It is going to be difficult. Pretty much every attempt I have seen to present the topic has ended in it turning into an evolution bashing course, rather than an intelligent design course.

The thing of it is that it is such a simplistic subject that it really doesn't merit an entire semester all to itself. At most, it could go in with other genesis mythologies in a history course. I can't see how a school would warrant giving it 3 credits.

I don't think it should merit any credits on it's own but possibly be taught in a class with the theory of other religions as part of mythological history. I just worry that the xians wouldn't allow other religious myths to be taught with it. I also worry that they will push it into the mainstream ciriculum.
Give them an inch and they take a mile kind of thing.

I honestly do not think the majority considers Intelligent Design or Creationism to be the mainstream Christian view, no more than satanism is part of Paganistic religions. They are, unfortunately, the most visible ones, however.

In regards to the curriculum, again, I think the main problem is that there is really not much more to it than can't be explained within fifteen minutes. If it is presented as part of a history, or philosophy course, there is really very little that any pro-I.D. groups can do about it. The course would be taught in a secular manner, not in a manner that the groups wants it to be taught in.

I think for many Christians intelligent design is just a way to remind everyone that we really can't prove ANY theory that attemps to explain the origins of the universe or the origins of life.

PSST Iams......

Intelligent Design is not science, and has no place in science lessons, according to the Vatican's chief astronomer, the Rev. George Coyne....

Father Coyne has consistently argued against regarding intelligent design as scientific. In June he wrote in Catholic magazine The Tablet:

"If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly."
SOURCE

Intelligent Design is Empirically Testable and Makes Predictions

By Jay Richards and Jonathan Witt
Among the many, many errors in Judge John Jones’ Dover vs. Kitzmiller opinion is the charge that intelligent design (ID) makes no empirically testable claims (see pp. 66 ff.). Similarly, other ID critics assert that intelligent design makes no testable predictions.1 In fact, intelligent design fulfills both criteria since it makes numerous empirically testable predictions.

It’s true that there’s no way to falsify the bare assertion that a cosmic designer exists. Nevertheless, the specific design arguments currently in play are empirically testable, even falsifiable,2 and involve testable predictions.

Consider the argument that Michael Behe makes in his book Darwin’s Black Box. There he proposes that design is detectable in many “molecular machines,” including the bacterial flagellum. Behe argues that this tiny flagellar motor needs all of its parts to function—is “irreducibly complex.” Such systems in our experience are a hallmark of designed systems, because they require the foresight that is the exclusive jurisdiction of intelligent agents. Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection and random variations, in contrast, requires a functional system at each transition along the way. Natural selection can select for present but not for future function.

Notice that Behe’s argument, contra the assertions of Judge Jones and the ACLU’s expert witnesses, rests not on ignorance or on a purely negative argument against Neo-Darwinism, but on what we know about designed systems, the causal powers of intelligent agents, and on our growing knowledge of the cellular world and its many mechanisms.

Behe predicts that scientists will not uncover a continuously functional Darwinian pathway from a simple precursor to the bacterial flagellum and, moreover, any detailed evolutionary pathway that is articulated will presuppose other irreducibly complex systems. How does one test and discredit Behe’s claims? Describe a realistic, continuously functional Darwinian pathway from simple ancestor to present motor. The flagellum might still be designed, but Behe’s means of detecting such design would have been falsified.

Darwinists like Kenneth Miller point to the hope of future discoveries, and to the type III secretory system as a machine possibly co-opted on the evolutionary path to the flagellum. The argument is riddled with problems, but it shows that Miller, at least, understands perfectly well that Behe’s argument is testable.

Miller tried to sidestep this obvious point in his expert testimony at the Dover trial by conceding that Behe’s argument was testable but insisting that it was a purely negative argument against Neo-Darwinism, not a positive case for intelligent design. This is mere wishful thinking on Miller’s part. Behe’s argument is also based on positive evidence for design. Behe points to strongly positive grounds for inferring design from the presence of irreducibly complex machines and circuits. This testable evidence is so powerful, so nearly ubiquitous, that it is often overlooked. Go out and find irreducibly complex machines, then find out, where possible, their causal history. Again and again one will find that the irreducibly complex machines (mousetraps, motors, etc.) were designed by intelligent agents. Indeed, every time we know the causal history of an irreducibly complex system, it always turns out to have been the product of an intelligent cause.

