I was involved in a conversation recently about intelligent design vs evolution being taught in schools and I gave my reasoning behind why I support intelligent design. The person didn't agree that intelligent design should be considered a science. How many of you have had similar discussions and what are your thoughts on this?
Since there is scienific evidence to support intelligent design, I see no reason to exclude it. I mean it isn't as if some of us believe that Santa created the world. lol. Being a Christian, I believe very simply that God is the creator. I teach my kids creation and evolution. I suppose I am as biased as those teaching evolution...as I mostly teach it's flaws. Yet, I can't see much more than flaws in that theory anyway. LOL
I would be fine with ID in the classrooms but in a relgious studies class. ID, to my mind, really relies on the evidence that supports evolution but looks at it from a faith-based perspectivethat demands a creator. Science can't address that. Science is simply and only about the natural world, not the supernatural one and a creator is certainly a supernatural force.
I am currently reading a book called: Modern Physics and Ancient Faith by Stephen M Barr It of course covers this subject. It is written by a Christian physicist. Reading it had enabled me to put words to thoughts I have had on this matter. The book is written for the lay person, however some exposure to undergrad level science might be useful. What the author proposes is that Science and Faith do not conflict or contradict. At the same time one cannot prove faith issues, its a matter that one cannot disprove them with science. A point the author makes is that it is not science itsself that appears to many to be in conflict with faith, but rather a philosophy of materialism that is held by so many scientists. So often are certain philosophical ideas held by the more outspoken members of the scientific community that the lines between there philosophical beliefs and their science are blurred to the extent as they accuse those of faith of having blurred the lines. Much out spokeness by scientist in the media has caused certain materialistic philosophical points to be considered scientific theory or law. The overall premise of that book is that the physical discoveries of the last centuries did lend to a materialist viewpoint in a way giving ammo for those who appose faith concepts. However more recent discoveries as quantum physic, the big bang, and other more recent discoveries represent a flip flop in terms of discussing creation by design. Again this author does not propose that you can prove faith, but that faith cannot be dismissed or disproved on the basis of scientific discovery and that recent discovery can actually be used to bolster design aurguments.
Wow, awesome book, Vantage. I was trying to formulate something in my head about science and faith not contridicting...because it simply does not...God made the science also..lol...but I could not say it as well as that book. I will have to read that book. Thanks!
Well intelligent design was declared not to be a science in a court of law, and that had as much to do with the Discovery Institute publishing documents stating as much as it did with anything else. In terms of teaching evolution in terms of its flaws, you should be careful you're teaching the theory of evolution and not a charicture of it. Many of the so-called flaws such as "Mutation can not generate information" and "Speciation has never been observed," are simply not true. Another supposed flaw in the theory of evolution is the production of life from non-life. This is not a flaw in the theory of evolution because the theory of evolution takes for granted the existence of life complex enough to pass on traits. It describes how life changes and diversifies when it already exists, it says nothing about how life originated. A lot of criticisms of evolution are even so confused as to treat Lamarkian evolution (Inheritance of acquired traits) and Darwinian evolution as the same thing. If you're teaching these things, (no new information by mutation, evolution says life came from mud) you're not teaching evolution at all. It's the central theory in biology and even if it has flaws, one needs to understand the theory in its own terms before those flaws can be exposed. The assertion that all of biology is dependent on evolution may be a bit strong but things like protein engineering would be inconceivable in the absence of a theory of evolution, and it can offer insights when used as a way to view things like epidemiology and cancer research.
Indeed. That's the area of abiogenesis which is just the study of the origin of life. Thanks for that Paul.
Paul, you did make important points. Thanks for your opinion. I don't feel I do evolution an injustice when I teach though. I pull from sources that support the theory. I don't support it but I want my kids to be aware of all angles. Mostly so they can dispute it but a conversation on apologetics is for another show...LOL.
I appreciate all of the points made thus far. I recently found out about a movie coming out in April entitled "Expelled" that I think is worth a look see. It apparently will address the original question of this thread. Just type in "Expelled" in Google to see what I am talking about. I would post links but haven't made the minimum member requirements yet. :angel:
Thanks for mentioning that movie...I will have to check it out. I personally think that all theories should be discussed. However, I can see the point that from a secular mindset, Intelligent Design is not scienific. At least, that is the impression it gives off. I think it can be very scienific. I find is sad that so many Christians shrink away from science. It is a wonderous world our God gave us...I think we are not showing a lack of faith by exploring it.
Before declaring that intelligent design is science, we should have a look at what science actually is. According to the National Academy of Sciences, science is limited to explanations “that can only be inferred from confirmable data — the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists.” This process is called the scientific method. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence resulting from observation and experiment are not a part of science. Simply put, intelligent design cannot be tested by the scientific method. If your idea of science is chemists in lab coats looking at tiny things with microscopes, then you probably need to try and understand exactly what science is. I think this is part of the intelligent design problem. People will say "intelligent design is science" but then they don't even know what science is. I believe that home schooling parents should have the right to teach their children whatever they wish, but conveying to them the idea that intelligent design is science will warp and distort their understand of science in general, and by science, I don't mean chemicals and periodic tables and biology, I mean what science as a word and a field of study actually means. Regardless, I believe it is always important to allow the child to make their own decision. For all I know, my child might have a better capacity for reasoning than I do, and I want to tell them the truth instead of projecting my own personal depiction of the world to them.
