Intelligent Design in Universities

Well, as regards ID then, I'm with Laplace. I have no need of that hypothesis.

As well as those objections Mammuthus has raised it is worth noting that there are a growing number of genes whose normal function is entirely divorced from translation at all and which never produce a protein.TTFN,WK

quote:

---

My question, stemming out of general scientific ignorance---is to ask whether I.D. students are open minded enough to study traditional disciplines along with I.D. theories.

---

And this is an important point...one cannot really be against a theory such as evolution (or claim to be a proponent of a competing hypothesis) without understanding the theory you don't like. Look at it this way, if I set out to try to refute a study that someone else did, I make pretty darn sure that I know everything I possibly can about what they did, how they came to their conclusions, etc....I don't say, that study offends me or the first author is a jackass but I don't know what he did but he must be wrong. Another way to look at it, many of us on the evolution side have read ID publications and are familiar with what they propose...how many IDists are even familiar with the ToE?

A dangerous, dangerous mistake. Abstracts are notoriously variable in how reliably they convey the actual contents of a paper. Anyone who has been to a poster session at a conference can appreciate this. Admittedly at conferences it is usually because the abstracts were written before the experiments were actually done, for a paper there is no such excuse.TTFN,WK

"Tying it in" to science doesn't make it scientific.Interesting that you appear to have read The Anthropic Cosmological Principle from your reference to Barrow and Tipler.For those interested:
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho17.htmThey point out a lot of seemingly precise physical laws and physical constant values are necessary for a universe with any solid matter to exist, let alone one in which life can evolve. There is an entire chapter devoted to "Design Arguments". They distinguish between 'teleological interpretations ('guided' processes) from 'eutaxiological' interpretations (processes with a final, end purpose). They hint at the inference that the entire cosmos had to be 'designed' in some way because the coincidences necessary for its existence are far too many to occur by chance alone.
However, I think the majority of scientific philosophers currently consider this movement little more than a form of mysticism. In relation to processes affecting living things, Mayr's 'Toward a New Philosophy of Biology" is a more practical, down to earth, and relevant work.http://www.amazon.com/...ader/0674896661/103-4585698-2511857My point with respect to trying to argue design and teleology with respect to biology, morphology and behavior is that they simply aren't necessary. Evolutionary biology is quite adequate without any such assumptions. They don't add anything to enhance scientific understanding. They only try and create a platform for the rationalization of religious conviction within a preponderance of undeniable scientific evidence of process.Assuming something was designed is never going to improve your understanding of it - unless you presume to know the physchology and intent of your supposed designer.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-04-2005 10:17 AM

quote:

---

My question, stemming out of general scientific ignorance---is to ask whether I.D. students are open minded enough to study traditional disciplines along with I.D. theories.

---

One would have to be an open-minded free thinker in the first place to rebel against the scientific authority and study ID...otherwise they would blindly follow the scientific masses in their unquestioning acceptance of neo-darwinism.

quote:

---

And this is an important point...one cannot really be against a theory such as evolution (or claim to be a proponent of a competing hypothesis) without understanding the theory you don't like. Look at it this way, if I set out to try to refute a study that someone else did, I make pretty darn sure that I know everything I possibly can about what they did, how they came to their conclusions, etc....I don't say, that study offends me or the first author is a jackass but I don't know what he did but he must be wrong. Another way to look at it, many of us on the evolution side have read ID publications and are familiar with what they propose...how many IDists are even familiar with the ToE?

---

IOW, one must blindly accept ToE...unless you are scientifically qualified. And if you are qualified, yet still don't accept ToE, then you are a quack...or a creationist in disguise...or supporting a hidden agenda or something...and open to ridiclule and bigotry.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-04-2005 11:15 AMThis message has been edited by Limbo, 05-04-2005 11:17 AM

