Thursday, September 29, 2005

"Intelligent Design" is a threat to our economy

Roger L. Simon blogged Go ahead and believe the "intelligent design" theory if you want to - I think it's claptrap and an insult to theists - but please keep it out of the science classroom. Our social studies and humanities classes are already polluted by enough asinine nonsense from the fuddy-duddy left. We don't need to have science turned into Bible class (covert or otherwise) from the other side.

If you will get all of the asinine nonsense from the fuddy-duddy left out of school, and will teach just the parts of evolution (adaptation of a species to its environment) that can be proven scientifically, and leave out the assumption, but unproved part, that the same technique must have caused new species to be created, then you may leave ID out as well.
I don't blame the biology teachers in Dover, PA for keeping this pseudo-science out of their classrooms. They've got plenty to do getting their high school students prepared for the serious (and worsening) competition of the global economy. (You can bet their peers in Tokyo, Seoul and Shanghai aren't wasting a helluva lot of time on "intelligent design.")
They are not wasting a lot of time on the unproven parts of Evolution. They are teaching the basics: Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic.
To be clear. I have no objection to crèches at the mall, the Ten Commandments in court rooms, "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, etc., etc. Although I support separation of church and state, I'm happy to respect everyone's beliefs and I'm not particularly scared of this country turning into a theocracy.
We agree on all of that.
But the science classroom is for science.
Then just teach science. Leave out the Secular Humanist interpretation of evolution, and you can leave out ID as well. But if you insist on including the secular humanist claptrap, then include ID as well.
Students in Dover, Pennsylvania and other rural areas are just as entitled to a real education as those in Los Angeles and New York. In fact the country needs them to have it, especially in science and math. And in the case of public education, it is not in our interest to waste precious taxpayer dollars teaching mythology in biology.

mikem commented Well, in the other classes it is 'unAmerican' to even discuss the fact that most Americans see God's place in the world. Just where in the already "claptrap" free classrooms would you allow children to be told that most Americans, most humans, see God's hand in our origins.
AMEN
You make it sound as if our children are free to discuss their belief in God in schools if they wish, just keep it out of the science room. That is a public school that the ACLU hasn't gotten around to suing. ID adherents have simply tailored their belief in God's role in their lives to try to pass muster with those who want to marginalize people of faith out of public view and life. But nothing gets by the eagle eye of our secular priests. Don't forgot to mention the deepest respect you hold for other's "claptrap" beliefs, of course.

Robert Munn commented ID does fall more under philosophy than science, yes. But so does much of what's currently taught in science classes under the mantle of teaching evolution! If you're teaching, "Natural selection causes the gene pool to tilt towards the more favorable adaptations and away from the less favorable ones," that's testable. It's repeatable. It's science. But the minute you switch over to "... and thus the origin of the species came about through random mutations, guided by nothing but pure chance," you're not engaged in science anymore, but philosophy. Just as are those who would say "... and thus the origin of the species came about through carefully planned mutations, guided by a designer." Both of these statements are in the realm of philosophy.
Precisely my point. Teach neither, and I am happy, but if you are going to teach the Secular Humanist interpretation, then also teach ID
So since you're already doing philosophy in the science classroom when you teach about how species came about, why not at least acknowledge the fact that there's a philosophical debate on the point you're about to teach? You don't have to cover it in detail, just say, "Now, how exactly this came about is debated. Some people claim it was guided by nothing but random chance, others talk about the evidence of design. But that's a point for philosophical debate. In this class, we're going to focus on the question of how rather than why."

M. Simon commented Intelligent Design is dependent on ignorance - "we don't yet undersand how xxx happened so we will posit an intelligent designer".
While the Secular Humanists would say, we proved part of it (adaptation of a species), so random chance must have created new species.
The march of science is reducing the islands of ignorance. There is less and less for the Intelligent Designer to do. In fact I would limit the Intelligent Designer to the first sigularity - the big bang.
He was certainly involved there. If the Big Bang was the result of the explosion of a Cosmic Egg, who created the egg? That explosion generated a lot of light energy. And what is the first step in Creation, as told in Genesis? And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
After that the universe runs on its own. Of course my God is smart enough to get it right at the beginning. Intelligent Design posits God too stupid to get it right the first time.

