|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,768 Year: 4,025/9,624 Month: 896/974 Week: 223/286 Day: 30/109 Hour: 3/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design in Science Class - Sample curriculum please | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
carini Inactive Member |
ID as part of creationism should be taught in history class along with any other major religious world view, not in science class. Its not a science and has no basis in any scientific view of the world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6107 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
You have answered your own question
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6107 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
How does ID fit in history class? Same can be asked of evolution too.Evolution is only a philosophy based on naturalisnm. How does evolution fit in Science class?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
carini Inactive Member |
ID is based on religion, in particular christian creationism, at least in the current view of most people on this forum. Most religions are part of history, dating back thousands of years. ID could be based off any number of world religious or societal views. Why is the bible's version the sole correct one? Many religions have views that the world was created by birds or snakes, why are these less correct then the bible? If you want to teach ID you must base it off all these world views and these are all part of history, not any form of science whatsoever.
Evolution is not a philosophy. It's a theory. The best working theory as to how life became the way it is today. Evolution is based on DNA, proteins, genetic mutations, etc. Evolutionary theory is based in chemistry, biology and physics. Now what are these classes? They are science classes. You guessed it!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4136 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
I liked the idea the prof had at ku, before ID nuts beat him up
it should fall under a religious exploration class, rather than a science class. as i said before, if ID was in science this would be how it would go. day1: "today class we will discuss Intelligent design, first it is an unknown,undetectible,unexplainible proccess produced by an unknown enitity, most likely god, with no way of detection or explaination that evolution or abiogenesis can't explain, yet it is right day2: "as we have finished with ID lets move on to the flying spegetti monster, who created pirates and midgets and beer"
Evolution is only a philosophy based on naturalisnm. How does evolution fit in Science class?
it fits very well since, you can explain things with it and has evidence, it is not a philosophy, it is a theory and we see it happen every day
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6107 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
Evolution is not a philosophy. It's a theory. The best working theory as to how life became the way it is today. Evolution is based on DNA, proteins, genetic mutations, etc. Evolutionary theory is based in chemistry, biology and physics. Now what are these classes? I am not buying this. The trouble with all proponents of evolutionists is that they some how believe that by using scientific terminology as well as incorporating DNA,proteins, genetic mutations etc, they can convince everyone that Evolution is a Science. If evolution is science, then what is naturalism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: There are two kinds of naturalism; ontological and methodological. Ontological naturalism is the philosophical position that all that exists is the natural and that the supernatural does not exist. Methodological naturalism posits that only that in nature which we can observe with our five senses can be explained using naturalistic explanations. It ignores the question of the existence or non-existence of the supernatural entirely. The scientific method is based upon Methodological naturalism, and anyone doing real science uses methodological naturalism in their work. No science is based upon ontological naturalism, nor is any scientist required to embrace ontological naturalism as a personal philosophy. This is how it is possible that there are scientists of many different religions and philosophies but who all use methodological naturalism in their work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
carini Inactive Member |
As a proponent of evolution its alot easier for me to imagine evolution occuring, then a "god" creating(poofing) everything into its current state. I see change in everyday life. I see how people change over time, life itself is about change. People and their understanding of things evolves over time.
I like complexity, not the simplest answer possible. In the case of how the world came to be the way it is today, ID in the form of christian creationism, is about the simplest explanation there is. Now if you came to me and said "God created evolution and thats is how he creates an endless supply of life to populate the earth". I would probably agree with you. He may have set everything in motion, but after that has let his creations run their course. Why not try to imagine that god created evolution(yes god created evolution!!!!) so that life could adapt to different conditions on earth? I think that something created everything, but it just set the basics in motion and then left the universe to itself. I do not really disagree with ID, but its based on religious ideals for the most part. Most religious ideas are for the most part wrong about how the way the world is today. Even the catholic church eventually accepted that the earth wasn't the center of the universe. Eventually fundametalist creationists will see the light and accept that the world is very very old, that evolution is how life evolves and changes when faced with different climatic conditions and food sources.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I would actually say that the ID/Creationist explanation is simplistic rather than simple. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-09-2006 08:39 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
As a proponent of evolution its alot easier for me to imagine evolution occuring, then a "god" creating(poofing) everything into its current state. The question then becomes where the magic line is drawn ... evolutionary creationist, evolutionary theist, (and 'evolutionary' not needed for: ) Deist, Agnostic, whatever.
