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

[Mallon]

I see evolution is once again being conflated with chance, which is not the case. Chance plays a role in evolution, but that chance is filtered through selection, and thus, evolution is a selective, non-stochastic process. The way I see it, such a process excludes God no less than any other involving chance, like climate or mitosis. God set up an internally-consistent system that does not require His meddling every in inch of way, and that ultimately produced a creature that could chose to love him freely -- us. And for that, I think He deserves our praise. God need not be relegated to one-off miracles. He works providentially through His creation every day.

 

[ab1385]

^^
Agreed.

However, some people believe that God is involved in a lot more of the minuatiae of the environment that we adapt to. I don't believe there is a way we can be sure how much He does involve Himself in this, I don't think He does intervene 'supernaturally' that much, rather He set up a natural process that just works by natural processes. There seems little reason to believe that God set up a system which is not self-sustaining, but I cannot know whether I am right on this or not, and to be honest, it really doesn't bother me to what extent God is directly, supernaturally, involved.

 

[eye776]

I am quite familiar with all-white "Christian" schools which teach that people who have brown or black skin are genetically inferior;

Kind of off-topic but they are actually genetically superior to us (they have almost full represion over recessive alleles, while white people -I'm white as well- still have unstable gene pools).

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Kind of off-topic but they are actually genetically superior to us (they have almost full represion over recessive alleles, while white people -I'm white as well- still have unstable gene pools).

Yep, it takes some work to make white people.

It is of interest to look into the mandaeans, which have an elite priestly caste with much lighter skin than the rest of the population. It seems the elite breed largely among themselves, though they will marry the occasional randomly very light skin girls among the general population.

 

[dcyates]

Why? What exactly do you think science is? Science can never be used to explain or understand that which is beyond the natural, so why try and make it?

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.

I believe that God created everthing based on what the bible says, not some changing scientific theories. There is no scientific theory that is above being disproven, or at the very least, no scientific theory that is likely to never need to be changed as we better understand the evidence. Evolutionary theory will advance as we understand it more, as it already has.

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

Similarly ID will change as a theory, as it already has, since irreducible complexity has now been disproven.

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?

God should be given his due credit based on what He said He did, not on what we think explains evidence, especially since most people don't think that ID is true.

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.

Science, by it's very nature, has nothing to do with the explanation of the supernatural, so if you think we should give Him His due credit based on something which will never be able to comment on Him, then you are on shaky ground.

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.

ID has always appealed to 'God of the gaps' ideas. Would you seriously deny that ID has relied seriously in irreducible complexity, which has now been completely disproved?

Again, how has IC been "completely disproved"?

Science is the study of the natural world, and cannot study God. ID makes claims that there are things which are not explained by natural phenomena, and thus invokes an 'intelligent designer' as the only possible cause.

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.

If that were correct, then not only would it not be something useful in science, but every scientific discovery, in a supposed area we could not explain without God, makes God's apparent role in nature smaller.

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."

If it not a God of the gaps argument, which you are the first I have heard to say among many IDers...

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.

...then it implies there are no Gaps which God needs to fill in our naturalistic (and therefore exmplainable through scientific processes) explanation of the current state of the world.

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?

If the Christian viewpoint was presented as ID, then it simply would be a case of science (an exploration of the world through natural means) versus Christianity (an appeal to supernatural means). This is why I don't like ID, because Christianity is compatible with evolution as the method of origin of species. It is this idea that IDers don't like, as they are the only one's who see this clash between science and the bible.

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

You just made two contraditory statements:
1. "there's good reason to believe that we wouldn't even have science without the influence and patronage of the Christian Church"
2. "There were pleny of other civilizations that experienced a birth of science before its rise in Christian Europe"

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.

Besides which, it is untrue to say that the Christian church's stance on many scientific issues has anything to do with ID.

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.

The church has indeed embraced science sometimes, but has also violently opposed it at other times. The church has been plentifully pro- and anti- science in it's time.

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

This point you make is, however, irrelevant anyway.

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.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "in all of them science quickly proved still-born or else crystalised in relatively short order and eventually died". No science has ever simply stopped, science is a process of continuous discovery. It cannot prove 'still-born', whatever that is supposed to mean, all science is is a tool by which we make falsifiable hypotheses about the world and then try to falsify them. It is not a thing which can be still born, or can crystalize. Also, other civilizatons made scientific progress for longer than Christianity has even existed, the Egyptians and Chinese for example.

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.

You could go on and on, and you woul go on and on being wrong.

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

It is only recently that we have become more advanced as a civilization than Arabia or China. Have you read 1421? It is a book about the discovery of Chinese history, about the realization of how far ahead of us technologically the Chinese were than us in the west in 1421.

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.

It is only because we, the West, were determined on conquest that we have become the dominant force in the world. The chinese in these times had technology far above what we had at the time.

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.

This is, however, like your last point, not only only partly true, but is also irrelevant.

Yeah. Right.

And presumably by 'Darwinian evolution' you mean speciation? For which there is ample evidence?

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

It is not a philosophy, it is a scientific theory, and, in fact, the one that best explain the origin of species.

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.

I would still very much contend that you are not looking at the world 'as it is' here, until you can provide some evidence that gives the hypothesis of design has any evidence for it.

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!

 

[Ave Maria]

I think it would be a good idea if intelligent design were taught in schools.

 

[Servant222]

Great posts there dcyates and ab1385; I really am enjoying the spirited (spiritual?) debate. Both of you should offer to be guest lecturers at a science class in your neighbourhood Christian school and really give the students something to think about!

