Read this interesting article about Intelligent Design.
Consider this quote from the article, made by Michael Behe, who is a proponent of Intelligent Design.
"It matches what a lot of people see. It matches peoples' intuitions about biology," said Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania."
Also consider this comment from Dr. Kenneth Miller, who opposes teaching Intelligent Design in the science classroom.
"The movement's success comes from the way it "appeals to peoples' sense of unease about science and technology," said Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island.'
Can you personally relate to either of these statements? Do you feel uncomfortable with science and technology? Do you feel that the Theory of Natural Selection is inconsistent with your intuitive sense of life? Please use the comment box below to elaborate your thoughts on these issues.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
94 comments:
I agree with Numbers. If the definition of science is "seeking a natural explanation for natural events and phenomenon," than how can a supernatural explanation be part of the curriculum. If people are uncomfortable with the theory of evolution figure out a way to should teach it in a separate class. Science isn't about teaching ideas, it's about teaching scientific theories. Yes, the theory of evolution doesn't fill in all the blanks, but is there any other theory that does? no, the theory of natural selection is currently the most fit theory we have. I do believe that when Darwin's theory is taught, what his theory can't explain should also be pointed out. If the teacher wants to inform the class that many people feel comfortable filling in the blanks with intelligent design, why not go for it? I mean all they have to say is that it's just an idea with no proof right? After all that is the truth. It's just an idea with no concrete evidence. People feel comfortable believing in intelligent design because there is no current alternative scientific theory covering what natural selection does not. People just don't want to know how closely related they are to monkeys and other "unsanitary" life forms.
But really, just teach what has survived the tryouts of the scientific method, not what people want to hear. -Cole G
When it comes to teaching about natural selection versus intelligent design, teaching natural selection is better because not everyone believes in God or some higher being. However, in parochial-type schools intelligent design should be taught. But personally I feel comfortable with both theories of evolution because they both make sense to me. There has been a significant amount of evidence that shows that we have evolved from earlier animals, but I also feel like God created everything. I don’t feel uncomfortable with science and technology; it just is sometimes hard to believe. The controversy over which is more correct is just something that we may never know and we should just learn both and let each person decide for themselves rather than teach something that may not be completely correct.
-Wumi
I can only mildly relate to the first quote about ID. When we studied the complexity of the human anatomy in 7th grade, it felt like there was no way that our designs could have just been left up to chance. But that's all it was: a feeling. I think the answer to a question like "where did we come from?" ought to go deeper than just "people's intuitions" and gut feelings about biology, like Michael Behe said. But then again, the article didn't state a lot of the evidence that affirmed ID (which would've been really nice/interesting to have), rather it sounded like it was just trying to poke holes in the evolutionary theory. But that was really about it for ID's case in this article. Just because one side maybe wrong, that doesn't make the other one right
I find my opinion split between the two arguments. I do believe that controversy should be taught in schools, but I also believe that schools should defend as correct theories generally found to be true by the mainstream scientific community. Thus, in my view, I would see it as appropriate to explain the concept of "intelligent design" in a course that would give a reasonably through teaching of evolution, much like how I would see it appropriate to brush on the theory that HIV does not cause AIDS in a course on diseases. An explanation of "intelligent design", though, or any such far fetched theory, should end with a critique of the idea, and an explanation of why most respectable scientists reject the it. I would see explanations of other critiques of evolution also appropriate in such a course too. Of course, all of these critiques together should be touched on for no more than a session all together, and students should be taught with finality that science, rather than these other ideas, will be considered correct in the course taught in.
I understand people who want easy answers to complicated questions. People have always done this. There are many scientific theories that, as a whole, the public now believes. Even if the theory of evolution is not complete in certain areas, the evidence is increasing and soon (hopefully) will become more accepted.
I am comfortable with science and believe that it is the best explanation that we have of this world. I think that it is important that people understand scientific procedure and at what point they should take something as true for themselves so that advances can be made in technologies that improve people's health and lives.
Technology definitly confuses me, but so does religion for that matter. I find it kind of hard to beleive either argument. I dont know how something as cold as science could account for the complexities of human feelings, yet I feel strongly that evolution has to be correct to a degree. So I guess I would want for evolution to be taught in class, and then a seprate and optional class to be offered for those who wished to learn more about ID and ID versus evolution. And I agree with Wumi in that it is something everyone needs to figure out for themselves, yet Im not sure if teaching ID in a required class would be a good idea, due to the diversity in religious beliefs in schools.
-Zoe O-G
I think i understand what Behe is trying to say- intelligent design definately appeals to the greater population. It seems easier to understand, maybe, and you don't have to believe in a God nessecarily. From this article, it doesn't seem as though ID is implying what higher being creates these, and I think it's pretty cool to consider the idea of another higher being, maybe some other form of human or creature that views us as a small little world, like we view an ant or something, controlling things happening. It gives the normal person, maybe someone like me who is not naturally inclined toward science, a connection to it. It's perhaps harder to delve into a scientific realm (yes i am indimidated by science and techonology), and ID seems philosiphical and almost magical. I think it's entirely plausible, and I certainly think it's wrong for scientists to suggest that it shouldn't be further expanded or studied, or that it will overthrow the concepts of science. Isn't science about being imaginative? Wasn't Darwin worried about getting a terrible reaction when he first presented his evolution findings? Just because we have the strongly backed up theory of evolution does not mean that we should stop there. It goes back to Gingerich and his fossils-for 30 years, he thought he had the right idea. And that was something on a much smaller scale than evolution. Yes, accepting ID would change science. Methods might split off in different directions, but we shouldn't be afraid of change. It's hard to accept, but if you believe in evolution, you're accepting right there that things change. It's essential to our lives, and ID should be given the change that evolution was.
I can't really relate to the first comment. In science, i think intuitions are good to a certain extent, but you need more than that to back up one of the most important scientific theories of today. I also respect people who believe in God, however I don't think a theory that is based on the existence of God should be taught to everyone, many of whom might have different beliefs. For the second comment, I think that it also makes sense that people would be drawn to Intelligent Design because they feel uncomfortable about science and technology. I don't feel uncomfortable with science and technology; some new technologies may be a little different and weird, but a lot of these new inventions will surely help our society. Evolution doesn't really make me feel uneasy, maybe it sounds funny at first that we are descended from apes, but when you think about it it makes sense, and more often than not, i feel better when nature and other stuff is explained by science. And i don't think that the theory of Natural Selection is inconsistent with my intuitive sense of life.
I don't really relate to either of the two quotes mentioned, but if I had to do so, I would choose the second quote-people do have an inherent fear of the unknown. Lack of knowledge about a subject is, or can be, used as grounds to disregard said subject. Personally, I have no problems with science or technology, barring the occasional anger directed at my computer. I believe that the theory of natural selection is not only compatible with, but the direct result of using common sense: if you take two animals of the same species, but one has a gene which enables stronger musculature (and the environment is one where increased strength would be of use), the stronger animal will survive.
Regardless of whether or not natural selection seems to be believable to me, intelligent design has no place in schools-at least, it has no place being taught. Don't you just love the part of the Constitution that talks about the separation between church and state? Intelligent design has some sort of higher, supernatural being involved in our creation-if that isn't religious, I don't know what is.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, and should not be taught as such in any schools-just because science hasn't given each, exact step in the process of the evolution of certain organs doesn't mean that automatically GODDIDIT, which is the premise of intelligent design. Like Cole said, people just don't want to face the fact that humans aren't really that special-maybe we aren't involved in some grand design after all.
Evolution can be disproven, but it hasn't been so yet. Intelligent design is based off repeating the same inane, unprovable "logic" over and over again-they don't prove their theory, they just try to disprove evolution.
-Adarsha S.
I understand what their saying but i don't relate to the idea. The idea of natural selection comes very natural to me. I think it makes the most sense and i can visualize in my mind pretty easily. I'm pretty comfortable with science and technology and I like thinks to be explained or at least have some idea of what is happing. I personally don't like the idea that some higher being created the complex organs like the eye and the heart and son on. I think its good to talk about both ideas in school though so people can have a broader
of evolution but I think its wrong to just teach one or the other. People should choose what they think make the most sense. In my personal opinion though natural selection makes much more sense to me because
1)I don't like the idea that a higher being was involved in nature
2)There is a lot of evidence to support natural selection and no evidence to support ID
for some reason half a line deleted its self so here is the other half
"can have a broader view of ID vs. evolution"
I relate a lot more with Miller’s statement than Behe’s, because I believe that though most people are interested in science, there are some people are turned off by complicated questions such as “Where is did life start?” and “Have humans evolved from apes?” I don’t think that most people see biology as something complicated, and thus decide that they believe in the Intelligent Design “Theory” (I don’t exactly consider it a theory, since there is not evidence for it). However, my feeling that most people are comfortable with science and technology is because I am comfortable with them. Thinking about it, maybe some of my cousins don’t believe in evolution (they are very Catholic)… possibly partly because they have not taken very advanced science classes. For me, the Theory of Natural Selection is consistent with my intuitive sense of life, though I do think that life is incredibly complex and amazing. I guess that the reason I feel this way is because I grew up with my parents telling me that humans and other animals evolved throughout time into what they are today. Though I do not know how something as complicated as a cell came into existence (probably evolved too!!), I highly doubt that either God or an alien created cells. Someone would probably say, “Then who created God/the aliens??” I think that life had to be created randomly and organisms evolved into what they are today.
-Danielle G.
I feel that i can relate to natural selection more than intelligent design. I would have to agree with Wumi, that teaching natural selection to avoid possibly upsetting a religious student. Personally i would like to learn more about both natural selection and ID. My belief is that people that are religious have the biased opinion that there is some higher being. Where as people who aren't religious tend to agree with natural selection and ID. I think that Cole G was right on when talking about and alternative to natural selection.Since there isn't another theory people are almost forced to choose natural selection or believe that there is a high being that created everything. My family isn't religious but a lot of close family friends are. One of the kids that i have known since kindergarten is very religious so i natural i thought that there was a higher being at first.So hearing about natural selection was a little shocking because it was different, but now that i am studying it i think that it makes since.
