Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Given that today's New Scientist had several pages on the topic, I thought I'd see what the prevailing opinions here were on the subject of Intelligent Design. Valid concept? Patently false? Insidious attack on the scientific method?

    On a related sidenote, a graph in the aforementioned magazine lists roughly 45% of surveyed Americans in November 2004 as agreeing with the statement "God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years or so." as compared to just 12% or so supporting "Humans have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, and God had no part in this process."
    The rest all supported a claim of gradual evolution, guided by God.

    So yes, Intelligent Design, is it valid, should it have a place in school science classes, or iare it's proponents using a pretence of science and deliberate misrepresentation to hide the fact it's the same creationist guff as before?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I suppose we in Britain are inclined to cultural sensitivity for minorities, so why shouldn't Americans have sensitivity for their own mainstream views.

    Very few students are swung one way or the other, very few become geneticists or biologists, no harm in giving even an equal nod to The Old Beard in the Sky. We waste so much time at school anyway...


    But is it valid? NO!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I believe the validity of intelligeent design is false. This argument is formulated by humans and as god is supposed to be incomprehensible why shouldn't his creation be? (if indeed he did create the world)

    Science can be proven and creationism is something we will never solve or prove.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    technically, in science you don't really prove anything
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kizdesai)
    technically, in science you don't really prove anything
    There's a difference though between something that can be subjected to repeatable, falsifiable tests, extensively peer reviewed, and is based on observable evidence, compared to something to something where the answer essentially boils down to "The magic man in the sky did it". You can't subject Intelligent Design to the scientific method, so by trying to pass it off as science you undermine what science is.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It's no more of a testable theory than evolution is, really. Neither of them can be falsified, so both are equally valid possibilies.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Actually, there is a great deal of evidence for evolution and there have been many tests. The most obvious is the emergence of new species. www.talkorigins.org
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    It's no more of a testable theory than evolution is, really. Neither of them can be falsified, so both are equally valid possibilies.
    "Equally valid"? Just generally speaking, I don't think you can say non-falsifiability is so black and white. There is always going to be a scale of how believable something is compared to something else, even if both are non-falsifiable. If you consider Freudian psychology for example, the idea of the unconscious is non falsifiable but widely accepted - but the concept of the Oedipus complex is not (also non falsifiable).

    Basically, just because one thing is non falsifiable and so is something else, it doesn't mean both are "equally valid possibilities".
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The theory of the unconscious or subconscious mind is found in a great many places as well as Freudianism, whereas the Oedipus complex isn't found in any other theoretical system. Karl Popper pointed out that Freudianism cannot be described as scientific because it is- literally- irrefutable. He also suggested that that may also be true of evolutionary theory. While the whole Theory of Evolution may not be falsifiable there are many parts to the theory- theories of evolution, you might say- which provide predictions which can be falsified.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Throughout my time in school (Roman Catholic school) we were taught about each kind of belief on the creation of the world. We were first preached to about the Adam and Eve creation story, but then told it was false. Then more open mindidly we were taugh about the scientific, Darwinist view. Next lesson we focused on the Design theory (Paley's watch) and later a balanced view of our evolution guided by God which seems accpeted by most in the class.

    My point is that being taught about each belief shows pros and cons of each one and then it is left to the mature student to believe what they want and to dismiss which arguments they dont like.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ferret_messiah)
    There's a difference though between something that can be subjected to repeatable, falsifiable tests, extensively peer reviewed, and is based on observable evidence, compared to something to something where the answer essentially boils down to "The magic man in the sky did it". You can't subject Intelligent Design to the scientific method, so by trying to pass it off as science you undermine what science is.
    I agree on the issue, however your last sentence is diarrhea[sp?]. How does it undermine science itself? I think the "repeatable, falsifiable tests, extensively peer reviewed, and is based on observable evidence" do give solid evidence. I will never consider them proof as amonst there own faults they also don't disprove other theories. Not that I'm saying it's possible or anyone shuld try to disprove faith, as it can't be done imo.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If kids are raised religious, chances are they're going to find it out anyway. If kids are raised by atheist genetecists, they're going to miss out a cultural tidbit that most of the population values very highly. I think it's best to keep God in RE, keep evolution in Biology, keep the Arthur C. Clarke's humanity-creating Monolith in English.

