As an American and quasi-Christian, I don't believe ID belongs in schools. Firstly, the most common version of ID is simply re-packaged Creationism. Only Christian versions are seriously put forth, as the Spaghetti Monster so blatantly highlights & ridicules.
Second, I view Creationism as junk science. ID is not far behind, in my opinion. They have no place in a Science classroom. Let's start with creationism. It fundamentally violates the scientific process. Characteristics of a scienctific theory from Wikipedia:
Quote:
1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense;
2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct;
3. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory;
4. is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and
5. is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing the Ockham's razor test.
|
Let's skip the debate on the other points & go right to #4. Creationism says "God created the Earth, and all life on it." There is no tentativeness there. There's no room for debate, or correction. If new data comes out rejecting Creationism, the Creationist either is forced to abandon his beliefs or is stuck trying to discredit or at least argue against the new data. Even if there's a mountain of data. Simply put, because Creationism is faith-based and is not open to disproof, it is not a valid scientific theory.
ID is considered a "scientific" brand of Creationism, but I still believe it's very poor science. It says, "We can't explain how life came about, so it must be a God." There's nothing wrong with people believing that. But again, it does not follow the scientific method. From Wikipedia on the Scientific Method:
Quote:
|
Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy.
|
ID proposes that since current theories are inadequate, an intelligent designer must have created life. Saying "other theories are inadequate" is wretchedly poor basis for a scientific hypothesis. Looking at point #3 above, all "good" theories make predictions which can in turn be used to disprove the theory. ID is not repeatable, not testable, and makes no predictions other than "other theories will be inadequate." *Every* scientific theory, even today's accepted theories and "laws," are subject to future disproving, so ID can technically not be disproved. Just as we can never disprove the existence of a God.
And really, just because we can't explain why gravity happens (the attraction of mass to itself,) do we attribute that to some higher power? No, we just say "we don't know yet" in a scientific context.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Hook:
I think both of you have just demonstrated how little you know actually know about the ID movement. First, even if it does receive the endorsement of religious leaders, that certainly does not disqualify it from being a serious scientific theory. Guilt by association is a nice trick, but it obscures the issue completely. Second, the statement that no serious scientists subscribe to the ID theory is rubbish.
|
Yes, but well over 90%, probably 99% of scientists *do not* believe in ID. I bet we could find some scientists that still believe in a flat earth, even if there is only 0.01%. Should we teach that, too? Scientific theories are accepted by the community at large, and sorry to say, ID has not yet suceeded on that level. When it does, I'll reconsider my position on allowing it in schools.
So let creationism & ID be taught in Sunday School or a Religion class, and evolution in Biology. And let the debate be fought in the scientific community... not in schools.
That wasn't ridiculing at all. If you saw their website they are pushing to get into schools just as ID is. Their reasoning is that if a theory that says that God created the universe gets into schools as an alternative to evolution, so should theirs. The difference is that there is a silly monster instead of a god as creator. Apart from that there are many similarities with other religions. It's a bit like the player-naming rule here tbh. Accept ID and you'll open up a can of worms of other alternative theories, if the rules are practices equally and fair that is. The point is that theories tought in schools should be based on science, not mumbo-jumbo (sorry 
Linear Mode