I don't believe in the theory of intelligent design at all. I think its absurd that they are introducing that as a scientific theory... that totally breaks the definition of science. What about the people who don't believe in god or other supernatural powers. I thought that that the whole point of science was to explain events in a natural way separated from religion and philosophy. The people who believe in intelligent design must partially believe in evolution... intelligent design only pertains to the creation of complex organs and such. If they already partially believe in evolution, why can't they believe that complex organs could have been created through evolution too... it just would have taken a longer period of time to evolve to its complex state. Although i think the theory of intelligent design is a preposterous idea, i think that teachers should share it with the students to demonstrate that there is still controversy about the theory of evolution.
-helen
I think that just because the general public is uncomfortable accepting an idea that doesn't mean the scientific community, which is theoretically more knowledgeable about the subject, should pander to their fears. I think that if there is a good, scientific explanation for the way species evolve, that is the one that should be thought. I think this might be even more important in schools than a community at large, because I think that it is important that students learn the scientific explanation, and then can choose to believe what they will. Also, I think that teaching them side by side probably decreases the apparent "truthfulness" of the theory of evolution because it is being presented as another viable alternative explanation when really it is not accepted in the scientific community.
I don't really understand how ID would be consistent with my understanding of biology, because I see biology as a science, and ID as a religious explanation for natural phenomenon. ID, rather than blending in with an understanding of biology, completely contradicts what it tries to teach, especially since Darwinism and evolution ism is at its core.
Also, I don't relate to the second quote either because if I wanted a religious explanation for all natural phenomenon, I wouldn't turn to biology for my answers. Clearly, however, ID can be of great comfort for those who feel overwhelmed by science.
I generally am not scared by technology, so I think that this fact is the reason that I readily accept natural selection over ID. I think that there can really be only one or the other, because the two theories would clash otherwise. If this Creator decided to create all the "intelligently designed" structures, why not create all other life as well?
As for teaching ID in a science class: I don't really think it's a good idea, only because I don't consider it a scientific theory (if we can call it that, even), more of a religious explanation for extremely complex structures in our universe. While the definition of science is extremely vague, it definitely doesn't fall into the category of "religion." It would have its place in a religion class, over a science class.
I can personally relate to both of these statements. As a Jew, I do feel uneasy about denying that God had any place in creation at all. But at the same time, as a reasonable, educated student, I find it hard to doubt evolution, with all its supporting facts.
I do believe that theory of Intelligent Design is completely BS though. Its kind of a wishy washy phrase that lets you believe in evolution and God at the same time. Since there's no proof of God, what place does he even HAVE in science? In my opinion, either God would have created animals where they were supposed to live and give them what they needed to survive. OR you can believe in evolution.
As to the theory of evolution itself, it makes complete sense. A buffalo with better eye sight to see an incoming tiger is more likely not to be eaten, thus more likely to be alive to reproduce. I don't understand how that's even debatable.
So I guess in summary, what should be taught is science, not some hodgepodge, made up story trying to satisfy needs certain people have.
I feel that science and technology definitely come with a certain amount of uneasiness and incomprehension. I am undoubtedly troubled by the idea of a never ending universe, expanding faster than we can look at it. The mere idea of empty space is mind boggling, and even computers, which are part of my everyday life, astound me with their complexities. Evolution, however, is not an area about which I feel very nervous. I would attribute my confidence and security in Darwin's theories mainly to my a-religious upbringing. Having never really learned the Bible story, or any other for that matter, of creation, the first explanation for our existence that I true understood was that of Natural Selection. I have since accepted this as true although I can not understand of its complexities, much as I accept that computers function on something other than magic even though I have no notions as to how that is. Therefore I find very little validity in Intelligient Design simply because it is easier to accept and understand. There is no reason that the world needs to be simple, or that the explanantions of our world should be easily understood by every inhabitant. As far the classroom goes I feel that ID should be mentioned as a belief that many people hold, but not taught as fact or regarded as true science. Even with this said, however, I find myself agreeing with Zoe about human emotions and thoughts. While physical characteristics can be explained by evolutionary advantage, I have a great deal of trouble rationalizing the development of our minds. Lastly, I think that most people look to ID as a way of preserving their ideas of human superiority. They feel that if we evolved just like all other organisms then what it is that sets us apart? and why are we special? I have no issues with the idea that our history as organisms was similar to that of an ape's but find our superiority in the fact that we have developed and evolved to the point where we can survive almost anything the world throws at us. No other animal has learned to communicate, create, and adapt as effectively as we have. It is our highly evolved minds that makes us special on our lovely earth.
-Cole S.C.
I mostly agree with Numbers because I agree with the fact that Intelligent Design will serve to confuse people, especially students, about modern-day evolutionary science. We would seem to be saying, 'This is everything we've discovered, but if you feel uncomfortable about it, just think that a higher being created everything.' I personally have never felt uneasy about the idea of evolution, not being religious myself and thus disagreeing entirely with Creationist belief. However, I found it incredibly interesting that over 50 percent of Americans refused to accept the scientific evolutionary theory. I think Numbers is right in wanting to prevent ID being taught in schools, especially because of its fairly newness. To me, science and technology are just a part of life, and, being interested in science, I am appalled that research and possible discoveries are stifled by conservative and religious thinking. I respect people's beliefs, and it is their choice to believe in the theory of evolution. But they should not prevent other people from being presented with facts merely because it is different from their own thinking. Otherwise, science would be undermined and would lose its credibility. As Numbers noted, "The heart of scientific enterprise is to try to solve these problems naturally, not just say, OK, this is intelligently designed, so we're giving up." The idea of intelligent seems like an 'easy way out' for scientists who don't know the answer. I like to believe that the earth and its inhabitants are constantly changing and adapting to their environments, each with its distinct qualities and advantages. By no means is every species perfect, and just the example of species becoming extinct should be enough to convince someone that there is something more than an intelligent agent at play in life.
To be perfectly honest, I can't really relate to either of the statements personally because I don't feel a personal connection to any one theory about our origins, origins of our universe, etc. That sounds really detached and ditzy, but what I mean is that I don't personally have any 'affection' for any one theory, be it evolution or intelligent design. I only want to see the facts that support each theory, and I couldn't care less what my 'gut feeling' is, because what just because I have an instinctual tendency toward something doesn't make it right. I suppose I'm in support of teaching the controversy in schools, just to show students the different theories that exist in the world. However, I also agree with Eugenie Scott, who said that the theory of intelligent design isn't "ready for primetime". I think too many people are letting their personal feelings push them towards the theory of intelligent design, when it doesn't (yet) have enough credible evidence supporting it in the scientific community to make it a respectable alternative to the theory of evolution.
I do agree with the first comment to a certain degree. Natural selection, although it may not be comfortable for everyone, has a clear explanation and process. It is something that can be proved. Therefor, I believe it is fair game to be taught in schools and other situations. When people say that they are uncomfortable with technology and that the idea of a higher being comforts them, I respect that. And although it is something that can seem very pleasing to some people, there is no solid evidence. I feel like it something more personal for the individual, but should not necessarily be taught in schools. God is something that nobody can really prove, and that is where faith comes in. Rather than teaching either of the two theories in schools and calling it "fact" or the "right idea", I think that schools should go with John West's idea of "teach the controversy". The Evolution vs ID debate is one that can be very personal and controversial for people. If schools teach the reasons behind this debate, it will give students a more objective look on the situation, so they can figure out what they would like to believe.
I don’t believe that an intelligent agent is responsible for our creation. That being said I realize why some people may respond well to the idea of ID. Some people are made uncomfortable by science and technology, as Kenneth Miller says, so they turn to theories like ID in order to explain what they don’t fully understand. To me it’s like taking the easiest solution for a complex phenomena. However just because ID seems like an easy solution to me, almost a short cut, does not mean that it is not true. It is a theory, just like evolution, and when ID has as much evidence as evolution does then I will take it more seriously. In addition to a scientific theory ID is a very religious subject, to say that it does not exist is like saying that God doesn’t exist, or that all three holy books of the Abrahamic faiths are in at least some way wrong. I feel that church’s are responsible for educating people on ID, while schools are responsible for evolution, or the latest theory that may replace evolution and the people who get taught are responsible for choosing what they believe. If evolution conflicts with their ideas about religion, maybe it’s better they sacrifice evolution for their religion, if religion is important to them.
I dont relate to either of these statements, but that might be becasue I was always taught that evolution was how living things were created. I can understand how people who were taught that God or likewise did exist that they would be more likely to believe in Intellegent Design. I find it harder to wrap my mind around the idea that a greater being created the earth than the idea of evolution. If something greater had created us, I would think it would have made us perfect, which sure is not the case. I do think that people should know others ideas about complicated subjects, but Intellegent Design seems more like a philosopy or a religion than a scientific theory.
I can personally relate to the second quote, because it's difficult to accept a whole new theory when the common explanation for natural phenomena has been the presence of a supernatural being for thousands of years. This also helps it apply to more conservative, religious people who do not wish to part with the fundamentals of religion. Despite the sheer amount of evidence present in the theory of natural selection, the theory of a supernatural being is easy to grasp and believe in, leaving only the more scientific people doubtful.
I am slightly doubtful about the theory of natural selection because it reduces the miracle of life into scientific terms, while not fully explaining what life is and how life was started. However, I fully believe in the theory of evolution through natural selection because of how logical it is and how much sence it makes. I think that in schools, they should teach the basics of the theory of intelligent design while emphasizing its controversy with natural selection. I also think that the problems in both theoris should be pointed out, and neither should be presented as the all encompassing theory of life.
I relate most to Miller's quote. There are often times when I ponder about biology when I have some doubt and confusion about evolution and the idea of natural selection. It is hard for me to believe that all of Earth's diversity comes ONLY from their environment. No doubt a great deal of an animal's traits was determined over time by what its predecessors had to face such as predators and climate change; however, certain features of animals, plants, bacteria, etc. are SO complex that I could never understand how really natural selection played a part in making it that way. So I agree that the idea of ID is only a way to educate others what cannot be explained by the theory of evolution.
