'Intelligent Design' Gets Bush's Nod

Stay tuned for what will be the main debate of the 2008 presidential elections: Is the Earth really round, or flat?

-m.

 

I thought "intelligent" design implicated that there was some kind of "intelligence" behind the complexities of development of all the diverse beings of the earth.

That would pretty much require some direction from some "intelligent" being that existed before the earth...

sounds suspiciously like this known/loved/feared entity in a very old book.

Wonder how many high school kids would come to that same conclusion? It's not much of a reach. I'm not even tapping into my hard, data-driven scientific mind yet today (need more caffeine to jump-start it)

 

I hate saying this but GW is wiley, he is not stupid just simple minded. Pointed in a direction he will continue in that direction even if he hit a stone wall. Just look at all his statements on the enviroment, he has been saying we need to study the enviroment more before we do anything since his first campaign. His statements on inteligent design are soley to appease his conservative base. Inteligent design is the religious right using secular language to both hide and inject God and biblical ideas into the discussion of how things occured. Inteligent design is also a wedge strategy to help sway public opinion and policymakers. It is not about science it is just a debate about religon and philosophy.

 

No, not really. All intelligent design requires is something that can make desisions that affect the progress of events. It can also be applied to other origins theories. For an example: Doctors are intelligent designers for evolution. A doctor is an intelligent entity. He can decide to save a life that would otherwise have ended due to genetic features that would have otherwise hampered that life's ability to survive and procreate. Over many doctors and millions of saved lives, the overall outcome of the human race can thus be altered by intelligent creatures making decisions. Now, do we allow doctors the perks of creatorship? Of course not. Intelligent design, in its broadest sense, requires nothing that need to be called a creator. Creationism is a much more focused aspect of intelligent design, and here is where a creator is required. But, it is still up to any individual belief system to decide if the specific creator requires worship, or even acknowledgment.

 

That's one form of something called "artificial selection." Evolutionary theory claims it affects the outcome of a population.

So now ID preaches evolution? Or are they simply stealing ideas and trying to turn them around?

 

Sadly, if "intelligent design" is taught along with the theory of evolution we may well end up with students who have no strong concept of either theory, but a luke warm mixed up understanding of both schools of thought. This causes its own set of problems in the long run. Sounds dangerous to me, there's nothing worse than a half-nice person understanding of concepts, especially if one is based a book of stories written by old men trying to immortalize themselves.

I can attest first hand to the problems of being taught two systems, each in a mediocre way. While I was in junior high the powers that be in our local school system could not decide on whether to teach us the Imperial system or the metric system of measurement (which essentially 98% of the industrialized nations on this planet use). Hence, we were taught both - sort of. Most of the students in my grade level came away with little to no good understanding of either system. We've had to self teach ourselves both systems. Great preparation for the real world, eh?

Further, in my humble opinion, "Intelligent design" is simply semantic political spin for the extreme "Christian" right wing (also known as the American Taliban) religious agenda. Horsesh*t by any other name.

 

Honestly now, there is a big gap between accepting the idea of a something that put this universe into motion and ingaging with God of Christianity. One is just to accept an idea about something the other is to engage in a relationship.

(I know I am going to catch some heat for that one, but I had to say something from 'the other side'.)

 

Evolutionism and Creationism is just equally probable. Evolution is so called a science that cannot be tested and duplicated. Creationism is often taught in faith. But what's the difference when evolution is simply taught and been accepted by faith as well. How many of us actually experimented with evolution in our high school classes? Most of us just took the words of the text book and believed.

 

At one time the Arab world was at the forefront of scientific thought and accomplishment. Then a wave of anti-intellectualism and fundamentalism took hold across the Arab world. Those anti-intellectuals burned the library of Alexandria, as well as other great places of learning and scientific thought.

The result was a dark age for the Arab world that continues to this day.

From some of the anti-science and pro creationism/ intelligent design hokum I've read above, history may be repeating itself in this country.

Better have your kids or grandkids start learning Chinese or Hindi.

 

What we should be asking is "What are some examples of Intelligent Design?"

One example would be..."On earth, oxygen comprises 21 percent of the atmosphere. That precise figure is an anthropic constant that makes life on earth possible. If oxygen were 25 percent, fires would erupt spontaneously: if it were 15 percent, human beings would suffocate."
Another example would be...the gravitational interaction that the earth has with the moon."If the interaction were greater than it currently is, tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe. If it were less, orbital changes would cause climate instabilities. In either event, life on earth would be impossible."

Now how can people be against teaching this information to our children? If one is against the teaching of ID they are against the teaching of the above examples to our children.
Randy

 

well. if all that weren't true randy, life wouldn't have begun on earth at all. it would have started on some other planet that was more hospitable. simple as that. i'm sure you've heard from evolutionary theory, if you've done your homework on this issue, that the evolution of plant species affected the amounts of oxygen in the air and that allowed other species to move onto land.

the problem with your argument here is that you're assuming humans were premade and just placed here. like fish into a fishtank. sure, if the temperature or pH is off, the fish are going to die. but it's not like that. if the earth weren't a good place for life to begin, it wouldn't have started. humans would have never existed, along with the millions of other species that inhabit this place.

i wouldn't want my children to be told in school any of that. the factual parts, yes. but in the context that some higher being designed this place and put us here... no. that doesn't belong in schools. period.

 

There is nothing in these factoids that would lend any credence to intel design. Do you have any evidence that 21% 02 levels can only exist because some one or some thing intelligently made it so?

Here's another cute factoid.
Water does something weird when it freezes. It gets LARGER. When water freezes, it takes up more volume than when it is liquid. This phenomenon is actually rare in the universe.

Thus, ice floats when it freezes. And ice has the potential to destroy rock when it freezes. If water shrunk when it froze, all ice would sink to the bottom of the ocean and much of it would never melt. And mountains would never crumble to the sea. So if all ice sunk, the planet would not be able to sustain humans.

So it must have taken a brilliant guide to make sure this happened. There could be no other way.

(ice - 9 works a little different.)

 

azemission stated "Evolutionism and Creationism is just equally probable." Yea right, that statement is true only if you have faith and absolutely no knowledge of science. There is tons of proof of evolution. There are spieces on two different continents that have the same genetic roots that have developed into two separate subspecies. The only thing driving the changes were the two different environments that each lived. You actually want to tell me with a straight face that some inteligent designer made those two animals that are genetically identical but developemently different!!!

 

This very subject came up today in my summer school class. My students are studying the 1920's this week. We have been watching the wonderful ABC News series called America's Time. One of the segments discussed the Scopes Trial. That led to a discussion of the teaching of evolution or creationism. I have no problem as a teacher discussing both points of view and allowing the students to make up their minds for themselves.

 

i agree with IAP. mixing science and religious issues is like trying to mix oil and water...

things will have to be shaken up
it won't look pretty
they'll never mix well
and eventually they'll separate again