Rob commented An intelligent designer, for example, wouldn't run the male urethra right through the middle of a gland prone to swelling.
It is a dual purpose organ, and the urethra is not used while the organ is swollen.
Our backs are clearly designed for walking on all fours: standing upright causes no end of problems.
Walk on all fours if you wish, maybe you have "DeEvolved"
Our immune systems are sadly prone to mistaking parts of ourselves for invaders.
Not often, and evolution was one of the tools used by the Designer

6 comments:

Cynthia Bronco said...

I think hailing the idea as a threat to our economy is extreme. I'm sure someone out there is creative enough to capitalize on the controversy and, who knows, maybe even create a few jobs along the way.

At first I was pretty baffled that this debate would ever resurface. But, in the end, the controversy will simply draw attention to both arguments and, in the process, educate the American public. In regard to the hearings, I doubt many converts result from either outcome. Maybe I'm wrong.

My fledgeling blog is cynthia-bronco.blogspot.com & I made a few statements about this subject in my Planet of the Apes post.

Don Singleton said...

I think hailing the idea as a threat to our economy is extreme.

I agree it is extreme. I understand his point, which is the more time that is spent teaching things that students dont need to be competitive in the world economy means they are not spending time learning the really important things, like Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic. I would be very happy if they left out all of the left wing brainwashing they attempt to teach rather than the basics, and if they just taught the parts of evolution that can be proven (like how a species can adapt or evolve based on its environment), and did not claim that one species "evolves" into another species (which cannot be proven) strictly by random changes to its DNS, then I would be happy if they also did not mention the ID version of creation of a new species

Don Singleton said...

I have expanded comments on Cynthia's blog

Don Singleton said...

You are correct. I should have said that the urethra is used, but not for carrying urine from the bladder, but when the organ is swollen it carries semen from the testicles.

Actually it is even used when a catheter is needed, because the foley goes inside the urethra (unless it is a supra pubic).

Anonymous said...

You do realize, that there actually is evidence pointing towards random chance? The evidence is not absolutely conclusive, but that is science, you pick the best theory that suits the evidence. That is a very simplified version of a fundamental scientific principle called occman's razor. Anyways, no scientific theory has been conclusively proven. Eg. Gravity. No one has any idea how gravity works. By what mechanism do two bodies attract each other? No one knows, but that does not mean we reject the theory and say that a 'physical designer' is tugging at the two. Similarly, just because evolution does not explain everything yet, does not mean it must be wrong, especially since none of its predictions have been proved wrong. And yes, you can make predictions using the random chance theory, and test them. But how do you predict what a designer wants to do? How can you ever prove that intelligence design might be wrong? Besides, lets assume that you conclusively prove that there is indeed an intelligent designer, how will that help you do anything? Already evolutionary principles have been used to create vaccines and other such uses (http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/bull.html). I recently stumbled on this article, which has brought some new evidence to light.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177.html

Please dont sabotage the future of this country, by letting personal beliefs affect rational and logical thinking. There might indeed be a God who created the world, but teaching that in a science class is going to be counter productive, since science is mostly a way of teaching rational and logical thinking. It need not necessarily teach physical realities, so teaching that there is a God, whose actions we cannot predict in a science class, is absolutely counter productive. Eg., in mechanics, we do problems in which there is no friction etc, just to teach kids how to think, not because there are actual situations where there is 0 friction.

Don Singleton said...

Anyways, no scientific theory has been conclusively proven. Eg. Gravity. No one has any idea how gravity works.

Actually Isaac Newton reportedly figured out how gravity works when he was hit in the head by an apple falling from a tree.

Whether that story is true or not we know how gravity works. We may not know why, but we certainly know how.


just because evolution does not explain everything yet, does not mean it must be wrong, especially since none of its predictions have been proved wrong.

I dont say it is wrong. In fact the parts of it that can be proven that individual species can "evolve" to adapt to their environment, is something that has been proven, and which I accept.

The part that has not been proven is that the same procedure generates completely new species. I would be quite happy if science classes covered just the first part, which has been proven. But if you insist on teaching the Secular Humanist version of the unproven second part, then I just ask that you give equal time to the ID version. Secular Humanism is a religion, believed by athiests and agnostics. If you are going to teach one religion's version, then give equal time to an interpretation that is consistent with the beliefs of Christians, Jews, and Muslims.


Please dont sabotage the future of this country, by letting personal beliefs affect rational and logical thinking. There might indeed be a God who created the world, but teaching that in a science class is going to be counter productive, since science is mostly a way of teaching rational and logical thinking.

Why does it sabotage the future of this country by insisting that if an unproven religious belief of one religion (Secular Humanism) is going to be taught in science class, that an unproven religious belief of several other relgions be given equal time?