ID vs Darwinism.

[DKW 86 7,439]

I have stated that in the past that ID was myu way of thinking. I will now defer to the good Father and differentiate the three ideas: Science, Darwinism, ID. THe last two ARE NOT SCIENCE AT ALL.

Intelligent Design: Not Modern Science

by Father Jonathan Morris for FOX Fan Central

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 — You religious folk may want to send me to the dog house after reading what I have to say today.

I’ve been thinking about the Kitzmiller vs. Dover School District case in Pennsylvania which touched off a blistering debate on the appropriateness of intelligent design theory (ID) in a public science curriculum. The case is over, but it’s not done with. You can bet that we’ll be seeing this or a similar case in the Supreme Court sometime soon. That’s why I want to get ahead of the news and look at it with you today. You may remember that the press presented the case as a duel between two conflicting visions of reality: liberal secularists vs. religious conservatives. A chance for a perfect headline: “Judge Sends Christians Packing.”

But they missed the point, and this guy in a collar who you’re reading is the proof of their folly. How’s that? Because regardless of Judge John Jones’ inadequate rationale as expressed in his judicial decision, I actually agree with him that ID should not be taught as modern science.

Before you throw the Good Book at me, let’s agree on what we mean by modern science and what we mean by intelligent design. Unlike thinkers of ages past, who intertwined gracefully some elements of philosophy with the natural sciences, today we prefer — for reasons of method — to separate one from the other. In these categories, the competence of modern science accepts only what we can observe and measure (empirical evidence). Questions like, “What’s the essence of it?” and “What’s it for?” are sent down the hall to the philosophy department. And that’s fair.

Intelligent design theory asks just that type of “down the hall” question. Its proponents claim that a good scientist can’t look at the complexity of the human eye without asking himself, “How did that happen?,” and responding with the answer, “I don’t know, but I do know that it didn’t just happen; there must be intelligence behind that design.” The affirmation is quite logical, but the evidence would be philosophical, not empirical, and for that reason it belongs down the hall.

You would think this reasonable principle would be valid for everyone. Not so. Judge Jones wrote that ID was “a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory.” An alternative to what? Ask your children or grandchildren what they are taught in their public school about the origin of human beings. They may say “evolution,” but it’s more than that. They are being taught a very unscientific theory called Neo-Darwinism, the belief that there is NO purpose or intelligence behind life forms, that it’s all random. Where’s the empirical evidence for that? As a matter of fact, it’s impossible to prove, either scientifically or otherwise. It too should go down the hall.

"Father, are you saying that evolution is not true?" Nope. I’m saying that mainstream, atheistic, Neo-Darwinism is bad science because it isn’t science. No reasonable person denies that life forms can evolve, but it’s quite different to say that through purely random natural selection one species evolves into another to the point of reaching human intelligence.

What do I think? I think that we should send Judge Jones down the hall. Time for Philosophy 101. He should have written this: ID is “a philosophical alternative being marketed for creationist religious reasons as a scientific theory.” Sure, he wanted to sock it to the creationists for trying to get their product sold under a different brand name. He completely misses the point, nevertheless, when he labels ID as religious and not philosophical. It’s philosophy just like Neo-Darwinism is. So pick and choose, or teach both. Of course philosophical theories have their place in education. They’re all over the place! Hint: any time you see an “ism” there’s a philosophy behind it. Marxism, feminism, elitism, environmentalism, vegetarianism, atheism… I could go on, but I don’t want to give an exhaustive description of the entire Harvard faculty. Or maybe what’s okay for them isn’t okay for the rest of America.

I don’t want to end without clarifying that I do believe in intelligent design when it’s taught in the right place and in the right way. In fact, teaching it to our children as a philosophical (not just religious) theory is a sign of common sense and open-mindedness. Isn’t the whole of reality a little bigger than science? The problem is that in most public schools the “philosophy department down the hall” doesn’t really exist.