This is not to say that the theory of ID should not be taught in the science class. Although the idea itself may not be scientific, if the theory has scientific evidence, then I think it is perfectly alright to present that idea. It is not altering a student's mind set about biology. that is left up to the student.
However, at the same time, I do not believe that just because natural selection cannot explain certain phenomenon, we assume its an intelligent cause. There must be further hypotheses made about it.
For the time being, I believe it perfectly fine to introduce the idea of ID to students because it is their ultimate choice what to believe.
- Kanishka
In agreement with Helen and many others, I see myself believing more in natural selection than in ID. Although I grew up going to temple and having a Bat Mitzvah, the whole deal, I have never been a truly religious person and cannot convince myself that there is a "higher being" controlling the universe. This is not to say that I think ID is wrong, because I am fully open to opposing ideas and know that it's not my place to tell people what to believe, but my personal opinion is that there is a larger amount of scientific evidence backing up natural selection than there is for ID. I feel that unless there can be some real scientific evidence that a god or higher being exists (by real evidence I mean human contact or video coverage, something believable), biology class is not the place to discuss religion. The current concept of ID seems to be pure religion with no scientific underpinnings, and until scientists can prove that it is in fact related to biology, I feel that it should be kept out of science classrooms(not at all to say it should not be discussed in an academic setting). I cannot see religion and science going hand in hand quite yet, but I can see the concept of ID belonging in philosophy or current affairs classes.
Does Evolution Make You Feel Uneasy?
I think that Darwin’s theory of natural selection makes sense if you think about that way that one species of animal can be the ancestor of a hundred different species thousands of years later but it doesn’t answer the question of how that very first cell came to be on earth. I can understand how it doesn’t sit well with some that humans were just a happy accident and closely linked to monkeys and apes. Darwin’s theory explains the details of living beings extremely well but as a big picture of why there is life on earth Darwin’s theory doesn’t do anything for me. It’s also comforting to think that there is a supreme being who designed our world and that every single living being has a place meant for them instead of thinking of our world as “a bunch of genes who can’t copy themselves very well”. However, the fundamentals of science are that all natural things can be explained by natural reasons and choosing to accept ID is giving up. I completely believe Darwin’s theory of evolution but that does not mean that Intelligent Design is incorrect because the two theories, for me, are answering different questions. The name “Intelligent Design” implies that there is a supreme power who set our world in motion but is not controlling the decisions we make or the way that the world works everyday. I believe that there is a possibility that Intelligent Design exists and if it did then Darwin’s theory is a part of ID and Darwin was simply the first guy to figure out what some of that design is.
I love the idea of evolution. The facts and experiments give enough proof to me that it is correct. Although I know that it could all be wrong, and that certain parts are definitely wrong, the fact that intelligent design has no proof turns me away from it. It is not that evolution might be wrong that makes me uneasy, but instead intelligent design's lack of evidence. This is similar to the court of law's saying: innocent until proven guilty. Sure the offender might be guilty and get set free because of no proof, but it is better that that happen then send innocent people to jail without proof. Just like this, intelligent design shouldn't be taught because evolution might be wrong and doesn't explain some phenomena. Intelligent design should be taught because it has been studied and recurring evidence shows that it is a viable subject. The pro-ID people are basically arguing that it is good because evolution is bad, not that ID is good as well. If eventually ID has sufficient proof, then I think it can be taught in schools. Sure it doesn't correspond to the already existing definition of science, but who said scientific definitions cant change? I thought that was the whole point: evidence shows theories are viable until further evidence disproves it. So for now i think ID should not be taught, but if in the future there is evidence suggesting it is right, then I think that the scientific definition should be changed and ID will probably be a widely enough accepted theory to be taught anywhere.
I have to agree with John West's "teach the controversy" approach to teaching. When one attempts to educate an indivual on any subject manner, it is essential that all aspect surrounding the topic are covered. This is especially the case in the field of science. Technically, in the world of science, nothing is certain, and all of our "laws" of physics are simply waiting to be proved wrong. Although the concepts of strong theories like evolution and gravity hold tremendous amounts of evidence in their favor, there is still a possibility that it can be proven wrong, or a better explanation may arise. Therefore, it may be deemed necessary to implement non-traditional approaches to a school's curriculum. This may mean that the definition of science, "seeking a natural explanation for natural events and phenomenon," may be challenged in an effort to bring to light all of the aspect regarding the given subject. When it comes to the topics of Evolution and Intelligent Design, I believe that both sides have strong arguments. Evolution has strong evidence of its existence in the natural world, but this only seems practical on a small scale, such as changes in the physical characteristics on the beak of a finch. Intelligent Design, however, helps one to visualize how intricate complexities such as the brain or the eye function. It is not fair that some subjects are not covered in schools because they lack a traditional scientific justification. Things such as thoughts and intuition seem as if they can only be the product of a supreme or supernatural being. Also, by denying the theory of the supernatural realm to comply with conventional scientific methods, the advancement of science is somewhat hindered. The evidence of the theory supernatural realm is just as prevailent as the evidence for the theories of evolution or gravity. How many countless ghost stories, miracles, supernatural experiences have people experienced in their lives? Some people may claim that the super natural realm or the thought of a supreme being is nothing but a theory. But remember, gravity and evolution are noting but theories as well...
It seems to me that the solution is very clear. Although there must be something wrong with the way I propose to fix this problem because it hasn't happened so far...
The way I see it, there are three types of people. If people want their children to only learn the Darwinian method of natural selection (etc), then they can let their children go to school, learn this method, and simply keep it at that. Another type is the one who want their children to only learn the process of evolution as a divine thing, homeschool their child... or find a school that doesn't teach evolution by natural selection. If you are the type of person who wants you child to learn both, but the school is only teaching evolution by natural selection, teach the kid at home...
Also, it seems to me that teaching both evolution by natural selection and then adding on the part of ID (or offering a class on creationism) would be a great idea. The only necessity to this would be that the students would have to be told clearly that they do not have to believe in the ID part or the creationism... Something like that seems ideal to me because then you would be diversifying your point of view about science, but not being forced to think one way or another.
I am always disapointed when I hear someone advocating for intelligent design because they never really explain the thoery. They say they are doing experiments that prove that some things are just too complex to be developed by natural selection. However, they never present a lab write up that explains the experiment and lists the results. I have come to the conclusion that they just look at something and say, "well this one looks pretty complex and since we don't believe in evolution, there can't be any explanation except intelligent design." Also, while they hypocritaclly refuse to examine the possible series of small changes that could have created the thing, they complain without end about the scientific community not concidering thier theory. It just makes me really annoyed with them. I really don't think that if they can't explain thier experiments easily that the theory is ready for the classroom. Plus, like the scientist said at the end, intelligent design just doesn't have enough proof to the accepted by the scientific community, so it shouldn't be taught at schools. Think about the confusion our science classes would be if the teachers taught all the unsupported thoerys out there.
I cannot relate at all to the first quote; I can, however, identify with the second. The idea of intelligent design seems, to me at least, to be based entirely in religious beliefs and not in rational, scientific thought. The theory of natural selection, however, makes perfect sense to me as an explanation of life. As someone with no real religious convictions, I find it very difficult to understand the argument for intelligent design. Evolution, to me, is a much more natural explanation for the magnitude of life on Earth, especially since it has so much proof to back it up. While the conflict between intelligent design and evolutionary theory is an interesting one to examine in the classroom, I strongly believe that intelligent design should not presented as fact in a biology class, since it is a religious concept with no real, substantial proof.
I would have to say that I agree with Michael Behe. Growing up as a Christian, I have always believed that there is a God and that this world was created by intelligent design. However, I don’t think that intelligent design is a sufficient theory for the scientific world. You can’t prove it, you can’t test it, and there is absolutely no evidence besides faith. While faith works for many things, I don’t think it belongs in science. Also, teaching it in schools is wrong because the students being taught intelligent design are coming from all different religious backgrounds and it would contradict what many students have been raised to believe.
I can understand certainly where the first statement is coming from, but to me it seems to undermine the very ideals science is based on. Certainly, science isn’t meant to reinforce the ‘intuitive ideas’ we already have; no, it’s meant to explain what we are misinformed and/or ignorant of. The theory of evolution is certainly slightly ‘unintuitive’, but again, so are many things in science. Certainly it’s ‘unintuitive’ that our familiar principles of physics go out the door when we deal with subatomic particles that can appear in two places at once, but that doesn’t mean quantum theory is wrong. After advancing Darwin’s theory to the point where it explains so much, why would you want to stop researching and claim ‘intelligent design’? Just because there are things we don’t understand yet doesn’t mean the theory of evolution has been mined for all it’s worth; in the beginning, we didn’t understand how the eye developed, and many assumed it was an act of intelligent design, or as they called it ‘irreducible complexity’. In time, however, we began to understand how the eye developed, just like how in time we will (hopefully) understand how the inner workings of cells could have evolved. To have a set of different religious beliefs is fine, but to cover your beliefs in the veil of science and try to heed the progress of scientific thought is a copout. If evolution is opposed by every inch of your moral fiber, then that is simply who you are and what you believe, and it’s wrong for people to force you to believe otherwise. But when you turn your beliefs into a bogus theory to challenge the likes of a theory as heavily researched as natural selection, something is very, very, wrong.
