Sunday, October 15, 2006

Discussion Topic: Every Sunday we will post a discussion topic, and allow you the reader to comment on the topic, post related links, and basically have your opinions heard.

This week’s topic is Intelligent Design (I.D.):
Is it a legitimate scientific argument or a mask for creationism?
Should I.D. be taught in schools?

I.D. is the theory that the progression or "evolution" of all living beings was and is guided by a creator.

Michael J. Behe states his reason for studying I.D. in this simple phrase "irreducable complexities". He defines this as a system of successive modifications that are difficult to explain.

Another simple (maybe to simple) analogy is that of the watchmaker. If you were to find a watch in a field, is it too complex to have appeared there by natural process? It is logical to assume that there was a watchmaker responsible for its creation.

I.D. is a theory in the same manner as evolution is a theory and both should be taught in schools.
What do you think? Talk amongst yourselves.

Silversun Pickups - Well Thought Out Twinkles (mp3)
Jens Lekman - A Higher Power (mp3)


Dan said...

There's really three topics in this one question in my opinion. The first is the religious, sencond is the scientific, and third is the question of whether or not it should be in the school system with evolution.

As far as the religious goes, it's too much of a highbrid of scientific theory and religious theory to be lumped as religious. Same goes for scientific. It's both, and it's neither depending on who you talk to.

My opinion is that it's a mainstream idea because that's what our world is coming to. To mix all differing topics or ideas into one. To create a worldview that most can mutually agree on. If you can say that both evolution and creationism can coincide which it seems ID is trying to do, you unite a great % of people into believing one theory instead of two. What is the purpose of this theory, and what is accomplished if this is what is readily accepted? Or what is the purpose if this isn't accepted? There will always be dispute on this topic because it is both religious and scientific and in my opinion, will never be able to be proven one way or the other. Therefore, I ask these questions.

Now, whether or not it should be in schools is the third question. At least in the United States, I don't think it would hurt to have discussion and debate on a topic that has no answer. It gets people to think and debate in logical terms. Obviously people would not come to a conclusion, but it would educate children to at least see two sides of a topic and teach them to think, question, and form opinions for themselves instead of being told what's fact.

If evolution is considered "fact" enough to be taught in schools as a theory, then all theories should be taught to balance the perspectives and to be neutral. I think that most people readily buy into the evolution theory just because that's the one that is taught in schools, because that's the one that fits into the scientific method as being "scientific" vs. religious. The problem is, evolution has never been observed just like ID has never been observed. Nor do I believe will they ever be. Therefore evolution really isn't scientific either.

Now to trump it all, I think that neither should be taught in school because we have a separation of church and state in this country. Unfortunetely, schools are run mostly by the state, therefore should not be taught.

This is because both are not scientific in my opinion and only teaching of basics should be in schools. We can teach history (although some is not accurate) and math, science that has been observed, proven and how to test things, english and the rest that are essential in the development of the mind. And if schools had a religious course, or worldview course, they could be taught together. But in no way should one be taught in school as fact, or should be taught in school without other theories, all labeled as such.

Jason said...

I really like the point about trying to combine creationism and evolution mainly because I hadn't thought of it, and now it seems rather obvious. A one world unifying theory seems very plausible, and although evil at the same time. It is almost as through some "great mind" was commissioned with the goal of bringing the two groups together. Nicely done!

I agree that both should be taught as theory, but only in a religion class or philosophy class. In order for a theory to become fact it must be repeatedly tested. How can you Intelligent Design? How can you test evolution?