Jerry,You have provided another confused post. Let me try to clarify the issues for you. The research method of methodological naturalism is called the scientific method. The scientific method is a toolbox of ideas, concepts and practices that help us to effectively study the natural world. The scientific method means that methodological naturalism does indeed have a research area. The research matter of methodologic naturalism is limited to natural observable phenomena.If, as you claim, Intelligent Design has no research matter, then it cannot provide us with any insights into such phenomena. As such, it may well be an interesting field of study. I doubt that it is much more than a masturbatory game for philosophers with a religious bent, but that is not a problem for me - academia is full of maturbatory philosophers. My problem comes with the claims of ID supporters that their philosophy can provide us with an effective means of discovering knowledge about the world, and as such should be considered a scientific method. It is not. ID researchers are not scientists, because they have abandoned the rigour of the scientific method in favour of a philosophy with is unable to provide an effective research methodology. This inability of ID to provide a research methodology is why your statement "We study science just as you or anyone else does" is incorrect. This is irrelevant. You are trying to make a fudge between teleology and intelligent design. They are not the same thing. You have already provided a teleological system (the blood circulatory system) that has been elucidated by the scientific method. In evolutionary biology, teleological systems (such as mate finding behaviour) have been shown to have been generated by natural selection. A teleological framework is also inherent in many scientific disciplines such as "rational choice theory" in sociology and economics. The existence of teleology in biological systems does not necessitate an intelligent designer. The existence of natural teleological systems, and scientists who subscribe to a teleological world view, has absolutely no relevance on the debate about the academic standing of ID. First of all, I don't understand why you expect me to provide hypotheses for ID researchers to test. I have already made clear that ID is not a science and is not an effective way of answering sceintific questions. You should not expect me to come up with anything. In the same way that I wouldn't ask the imam of my local mosque to provide me with biological hypotheses.Now let's get back to the point of this thread. That is the teaching of ID is schools and universities.Since you agree that "the entire concept of ID research is nonsensical", then I hope you will also agree that ID should not be taught in biology classes. That is because biology, as a science, is research-oriented. No research, no biology.We agree that ID has no research methodology, no means of testing its research results, no research program. To put it simply, ID has no research. In that case, it doesn't belong in a science class. If it is to be taught in schools at all, it can only be justifiably taught in a class that is not research-oriented. That rules out all of the sciences and humanities. Perhaps it could be taught in a physical education class or something.mickThis message has been edited by mick, 05-04-2005 12:13 PMThis message has been edited by mick, 05-04-2005 12:16 PM

Or a religiously motivated dogmatist. It isn't that you need to be qualified, it is that you need to actually understand what is being discussed in order do discuss it meaningfully.TTFN,WK

This might be a completely ridiculous suggestion, why not RE?TTFN,WK

Even RE has a research methodology. For example it relies on textual analysis and historical research. The idea of theological research is not "nonsensical", as Jerry has accepted for ID.I think gym class is really the only place on the curriculum that fulfils the itnellectual requirements of ID as they have been described by Jerry. Gym class is perfect because, like ID, it also has no research, no publications and no means of discovering knowledge about the world (apart from the knowledge that one is tired of it, and wants to stop).mick

An utterly despicable and cynical philosophy of education, scordova.I knew a graduate student who received funding from both the NSF (US) and NSERC (Canada). He turned down one of the grants, because he knew that by accepting both he would be depriving another biologist from research funds.Your view of education display no such generosity of spirit, and appears to have no ethical dimension whatsoever.By your logic, universities might set up "torture schools". Dictatorships from around the world could pay high prices to have their thugs educated in the best ways to inflict agonising pain on prisoners. This would be okay, right, because "money talks".This message has been edited by mick, 05-04-2005 12:58 PM

I am still awaiting your answers, scordova. Or, are you engaging in a classic creationist response of running when challenged.Oh, by the way, yes, ID is creationism, so my term applies to you.

Since you're from the UK you may not be aware of the "School of the Americas" (closed in 2001 IIRC but immediately another one was started that's located in the same buildings at Ft. Benning, GA).Google "School of the Americas" for some interesting reading.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

An utterly despicable and cynical philosophy of education, scordova.

---

Then talk to the administrators and department heads. Its not Sal who set up the system, he's just working within it.Colleges have to consider profit. So, if someone wants a particular subject to be offered, profit plays a role in that decision, no matter what subject it is. Its a fact of life in America.Yes it would be nice if profit were not a factor in education, but it is unfortunetly.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-04-2005 03:32 PMThis message has been edited by Limbo, 05-04-2005 03:34 PM

Oh yes I agree completely. I know Sal isn't responsible for organizational structure of US universities.In the UK I think there is only one private university (Buckingham), the remainder are government funded or rely on charitable fundraising or endowments. This might change within the next decade or so, unfortunately.ID is another good reason why, in the UK, we should fight to keep education under public control, and in the public interest, rather than for the benefit of rich special interest groups. Look at the US and shudder...