Evidence for God from Science

I'm doing some research for a paper/discussion and I'd like to get some outside ideas. The topic is notoriously sensitive and controversial, but if you clicked on the thread title I guess you'd be expecting that.

The topic and debate that I want to cover boils down to how schools should handle teaching of evolution in the classroom. Some key points that I'd like to be discussed:

1) Should evolution be part of the compulsory biology education system?
2) Should Intelligent Design, creationism, or any other counterpart/rival to evolution be taught in schools as a science alongside evolution?
3) If yes to 2, how should this be handled in schools? Should ID/creationism be taught as a possible alternative to evolution? Or perhaps another way?
4) Anything else you think is relevant to the subject.

I'll leave it open to anyone else to start. Try to be civil Straight answers to the questions are nice, but giving reasons would be more helpful. Thanks!

I have lost much respect for the ID movement. Irreducible complexity does not seem to have much merit. Like in the wikepedia I read: although an arched bridge may need all of its parts to function, it does not neccesarily mean that while it was being built there was not a support system to help build the arches and let the bridge funtion at the same time. Although evolution is ambiguous, ID is even more so and is just not developed enough to be taught yet in schools. It really does seem like the young earth creationist movement just wanted to be accepted in schools in whatever possible way they can, especially considering the one textbook, Of Pandas And People that was proven in court to show a direct link between religious creationism and ID. This showed that religion was decietfully trying to make people believe it was not religion; although it can be pointed out that the philosophy of naturalism in science almost does the same thing.

The reactions to the movement was embarrasing to the name of religion. The shortcomings of ID proved to be fire wood to anti-religious movements and the perpetuation of orthodox naturalistic science. But as the ID movement continued on and obtained more a little more independance from its past things got confusing and a little pointless for me. I like what RTB is doing: keeping ID as a model with predictions and buliding a more solid foundation for true thought to build on, without being obsessed with schools and the law.

How I learned evolution when in highschool in 2008 was :
Only Evolution theory
Description of Darwin and how Evolution theory works
The last paragraph in the chapter talks about the existence of problems in the theory, with the only one mentioned is not being able to define the starting point.
As a religious person not even I could complain with this book even though I had bad feelings about it. I noticed too that I was probably one of the only ones in the class that cared much about it anyways as well.

I too am not a huge fan of Intelligent Design as a movement. There are many people who promote it who at its base don't really believe what they are promoting but they're trying to engineer something to get things back into the curicullum that they don't believe will happen any other way.

If you're going to keep out of science any religious concepts with regard to origins on the basis that they aren't truly scientific, then there needs to be a line drawn as well as to the forms of evolution you teach as scientific fact. Beyond that, if Science Class isn't an appropriate venue to examine different concepts of origin then it shouldn't be inappropriate to address some of those issues, at least informationally, in social sciences or humanities contexts.

Ivellious wrote:I'm doing some research for a paper/discussion and I'd like to get some outside ideas. The topic is notoriously sensitive and controversial, but if you clicked on the thread title I guess you'd be expecting that.

The topic and debate that I want to cover boils down to how schools should handle teaching of evolution in the classroom. Some key points that I'd like to be discussed:

1) Should evolution be part of the compulsory biology education system?
2) Should Intelligent Design, creationism, or any other counterpart/rival to evolution be taught in schools as a science alongside evolution?
3) If yes to 2, how should this be handled in schools? Should ID/creationism be taught as a possible alternative to evolution? Or perhaps another way?
4) Anything else you think is relevant to the subject.

I'll leave it open to anyone else to start. Try to be civil Straight answers to the questions are nice, but giving reasons would be more helpful. Thanks!

I think both beliefs have some credit and both should be considered to some extent.. Just remember however that at some point either one of the beliefs will intersect with philosophy. Even evolution is not exempt from that either. They WILL collide at some point with philosophy even though the intention of the deliverer had no intentions of doing it. Even in the books..

Clearer?

2) Should Intelligent Design, creationism, or any other counterpart/rival to evolution be taught in schools as a science alongside evolution?

That statement is not accurate, as it assumes that ID stands in opposition to evolution. It only stands in opposition if you import metaphysical motives to either or both.

August wrote:

2) Should Intelligent Design, creationism, or any other counterpart/rival to evolution be taught in schools as a science alongside evolution?

That statement is not accurate, as it assumes that ID stands in opposition to evolution. It only stands in opposition if you import metaphysical motives to either or both.

There is always a metaphysical motive to ID but not always in evolution. The "fact" of evolution goes as far as this according to Wikepedia:

1.Differences in trait composition between isolated populations over many generations may result in the origin of new species.
2.All living organisms alive today have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool).

There is still room for these facts to be accounted for within ID.

wrain62 wrote:

August wrote:

2) Should Intelligent Design, creationism, or any other counterpart/rival to evolution be taught in schools as a science alongside evolution?

That statement is not accurate, as it assumes that ID stands in opposition to evolution. It only stands in opposition if you import metaphysical motives to either or both.

There is always a metaphysical motive to ID but not always in evolution.

That is untrue, sorry, there are many non-theists that hold to ID.

