What would ID et all add to Science classrooms?

[fromdownunder]

This is actually intended as a serious question.

Exactly what would Creationism, ID, or even Saltation teach in a science classroom?

1. God did it.
2. Some unknown creator who was intelligent did it.
3. Aliens did it.

What could you even teach in a science environment, after making these basic statements, except what is taught now, and adding (1,2, or 3) in front of each sentence?

Norm

 

[MrGoodBytes]

If they were allowed to teach that, guess how long it will take until they say "My god did it, and he wants you to do the following..."

It's the famous wegde tactic.

 

[random_guy]

Nothing. ID is nothing but criticisms of evolution. It's just one of the many problems concerning ID.

 

[Pats]

Science and religion are two seperate things, and it is best to keep church and government seperate.

Too literal a reading of scripture equals creationism.

Too literal a reading of science equals atheism.

Spirituality should be left for home.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Too literal a reading of science equals atheism.

Show me how.

 

[Pats]

Show me how.

First of all, I hope it’s clear that I mean no offense in saying this.

I haven’t had much sleep, so if I’m not making sense, just let me know and I’ll come back and try to re explain my thoughts tomorrow.

My thoughts are that when a person who understands the theory of evolution and uses it as their basis for, “Life happens of its own accord and there is no god,” that is too literal a reading of nature.

If a person comes to that conclusion some other way, than evolution has nothing to do with it.

In my experience, I have thought that some people cling too closely to the need for concrete evidence to support their hypothesis about life and the universe. People who do that make good scientists… but can they write a good philosophy?

Anyway, if you want to continue this, we’re off topic and should probably take it else where.

 

[moogoob]

*snip*My thoughts are that when a person who understands the theory of evolution and uses it as their basis for, “Life happens of its own accord and there is no god,” that is too literal a reading of nature.

If a person comes to that conclusion some other way, than evolution has nothing to do with it.

In my experience, I have thought that some people cling too closely to the need for concrete evidence to support their hypothesis about life and the universe. People who do that make good scientists… but can they write a good philosophy?

Anyway, if you want to continue this, we’re off topic and should probably take it else where.

Very interesting concept. It's a very modern way of thinking about this. If everything is relative, then if it's possible to read too much into scripture then it's also possible to read too much into science.

This fits with my own theories RE: origins. Both pure random abiogenesis and the Big Bang don't completely sit right with me... I'm not arguing that they don't fit the evidence, which they do, I'm just saying there must be a bit more to both of them. A reason, if you will.

/just me blathering on

 

[MrGoodBytes]

My thoughts are that when a person who understands the theory of evolution and uses it as their basis for, “Life happens of its own accord and there is no god,” that is too literal a reading of nature.

But that has nothing to do with evolution. That person could probably read a microwave manual and come to the conclusion that there is no god. Evolution does not say anything about God, neither positive nor negative.

 

[michabo]

At first, I think they would just try to teach that organisms are complex, and possibly designed. They may try to teach that the universe itself looks designed.

As for who this designer could be, I'm sure they'll teach that it could be anything. Well, anything with the capability to design a universe. But I'm sure they'll stress that this doesn't make the designer a god or anything.

 

[Pats]

But that has nothing to do with evolution. That person could probably read a microwave manual and come to the conclusion that there is no god. Evolution does not say anything about God, neither positive nor negative.

That's why I qualified my statement by acknowledging that I am speaking about people who use science, and evolution, to read nature in this literal way. I also acknowledged that for some atheists, I am sure, science, or evolution, have nothing to do with it.

I agree that neither science nor evolution say anything at all about God. However, some people use the same process as science to determine that there is no imperical evidance of God and therefore no God. Even when they know that science itself shouldn't have anything to do with religion, and is not a tool with wich to measure the existance of God.

Some people would read natural science to be saying, life forms independantly with no deeper purpose or meaning. I did not say "evolution" says these things. I said that people do.

I am not arguing that evolution equals atheism at all.

 

[Pats]

At first, I think they would just try to teach that organisms are complex, and possibly designed. They may try to teach that the universe itself looks designed.

As for who this designer could be, I'm sure they'll teach that it could be anything. Well, anything with the capability to design a universe. But I'm sure they'll stress that this doesn't make the designer a god or anything.

This is exactly part of what I don't like about ID. Besides the fact that it seems to be based on taking apart another theory rather than standing on its own, to the best of my understanding of it.

 

[Skaloop]

I'm not arguing that they don't fit the evidence, which they do, I'm just saying there must be a bit more to both of them. A reason, if you will.