By that definition, evolution is not science either. Maybe the initial creation cannot be proven, but neither can any other theory of the beginnings of earth and how and why it even exists. In addition, there HAVE BEEN plenty of scientifically based experiments to show that the way the Bible explains things coming into existence COULD HAVE BEEN the way it happened... such as the experiment done first at Texas A&M and later repeated in various creation science museums, where the combination of WATER and SOUND produced visible, physical changes in the light and atmosphere of a controlled area. Before we get into an argument about 'observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists,' let's first understand that - as portrayed in the movie Expelled, when these experiments ARE done AND duplicated, the scientific community squelches it and the public doesn't hear of it. At this point in time, this is no longer a viable argument - these experiments ARE being done, ARE being duplicated, ARE NOT being publicized by scientific journals, researchers, and the community in general.
Ultimately science does not deal with proofs in this regard. Evolution is not a proof, neither is gravity, nor is there a fact or objective rule that states the Earth is round. People all over the place will be claiming "proof" of one thing or another, but ultimately these aren't useful for either sides of a debate, or even the middle men. Evolution is a theory, not a proven fact, which is still the case today with things such as gravity. However, the theory of evolution, albeit a theory, contributes to many practical applications in many fields today. For example: - Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions. - Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture. - Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields. - Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping. - Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations can help guide public health policy. - Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction. It's no mistake that the National Academy of Sciences regards evolution as one of the top 5 most influential and valuable scientific disciplines. On the other hand, I'm not entirely sure what intelligence design offers in terms of practical application, other than make people have a warm, feel good feeling about existence.
The enemy does not create. He only twists what is already created. Therefore, "theories" - to truly deceive societies as is the enemy's intention, MUST have some aspect of truth to them. They must have somewhere to start. What you said in your first paragraph is exactly what I was saying, above. It's all theory. What you said in your last paragraph is exemplary of having researched only half the field. There are plenty of scientists out there who start with the assumption that there IS a God (whereas evolutionists start with the assumption that there is NOT a God - BOTH are assumptions here), who have proven exactly what you've stated here that you're not sure of. In fact, there are PLENTY of scientists in the field who, when they TRULY went and researched if there *could have been* an intelligent design, *could be* a God, have converted and are now Christians who promote creation. I would encourage you, and anyone else who is not "entirely sure what intelligence design offers in terms of practical application" to do as much research in the creation sciences as they have done in the evolutionary sciences. That is all.
Yes, everyone starts with assumptions, but this does not divide the scientific community into different camps. I can remember when I was in school, we began all of our science papers with an assumption, stating what we think the outcome of an experiment will be, and then finishing the paper off with a conclusion at the end that states whether or not we were correct about our assumption. My assumption is that an intervention by a higher power is not necessary to propagate the continued existence or modification of the universe, rather that the rules of the universe remain constant during its entire lifespan. I am not averse to the universe being created by God from the beginning, but I think he would have gotten everything right from the get go, rather than coming back every few thousand years to correct something or change the rules all of the sudden. And if this is the case, then it remains compatible with the theory of evolution. But yes, that's just my opinion, and everyone has one.
:lol: You're right there, everyone has one! :lol: And to me, maybe it's not necessary that existence doesn't NEED a higher power... but IMHO it is certainly preferable. I find it interesting that you take the opinion of God coming back to correct mistakes. Most of us who follow Christ believe it was the plan all along, and it has been humans who have "messed things up," as He knew we would. Not that His mind has been changed, or the rules have changed, but that in His grace He allows for our mistakes. Perfect is still perfect - grace is part of that perfection.
I get the whole science debate, I really do. However, if we had a God so easily understood He wouldn't be worth worshipping. I know simplistic...but hey, I don't feel like going through all my creation stuff to find some science to woo you with. LOL. I was not taught creation by my parents. I was taught evolution in school. I had always separated science from religion. The more I grew and the more I knew, I finally realized the science and religion do not conflict. Those of us who believe in intellegent design do not believe science can exist apart from God. God is the science behind the creation. I even get how silly that may sound to those who do believe science and God should stay in different camps. Well, I have to go and I feel like I will begin to type in circles because I was not quite ready to support my claims with science. lol. Just know that those who believe in intelligent design or that God created the world do not believe a secular science can disprove that. We also don't believe there is secular science. As I said, God IS the science behind the creation.
I don't think science can address God. Science deals only with the natural world, what we can observe through our five sense or technological extensions of those. That's my problem with scientific idea around ID or creationism. Science simply isn't a proper tool to address those. That's the realm of faith for me.
But to me, God CREATED the natural world. He put the laws of science into motion. The Bible talks of how no one has an excuse for not "being told" about Him, because nature itself proves His existence. (Meaning, it couldn't have just popped into place and into perfect order by accident, HAD to be created by an intelligent being, therefore proving that He exists.) There are plenty of studies out there to help us work through the thinking of it all.