Miller has conceded that Behe's irreducible complexity argument is testable. And we see that Miller's assertion that scientists have tested and falsified Behe's argument is itself false. Finally, Behe and other design theorists like Scott Minnich and Stephen Meyer have offered positive evidence for the design of the flagellum based on standard uniformitarian reasoning, reasoning well established in science.

To move from biology to astronomy and cosmology, in The Privileged Planet, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards describe how to falsify their design argument. They suggest that there is a correlation between the conditions needed for life and the conditions needed for diverse types of scientific discovery, and suggest that such a correlation, if true, points to intelligent design. They write:

The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment. The opposite of this would have the same effect—finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.

Less devastating but still relevant would be discoveries that contradict individual parts of our argument. Most such discoveries would also show that the conditions for habitability of complex life are much wider and more diverse than we claim. For instance, discovering intelligent life inside a gas giant with an opaque atmosphere, near an X-ray emitting star in the Galactic center, or on a planet without a dark night would do it serious damage. Or take a less extreme example. We suggested in Chapter 1 that conditions that produce perfect solar eclipses also contribute to the habitability of a planetary environment. Thus, if intelligent extraterrestrial beings exist, they probably enjoy good to perfect solar eclipses. However, if we find complex, intelligent, indigenous life on a planet without a largish natural satellite, this plank in our argument would collapse.

Our argument presupposes that all complex life, at least in this universe, will almost certainly be based on carbon. Find a non-carbon based life form, and one of our presuppositions collapses. It’s clear that a number of discoveries would either directly or indirectly contradict our argument.

Similarly, there are future discoveries that would count in favor of it. Virtually any discovery in astrobiology is likely to bear on our argument one way or the other. If we find still more strict conditions that are important for habitability, this will strengthen our case.

So contemporary arguments for intelligent design in both biology and the physical sciences are not only testable; they make predictions and are falsifiable in principle. Of course, if the arguments are true, then they are falsifiable only in principle, but not in fact (hardly a weakness in a scientific theory). We have given only two examples here. There are many other design arguments in biology, origin-of-life studies, and paleontology that are also empirically testable and that make predictions. Therefore, honest commentators should stop claiming that ID is empirically untestable, or that it makes no predictions. The claim itself has been tested and falsified. It’s time to move on to other and more pertinent aspects of the debate over intelligent design.

NOTES:
1. Philosophers of science now know that "prediction" is too narrow a criterion to describe all scientific theorizing. Empirical testability is the more appropriate criterion.

2. "Empirical testability," "falsifiability," and "confirmability" aren't synonyms. "Empirical testability" is the genus, of which falsification and confirmation are species. Something is empirically testable when it is either falsifiable, confirmable, or both. Moreover, something can be confirmable but not falsifiable, as with the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) or the existence of a cosmic designer. Both of these claims are still empirically testable. Further, recent work in the philosophy of science has revealed the degree to which high level scientific theories tend to resist simple refutation. As a result, Karl Popper’s criterion of “falsifiability,” which most commentators seem to presuppose, was rejected by most philosophers of science decades ago as a litmus test for science. Nevertheless, it’s certainly a virtue of scientific proposals to be able to say what evidence would count against it.

ID does meet the criteria to be considered science. It then falls into the same pitfall evolution or Big Bang, or any other Origins theory does.... it is unprovable.

Psst, zan...
ID does meet the criteria to be considered science. It then falls into the same pitfall evolution or Big Bang, or any other Origins theory does.... it is unprovable.

Just when I thought you were getting smarter....