Why must there be a reason?

 

[Kahalachan]

This is actually intended as a serious question.

Exactly what would Creationism, ID, or even Saltation teach in a science classroom?

1. God did it.
2. Some unknown creator who was intelligent did it.
3. Aliens did it.

What could you even teach in a science environment, after making these basic statements, except what is taught now, and adding (1,2, or 3) in front of each sentence?

Norm

ID would add nothing to a science classroom since it is not scientific at all.

ID belongs in philosophy.

 

[dlamberth]

I shamelessly copied the following from Sam Seder and Stephen Sherrill's must read book F*U*B*A*R". When I came across the following I had a good laugh because I felt that it answered the OP with the perfect example of what would be taught in class with ID added to the science room curriculum.

In 1687, Sir Isaac Newton published His Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which contained his three laws of motion. Not only was Newton writing in a language nobody could understand, he didn’t yet have the benefit of knowing about the exciting new breakthroughs in intelligent design, which would occur three hundred years after it’s publication. Since he would probably be embarrassed about his “laws of motion” in light of these new findings, we’ve taken the liberty of updating them, in accordance with the scientific laws of intelligent design. (ID-related updates are shown in italics.)

I. Newton’s Law of Inertia:
Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it by something, or someone, since only an intelligent agent of some kind (not necessarily God, but not necessarily not God) could recognize that this object was in motion and decide to “apply” an external force.

II. Newtons Law of Dyunamics: f=ma$%^&*iangbmg
Which means: the acceleration (a) of an object is directionally proportional to the net force (f) exerted and inversely proportional to the object’s mass (m) is derived from () the wishes of the intelligent agent – not God buy maybe God (iangbmg).

III. Newton’s Law of Reciprocal Actions:
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, unless an intelligent agent who may or may not answer to the name of “God” wishes it to be only some actions or not quite equal reactions, or, really anything else, in which case, it is those things, because he’s the designer, and if you don’t like it design your own (edited removal of expletive ) universe.

.

 

[moogoob]

Why must there be a reason?

I don't know. Just a gut feeling. I know it's not scientific, but I''m not trying to sway others to my point of view, so I don't need an argument.

 

[lemon_drop]

This is actually intended as a serious question.

Exactly what would Creationism, ID, or even Saltation teach in a science classroom?

1. God did it.
2. Some unknown creator who was intelligent did it.
3. Aliens did it.

What could you even teach in a science environment, after making these basic statements, except what is taught now, and adding (1,2, or 3) in front of each sentence?

Norm

I teach at the high school level (although not science). You'd be amazed at how many teens think that science automatically equals atheism. Nothing could be further from the truth. The question is, why do many teens believe this? I believe that the problem comes from both theists and atheists. There are believers in various deities who are not educated enough about science to know that it's purpose is not to prove that there is no deity. On the other hand, there are atheists who feel they have the market cornered on science. A teacher skilled in lesson planning and the delivery of lessons should be able to teach objectively. Teacher training programs show us that we should include all and exclude none. If a student leaves a science teacher's class feeling like their views (whether for or against God)were attacked, I would say that that teacher needs to improve his/her delivery.

 

[JohnR7]

Nothing.

Actually, if you added "nothing" to something, you would be adding quite a bit. We know that nothing is bigger then the known universe.

People all over the world are talking about nothing. It doesn't matter what language you speak or even if you can't speak. Nothing's the same everywhere you go. Almost the entire universe is made up of nothing. Philosophers think and talk about nothing until they die. http://www.nothing.net/

I for one would be all for teaching about nothing. But first we have to define just exactly what nothing is, so we can teach it.

 

[random_guy]

Actually, if you added "nothing" to something, you would be adding quite a bit. We know that nothing is bigger then the known universe.

People all over the world are talking about nothing. It doesn't matter what language you speak or even if you can't speak. Nothing's the same everywhere you go. Almost the entire universe is made up of nothing. Philosophers think and talk about nothing until they die. http://www.nothing.net/

I for one would be all for teaching about nothing. But first we have to define just exactly what nothing is, so we can teach it.

Nothing is special. The poor have it, and the rich want it. We fear it greater than death and we love it more than life. It is greater than God, and yet, it is more powerless than a heat death universe.

 

[JohnR7]

Nothing is special. The poor have it, and the rich want it.

Sounds like a paradox to me, or perhaps a riddle

 

[random_guy]

Sounds like a paradox to me, or perhaps a riddle

I only remember that line from a video game.