    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    The theory of the unconscious or subconscious mind is found in a great many places as well as Freudianism, whereas the Oedipus complex isn't found in any other theoretical system. Karl Popper pointed out that Freudianism cannot be described as scientific because it is- literally- irrefutable. He also suggested that that may also be true of evolutionary theory. While the whole Theory of Evolution may not be falsifiable there are many parts to the theory- theories of evolution, you might say- which provide predictions which can be falsified.
    Heh, where do people get things like that from.. good work
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ferret_messiah)
    Given that today's New Scientist had several pages on the topic, I thought I'd see what the prevailing opinions here were on the subject of Intelligent Design. Valid concept? Patently false? Insidious attack on the scientific method?
    I think it is worth pointing out that the entire New Scientist feature (5 pages plus the opening editorial) was devoted to debunking ID - at no point did they endorse it even one jot. Which is exactly as it should be, ID is total bunk.

    And that graph about th US? Terrifying. How can the world leader in science be so ignorant about our origins?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    "Equally valid"? Just generally speaking, I don't think you can say non-falsifiability is so black and white. There is always going to be a scale of how believable something is compared to something else, even if both are non-falsifiable. If you consider Freudian psychology for example, the idea of the unconscious is non falsifiable but widely accepted - but the concept of the Oedipus complex is not (also non falsifiable).

    Basically, just because one thing is non falsifiable and so is something else, it doesn't mean both are "equally valid possibilities".
    Basing validity on popular opinion is dangerous, as then one runs the risk of dogmatism.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alewhey)
    And that graph about th US? Terrifying. How can the world leader in science be so ignorant about our origins?
    When did you obtain such certainty about evolution? It's a theory, and has no more certainty than other unproven theories.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    Basing validity on popular opinion is dangerous, as then one runs the risk of dogmatism.
    I'd say it need not be dangerous if one applies enough critical thought to whatever is in consideration, although I see what you're getting at.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    When did you obtain such certainty about evolution? It's a theory, and has no more certainty than other unproven theories.
    Misuse of the word theory. Though people never read linked-to articles, I feel obliged to point you to this.
    Evolution is a fact and a theory. And no, I'm not a biologist, but in the absence of any credible competitors, and because it has survived 150 years of scientific scrutiny, I am happy to accept evolution as true. To say it has "no more certainty than other unproven theories" is true only in the sense that certainty is merely in principle impossible to establish in the natural sciences.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    I'd say it need not be dangerous if one applies enough critical thought to whatever is in consideration, although I see what you're getting at.
    While what you say is true, it appears that the responses of many here are reflexive, which should be distressing for the scientific community.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alewhey)
    Misuse of the word theory. Though people never read linked-to articles, I feel obliged to point you to this.
    Evolution is a fact and a theory. And no, I'm not a biologist, but in the absence of any credible competitors, and because it has survived 150 years of scientific scrutiny, I am happy to accept evolution as true. To say it has "no more certainty than other unproven theories" is true only in the sense that certainty is merely in principle impossible to establish in the natural sciences.
    Evolution is often treated as a fact, but that does not make such treatment warranted. Ultimately, it depends upon the individual's standard for a falsifiable theory. I base my standards of validity on considerations from the Federal Rules of Evidence for the United States, and the requirements of the Frye and Daubert rulings by the Supreme Court. I respect the legal standard for scientific validity as being more rigorous than the general and persistent acceptance of the scientific community.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by psychic_satori)
    Evolution is often treated as a fact, but that does not make such treatment warranted. Ultimately, it depends upon the individual's standard for a falsifiable theory. I base my standards of validity on considerations from the Federal Rules of Evidence for the United States, and the requirements of the Frye and Daubert rulings by the Supreme Court. I respect the legal standard for scientific validity as being more rigorous than the general and persistent acceptance of the scientific community.
    ...What?

    So you don't think there is enough evidence to accept evolution above ID? Fair enough, but I and most every biologist in the world thinks you are wrong.
 
 
 

1,021

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should universities take a stronger line on drugs?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.