Personally, I don’t relate to either of statements very much, but I do understand their point and how others could have their views. Often people have a lack of knowledge that limits their ability to try to understand science and technology. But, I feel comfortable with the topics and don’t think they are burdens, but more of an enlightening way to understand the world. On one hand, I think that because 55% of people don’t believe in the “intelligent design” theory, it should be taught. However, I think it does intrude into the traditional area of science, which “has been to limit scientific explanations to natural causes.” So, I believe a good compromise is Numbers solution: continuing to teach the theory of evolution, since it stands today as “the best answer scientists can give to the question of life's origins,” but also include the criticisms possible faults of the evolutionary theory. In addition, I agree to a certain extent with Behe’s point that until the complex components of nature are proven to be the result of evolution, people should definitely think about and leave open the chance of other possibilities, including an “intelligent agent.” Nevertheless, I disagree with Behe in his view that scientists, the people who devote their lives to science, should be able to make a distinction between supernatural forces and natural forces that make up actual science as it has been studied throughout history. In conclusion, I feel that the Theory of Natural Selection is consistent with my intuitive thought about evolution and the diversity of life. While I believe that all possibilities should be thoroughly tested, thought about, and taught, there is a line between actual natural science and supernatural forces.
-Callie Roberts
This is Lydia period 6. I really could not log into my other account even though I created it three separate times. sorry.
I really don't want to go into my personal religious and/or scientific beliefs, but I do agree with Lena that ideas around Intelligent Design need to be thought out more before they are made part of schools. I liked what Zoe said about an optional course, but the theory (if that's what it's being called) still needs work. I would really like for someone to actually explain to me Intelligent Design, because even though you can't test it, like it is not a hypothesis, I want to know what people are assuming is happening. So if Natural Selection says mutations, what would you say in intelligent design? Like some higher being was behind the mutations or just decided an eye was better than a light sensitive blob? Is it possible in Intelligent Design that all of us will wake up one day with a new and useful feature?
I do not believe Intelligent design should be taught in school. What Behe said is one of the reasons why I think that. he says it appeals to peoples intuition about biology, rather then their sense of reason. Intelligent design is the answer people want just because they are not comfortable with evolution. I believe people want a sense of closure, and since evolution still has some holes, they want an explanation that can fill them. Another reason I do not believe it should be taught in school is that it is not a theory that has any evidence to support it other than some organs are too complicated to have been achieved by evolution. Finally, teaching Intelligent design assumes that is, or was at some point an all powerful deity. One problem with this is that there needs to be separation of church and state. But the other reason is that it would impose the belief of one all powerful god upon everyone, such as agnostics and atheists. Personally, I am uncomfortable with the idea of an all powerful deity, and I would not appreciate being forced to learn that one created the universe.
Challen
To me the theory of evolution through natural selection is quite plausible because it seems very logical that species who are better adapted to their environments will survive. The idea of evolution has never made my feel uneasy, but Intelligent Design does make me uneasy because it is not something that can be observed or researched, so one must simply believe it. I understand that people want a simpler explanation for their creation but in my opinion, our existance cannot be simple. Every experiment and every piece of evidence that scientists have gathered, resulted in the same conclusion. Intelligent Design relies on the fact that a supernatural being not only exists, but has controlled everything in the universe. I believe in both God and in evolution, I just don't believe that God controlled every small detail about how humans came to be. I believe that evolution should be taught in schools as the way humans were created, and Intelligent Design should be mentioned as an alternative belief which challenges the idea of evolution. I do not think that ID should be taught with the same level of certainty as evolution because it is not a scientific theory. When discussin the topic of evolution, if the question "Then why are humans perfect?" comes up, I do not believe that it is because God wanted us this way. I think that humans have reached the point where we are fit to survive in our current environment (sometimes because of technology), but if the world ever changes to a point where we are not fit, then we, too, will evolve and continue the process.
I can understand why people might think that intelligent design feels more comfortable to people than the theory of evolution by natural selection. When many people first look at things they often tend to believe the simplest, most obvious answer. Just because it "appeals" to people is not a reason to teach it in schools. Evolution is a theory, which means that it has experimental evidence to back it up. How can someone obtain experimental evidence for the idea of intelligent design? I personally am not uncomfortable with science and technology, and I don't see why I should be. The theory of Natural Selection is certainly not my intuitive sense of life--I doubt that anyone instinctively believes in evolution without being taught about it. However, intuitively I probably thought that the Earth was flat and the sun moved across it during the day. Just because it was intuitive doesn't mean it was actually right. I believe something in science because of evidence, not because it's the first idea that pops into my head.
I feel like our classrooms are suppose to be a place where students have to be taught things that go outside of their comfort zone. Leaning is a process not an event so you cant be taught only one side of the story. If we as students are exposed to different opinions about evolution and intelligent design we are going to make a personal decision according to all of the information. Like when you take a medication, everyone knows that they might have side effects but it is up to the individual to decide if he or she would want to take the medicine. I think presenting both sides of the story, like we do when we try to disprove a hypothesis, is a part of the learning and exploring process. I personally do not believe in evolution but that doesn't mean i try to impose my beliefs on anyone else or become totally unaware of the evidence that supports the evolution theory. I have taken this factual information from both side of the argument and made a decision that satisfies me.
-Priscila Alvarado
The idea of evolution by natural selection is so distinct from the idea of intelligent design. One believes that contemporary organisms are homologous with organisms from millions of years ago. The other argues that many aspects of the natural world result from an intelligent cause. It is because of these reasons that many choose to believe one or the other. When it comes to teaching these beliefs in school, I personally feel that evolution is closer in meaning to science. By definition, science is the intellectual activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Intelligent design is more philosophy than science. There is no way to support the theory, resulting in students being completely dumfounded and questionable. The idea of intelligent design is difficult to grasp both in theory and in reality.
I'd summarize the debate as follows: opponents of evolution argue that only a divine intelligence, and not some comparatively random, undirected process, could have created the variety of the world’s species, not to mention an organism as complex as a human being. Some people are upset by the oversimplification that humans evolved from monkeys (which is untrue). In the eyes of some, a divine being placed humans apart from the animal world. As a result, advocates of this view find any attempt to place humans within the context of natural history deeply insulting, which I understand.
As so many people have said before me, the theory of evolution by natural selection makes absolute sense. I just can't relate to the ID people. Read on.
"It matches what a lot of people see. It matches peoples' intuitions about biology," said Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania."
That quote makes no sense at all. What do people see in biology? God? Some supernatural force? Where is the backing? On what grounds does Intelligent Design stand?
Evolution has more backing than I can write in this tiny comment field: fossils, distribution of species, anatomical similarities, molecular similarities, and even direct observation - it's freakin obvious.
Now, as I am an atheist, so I disbelieve in creationism. That's one of the main reasons I can't believe in ID. Yet, I respect other peoples' beliefs. My parents, for instance, most believe in God, and also evolution. Personally, that confuses me, but oh well.
"The movement's success comes from the way it "appeals to peoples' sense of unease about science and technology," said Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island.'
Unease? Oh noes, we share a common ancestor with sheep. I can has comfort? No, deal with it. Instead of making up new ideas to shrug off Darwin, we should be spending our time analyzing and finding more evidence to prove Darwin's theory.
At this point, I'm just raving, but hey, I feel really strongly that science is what we use to explain the supernatural. Scientists should not explain the supernatural with the supernatural. That's not science. GOD + SCIENCE! = FAIL
If I felt uncomfortable about science and/or technology, I wouldn't be posting on this blog with such élan (China Lit people, memorize that word). So that question is pretty pointless.
Response to Cole:
"I think that most people look to ID as a way of preserving their ideas of human superiority."
I very much agree with this; many people have grown up believing themselves to be superior to other creatures, which to some degree can be argued to be true. Humans are considered the most advanced technologically of all the species on Earth, and thus perhaps feel they deserve to be separated from animals, a distinct type of 'God created man and woman, then the animals' type of argument.
Response to Avram
"I do believe that theory of Intelligent Design is completely BS though. Its kind of a wishy washy phrase that lets you believe in evolution and God at the same time. Since there's no proof of God, what place does he even HAVE in science? In my opinion, either God would have created animals where they were supposed to live and give them what they needed to survive. OR you can believe in evolution."
I strongly support Avram's idea here. It's either one or the other, not both. It's your decision what you believe in.
Response to Elijah
I agree that neither theory is perfect, but clearly Darwin's theory of natural selection has proof. Solid proof.
Response to Kanishka
"It is hard for me to believe that all of Earth's diversity comes ONLY from their environment."
Earth's diversity doesn't ONLY come from its environment. Environment certainly had enormous effect on "selecting" the better-adapted organisms, but the source of such diversity comes from DNA mutation, et alii. DNA mutation over hundreds of millions of years, has, in theory, led to so many co-existing life forms.
Response to Talon
"Evolution has strong evidence of its existence in the natural world, but this only seems practical on a small scale, such as changes in the physical characteristics on the beak of a finch."
Small scale? I think not. From studying fiches, Darwin began to understand evolution. Evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth and has been confirmed repeatedly through observation and experiment in many scientific disciplines. Evolutionary science provides the foundation for modern biology and opened the door to
entirely new types of medical, agricultural, and environmental research, and has led to the development of technologies that can help prevent and combat disease.
"Intelligent Design, however, helps one to visualize how intricate complexities such as the brain or the eye function."
And evolution doesn't? Evolution does more than that. It tells you HOW we got the complexity of the eye and brain we have today.
"It is not fair that some subjects are not covered in schools because they lack a traditional scientific justification."
Science is based on observable facts and falsifiable explanations, leaving no room for fairness or unfairness.
Response to Michael
"To have a set of different religious beliefs is fine, but to cover your beliefs in the veil of science and try to heed the progress of scientific thought is a copout."
This is what I'm saying. Religion, regardless of what magical mysteries seem to take place, has no place in a world of science.
Response to Cam
"To me it’s like taking the easiest solution for a complex phenomena."
Indeed, perhaps it is. I'm guessing you place faith over science, which is your decision. I myself have yet to see proof of a God or gods.
-Grego
I can identify with Miller's quote. I believe that intelligent design should not be taught in Science classes because it brings God into the picture. The fact that no one can prove whether a god exists makes it impossible to find evidence against. I feel that Intelligent design is something that should be taught in a religion class instead of as an alternative "scientific" explanation of life on Earth. Evolution is a insane concept to wrap my head around, but it makes a lot of sense to me and the overwhelming evidence is hard to ignore. I find the idea that we all come from common ancestors amazing, and a bit disconcerting because we seem so different from other animals on Earth. However, I think that it is important to be open to these amazing scientific explanations of our roots, and separate what is science from what is more of a theological conjecture.