ID in the form of christian creationism, is about the simplest explanation there is. No, ID in it's simplest conception, means that you take no preconceptions of any kind, and assume that no 'revelation' of design may be evident. You have to simplify, simplify, simplify, to get to the "simplest explanation" eh? Introducing any religion (christian, hindu, whatever) to the mix complicates it, as there has to then be a correlation between the {ID concept used} and the {chosen faith}. There is certainly no need to assume christian creationism has any more valid a reconstruction than any other {religion\faith\belief}, so occam's bloody razor removes it. The best you can assume is that the way the creation works can be understood based on the rules used to form it. This means all scientific avenues are valid, as they are attempts to reach the best understanding of the way the whole thing works. Not only that, but it becomes imperative to pursue all lines of rigorous and logical thought - scientific and philosophical - so that you are not deceived by any apparent patterns and can seperate the wheat from the chaff. The problem for ID is how to distinguish the view in one end of a kaleidoscope (an organized pattern) from the view in the other (a random jumble) when you don't understand the {system\function\behavior} of the kaleidoscope. Carried to it's logical conclusion, ID (fully) becomes a form of Deism (instead of only a weak (corrupted?) sibling). What holds many IDeists back is the unwillingness to recognize those things they cannot change: God, grant me serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can and wisdom to know the difference. Scientific evidence is one of those things.
I like complexity, not the simplest answer possible. Complexity has a function if it adds to the explanatory power of a concept (and it can be tested). This is the way the scientific theories grow (until some new simplifying paradigm\gut comes along). General Relativity is more complex than Newtonian physics. Complexity that does not add to explanatory power usually reduces it and is thus counterproductive.
Eventually fundametalist creationists will see the light and accept that the world is very very old, that evolution is how life evolves ... Fundamentalists and creationists will still be around - those that are YEC will become increasingly marginalized as the evidence continues to mount that the world is undeniably (rationally anyway) old, and will join other denial based beliefs, like flat-earthers - but the fundamentalists and creationists will find some way to reconcile (to themselves anyway) belief with the facts. That being said (and to bring this thread back to the original topic ... ), the concept of ID is a philosophical concept that, when taken to it's logical conclusion, uses all of science as a tool. As such it does not belong in science class (in the same way that math is not taught in, say, physics or engineering or whatever classes) but in philosophy class. This allows the full use of the structures of logic for theories, proofs (if possible) and deductions and a rational evaluation of all the evidence. And it would have to have a history to be put in history class eh? Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6107 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
This sounds just like Hindu philosophy. It is hard for me to imagine the universe to function by itself. For example, the planets are in their own orbits. If their motion is altered even by a fraction, it will affect the weather pattern of our planet.Life will become extinct if the temperature shifts outside the norms. Our planet maintains the necessary conditions so that plant and animal life will be sustained. There has to be something governing the entire universe. There was abeginning like the Big bang. There must also be an end. In between everything is sustained. How?
This message has been edited by inkorrekt, 04-11-2006 10:41 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SuperNintendo Chalmers Member (Idle past 5860 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: |
This sounds just like Hindu philosophy. It is hard for me to imagine the universe to function by itself. For example, the planets are in their own orbits. If their motion is altered even by a fraction, it will affect the weather pattern of our planet.Life will become extinct if the temperature shifts outside the norms. Our planet maintains the necessary conditions so that plant and animal life will be sustained. There has to be something governing the entire universe. There was abeginning like the Big bang. There must also be an end. In between everything is sustained. How? Textbook argument from incredulity. The universe is infinite... I am not at all surprised that a planet exists that supports life. Just because you can't imagine something doesn't mean it isn't so
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
.Life will become extinct if the temperature shifts outside the norms. Indeed. We could all die at any minute. Welcome to the Universe! For a place people like you argue was created just for us to live in, it's surprisingly dangerous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Now if someone found life that was not suited for its environment ...
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Ink, do you get what I am saying in Message #52?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024