Horizon - Intelligent Design

Shadow Leader

Shadow Leader

At the Start
Joined
Nov 9, 2003
Messages
9,884
Tonight's Horizon looks pretty interesting - it's about Intelligent Design. ID is pretty much the American name for creationism : it claims that Darwin's Evolution theory is incorrect; all the living things around us from humans to bacteria, are too complicated to have been produced by natural processes therefore some designer with a far greater intelligence than ours (often apportioned to God) produced the blueprint for all living organisms on earth.

I was reading as article in this month's Focus about it the other day; about how this is actually being taught in Kansas as part of a child's science curriculum! Amazingly, it is estimated that over 50% of US citizens believe this theory and write off Darwinism as fantasy! It appears that there is a large debate going on in the States on the subject and there are many who believe that ID should be taught in schools.

I'm sure we covered something similar to this at one point in the past but thought it was interesting enough to be brought up again. I really am gobsmacked that ID is actually given enough credence for it to be allowed to be taught in schools, nevermind included on the science curriculum! They'll be teaching it alongside talking to the fairies at the bottom of the garden next....
 
I think you'll find, Dom, that the Creationists (i.e., those who believe God created everything in the allotted six days and rested on the seventh, rather pleased with Himself) would rather give Evolutionists credit than this fudge. They're not going for ID, they're holding to the notion of some great force slinging everything together in barely a working week, and while they're not happy about Evolutionists giving God the heave-ho, they are almost willing to accept 'a degree' of evolvement occurring, provided that that notion is accompanied by the acceptance of there being a Divine Creator who has 'allowed' a bit of evolving to happen. So ID is not Creationism.

Mo - could you put in a word with Him to stop that, please - one tsunami was quite enough, thanks. It's bad enough when He blows off, and half of Florida disappears.
 
Interesting programme. Not an area I know much about. I assumed ID was a catholic thing.

On a different note but also a BBC show. Does anyone remember "The Experiment"?
 
It's still got the basic premise as Creationism though Kri - that life is too complicated to simply have evolved ergo, some greater intelligence must have created it, ie God. ID is also being used as a way to promote religion in schools, that's the main point of the row over it. The ID crew are trying to say that this is a scientific theory (which it has been proved it's not) and that it should be taught in schools as a science! The main problem the parent who took the school to court have is that they are using ID to promote religion in an underhand way by passing it off as something it's not. THe ID notion has no place in a science classroom as it is nonsense - whether or not it has a place in a philosophy or religious education classroom is another matter entirely; yet I still feel it doesn't belong there either as it is a load of tosh.

It was a very good programme that neatly dimissed the ID theory; I actually laughed out loud at it a few times! I must admit it was very amusing to see that Bush was one of those who thinks kids should be taught both....and interspersing the programme with hillbilly music was a very neat touch too.
 
Is promoting religion in schools against the Constitution?

I saw bits and bobs of the programme last night. It was interesting. I've always had a gut feeling that the theory that we evolved directly from apes is flawed, that we evolved from another species yet to be discovered. We'll probably never find out in my lifetime so it's not the kind of thing I lose sleep over.

Anyway, I'm off to groom the wife and wean.
 
The theory of human evolution does not suggest that we evolved directly from apes, but that we share a common ancestor.
 
Originally posted by Desert Orchid@Jan 27 2006, 11:16 AM
Anyway, I'm off to groom the wife and wean.
Click to expand...
:lol: :lol:

It wasn't the promoting religion bit that's the problem Dessie, more that they are using science lessons to try and promote religion as fact; ie that ID is an acceptable scientific theorem, which it isn't and can't be. How can the possible existence of an undetectable "greater intelligence" for which there is no evidence whatsoever be a scientific theorem?

As for the hillbilly music - it made me laugh, but the programme wasn't heavily biased really. It gave both sides plenty of space to argue their pitch.
 
Originally posted by Shadow Leader@Jan 27 2006, 09:04 AM
The ID crew are trying to say that this is a scientific theory (which it has been proved it's not)
Click to expand...
Has it? How about a scenario whereby yon plankton stuff that all life on earth is supposed to have evolved from was actually planted there by God and has an intelligence which we are too stupid to find? And if this intelligence that we can't find has been programmed by God to evolve in a manner consistent with that which we have witnessed........

In any case, they teach science which has major flaws in it at present - anything to do with energy for instance.
 
The whole point is that by definition, talking about an undetectable "greater intelligence" for which there is no evidence whatsoever cannot be science. That is also the viewpoint of most eminent scientists/biologists and the courts ruled the same in the case in the programme. Any other ideas that there is something out there borders more on philosophy/theory/religious ideals.
 
I didn't say it was undetectable, I said that we couldn't detect it, the difference may be subtle, but it is important nonetheless.

And if we're unable to detect this, and, as is suggested at present, the foundations on which we base our "science" are flawed, then who's to say that the whole thing isn't rubbish (evolution).