Honestly, I can not really relate to either of these statements. While Behe could be correct that it does match people's intuitions for me it does not really match mine. I believe in God, but I see no reason why an already viable explanation should have to have God thrown into the mix. And then for me Miller's view makes just as much sense; how it makes Evolution much easier to understand because it takes away all of the science involved. Although unease could be why people turn to Intelligent Design, I just don't feel uneasy about accepting natural selection. For me, Natural Selection makes sense, and therefore I see no reason for Intelligent design. The problem I have with Intelligent Design is that in order for it to seem true you would need to completely disprove Natural Selection, leaving the only other explanation for Evolution Intelligent Design. And while it would be the only known explanation it would still be impossible to gain more evidence for its for its proof than there already is, because the only proof for it would be to have the intelligence guiding evolution appear. What I am saying is that Intelligent Design supporters can not prove it, they can just attack Natural Selection. And Natural selection is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the evolution of things, so why bother?
Gwen, period 7:
Evolution certainly makes me feel uneasy, as it's hard to believe that the complexity of human beings--especially our emotions, and ability with language--could have come from a series of mutations. The brutality of evolution disturbs me--how an individual's existence is defined by their ability to procreate. If you aren't well suited to the environment, tough luck. It's scary to think we're not separate from the process.
The argument for Intelligent Design seems weak, though the article was biased. The theory of evolution has existed for less than 150 years--unanswered questions do not equal holes in the idea. Proponents of Intelligent Design, and many others (including myself), find it incredible (miraculous, even) that we came into being based on a series of accidents. However, had the environment been different, humans would be different too, and find that version of themselves equally amazing.
While it is comforting to think of a higher being guiding natural (or not-so-natural) selection, the concept of evolution empowers us. Medicine and science had made huge leaps. DNA, HIV mutations--the majority of US citizens might lose an easy, intuitive answer, but better than losing the understanding we have gained of ourselves and the world around us.
I cannot relate to either of those statements, but I do understand where they are coming from. However, I think there is a second reason why people want intelligent design in the classroom. It is very driven by a strong commitment to their faith. The idea of evolution challenges a very basic principle of their religion, that God created everything the way it is and the proponents of Intelligent Design want their children to have more than one view in the classrooms. The problem is, there are millions of views that aren’t based in scientific fact. If Intelligent design is allowed into classrooms, we will have to go through each religion to be fair (which would take days if not months). The flying spaghetti monster is a classic example. However, you don’t see scientists going into churches and talking their stories there, do you? The separation of church and state means that the state should not include any religion in its teachings. If parents wish to talk to their children about other ideas, then they are free, but indoctrination of the masses is not an acceptable thing to do.
Intelligent Design does appeal to our ideas that the world and we are special. Evolution happens over such a long time that the notice in a large scale is almost unnoticeable, so I world in which God made it that way would appeal to many people. Even imagining the long period for a change like an eye to take place would take forever.
The theory of Natural Selection is not consistent with my sense of life. I accept it for what it is. Though, it is hard at time to understand the long scheme of things. The theory may have a few problems with it, but it has more proof than any other idea currently out there.
I believe that the idea of intelligent design should be brought to the table of science. Science often can be confusing and this theory definitely falls under the category of something being unexplainable or confusing. For example, when talking about space or black holes, often you get definitions of everlasting and slowing down time. How can something slow down time? This question cannot be answered in modern day life, because we have never seen time slow down or experienced the effect of being consumed in a black hole. In a school it is fine to bring theories or explanations that the majority of the population does not agree with.
I disagree with Kenneth Millers quote about the unease of technology. The link he has made between science, religion and technology really makes no sense. He is implying that anyone who does not accept the idea of evolution and does agree with the theory of Intelligent Design is uncomfortable with technology. This statement is completely false.
At this point I am not against evolution or natural selection or the theory of intelligent design. The issue of evolution has always been a topic that causes a lot of controversy.New theories should always be accepted in the world of science, because if a new theory comes along it can replace the old theory.
In the end, one day we will have the answer to evolution. Science is becoming increasingly advanced day by day and theories are becoming more intricate. Right now the debate over evolution should continue and everyone in the science community should be allowed to express their opinion.
I feel that ID right now is just the easy way out. Scientists still haven't exactly come up with explanations for how the small machine like components of a cell work or how they come to be but that does not just mean that everyone should just drop it there and accept that "something out there" made it all. We can't just give up. There is still more to be discovered! Why to people need to just make the whole thing so simple with this idea of upper intelligence? Yes, it makes them more comfortable and it provides an answer when scientists cannot yet provide such a solid one but it is just jumping to an easy conclusion, and this is not how science is suppose to work. I don't even know why they are trying to teach this as science. Yes, of course people are allowed to know about ID but they should not be told that it is science. One issue I think that pushes people towards ID is that they cannot really accept "randomness." If there is no solid explanation for why small little random changes occur in a DNA strand, people turn to ID. But, with time, maybe our crazy mutated monkey brains will turn this randomness into something perfectly explainable. Bottom line, I believe that since evolution through natural selection has concrete evidence that it should be taught in schools and that ID should remain separate. For me, believing in an upper intelligence falls under the category of religion, and I think religion and education should be kept apart. I am not saying religion should be shunned, it should just not be a requirement in education. -H Mo
Like the majority of my peers, I too believe that teachers should not be allowed to teach in their classrooms the theory of intelligent design. I understand that people like to be given simple and striaghforward answers but what is ever simple about life? I don't think that it would fair to tell students that everything exists in the way that they do just because some holy being decided to Himself one day, "oh well here's this lonely planet, I think I'm going to put a few little birdies in his tree and some people here next to this apple here" and so on.
I believe that the only way to approach science is with facts, and the thought of using a person like God, whose own existence we have no real proof of, to explain something as important as evolution seems almost primitive to me. Maybe it's because I'm not a very religious person, but I don't understand why people need to believe that it was God who made everything and why it couldn't have been nature itself, evolving and changing and adapting. Until God shows up on the doorsteps on the White House and announces to the world that he made the universe I think that I will continue to believe in Darwin's evolution theory.
While I do feel that both theories should be explained in class I don't think that intelligent design should be taught as a main theory of evolution. In my opinion the Behe quote from the first page that intelligent design often "matches people's intuitions" seems to be one of the underlying causes as to why intelligent design might be so popular. While personally I fully support Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection, at times it feels almost overwhelming that all the traits and characteristics that compose living organisms was created through random mutations in genetics. I feel like this is what the theists are getting at in their claim of irreduceable complexity, in that it's hard to see what's around us as anything other than mystical. However, while it may be reasonable or comfortable in people's minds, doesn't mean it's fit for educational purposes.
Obviously, the evidence in favor of some type of evolution is unmistakable. However, I feel like Intelligent Design simply is not a valid scientific theory because it is untestable, and God is something that exists in some people's minds and not in others. The theory of evolution however, has been tested multiple times, and has proven to withstand these tests, which certain credit it as a believable theory.
Though ID maybe a comfortable theory for the public and may "explain" per se certain foggy parts of evolution, I don't think that's a reason to reject evolution; In fact if anything, it's a reason to delve into evolution more.
It is quite understandable how Intelligent design has made its way into the classroom, and why it has gained a widespread acceptance even in the scientific community. Behe's quote best explains this. People will rally behind what they understand and what feels comfortable, not what is necessarily correct. In this sense i agree with Behe's quote that ID is what makes sense to many people, nonetheless I find it very disappointing that this is the case. There is no true scientific support for ID, but it makes sense to people so it has become widely accepted by people in all walks of life. Essentially the Miller quote and the Behe quote are saying the exact same thing: that people accept ID because it makes sense to them, but Behe tries to use his quote as proof of ID, which is absolutely preposterous. To use public assumptions with no proven basis as proof of anything is not only an illegitimate way to prove anything, but is also a breach of the scientific method. I personally have no problem accepting the theory of evolution, because it is the only idea the has actual concrete scientific backing. Personally I see nothing intuitive about ID, and evolution seems totally plausible and believable for the aforementioned reasons.
_Julian
Like most of yall have said, I too don't believe that ID should be taught in school. It is something that should be presented to high school students so people know that it's out there, but that's all. The idea that people think that some features of the world are too complex to have been produced by nature and that they are products of God seems a little odd to me. I guess it's partially because I'm not a very religious person and I don't care too much about the idea of God and what he created and what he didn't. But in any case, the fact that 55% of Americans don't even believe in the theory of evolution was something that really amazed me. The idea of animals adapting and changing over time to be able to survive in their environments is something that makes a lot of sense to me, and so seeing that 55% of our country doesn't feel that way is a bit hard to believe for me. It makes me sad.
-nAPHY.
As a student of science and a regular attendant of church, I feel conflicted about the issue. I feel I am able to relate to both statements fairly readily. On the one hand I feel very strongly that this world is routed in and based on scientific laws and theories, and I am certain that evolution and natural selection have played a large role in the way our world has turned out today; on the other I still have qualms and reservations about aspects of the theory of evolution. I feel completely comfortable with science and technology; however I believe in a combination of the two ideas, Intelligent Design and Evolution, (which I suppose means I believe in Intelligent design) because personally I feel there are still minute holes and issues with Evolution; like the eye. In my opinion the video we watched today did not conclusively prove that the eye evolved, as he did not address the issue I had a problem with. He talked about the development of a complicated eye from a simple one that could barely sense motion rather than how an eye or any other complicated organelle cold form from singular celled amorphous amoebas. Furthermore the person appeared to contradict himself, saying, in the begging of the clip that he believed a complex version of an eye could have evolved in one half of a million years, yet he went on to say that he thought it would take 100,000 generations to develop the penultimate step into the current evolution of the eye. To conclude I am still unaware of how the world came to be what it is today;(but think it likely involved a combination of the ideas of Intelligent Design and Evolution) and am awaiting further evidence to one end or another.
