Categories

Atheism, Christianity, Evolution, Religion

Rating

GD Star Rating
loading...

Share this post

 

Intelligent Design on Trial

In 2004, the Dover school board ordered science teachers to read a statement to high school biology students suggesting that there is an alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution called intelligent design–the idea that life is too complex to have evolved naturally and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent agent.

The teachers refused to comply. Later, parents opposed to intelligent design filed a lawsuit in federal court accusing the school board of violating the constitutional separation of church and state.

Also recommended for you:

  1. geniousofdesign
    The Genius of Design
  2. the odds of alien life
    Calculating The Odds of Intelligent Alien Life
  3. homofuturus
    Homo Futurus: The Inside Story
  4. sciencereligion
    The End of God?: A Horizon Guide to Science and Religion
  5. Israel+Palestine5
    The Shape of the Future

 
  • DisableCain

    Intelligent design vs intelligent or unintelligent randomness, which do you choose? Most of us have been brought up on a school diet of evolution without any of the assumptions and critical appraisals pointed out to us. I would say that is bias. Unfortunately, some have internalized the teaching so much that they forget that evolution is only a theory and anyone opposing it must be stupid. I believe that evoution should be taught as a theory, but as in any good teaching, appraisals and weaknesses should be pointed out. Fossils should also be displayed as they are found. Models displayed by experts constructed based on educated guesswork and speculation should be marked as such so as not to confuse a young impressionable mind. Intelligent design may be brought up as a point view during critical appraisal peroids. Not everyone who believe in the bible believe in a literal 6 man days. Children should be taught to think rather than be indoctrinated.

    • Olsen

      “Evolution is only a theory”. I hear this over and over again on the Internet’s ongoing debate: evolution vs. creationism. Please note the difference between a scientific theory and the common usage of the word theory – two different things! A scientific theory is the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment. Sir Isaac Newton published: Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, (which contains the theory of gravitation) in 1687, which science still use to this date, because it’s not yet disproved by experiment. Is anyone questioning this theory? Otherwise I agree with your points of view :)

      • DC

        Has evolution been proven as a fact? I suppose I don’t trust scientist enough to say that they do not throw out information that don’t fit just as they do with weather warming data. I agree that that Newton’s laws do fit in pretty well with observations and applications so far, but how do we know that everything, or maybe some of it(eg distances of galaxies) is not just a mirage. Many things may just appear that way to us earthlings for all I know. What we cannot see or touch may or may not be real but sometimes even what we see may not be real. I do not preclude the possibility that our minds can work in mysterious ways that we do not understand.

        • Olsen

          Theories are not facts, but the closest we’ll get to the facts, with the scientific method of proving or explaining the unknown. If Newton’s law fit in pretty well with observations and applications so far, surely Darwin’s theory does the same (?). Especially with science on genetics made hundreds of years later. The reason it’s still valid is the fact that it hasn’t been disproved by experiments, fossil findings or other discoveries, only supported. Regarding scientists tossing information that doesn’t fit, I wouldn’t worry too much. That’s the beauty of science – rewrite the theory with the new information added, and/or use the new information for further scientific testing. Science is dedicated to finding the truth, based on the scientific method – not making things fit into the theory. We (earthlings) still have a lot to learn about ourselves, our origin, the universe etc. but the best way to advance is using science and the scientific method of testing the unknown.

          • DC

            I doubt many people disagree that the scientific method as perceived by our limited brain is as far as we are concerned the best method of deducing the truth. Since we are using our methods, it is only the truth as perceived by us. We should also be opened to the possibility that there are other ways of looking at things that we may not perceive as logical but is also a probability. For all we know, many of our logical conclusions regarding the universe may be based on mirages. Just because results from applying the theory or relativity approximates to that of quantum does not mean there are many other factors which have not been taken into consideration but just happened to cancel each other out.
            As for evolution and fossil finds, I believe there are gaps which some people have pointed out. Whether mutations can lead to evolution and can go against the second law of thermodynamics is some point which has been raised. But I wonder why there is a need to evolve at all from the simplest life form when that type of life form is already most adapt at surviving. As far as I am concerned, I don’t have to come to any conclusion. Exploring is the fun part.