For example, if you were to meet a person who told you that 2+2+2+x=7, you would probably conclude that x=1? If that same person then told you that 3+3+3+3x=14, where x is the same thing in both equations, you would probably conclude that he was mistaken somewhere along the line.

If he was then unable to explain where he was mistaken but clung to the fundamentals of what he was saying, you could be forgiven for not believing a damn word he said.

That is the situation we have with science at present. They were wrong about various things before, who says they are correct now?
 
Again, to me, what you are saying seems to be bordering on philosophy to me. Yes, the current teorems may well be wrong, but at present there is scientific evidence to back up the theorem - there isn't for ID.

You say that this being isn't undetectable - well, at the moment, it is! We can detect & study the tiniest living organisms known to man - yet this elusive greater intelligence [if it exists] is (at present, if you must!) undetectable, unknown & leaves no trace or evidence that it may exist. Science is the study of matter - biological science [which encompasses evolution] is the study of living organisms. How can this "greater intelligence" possibly be encompassed within the realms of science if it is completely undetectable and there are no traces left by it, or any evidence that it exists? How can you study nothing? That's what I'm talking about - not whether or not "it" exists, but that any theories about "it" cannot possibly be recognised as science, rather philosophy or theology.
 
Originally posted by Shadow Leader@Jan 27 2006, 01:56 PM
but that any theories about "it" cannot possibly be recognised as science, rather philosophy or theology.
Click to expand...
It also seems that you are implying that science is a provable fact. It is, but only within bounds that scientists themselves create. Which is a bit like saying that a horse which has only ever run over 5f is a sprinter because of that fact. So if you accept that science is potentially just made up nonsense, along with philosophy and theology, then perhaps an all encompassing subject, possibly utilising a Sex Pistols naming convention, Fuckology, should be created for all science, religion and philosophy to be taught.

Fuckology - things what might be true and might not be true but we're going to present them as if they are.

So within that construct, does it matter if ID is taught as a science?
 
:lol:

I can see where you are coming from (well, maybe, I think....:D) but the point surely must be that whatever your theological ideas, for children to be taught ID as part of science is wrong because it is not science. You wouldn't teach kids Spanish in a French lesson, would you? Or, on perhaps a more related subject, you wouldn't teach kids about the fairies living at the bottom of your garden just because they might be there according to some people, despite there being no evidence or trace of such? They could always start teaching the history of Santa Claus too - again, there is no trace or evidence that he exists, yet he might do!

Now, let me get back to the racing, and stop yanking my chain you sod!!! :lol:
 
Originally posted by Shadow Leader@Jan 27 2006, 02:38 PM
Now, let me get back to the racing, and stop yanking my chain you sod!!! :lol:
Click to expand...
Bugger. Sussed. :D

Still think science isn't as cut and dried as people like to think though......
 
The majority of scientists now accept that the order within our universe is such that it was either created by an intelligent being or is one of an infinite number of universes and ours just happened to be one of those that, purely by chance, had the required order built in.

Those who support the latter idea accept that would mean there are almost certainly civilisations out there who would be almost infinitely more advanced than us to the extent that they would be quite capable of recreating their past in virtual universes with creatures who felt and thought as their ancestors did. In such a scenario the likeliehood is that we exist in one of their virtual universes although it may well be that we exist in a virtual universe created by an advanced virtual universe or .............

There's no evidence for an intelligent being or that there's more than one universe but both theories, which support the idea that we were created, make more sense than a single universe coming into being with the phenomenal order required to support life built in.
 
Originally posted by Honest Tom@Jan 27 2006, 03:38 PM
There's no evidence for an intelligent being or that there's more than one universe but both theories, which support the idea that we were created, make more sense than a single universe coming into being with the phenomenal order required to support life built in.
Click to expand...
and at the same time destroy fundamentals of physics which we currently hold dear.....
 
Originally posted by simmo+Jan 27 2006, 05:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (simmo @ Jan 27 2006, 05:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Honest Tom@Jan 27 2006, 03:38 PM
There's no evidence for an intelligent being or that there's more than one universe but both theories, which support the idea that we were created, make more sense than a single universe coming into being with the phenomenal order required to support life built in.
Click to expand...
and at the same time destroy fundamentals of physics which we currently hold dear..... [/b][/quote]
Not sure what you mean simmo.
 
Who cares? It's all over in around 5 billion years, thanks to the Sun in its decaying orbit (sob! What did the Sun ever do to deserve that?), although the chances of us having wrecked the remains of the planet well before then are much more likely, whether or not one can prove that will happen, or just imagine it.
 
Originally posted by krizon@Jan 28 2006, 01:49 AM
Who cares? It's all over in around 5 billion years, thanks to the Sun in its decaying orbit
Click to expand...
Surelt the human race will have left earth long before then?
 
Originally posted by Shadow Leader@Jan 28 2006, 10:35 AM
We can't be far from that disease in the food chain now....
Click to expand...
Yes Shadow but, after the disease in the food chain the average IQ of the human race increases, the world is a more civilised place and the march towards the stars gathers pace.
 
Back
Top