On a less serious note, does anyone think it’s ironic that the proponent of Intelligent Design is from Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
-Sorry for the inconvience, Please carry on.
Sean Czarnowski Curran
Personally, I relate to natural selection as it has been proven by many tests and events. And, being an agnostic, I feel God or ID have not shown that they have set any events into a course. Until an event shows that God or some divine being do exist, I feel that one cannot say they are responsible for a specific chain of events. I know theologists and other members who steadfastly believe in religion will say that ID has it case because they cannot explain something, but this is untrue. Of course the example that we all know of this is when Darwin first presented his theory, which challenged the church, but it is now a commonly thought of theory.
I don't feel uncomfortable with science or technology because it has advanced how we live today, it makes life as it is now easier and more pleasant to live in. It has helped us with communication, transportation, and medicine, and that is something no one should be uncomfortable with.
I don't really have an "intuitive sense" about how life occurred, but, with no substantiated evidence to explain that ID does take precedence over natural selection, I take to believing in natural selection.
I agree with both quotes to some extent, but I lean more towards Miller's point of view (people definitely fear the unknown). Evolution makes lots of sense to me, and it seems so obvious that I can't help but believe in it. Denying the validity of evolution is like saying the earth is flat. However, like Nikhil, I personally feel that there is something "out there," albeit not as intimately involved in human affairs as some say. Though we are indeed members of the animal kingdom, and we should never forget that, I think we ARE pretty special. No, Adarsha, I am not trying to disprove evolution, and I am not pretending that my feeling is logical; it's completely illogical. In my view, evolution is completely compatible with...whatever you call it. However, I believe in secularization and in allowing each person to make his or her own decision about religion. Therefore, I do not think that Intelligent Design should be taught in science class, except as part of a balanced "teach the controversy" curriculum in which all points of view are thoroughly and un-biased-ly presented. Un-biased-ly...?
Ah, forgot to add this in:
While I believe in a higher power having at least some small part in creation, I READILY ADMIT that it's not very good science. It cannot be proven; it's just something you have to feel for yourself (or not). And if it's not good science, you shouldn't teach it in the high schools.
In my personal opinion, the theory of evolution is a very believable one. I think that the arguement that it should be taught along with intelligent design in a science class room forgets the fact that intelligent design is not in fact science. I'm not trying to discredit the theory, I'm just making the point that science, whether it is correct or not, bases itself on observations and hypothesis that can plausably be disproved. On the other hand, Intelligent design is much more faith based that fact based. Therfore, I believe that intelligent design, if it is taught, should be done so in a religion class or something of similar nature. I agree not as much with Behe and Miller, but more with Scott. His point is that Intelligent Design theory is not necessarily wrong, it just hasn't been acknowledged by the scientific community as a plausable solution.
I agree with Behe's comment, but (similarly to what Nick said) I do not understand why intelligent design should be a viable theory just because most people's intuitions lean towards that explanation. Scientific theories define themselves as explanations of nature based on direct observations and experimentation. I do not buy the "a creator must have designed the universe because it's just too complex."
As a religious person myself, I don't want to dismiss the idea of ID altogether as "ridiculous" or "too simplistic," etc. But, I just don't see how it could be taught in schools as a SCIENTIFIC theory because of its lack of quantifiable evidence. Therefore, I agree with Nathan that ID should be presented in schools as merely an idea that people have believed in, but not as a scientifically viable one. If schools want to teach it extensively, then they put that part of their curriculum in a class such as "religion" or "controversial issues in science," etc.
I agree with Michael Behe in that intelligent design appeals to the religious people who can't fully accept Darwin because it's too random for them. However, I believe that emotions should be separate from science. Despite feeling that Darwin's theory doesn't match their faith, it doesn't mean they should ignore logical evidence so they can stick by age-old religions. Dr. Kenneth Miller also believes that intelligent design comforts religioius people who aren't ready to believe in Darwin (perhaps because it would almost deny that there is a god). But if people continue to look to the supernatural as a solution for the mysteries of life (as they have done for thounsands of years, but then have continually been proven wrong by science), then the entire foundation of science crumbles. If the laws of gravity, physics, and life itself can be bent by a paranormal being than all of science is useless. I am far from being uncomfortable with science and technology and look to both as logical solutions for most of life. As an avid atheist, I find the idea of Natural Selection to seem very practical and similar to my view of life. My perception on life is that there is no reason for it and it was just chance that caused it (a rather bleak outlook to some people but one that sits just fine with me).
I think that ID should be taught, but in a separate class that students choose to take. Students should not be required to take a class with ID in it because in order to believe in ID one has to believe in a supernatural force or God. I also believe that it is reasonable if teachers just introduce the topic in a biology class, but not go into detail. ID should not be taught in place of the theory of natural selection. I agree with Michael Behe in that ID “matches peoples intuitions.” It is an explanation that most people can agree to. The complexity of how life was created and how all these complex parts in a cell work together so intricately cannot be random. The only reason I find it hard to believe in ID is because there is no proof of it. All ID theorists have to go on is intuition and gut feeling. An important part of science is evidence. Without it an idea, like ID, is just an idea. Theories have to be tested and experimented on. Without it is just a hypothesis and that’s what I think ID is. I also agree with Kenneth Miller’s statement that ID is only successful because “it appeals to people’s senses of unease.” I think it is ridiculous that people disregard the theory of evolution of natural selection just because they do not accept the fact that humans and insects and monkeys share a common ancestor. People only believe in ID because it is the only explanation for how living organisms are so complex and a full explanation of how they were created. This idea requires the belief of a supernatural being, which questions the notion of science itself. To me the theory of natural selection seems like the most rational theory. It has been tested and there is a lot of evidence which proves this theory to be correct.
I agree with Miller’s quote that says that "The movement's success comes from the way it "appeals to peoples' sense of unease about science and technology.” I think that people who believe in intelligent design are taking a conservative, easy way out. Although they acknowledge and accept evolution, they won’t go so far as to completely rule out the involvement and influence of some sort of greater being. While I can see ID being a popular alternative to natural selection, I agree with Nathan in that it’s shocking that over half of America doesn’t believe in Natural selection. There is definitely enough evidence on the subject to convince me that Natural selection occurs. Although I think it’s important to remember that we go to school in an extremely liberal part of the country. Outside of the bay area, a large portion of the US is more conservative and religious, therefore more willing to embrace creationism or ID.
I personally don’t relate to either Brehe’s or Miller’s point of view. Feeling uncomfortable with technology may be the driving factor behind some individuals’ acceptance of intelligent design as truth, but like Lena, I feel like accepting intelligent design is a cop-out. People combine the Judaic/Christian belief of creation with the theory of evolution in order to appeal to a broader audience. While accepting intelligent design may suite people’s sense of intuition about biology better, it is neither purely religious nor purely scientific. By adding the element of a divine creator to the story, the ‘science’ of evolution is negated.
I have grown up with the story of creation, and still believe in it today. However, that is not to say that I do not believe in the theory of natural selection. It makes sense that post-creation, animals could have evolved to adapt to their surroundings, creating more species than existed in the past. Belief in creation is entirely based on faith in an unverifiable being, and cannot be proven or disproven. Thus, for practical scientific purposes, especially in the classroom, it would not be appropriate to simply use the answer ‘God created everything’ in response to any problem or case study that was posed to the students.
Each individual must make his/her own personal choice regarding the origin of life. I believe that this gray area termed ‘intelligent design’ can be accepted as an answer, as it seems to me that its only purpose is to attract people who are unwilling to take a stand either way.
I have a lot of trouble taking Intelligent design seriously. To me, it defies the very logic it claims to stand for. Its basis that you can clearly see intentionally and intelligently designed features in nature is simply ridiculous. So many aspects of nature make little sense or are completely pointless. Why do some beetles have wings locked beneath their shells which will never open? why aren't all species unisex, hence allowing them to reproduce more efficiently? A species could survive with only one remaining member. Why can' we view a wider range in the electromagnetic spectrum? We would have been aware of so many phenomena so much earlier in our history. And most importantly of all, why are we intelligent? Surely, if there was truly a higher intelligence that designed or guided our evolutio or biology, it would have recognized the terrible power of our intelligence. Because of it, we have caused millions upon millions of species to go extinct, and have caused extreme damage to our environment. But say the higher intelligence didn't realize that intelligence was such a ad thing when we were first on the drawing board, why didn't the guiding hand make us dumb again so as to alter our course of destruction?
To explain this, someone once told me, "God moves in strange ways." That isn't enough for me. and I have trouble accepting that something smart enough to design our neurological system, would be dumb enough to let it loose upon the world.
I also disagree with the idea that species were placed in environments that perfectly suited them. The Earth itself, is not perfectly suited for us. 99.9% of species that have ever existed are now extinct. Look at our most dominant feature; Water. Dihydrogen Monoxide is such a bizarre chemical. It is at times benign but at others lethal. In the presence of some simple organic compounds it can form horrific acids that can eat through stone. When agitated en mass it can easily destroy our strongest enclosures. Thousands die from drowning every year. Water is useful and incredible, but it is by no means ther perfect substance with which we would live with in a ideal environment.
My next disagreement with ID is simple its inherent outlook. ID pretty much says, "If we can't understand it right now, it must be impossible to understand, hence it must be the work of God." That outlook has been present so many times, and it has ben disproven so many times. If that outlook hadn't been challenged by generations of scientists and others, then our technology would be far inferior to what it is today. The Powerful churches of the world would have long since extinguished any form of curiousity and explained everything with, "God did it."
I believe that intelligent design stems from Mankinds incessent need to feel important. To feel special. We used to be the center of the solar system. Woops, nope, the sun is. Well, we're still at the center of the galaxy. Sorry, we're on an arm spinning around the center. Yeah, but we're stil the center of the Universe. Wrong. our universe has no center, and there are millions more galaxies around us. Humans have a hard time accepting that we are at the center of nothing. we are the outcome of nothing but millions of years worth of tiny biological mistakes. There is no reason for us to exist. The earth would be much better off without us.
