next »

[frankschmidt]

Why do so many discussions of evangelicals in academia include at least a mention of intelligent design creationism?

Prof. Lindsay seems to regard the fact that "the debate surrounding intelligent design has forced many biologists to engage religious topics in the classroom" as a good thing. I disagree. Intelligent Design is pernicious nonsense, bad science and worse religion. It has no place in the science curriculum.

[resipsa]

Why do so many discussions of evangelicals in academia include at least a mention of intelligent design creationism?

Prof. Lindsay seems to regard the fact that "the debate surrounding intelligent design has forced many biologists to engage religious topics in the classroom" as a good thing. I disagree. Intelligent Design is pernicious nonsense, bad science and worse religion. It has no place in the science curriculum.

I'm just curious what you mean by "intelligent design". 

[dapperpoet]

Brother Max, Brother Jed, and a few wasted lunch hours.  Oh, sweet youth.


http://patrick-rice.net/People/Max_Lynch/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brother_Jed

[lotsoquestions]

Whether or not you agree with intelligent design, I think many articles mention it because frequently it brings questions into a science classroom about epistemology, ontology, what makes a good theory, the difference between theory and fact and what is ultimately provable and knowable.  Whether or not you agree with the paradigm, addressing it forces us to look at constructivist questions like how we as a society structure knowledge, which questions we ask and which we avoid -- either consciously or unconsciously, and how what we think we know ultimately influences what we ask about and what we find.  It can certainly be handled well in a classroom, calling on all of us to reexamine our own biases and assumptions about knowledge, science, conjecture and what can ultimately be known.  I think the reporter mentioned it because it's a good example of how people of religious faith have moved all of academia to grapple with these questions, rather than simply dismissing them as not worthy of study. If I were in your classroom, I would rather have you lead me through that sort of intelligent discussion, rather than simply telling me that you dismiss ID as just a bunch of hokum.

[ablewasi]

Whether or not you agree with intelligent design, I think many articles mention it because frequently it brings questions into a science classroom about epistemology, ontology, what makes a good theory, the difference between theory and fact and what is ultimately provable and knowable.  Whether or not you agree with the paradigm, addressing it forces us to look at constructivist questions like how we as a society structure knowledge, which questions we ask and which we avoid -- either consciously or unconsciously, and how what we think we know ultimately influences what we ask about and what we find.  It can certainly be handled well in a classroom, calling on all of us to reexamine our own biases and assumptions about knowledge, science, conjecture and what can ultimately be known.  I think the reporter mentioned it because it's a good example of how people of religious faith have moved all of academia to grapple with these questions, rather than simply dismissing them as not worthy of study. If I were in your classroom, I would rather have you lead me through that sort of intelligent discussion, rather than simply telling me that you dismiss ID as just a bunch of hokum.

If you would be comfortable replacing "intelligent design" with "alien abduction theory", I think I can work with you.



!a

[sciencephd]

Why do so many discussions of evangelicals in academia include at least a mention of intelligent design creationism?

Prof. Lindsay seems to regard the fact that "the debate surrounding intelligent design has forced many biologists to engage religious topics in the classroom" as a good thing. I disagree. Intelligent Design is pernicious nonsense, bad science and worse religion. It has no place in the science curriculum.

I'm just curious what you mean by "intelligent design". 

Intelligent Design, aka ID, is the new term for creationism, which was developed as a marketing tool by creationists, along with the attempt to rehab creationism, to circumvent the objection of scientists that it does not qualify as science and therefore has no place in the science classroom/curriculum.

[husqvarna]

Whether or not you agree with intelligent design, I think many articles mention it because frequently it brings questions into a science classroom about epistemology, ontology, what makes a good theory, the difference between theory and fact and what is ultimately provable and knowable.  Whether or not you agree with the paradigm, addressing it forces us to look at constructivist questions like how we as a society structure knowledge, which questions we ask and which we avoid -- either consciously or unconsciously, and how what we think we know ultimately influences what we ask about and what we find.  It can certainly be handled well in a classroom, calling on all of us to reexamine our own biases and assumptions about knowledge, science, conjecture and what can ultimately be known.  I think the reporter mentioned it because it's a good example of how people of religious faith have moved all of academia to grapple with these questions, rather than simply dismissing them as not worthy of study. If I were in your classroom, I would rather have you lead me through that sort of intelligent discussion, rather than simply telling me that you dismiss ID as just a bunch of hokum.