August wrote:"There is always a metaphysical motive to ID but not always in evolution."


That is untrue, sorry, there are many non-theists that hold to ID.

Unless the intelligent designer is an alien life force I suppose. Otherwise ID still puts a meta physical intelligent designer on the table.

wrain62 wrote:

August wrote:"There is always a metaphysical motive to ID but not always in evolution."


That is untrue, sorry, there are many non-theists that hold to ID.

Unless the intelligent designer is an alien life force I suppose. Otherwise ID still puts a meta physical intelligent designer on the table.

ID is not about the designer. It is an informational theory about the science of design detection.

Regardless.. To say that evolution somehow escapes miracles or philosophy or even super natural phenomenal events, it simply isn't true.. It needs it too...

And for the record.. Everyone is religious too... Everyone either worships G-d or a god...

Ivellious wrote:I'm doing some research for a paper/discussion

You could write books on this topic. Do you want to do an overview or concentrate on some particular area? What kind of audience is this for?
It seems important that you first clearly define the terms you are using. As you can see in the replies on ID, there are usually competing definitions.
And what do you mean by "schools"? Public schools are covered by laws which don't apply to private institutions.

August wrote:ID is ... an informational theory about the science of design detection.

What are the highlights of ID so far; i.e., the top 2 or 3 papers or ideas?
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. More significantly, it doesn't appear to be published in major journals, so establishment science doesn't seem to take ID very seriously.

Ivellious wrote:1) Should evolution be part of the compulsory biology education system?
2) Should Intelligent Design, creationism, or any other counterpart/rival to evolution be taught in schools as a science alongside evolution?
3) If yes to 2, how should this be handled in schools? Should ID/creationism be taught as a possible alternative to evolution? Or perhaps another way?
4) Anything else you think is relevant to the subject.

I'll leave it open to anyone else to start. Try to be civil Straight answers to the questions are nice, but giving reasons would be more helpful. Thanks!

1) No
2) No



4) Science cannot and does not verify ID/creationism/evolution/etc. without the addition of presuppositions. I think anything that requires the insertion of philosophy and worldviews should not be taught as mandatory classes in a school system.

Thanks so far to all the input.

To clarify the paper, it's mainly focusing on the debate over education on the topic. And, to specify it even more, about the place of ID/creationism in science education. Mostly I'm talking about public schools because private institutions have a much different set of values and aren't restricted (more or less) in how they teach the subject. The audience is university-level, but it's not like I'm publishing it or anything. I'm just trying to cover how the varying angles on how these ideas should be presented (or not presented) in public schools.

As far as ID goes, the specific brands of ID aren't really what I'm picking through. The concept of ID as being the hypothesis that everything on Earth was designed by a greater (supernatural or alien) force is all that I really need to look at.

sandy_mcd wrote:

August wrote:ID is ... an informational theory about the science of design detection.

What are the highlights of ID so far; i.e., the top 2 or 3 papers or ideas?
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. More significantly, it doesn't appear to be published in major journals, so establishment science doesn't seem to take ID very seriously.

I think this is one of the biggest issues with Intelligent Design being regarded as a science and taught as such, at least currently. The scientific community does not really recognize ID as a science or a possible alternative to evolution mostly because it violates or cannot fulfill most qualities of a science. You cannot test it, challenge it, question it, find evidence for it, etc. except on a purely philosophical level, and that is why it's not in any kind of scientific journals; you can't do scientific research on the subject.

August wrote:

2) Should Intelligent Design, creationism, or any other counterpart/rival to evolution be taught in schools as a science alongside evolution?

That statement is not accurate, as it assumes that ID stands in opposition to evolution. It only stands in opposition if you import metaphysical motives to either or both.

I somewhat disagree with this. Evolution is the standard by which the vast majority of biology stands on. ID is a direct "replacement" so to speak for evolution in that it attempts to explain the phenomena that evolution describes without evolution. Hence, they are competing hypotheses. They literally cannot coexist without seriously twisting one or both ideas. Yes, there are certainly outside motives going on in the media and on forums, but that has risen do to the fact that these hypotheses do not work together.

Also, to those who feel that evolution ought not to be taught in public schools, what should be taught or explained instead? There is a great deal of biology at higher levels that is based heavily or completely on evolution. Perhaps you could be clearer on the parts of evolution that you consider to make it too philosophical or unscientific to have be removed from mandatory science education? Not trying to shoot anyone down without an argument, just trying to clarify the point. It's a good discussion point, I just need more than what has been presented to write about it.

Once again, thanks, this is going great.

Ivellious wrote:Also, to those who feel that evolution ought not to be taught in public schools, what should be taught or explained instead? There is a great deal of biology at higher levels that is based heavily or completely on evolution. Perhaps you could be clearer on the parts of evolution that you consider to make it too philosophical or unscientific to have be removed from mandatory science education? Not trying to shoot anyone down without an argument, just trying to clarify the point. It's a good discussion point, I just need more than what has been presented to write about it.

Once again, thanks, this is going great.

Just evolution and its possible problems is sufficient I think.