Given the state of things, maybe that’s all right. After all, who do you want to teach your kids about something as important as their origin and purpose? That’s your job. Thanks for allowing me to help.

[TrueBlue72 0]

That is really the first sensible article I've seen on this subject. I can't find anything to argue with in the author's assessment.

[LegalEagle 22]

What is absolutely wrong is that evolution is being taught as scientific fact and not as a scientific theory that may be found later to be true or false.

Kids with a religious upbringing see these authority figures (teachers) expousing evolution, they then question their parent's authority, their religion and their basis of understanding of their existence.

ID should be taught in parallel with evolution and both be taught as theories. The evidence supporting the theories should be taught as well as the missing evidence necessary to conclude that either is fact. It should also be considered whether a synthesis of the two theories could be possible, i. e. ID for creation and some evolutional changes since then.

Teaching evolution as a fact is absolutely horrible and is harmful to our children.

[Tigermike 3,047]

What is absolutely wrong is that evolution is being taught as scientific fact and not as a scientific theory that may be found later to be true or false.

Kids with a religious upbringing see these authority figures (teachers) expousing evolution, they then question their parent's authority, their religion and their basis of understanding of their existence.

ID should be taught in parallel with evolution and both be taught as theories.  The evidence supporting the theories should be taught as well as the missing evidence necessary to conclude that either is fact.  It should also be considered whether a synthesis of the two theories could be possible, i. e. ID for creation and some evolutional changes since then.

Teaching evolution as a fact is absolutely horrible and is harmful to our children.

220380[/snapback]

If you keep making posts like that, you will put yourself in peril of loosing both your ACLU and DNC cards.

[WarTim 3,457]

My opinion is that I expected my kids to learn the basics in public school.(The three "R's")

It is the job of my lovelly Bride and me to teach them about their Heavenly Father.

THAT is a job that HE gave US to accomplish.

Sad to say but public education, as it has been destroyed by the liberals, is not capable of teaching much at all these days. Time to turn it over to the private sector. They can do it much better for far less $$.

Just my 2 cents.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Sadly, just more of the same. First, the good Father makes the mistake of misidentifying ID as a theory. It isn't. It's barely a supposition.

Scientific Theory: A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

No reasonable person denies that life forms can evolve, but it’s quite different to say that through purely random natural selection one species evolves into another to the point of reaching human intelligence.

Wow. Where to begin w/ that one. Evolution involves many things, and what many people mistakenly think is that everything leads to the ultimate goal of human intelligence. That mankind is the apex of evolution is a blindly humanistic viewpoint. Through hundreds of millions of years of evolution , mankind is the proof that , given the proper circumstances, intelligence rather than speed, strength, flight, fangs, etc... can lead to successful species selection. And that's all well and good, but it's by no means the culmination of all that occurs via evolution.

The point is, whether there is some all powerful purpose behind everything or not, evolution will not likely ever find evidence for such a thing. That doesn't mean that evolution isn't real, nor does that mean Godâ„¢ isn't real, or that pathways for our future aren't layed out and we just can't see where. Evolution deals w/ the what has happened and how. As for the 'why'.... that's likely down the hall.

[otterinbham 0]

Faithful Christian here. But under no circumstances do I want anybody teaching the ID claptrap to my children. The reason is simple: Intelligent Design is nothing more than gainsaying Evolution without offering any scientific basis of its own. In short, "There's a hole here in evolutionary theory, therefore we have to chuck the entire thing and claim God did it."

Physicists are beginning to find problems with the Theory of Relativity too. Does that mean all physical reactions in the universe happen strictly because God will it?

Now, I think evolution has holes in it. Big holes. However, it remains the best theory we have. I think the most workable solution is to simply point out the unsolved portions of Evolution and leave it at that.

But don't jam a literalist interpretation of the Biblical creation story down my children's throats under masquerade of science.

Of course, I feel the same way about prayer in school, too.