Humans seem to have trouble accepting the power of randomness. The example of Mount Rushmore personally I find ridiculous. It is plenty possible that Mount Rushmore could be created by chance. Leave a stone cliff subject to the powers of erosion for long enough and it is virtually impossible that mount Rushomore won't be recreated. Something random means that it can do anything. ANYTHING. it's perhaps not very likely but given enough time it will happen. Look at Pi. Being an irrational number, it carries on endlessly and randomly. Any and every conceivable string of numerals is contained somewhere in Pi's endless string.
ID is the product of Mankind's inability to accpet their insignificance. ID, along with Religion is a delusion people pull in front of their eyes to deny their pointlessness. We are no more than a mistake. A biological quirk on a tiny rock in the middle of a very very large nowhere.
I understand why the idea of intelligent design appeals to over 55% of the respondents of CBS's poll, however I do not think that intelligent design is the right explanation to the question of evolution. For those that can not understand the theory of evolution, as it is very complicated, it is very easy to believe in intelligent design, and call it a day. But intelligent design can not be proved, and there is no evidence that it is true, so why just assume that it is right? The theory of evolution on the other hand is well substantiated and explains MOST of the process through scientific, concrete reasoning. I know that the theory of evolution has some holes in it, but this does not make me uneasy at all because scientists are not done explaining it yet! There are still plenty of things to discover, it is not like we haven't made any progress in 150 years and all that can be explained is explained.
I also believe that the theory of evolution should be taught in schools in its entireity (with holes) because the job of teaching is to arm students with as much knowledge as possible. Students can believe what they want to believe, but they should have the knowledge to do so. Not teaching the theory of evolution would just be promoting ignorance.
I don't think that ID should be taught in schools, at least not yet. It seems like too new of an idea for it to be taught in a general science class. It makes sense that it should be discussed and brought up because it is important to the whole process but to have it taught as another theory along side evolution, a theory that has been worked for for decades and proven quite throughly, seems unfair. It was a long hard process to get the theory of evolution taught in schools and to just trust this new idea of ID seems unfair. However it is also unfair for scientist to say that ID should no longer be researched and experimented with, just because it seems crazy now doesn't mean that in doing research someone will find something important. And although it does seem like an "easy answer for a difficult question" I don't think there is any harm in continuing research. There is nothing wrong with giving people who were not completely satisfied with evolution by natural selection another possible answer.
I agree with both quotes in some ways as I'm a little conflicted on the Intelligent Design situation. Obviously I think that the natural selection theory of evolution is accurate, but how are we to know how this started? Was it that a higher being who kick-started the entire reaction, or has nature controlled the process since the beginning of time? Still, because the intelligent design concept has not been proven like Darwin's theory has, there is no reason why it should be taught in school. I do feel a little bit uncomfortable with science and technology, especially as it relates to human life. The theory of Natural selection appears to answer most of life's questions about how species have gotten to the point that they are currently at, and until there is substantial evidence about intelligent design, it can never be more than a conspiracy theory.
For the general public I think ID is suitable because it's something that is comfortable and reliable. In fact I think that if I weren't learning about evolution by natural selection then ID would be what I would turn to because it's something easy to understand and doesn't need evidence. However, since learning about the complexity of evolution and the theory of evolution by natural selection, the evidence that I has been presented to be makes more sense than a intelligent being. If schools were to bring in ID it would confuse me and it would downplay evolution by natural selection. It's hard enough fitting all the pieces together, so adding ID would make it worse. Thus, I don't think teaching ID in school is a good idea. Or at least teaching it in biology class isn't a good idea because for me the whole point of learning evolution is to become aware of the natural science behind these theories that can be used in one's life to educate to others or contribute to finding more evidence.
-mhahn
Personally, I cannot really relate to either of these statements, but I do understand where they are coming from. I am comfortable with science and technology, but that doesn't mean that all things relating to science come intuitively to me or many others. However, just because ID matches people's intuitions doesn't mean it is correct or valid. The theory of natural selection is not necessarily very intuitive, yet this doesn't mean it isn't correct because there has been a lot of evidence to back up this theory. It is because of this evidence that is has become widely accepted in the science world. Furthermore, ID has not been proven to be a very valid argument. When considering what to teach in schools, I think ID should not be taught because not everyone believes in a God and there isn't any evidence to back the theory up. The theory of evolution has been tested many times and has been accepted, and ID would just serve to confuse people more. I can understand how some may believe in ID, but there is simply not enough evidence to prove it is true.
Behe says that ID fits a lot of people's intuitions, but our intuitions are formed by what we grow up with. The fact that so few people believe in evolution is self perpetuating. I can totally deal with the idea of evolution, anything else makes me uneasy. I find the idea of the amount of time that it would take for evolution to occur comforting, not trivializing. I think it's almost a sign of accomplishment to look at how far our species has come by looking at our ancestors.That said, I think that it is important to let us know other theories that are out there. No one can make up our minds for us and it is unfair not to show us all the different beliefs out there.
Religion is an important part of many people's identities and it shouldn't be necessary to separate that from them. Many people cling to religion because it makes man unique and we don't get lost among the millions of beings that have ever inhabited this world. By wiping out all of our rich cultural histories the minute science proves them wrong, we are losing everything we have created over generations that makes us unique.
We have to accept both our faiths and science, we can't let either go, but that doesn't mean that we necessarily have to use one to justify the other. To quote Mr. Faggi quoting F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. "
I think that I lean more towards Darwin's theory of evolution than Intelligent Design even though my Christian upbringing has taught me otherwise. My more logical side believes that the theory of evolution makes the most sense. The research and facts are continuing to uphold this theory, and there has so far not been any evidence that the theory is completely wrong and should be rejected.
In Michael Behe's quote he says that ID matches what people see and their intuition. But science is not about what you feel is right; it's about what you can support with reliable evidence. Something can't be true if people just say, "it's just because."
Obviously, the science taught at schools should not be mixed with religious views for every person should be allowed to believe in whatever they want. However, Intelligent Design and the issues about it should be discussed in classes so that students are aware of the different opinions out there about evolution because they will have to deal with it eventually.
~erica~
I can relate to Miller's quote in some aspects. While I'm not exactly "uncomfortable" with science and technology, the complexity of both often baffles me. The way all of the reactions in our bodies work to make a living, thinking human being is pretty amazing. While it seems pretty unbelievable that random mutations could create such diversified, complex life and things like personalities, evolution seems to make the most sense. After reading the article, I'm much more conflicted over the idea of intelligent design than I expected to be. While I think it is important to teach about the controversy of ID, I don't the intelligent design should be placed in textbooks in the same chapter as evolution, presented as a scientific theory. To me, it seems pretty unreasonable that just because science hasn't completely perfected evolutionary theory that these holes can be presented as proof of G-d's involvement in the world. Absence of evidence on the other side isn't proof and without those hole ID has no other evidence. I wholeheartedly agree with the last quote in the article, that it would be a tragedy if rather than trying to solve problems, scientist just put everything they couldn't explain on G-d's divine intervention.
I believe that if ID has a place in our society, it should not be in the classroom. For the reasons that we discussed in class and based on the definition of science is "seeking a natural explanation for natural events and phenomena," ID cannot be considered science.
I personally find it appalling that 55% of the nation has not accepted evolution. I believe this stems from those people's unwillingness to believe new ideas. Their beliefs don't include evolution, and they are reluctant to incorporate it into their mindset.
It could also well be a reluctance to believe we evolved from apes...
I cannot relate to either of these quotes for two reasons. First, I believe that I.D. is a little ridiculous. Science is not in place as a way to make claims to the existence of God or a higher supreme creator. Science is about making clear and intelligent observations based on the evidence around you. While Science does go into abstracts, like that of the electron (which has never been seen), it is still noticable and highly substantiated. Second, I cannot relate to the second quote because technology and science have integrated themselves into our world. I use a form of technology every day, such as my ipod, computer, and phone. I may not know how these devices work, but I know that I can learn by picking up a text book and simply reading. I have also been learning about different parts of the science world since the 6th grade (abstract concepts no longer make me uneasy). I do not think the Theory of Natural Selection is inconsistent with my intuitive sense of life. To me, it seems that if you are not fit to survive or thrive somewhere you will not be sucessful. I believe that in order to survive somewhere you must adapt and evolve. My belief is that the theory of natural selection is very logical and seeable in our world. I.D. on the other hand has a sense of the supernatural, and does not soley rely on facts/observations.
-Doug
I can understand where both Behe and Miller are coming from, but I do not support Behe's argument. I can see how people who are unfamiliar with evolution would grasp onto this mix of science and religion, but I do not agree with teaching it in schools. I have always seen science as a factual subject separated from relgion, although obviously this hasn't and isn't always the case. However, I still have always believed that there is no need to connect science with religion in any way. All ID seems to do is put religion back into a field that is supposed to be secular. I feel it is inappropriate to teach religious ideas to students in a science classroom. It is not fair to the students who do not believe in a higher power or the particular beliefs of the teacher. It is impossible to accomindate for all religious viewpoints and those who identify as athiest or agnostic. It also, quite simply, is not science. If most people accept evolution as true, why is there a need to put religion back into the equation?
I learned about evolution when I was young and accepted it as the truth, so maybe that's why this idea of intelligent design feels so strange. I didn't grow up in an overly reigious family, so I had enough freedom to develop my own beliefs. I would also consider myself comfortable with science and technology. I realize there are people who haven't been taught about evolution or whose religous beliefs negate it and people who are uncomfortable with science, and I understand that ID would be easier for them to accept than a purely scientific explanation. Despite this, ID cannot be called science. It is impossible to call something science when it is so closely tied to religion. For this reason, I cannot advocate for ID to be taught in science classrooms. And truthfully, I can't think of any other class where it would be relevant, so maybe they should leave it off the curriculum altogether.