The use by evolutionary biologists of so-called demarcation arguments—that is, arguments that purport to distinguish science from pseudoscience, metaphysics or religion—is both ironic and problematic from the point of view of philosophy of science. It is ironic because many of the demarcation criteria that have been used against non-naturalistic theories of origin can be deployed with equal warrant against strictly naturalistic evolutionary theories. Indeed, a corpus of literature now exists devoted to assessing whether neo-Darwinism, with its distinctively probabilistic and historical dimensions, is scientific when measured against various conceptions of science.9 Some have wondered whether the use of narrative explanation in evolutionary biology constitutes a departure from a strict reliance upon natural law. Others have asked whether neo-Darwinism is falsifiable, or whether it makes true or risky predictions. In 1974, Sir Karl Popper declared neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory "untestable" and classified it as a "metaphysical research programme." While he later revised his judgment, he did so only after liberalizing his notion of falsifiability to allow the weaker notion of "falsifiability in principle" to count as a token of scientific status.

The use of demarcation arguments to settle the origins controversy is also problematic because the whole enterprise of demarcation has now fallen into disrepute. Attempts to locate methodological "invariants" that provide a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for distinguishing true science from pseudoscience have failed.10 Most philosophers of science now recognize that neither verifiability, nor testability (nor falsifiability), nor the use of lawlike explanation (nor any other criterion) can suffice to define scientific practice. As Laudan puts it, "If we could stand up on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like ‘pseudo-science’…they do only emotive work for us."11

If you are truly interested in learning why your reference isn't considered to be a valid argument for the validity of ID as a science, I will be more than happy to provide, but I would first like to know if you are serious about learning, or if you are not interested.

I think I understand why you are using articles written by "religious leaders", but since I am not a subscriber to any religion, what these men say have the same impact on me as what any other man says.

I think it is so ironic that those of you who are trying to "teach" me, so quickly dismiss (sometimes don't even read) anything that does not fit your nice, orderly picture of reality.

Yes, I am. Are you?

I think it is so ironic that those of you who are trying to "teach" me, so quickly dismiss (sometimes don't even read) anything that does not fit your nice, orderly picture of reality.

So, yes, I am interested in learning, I am, however, intelligent enough to be discerning and to question what is presented to me.

Are you interested in truly discussing an issue or are you so set in your ways you will not consider what I have to say and are only interested in imparting your knowledge?

But you sure do not hesitate to use what OTHER "other men" say

But Iams.....isn't this what you have done in this very thread?

As an interesting aside, simply because someone dismisses something, does not mean that they have never thought of it. It can also mean that it has been gone over so many times that, unless something new is being presented, is has been quite tediously and throughly explained, and is therefore dismissed simply because the issue is finished. What it behooves teachers to remember, however, is that simply because it is no longer new to us, it may well be new to a student, and simply dismissing it in no way imparts to the student the experience and knowledge that the teacher has, turning what was once an argument based on logic and emperical evidence into an argument of authority, which no teacher should have to resort to.

So, let us begin: By all means, feel free to ask me whatever question you wish concerning Intelligent design and why it would not be considered a science for that reason, and I will do my best to explain to you the viewpoint that science has on the matter.

So, let us begin: By all means, feel free to ask me whatever question you wish concerning Intelligent design and why it would not be considered a science for that reason, and I will do my best to explain to you the viewpoint that science has on the matter.

No, zan, I have actually read what is presented. I have replied with inquiries, because that is how I learn. I have also attempted to present information for discussion which so far has gone unanswered, with at least questions based on the article, instead of just quotes from "religious leaders"

I already have. I posted parts of two articles (with links to the full article) earlier today which attempt to show that ID does meet the criteria to be considered a scientific theory.

And I posted two links that shows the Vatican saying just the opposite

I already have. I posted parts of two articles (with links to the full article) earlier today which attempt to show that ID does meet the criteria to be considered a scientific theory.

Well, let's try to narrow it down a bit. Is your question why Irreducable Complexity is not a valid scientific argument in favor of I.D.?

Also, I would like to hear a definition of what I.D. is from you.