If you would be comfortable replacing "intelligent design" with "alien abduction theory", I think I can work with you.



!a

Well you've got panspermia theories of origin out there... is that what you mean?  Not the scientific mainstream, by any means, but I think what lotsofquestions says about ID or any other theory that is generally rejected by the scientific community is fair enough.

I understand what you're trying to say, !a, but I think that the impulse to "dismiss ID as just a bunch of hokum" without explaining why unfairly lumps ID with other ideas that truly should be simply dismissed without comment.  ID has offered some substantial arguments, and from what I understand, they've pretty effectively been refuted by the scientific community.  Insofar as ID holds some public sway these days, however, I think it's wisest (and does the most service to education) to refute ID as a theory.

Here's the difference between ID and the "Flying Spaghetti Monster", or any other analogy that's used to highlight the absurdity of ID.  While ID has offered sustained work by scientists who find it convincing, the FSM was always intended to be a thought experiment and a satire.  FSM was not intended to be presented and weighed as scientific theory, but to present a commentary on religious thought and theory.  I think your "alien abduction theory" serves the same purpose as FSM... and that's a perfectly good purpose, but it's an entirely different genre than ID itself.  It, as a theory, is differently constructed and differently received by the public, and so shouldn't be assumed to be treated in the same way in a science classroom.  If such an analogy (or the FSM) does it's job well, then perhaps ID will be dismissed without refutation.  But the "job" of an "alien abduction theory" or FSM theory is to critique ID rather than offer a scientific theory, I think, and so it isn't comparable to lotsofquestion's point.  It seeks to change public opinion of ID, move ID from the realm of a publically entertained scientific theory of origins, and discredit it so that refutation is not seen as needed.

I think a lot of the bitter fighting over this issue arises from the fact that these sorts of analogies are convincing to educators, scientists, etc., while much of the public is not convinced.  One side, then, is satisfied with dismissal, while the other demands a detailed refutation.  But the difference of opinion seems to be a result of the reception of something like the FSM, rather than the result of anything about ID in itself as a theory.

I personally find myself convinced neither by the FSM analogy nor by ID.  In light of that, you'll find me defending ID on these boards as something that should be considered and responded to, all the while seeking to clarify that I'm not necessarily convinced or supportive of ID as a theory of origins (because while I'm not convinced of its merit, I'm also not convinced that it's not a real scientific theory, however wrong)... confusing and exasperating for some, I know, but there's a method to my madness.

[ablewasi]

Whether or not you agree with intelligent design, I think many articles mention it because frequently it brings questions into a science classroom about epistemology, ontology, what makes a good theory, the difference between theory and fact and what is ultimately provable and knowable.  Whether or not you agree with the paradigm, addressing it forces us to look at constructivist questions like how we as a society structure knowledge, which questions we ask and which we avoid -- either consciously or unconsciously, and how what we think we know ultimately influences what we ask about and what we find.  It can certainly be handled well in a classroom, calling on all of us to reexamine our own biases and assumptions about knowledge, science, conjecture and what can ultimately be known.  I think the reporter mentioned it because it's a good example of how people of religious faith have moved all of academia to grapple with these questions, rather than simply dismissing them as not worthy of study. If I were in your classroom, I would rather have you lead me through that sort of intelligent discussion, rather than simply telling me that you dismiss ID as just a bunch of hokum.

If you would be comfortable replacing "intelligent design" with "alien abduction theory", I think I can work with you.



!a
[/quote]

Well you've got panspermia theories of origin out there... is that what you mean?  Not the scientific mainstream, by any means, but I think what lotsofquestions says about ID or any other theory that is generally rejected by the scientific community is fair enough.

AAT is generally rejected by the scientific community right along with ID.

I understand what you're trying to say, !a, but I think that the impulse to "dismiss ID as just a bunch of hokum" without explaining why unfairly lumps ID with other ideas that truly should be simply dismissed without comment.

I don’t consider lumping “ID with other ideas that truly should be simply dismissed without comment.” unfair.  If anything, the large number of reports of alien abductions by (apparently) sane individuals suggests that AAT should be treated as seriously ID.