I partially agree with both Michael Behe's and Dr. Miller's statements on ID, in that Intelligent design, it seems, is a readily available explanation for one of humanity's greatest questions: where did life come from? Sure, I have my doubts about the infinitely complex mysteries of biology, but it seems that is the nature of science, to explain the unexplainable. It is an endless trail of theories and concepts supported by evidence that at the time seems most logical. I feel Natural Selection, however, makes the most sense at this time in scientific history. With nearly 140 years of factual support behind it, I feel it surpasses ID at the moment. Furthermore, it would seem that Intelligent Design is not an explanation based on fact, but rather, a theory based on a lack thereof. ID seems to fill in the blanks where Natural Selection gets fuzzy, such as on the sub-cellular level, where complexities unfathomable occur as if by magic.
When I search for the origin of life, I seek a simple answer, such as that of intelligent design, that creatures came to be in a predetermined form. However, if my search becomes analytical, I learn that there are layers upon layers of organisms that seem to expand from past generations in ways that only make sense as reactions to their environment. I feel that true science, including biology, should be restricted to cold, hard evidence-backed ideas.
I think that belief in intelligent design stems from people’s desire to have an explanation for all phenomena in the universe. I agree that natural selection is not able to explain certain things such as the existence of the bacterial flagellum and other irreducibly complex systems, but we must not let the explanation of intelligent design put an end to the scientific quest to explain such phenomena naturally. Science and supernatural factors are two completely different areas of research and I don’t think we can use philosophical ideas such as intelligent design in conjunction with natural explanations. Even though the natural explanations of evolution and natural selection have several holes, we must not give up on natural explanations by accepting the idea of intelligent design. We must continue looking for other explanations instead of choosing an explanation, which cannot be tested. I do not believe that intelligent design cannot have a role in the creation of life, but it is impossible to bring it into the scientific playing field because it cannot be tested and will never be a theory. When we teach science we must accept that it has it’s limitations instead of trying to make it explain everything.
I can't fully relate to either of the statements. I can't relate to the first one, because isn't science is supposed to be things that have been tested, and it doesn't seem like intelligent design can be tested for with real evidence. The part of the second statement about people's unease about science makes more sense, because intelligent design gives people an alternative. I don't feel uncomfortable with science and technology. I pretty much believe that natural selection is true, because of the evidence for it. Intelligent design sounds more like a religion and than a science to me, because there is no way of scientifically proving the existance of some other force or being that creates life. I think if it shouldn't be taught as a science in schools.
I think that evolution is one of the most important theories in science and that it should definately be taught in school/science class/whatever, and although I respect anyones choice to believe in ID and to disagree with natural selection, I think that the way evolution should be taught is by the facts and not by unverified ideas. That said I don't think that natural selection should be the only theory taught either. Natural selection was the only idea of evolution that I was taught and I know that that made me somewhat unwilling to accept other ideas about evolution. I say that the point of teaching science in school is to explain things that science has proven or showed us. By introducing a topic that pretty much says that what science has showed us is wrong, doesn't make sense.
I don't know if any of that made sense but w/e.
I guess i can see how people can be so attached to the idea of ID. To many,ID is the simple way of answering the question about evolution-if you can even say that. To others religion is the reason for believing in ID instead of evolution. I truly believe a person has his/her right to believe in whatever he/she wants. However,when it comes to science and what should be taught in science classrooms, i dont think ID should be included in the curriculum. The reason for this is that science is about "seeking a natural explanation for natural events and phenomenon" and so by adding ID you are putting something "unnatural" into the equation which just doesnt make sense!-at least to me...
Personally I feel very comfortable with technology and science and I accept the theory of natural selection because from what I have learned about the subject seems to have supported it with facts instead of intuitions. Though at times I do feel some confusion on the topic but of course I realize I am not an expert. In the case of Intelligent Design, it has very little evidence if any at all that would support its claims; its supporters only succeeded in displaying inconsistencies in the theory of evolution, which doesn’t necessarily make Intelligent Design an acceptable explanation within the scientific community. So obviously it will never be accepted by the scientific community and therefore should never be thought in schools or at least in science class. However I do understand how people may feel uneasy with science and technology due to its complexity, which may lead them to seek easier explanations. Though of course there is always a possibility that natural selection may be wrong, but unless evidence is provided to support an opposing explanation that opposing explanation should not be recognized as a suitable alternative. Hopefully with the increase of evidence more people will come to accept evolution.
For me, intelligent design makes me feel more uneasy than evolution. It seems strange personally because it doesn't really seem like a scientific theory. Instead of trying to prove something, you just assume that BAM!! a part of your body appeared out of nowhere designed to assist in doing things that you need to do but couldn't. There is never any reasoning compared to natural selection. If intelligent design "appeals to peoples' sense of unease about science and technology", then evolution should just be explained more clearly in school to stop the uneasiness that people might feel instead of introducing a concept that doesn't make a lot of sense scientifically.
Intelligent Design is rubbish, pure and simple. As the article mentioned, the consensus of all reputable scientists is that evolution is a fact. ID pins the results of evolution to a deific creator, which is the kind of idea that belongs in Sunday school, not science class. It's no use saying 'people have the right to believe whatever they want.' Maybe that is so in the privacy of your home, but when it comes to what is taught as science, it is nothing but irresponsible to introduce nonsensical and agenda-driven doctrine.
I am feel easy with both theories. one explains what scientitst have discovered and the other explains what no one can possibly know. On the other hand, intellignet design should not be taught in schools. Inteligent design relies on God as an explanation of how the world began. Many people dont believe in god. Its wrong to try to force your religion on someone, especially a kid. Second,how would intellgient design be taught if there's no actual evidence. This is why I'm perfectly comfortable with the theory of evolution. Teach what you know not what you believe. As Wumi said, I'm not uncomfortable with science, it's just hard to believe sometimes. like when the whale and antelope were said to have a common ancestor. That blew my mind. every person should have the right to choose whether they believe in evolutionor not, so teach it. but don't blast kids with religion.
-Fred
So evolution is a theory. It doesn't explain everything. It's a bit difficult to get your mind around. What about the Big Bang? That, to me, is far more difficult to comprehend than natural selection. If you accept that there was nothing and then suddenly there was everything and everything keeps getting bigger, is it so difficult to accept that over millions and millions of years, all of life evolved from a common ancestor?
I'm not saying these theories are both right, or that you should accept them because they seem to be the most reasonable that scientists have come up with. Both of those ideas are difficult to imagine. But I don't think creationism should be taught in schools just because the Big Bang sounds like a stretch. I think schools should teach the best scientific explanation available; soon we could have a fuller explanation that may or may not be easier to accept.
I don't agree with the teaching of Intelligent Design because it seems to me like people are choosing the easy way out. Although Natural Selection is not a 100% true theory and it is not proven I still prefer this to be taught because it gives room for students to give our opinions and think deeper and come up with our own thoughts about Darwin's theory. Isn't the whole point of learning science and going to school in general to think deep into things? I think teaching Natural Selection definatly gets students (atleast it gets me to) think more deeply into science. I'm very Christian, but I feel comfortable letting science explain some things in this world, because I think that God made the specis he did with the intent that they would naturaly change into new specis, and that this is a cycle that is supposed to last till the end of the earth. I'm glad that our school chooses to allow students to learn about Natural Selection and about some of the conflicts wiwth Intelligent Design, because it allows us to make our own opinions. I don't think schools should teach either one and say that either intelligent design or natural selection are the only possible ways.
Personally I have no trouble believing in evolution as the only theory for how everything is how it is today. People who support Intelligent design obviously want to get some part of their religion taught in science class. Also to me it just seems like believing in ID is like taking the easy way out. Instead of trying to explain some for the most complex and fascinating pars of life they simply say that god created it. For me saying that god created something just doesn't feel right because there is no way to prove that that is actually what happened. For me that is putting to much faith in what some people thought up at one point.
I do not feel that either statement relates to me. For me, I can not in any way believe that there is any sort of intelligent entity that created life. There is no evidence that this is the truth other than people's intuitive sense that it is correct, and intuition is not at all scientific. For this reason I don't think intelligent design should be taught in science class. I do believe that learning about the problems there are with the Theory of Natural Selection but not by relating it to intelligent design.
Science may well be humanity's greatest invention, the greatest product of our minds throughout all of our history. It is easy to want a simple answer, in many ways we are wired to do so, and that forms a lot of the apeall of I.D, I think. However, I think denying the staggering amount of evidence and reason behind evolutionary theory is almost intellectualy dishonest.
An argument of gaps and false dichotomies, I.D is not a valid theory, and as such does not deserve classtime in a serious biology course. Perhaps a course on the politics and philosophy of science, but not biology, in any of its variants.
I am also not a fan of the phrase 'teach the controversy', as is misrepresents actual scientific dialog. There isn't serious discussion on the validity of evolution, we have observed it repeatedly in beautifully designed experiments. There is heated discussion on the mechanisms by which evolution occurs, and how genes form organisms, and that is a fascinating subject. Teach that controversy, not antiscientific politicing.
I feel that between teaching Natural Selection and teaching Intelligent Design, it is more important to educate people on Natural Selection because there is a greater amount of evidence supporting the theory. Intelligent Design would be fit for parochial schools. Students who do not go to parochial school should not have to learn about Intelligent Design unless they want to. If all school had to teach Intelligent Design it would create lots of controversy because not all students believe in God or a higher being. Schools should have the option of learning Intelligent Design or a course/class specifically for it, however integrating it into a science class just seems unfair.
if anyone is still reading this, I thought this article was interesting.
"Church makes ‘ludicrous’ apology to Charles Darwin - 126 years after his death"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1055597/Church-makes--8216-ludicrous-8217-apology-Charles-Darwin--126-years-death.html
if anyone is still reading this, I thought this article was interesting.
"Church makes ‘ludicrous’ apology to Charles Darwin - 126 years after his death"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1055597/Church-makes--8216-ludicrous-8217-apology-Charles-Darwin--126-years-death.html
Post a Comment