I would like to address the subject of intelligent design. In the US the xian right want our children to experience the theory in their classrooms. I'm not a follower of the religious concept but I would like to see how it would play out in mythology classes. I've been on this forum for a while now and I've noticed that we have some pretty astute young people around here. Young people aren't as gullible as they were a few years ago. I'm thinking maybe they might be able to disect it enough to disprove it if put in a classroom setting. Of course I realize that once the religious right get it in the door they will manipulate it into the mainstream ciriculum.

I know it will never play out in the public school system but around here we're open to discuss anything. What do you guys think?

Actually, I am more interested in this article:

Hmm...not quite what I meant by "narrow it down..."

I could only skim through it fast, as I am going to work soon, but the articles (what little I read of it) seems to be calling into question scientific methodology itself. I will have to read it a little more carefully to find out what the exact arguments are, but I think it might be better if you could point out what, specifically, in that article, you find so interesting.

Actually, it is not so much scientific methodology as the attempt to manipulate scientific methodology to exclude any theory which opposes evolution as an origins theory.

I know it's a large article, but I am really interested in discussing the complete premise of the article which is basically there is no scientific basis for not considering intelligent design as a valid scientific theory, and the apparent attempt to manipulate scientific methodology to exclude any other origins theory from being considered scientific.

That is my interest.

Wow...

See, to me, a claim like "the attempt to manipulate scientific methodology to exclude any theory which opposes evolution as an origins theory" is completly incomprehensible.

Scientific Methodology isn't about Origins theory. Scientific Methodology is about ALL science. All of it. Abiogenesis (theories concerning the beginnings of life on Earth) is only one field among hundreds.

The five pre-requisites of Scientific Methodology are not there for the sole purpose of testing Creationism. They apply to every single scientific theory out there. Every single one. It doesn't matter if you are dealing with modern-day String Theory, or if you are dealing with the millenia old Pythagorean Theorum, every theory must meet all five pre-requistes, without exception, in order to be considered scientific. To claim that the rules are being manipulated for the purpose of excluding one little theory among millions...I can't even wrap my mind around that.

I really don't even know where to begin. Its a little bit like being accussed that the sole reason I go out to the garden is to step on ants. I can't even imagine what they are basing this claim on. I haven't had the chance to read the article yet, but what sort of property are they claiming about Intelligent Design that demands an exception to the rules that apply to every single other theory in existance?

I understand what science and the scientific method is about. The topic I am interested in discussing is how evolutionists in particular are attempting to invalidate competing theories, by attempting to discredit them as science.

The article is not demanding anything, it is simply discussing why intelligent design is a valid scientific theory.

Are you going to be able to consider this without prejudging? The language in your post seems to be predisposed to dismiss the idea completely.

Intelligent design is soley based on faith.

Let me posit that any universe, for it to exist, is "stable" (dynamically stable).

Further, you are making the error again that presumes something about "life" based on "life as you know it".

Intelligent design is soley based on faith. Where-as Evolution is based on facts and evidence, a book written by men who thought the earth was flat and thunderstorms the cause of an angry god - is not fact. It is simply a belief in a faith where evidence is not present.

Still, to keep the kindness, Evolution doesn't entirely dismiss a 'god' like being.

I understand what science and the scientific method is about. The topic I am interested in discussing is how evolutionists in particular are attempting to invalidate competing theories, by attempting to discredit them as science.

The article is not demanding anything, it is simply discussing why intelligent design is a valid scientific theory.

Are you going to be able to consider this without prejudging? The language in your post seems to be predisposed to dismiss the idea completely.

Also, if you read the Bible you may find that it is refered to as a sphere.

zero,

my responses were based on your "take away" approach to proposing alternate universes.
iams,

this is for you:

http://www.goatstar.org/the-bibles-flat-ea...-dome-universe/

How else would they invalidate them? If something does not meet the same pre-requisites that every single other theory in existance must meet, why would it be considered valid?

One thing I will say thoe is that we only have 1 example of life

No point I was just saying what it is you are referring to, it wasnt a dig at you so chill grin2.gif