ID has offered some substantial arguments, and from what I understand, they've pretty effectively been refuted by the scientific community.  Insofar as ID holds some public sway these days, however, I think it's wisest (and does the most service to education) to refute ID as a theory.

The essence of ID is “some things seem just so darn complicated that there must be a designer involved”  This isn’t a theory; it’s an assertion -  an attempt to justify ignorance with wishful thinking.

Here's the difference between ID and the "Flying Spaghetti Monster", or any other analogy that's used to highlight the absurdity of ID.  While ID has offered sustained work by scientists who find it convincing….

The same can be said for telepathy and psychokinesis.

the FSM was always intended to be a thought experiment and a satire.  FSM was not intended to be presented and weighed as scientific theory, but to present a commentary on religious thought and theory.  I think your "alien abduction theory" serves the same purpose as FSM...

Not at all.  As I pointed out there are a great many witness reports of AA that have not been rigorously disproved.  Not disproved = may be true = should be studied in college.

It, as a theory, is differently constructed and differently received by the public, and so shouldn't be assumed to be treated in the same way in a science classroom. 

ID isn’t a theory.

But the "job" of an "alien abduction theory" or FSM theory is to critique ID rather than offer a scientific theory, I think, and so it isn't comparable to lotsofquestion's point.

I can’t speak for FSM theorists, but the job of AAT is to determine whether all these people who claim to have been abducted by space aliens actually were.

It seeks to change public opinion of ID, move ID from the realm of a publically entertained scientific theory of origins, and discredit it so that refutation is not seen as needed.

ID isn’t a theory.

I think a lot of the bitter fighting over this issue arises from the fact that these sorts of analogies are convincing to educators, scientists, etc., while much of the public is not convinced.

So what?  For much of the public, the most important debate going is who is will be the winner on American Idol.

One side, then, is satisfied with dismissal, while the other demands a detailed refutation.  But the difference of opinion seems to be a result of the reception of something like the FSM, rather than the result of anything about ID in itself as a theory

ID isn’t a theory.

I personally find myself convinced neither by the FSM analogy nor by ID.  In light of that, you'll find me defending ID on these boards as something that should be considered and responded to…

Again, I can’t speak for the FSM crowd, but will you join me in my commitment for the need to consider and respond to these troubling alien abductions (or reports thereof, anyway)?

all the while seeking to clarify that I'm not necessarily convinced or supportive of ID as a theory of origins (because while I'm not convinced of its merit, I'm also not convinced that it's not a real scientific theory, however wrong)... confusing and exasperating for some, I know, but there's a method to my madness.

ID isn’t a theory.




!a

[resipsa]

Why do so many discussions of evangelicals in academia include at least a mention of intelligent design creationism?

Prof. Lindsay seems to regard the fact that "the debate surrounding intelligent design has forced many biologists to engage religious topics in the classroom" as a good thing. I disagree. Intelligent Design is pernicious nonsense, bad science and worse religion. It has no place in the science curriculum.

I'm just curious what you mean by "intelligent design". 

Intelligent Design, aka ID, is the new term for creationism, which was developed as a marketing tool by creationists, along with the attempt to rehab creationism, to circumvent the objection of scientists that it does not qualify as science and therefore has no place in the science classroom/curriculum.

Is there more than that to intelligent design?  Is it just a matter of evangelicals and intellectual neanderthals trying to slip the first chapter of Genesis into the science classroom?

If you caricature your opposition, you tend to underestimate them; this leads to predictable results. 

[sciencephd]

Why do so many discussions of evangelicals in academia include at least a mention of intelligent design creationism?

Prof. Lindsay seems to regard the fact that "the debate surrounding intelligent design has forced many biologists to engage religious topics in the classroom" as a good thing. I disagree. Intelligent Design is pernicious nonsense, bad science and worse religion. It has no place in the science curriculum.

I'm just curious what you mean by "intelligent design". 

Intelligent Design, aka ID, is the new term for creationism, which was developed as a marketing tool by creationists, along with the attempt to rehab creationism, to circumvent the objection of scientists that it does not qualify as science and therefore has no place in the science classroom/curriculum.

Is there more than that to intelligent design?  Is it just a matter of evangelicals and intellectual neanderthals trying to slip the first chapter of Genesis into the science classroom?

