy Bible). As I already said, it's an 'inference to the best explanation'--as in, an inference to a better explanation than that provided by Darwinian evolution with its presuppositions of philosophical materialism.

 

[ab1385]

dycates, I think there is something of a misunderstanding here.

No-one is saying that it is wrong to give glory to God, at all. What people are saying is that it is wrong to use science, and most specifically gaps in our scientific knowledge, to try to provide evidence for the existence of God.

There is no philosophy behind evolution, it just happened. Because you don't like what you see as the philosophical implications does not mean that it didn't happen. However you believe that God controlled evolution or otherwise, it happened.

Why should God only receive glory for His supernatural creations? Why do you feel that if evolution is true, it somehow makes Him less worthy of glorification? Mendel, Newton, and Galileo explored the scientific world as it was (and still is), and didn't look for supernatural explanations such as ID. They gave glory to God for the natural world, like we should for the evolutionary process He used to bring us here.

EDIT: Someone watch the video... please... just to make me happy

 

[teishpriest]

Why should God only receive glory for His supernatural creations? Why do you feel that if evolution is true, it somehow makes Him less worthy of glorification?

I guess because according to the Scriptures, God created everything, so if evolution is what really happened, it means that God deceived us. If that's true, well, let's just say that THAT would really shake my faith, LOL! Seriously, I have a REALLY hard time believing the Big Bang theory. I'm no scientist, but it honestly doesn't seem like very sound science.

I've only been following this thread as time allows with two little ones to chase, so I'm not sure what video you mentioned, sorry.

 

[ab1385]

Yeah, but since God is revealed to us by the natural world, if evolution isn't true then that says to me that God is deceiving us through nature...

The video was this one:

Linky to vid on YouTube

The point of it is that it is a really good talk on why ID is unscientific, from a guy who really knows what he is talking about. He is a Christian, and is also a scientist who was one of the main witnesses in the ID argument in the courts.

It's well worth watching with an open mind. It IS a long video, but it much easier to watch this than trawl through pages of text, the guy is quite an eloquent speaker. I just personally found it very useful, and so I thought that other people should watch it if they wanted to find out about ID. He does talk quite a bit about the politics of ID and how the idea came about for about 20 minutes before discussing much of the science, but the politics and basis of ID is very interesting.