For my 300 th post, I offer the following Bible verse that I think is appropriate for what is being discussed:

Isaiah 40:28-31 NIV:

Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom. He gives strength to the weary and increases the power of the weak. Even youths grow tired and weary, and young men stumble and fall; but those who hope in the LORD will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint.

 

[IamAdopted]

I would love to see it taught in school. But until that time happens or if it happens I will teach my children at home about this. I love to take what the bring home and line it up with scripture to show the truth of What Gods word says... It has brought myself and my children so much closer to each other and for them to see God in creation and and how unique each person plant and rock are.. We had to have an awesome creator to create all of this..

 

[Mallon]

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.

The answer to this is simple: "Darwinists" (i.e., those who reject God on the basis of science), like creationists, believe the truth of the Bible rises or falls based on how scientifically accurate it is. Because the earth is clearly NOT 6,000 years old, as the Bible implies, they think that it is not to be believed in other areas about which it speaks, such as spirituality.
As Christians, how should we react to this? I would argue that the appropriate response is not to reject the theory of evolution, but to reject the idea that the Bible must be scientifically accurate in order to speak accurately of spiritual matters. There's a passage in my signature that attests to this. The Scriptures were written to settle spiritual issues, not scientific ones.

 

[elsbeth]

"Darwinists" (i.e., those who reject God on the basis of science)

WHERE did you get his definition for Darwinists? I've taught evolution, read On The Origin of Species for my Master's degree. Darwin did NOT say there is no God.

I would The Scriptures were written to settle spiritual issues, not scientific ones.

Actually I agree with you here completely.

 

[Servant222]

Can anyone comment on whether science teachers in Christian schools are required to cover, or not cover, certain topics? They obviously must cover the prescribed curriculum, but beyond that, what can they talk about?

 

[holyorders]

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".

But God did make the earth.......

 

[ab1385]

Dycates, I think the differences in opinion we have come from two ideas that we differ on.

Firstly, irreducible complexity. I admit that I was wrong to say that IC has been completely disproven, that of course, could never happen by the nature of the argument. However, every single supposedly irredicubly complex system proposed has been shown to be reducibly complex.

Secondly, I think you and I differ on our definition of Darwinian evolution. To me, evolution is called Darwinian because Darwin was the first to note that evolution is the best theory as regards origin of species. I do not call Darwinian evolution a philosophical idea because that was not what Darwin proposed. Darwinian evolution, to me, is evolution, named Darwinian because he was the first to understand the process as relates to origin of species. Why do you refer to Darwinian evolution as philosophical naturalism, when the name itself simply implies evolution as described by Darwin? And why is it that you disagree with Darwinian evolution, and yet say you agree with evolution?

Can we use terms that clarify the matter, such as variation and speciation, rather than seemingly abiguous terms such as evolution, Darwinian, macro and micro evolution, etc? Just seems easier.

Also, an apology. I sometimes get frustrated and become less civil and loving than is deserved by a fellow brother in Christ. I apologise.

Also, may as well refer to me as Alex, it looks weird to me seeing myself referred to as ab1385!

 

[Mallon]

WHERE did you get his definition for Darwinists? I've taught evolution, read On The Origin of Species for my Master's degree. Darwin did NOT say there is no God.

I'm using "Darwinist" here in the philosophical sense. Just as there's a philosophy of "Marxism," "Epicurianism" or "Makhnovism." Perhaps "evolutionism" would be a better word.
Regardless, I'm NOT talking about the science of evolutionary theory.

 

[Mallon]

Secondly, I think you and I differ on our definition of Darwinian evolution. To me, evolution is called Darwinian because Darwin was the first to note that evolution is the best theory as regards origin of species.

For what it's worth, there is a big difference between Darwinian evolution and Neodarwinian evolution, the latter of which is more accurate as it incorporates genetics.

 

[ab1385]

I kind of agree with you Mallon (in that you are correct!) but neodarwinism is just the theory of darwinism, corrected as further discoveries are made. Neodarwinism is darwinism, just corrected where we now know different.

 

[jcsforme]

of course we should teach ID in sceince classes because that'swhat happened. their is not ashred of evidence for the Big Bang!

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Now this is just silly.

Whether you agree with the big bang or disagree with, at least have the decency to acknowledge there is empirical evidence out there which can be used to support it.

Otherwise you just sound ignorant.

I mean two pieces of empirical evidence that come readily to mind are the 3 degrees Kelvin of cosmic background radiation and the observed red shifts. Might there be other explanations? Sure, but let's acknowledge that the theory of the Big Bang does predict both observations.

 

[Servant222]

Also, an apology. I sometimes get frustrated and become less civil and loving than is deserved by a fellow brother in Christ. I apologise.

DON'T APOLOGIZE; BASH HIM!!

Seriously, why are people so afraid to be meek and humble and apologize and edit?

Or is this really just a game of survival of the fittest? Those who lose adopt a new moniker and move on to the next forum.

Good on ya, ab1385; a person after my own heart.

Here is a great verse to support how we should converse with one another:

Ephesians 4:

1As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. 2Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

O.K- back to the discussion- could someone provide insights into what a science teacher at a Christian school IS allowed to talk about.

 

[teishpriest]

Can anyone comment on whether science teachers in Christian schools are required to cover, or not cover, certain topics? They obviously must cover the prescribed curriculum, but beyond that, what can they talk about?

It varies greatly between schools depending on the philosophy of the board who leads the school. Some stick very closely to a prescribed curriculum, while other allow more lattitude. Some Christian schools actually use government school textbooks instead of "christian" curriculum. Some christian schools teach evolution, some ID, some Creationism and others a combination of two or all of the above theories.

It really does depend on the philosophy of the school, and varies from school to school. So there is no clear answer to the question.