If you caricature your opposition, you tend to underestimate them; this leads to predictable results. 

It is creationism.  If you have an alternative definition, tell us what it is, rather than simply dismissing my definition.

[tenured_cat]

Is there more than that to intelligent design?  Is it just a matter of evangelicals and intellectual neanderthals trying to slip the first chapter of Genesis into the science classroom?

Try this: http://www.conservapedia.com/Intelligent_design

They have a section for Creation Science, too: http://www.conservapedia.com/Creation_Science

Enjoy!

[daniel_von_flanagan]

I understand what you're trying to say, !a, but I think that the impulse to "dismiss ID as just a bunch of hokum" without explaining why unfairly lumps ID with other ideas that truly should be simply dismissed without comment.

The fact that we have discussions like this one about ID in academic circles spports the idea that it would not be a bad subject of academic discourse.  It is not science, so discussing it in a science classroom does not make sense.  It might be an interesting topic in a Public Policy course.

By contrast, Hollow Earth theories have some testable predictions.  For example, the claim that people adhere to the inner surface of the sphere because the Earth's mass is heavily concentrated in a relatively thin skin.  This would make a great hook for discussing what happens if you are in a sphere and there is an inverse-square force acting on you by the surface, and gives you an excuse to compute a nice double integral.  In other words, Hollow Earth theory contains some science - it is not a very large component, and is fairly easily shown to be wrong, but it is actual science, and therefore not inappropriate for a science classroom.

FWIW, on another thread I have recently made a similar argument about Navajo astronomy (interesting and worth teaching, but not science). - DvF

[betterslac]

The fact that we have discussions like this one about ID in academic circles spports the idea that it would not be a bad subject of academic discourse.  It is not science, so discussing it in a science classroom does not make sense.  It might be an interesting topic in a Public Policy course.

Why?  Because it doesn't fit in a "hard" science field it therefore must be fodder for one of those "soft" sciences since they only deal with opinions anyway?

I don't think so. If it can't be discussed profitably in a biology classroom, it has no place anywhere except philosophy and religion as a type of metaphysical position to be examined.

[pyshnov]

The ID is opposed by zealots for ideological reasons: the atheism and the defence of now clearly failing Darwinism. But ID deserves attention.
1. It is a science discussing the unexplained. But, in the end they say: "And this is so because it was created by God". Some might accept this last phrase, and some might reject it, but in principle, such discussion is useful.
2. The hard science consistently refuses to discuss the unexplained, and does this for over a century. Science became less interesting and plainly obscurantist. We must always remember that hard science came as a result of that interest in the unexplained. Dressing science in the robes of orthodoxy, especially after seeing so many false promises, is wrong. Science became money-oriented, while ID is God-oriented; I prefer the second.
So, some way should be found to bring into discussion the most interesting and scientifically sound parts of ID; it is up to the individual researchers to decide what exactly. Curiously, the classroom needs these discussions most - to arouse students' interest. It all depends on the wisdom of a teacher (as does everything else). I actually have read some of it with interest.

[sciencephd]

The ID is opposed by zealots for ideological reasons: the atheism and the defence of now clearly failing Darwinism. But ID deserves attention.
1. It is a science discussing the unexplained. But, in the end they say: "And this is so because it was created by God". Some might accept this last phrase, and some might reject it, but in principle, such discussion is useful.
2. The hard science consistently refuses to discuss the unexplained, and does this for over a century. Science became less interesting and plainly obscurantist. We must always remember that hard science came as a result of that interest in the unexplained. Dressing science in the robes of orthodoxy, especially after seeing so many false promises, is wrong. Science became money-oriented, while ID is God-oriented; I prefer the second.
So, some way should be found to bring into discussion the most interesting and scientifically sound parts of ID; it is up to the individual researchers to decide what exactly. Curiously, the classroom needs these discussions most - to arouse students' interest. It all depends on the wisdom of a teacher (as does everything else). I actually have read some of it with interest.

Sorry, but a good amount of what practicing scientists like myself do on a daily basis is discuss unexplained phenomena.  The criteria, though, for a productive scientific discussion must include such concepts as being testable/verifyable, and falsifyability.  Creationism/ID does not meet these criteria.