Intelligent Design in Iowa State University

Remove all ads!

I don't agree on this point. I don't believe in ID, but I know many people who do. They ALSO believe the theory of evolution is a good explanation of how life evolved on this planet. But these people are also very religious -- as such, ANY random process needed to develop mankind was guided by 'the master's touch.' These are people who believe that God created the laws of physics, nature and chemistry -- that biology is a tool used by God in ways we can only imagine. In thier point of view, God used evolution as a way to produce the body of man (with just a few bumps here and there) so our spirits could come to earth.

ID does not mean denying evolution, it is a means for those religious individuals to reconcile the knowledge we gain from science.

I do agree it is not science and should not be taught as such.

Gnarff: [sarcasm] I'd go along with the teaching of creationism in science if evolution would be required teaching in church [/sarcasm] -- there is and should always be a clear separation. Along those lines my uncle has an incredibly funny story about when he gave a talk on evolution during a Mormon service (Sacrement Meeting), he was never asked to speak in church after that. And I thought Leprecaunism was funny.

 

BTA: Chicken and egg, I think. You believe the ID'ers don't like evolution so they debunk it with 'it could only happen if someone MADE it happen.' Whereas, the few ID'ers I know are more along the lines of 'we accept evolution as a means to an end, but not the randomness that seems to be inherent in the theory.'

We're both saying the same thing, but I think the tone is different. But ultimately, our differences will be nothing compared to follow-on posts.

 

Maybe I've just always had a misconstrued definition of Intelligent Design, but I've always thought that it wasn't in opposition to evolution (I think of it more as adaptation). More like I thought it was in opposition to the Big Bang theory which I refuse to ever accept as a possibility, primarily because of the way our universe is right now -- it's something that I think would've been so random as to be impossible.

While I don't refute evolution (again... I define that more as adaptation) I just don't see it and Intelligent Design/Creationism (whatever you want to call it) as being in opposition with one another. That said I don't believe in the randomness of anything concerning evolution either -- I believe every evolution of a creature is meant for a reason, like making it better suited to live in an environment. I don't believe it's there just to be, well... there.

EDIT: Oh... and I'd like to specify that I don't view evolution as having anything to do with how the universe was created (otherwise scientists would be using a different term for it).

 

So ID'ers are saying that the genetic mutations that cause devastatingly painful diseases in children, followed shortly thereafter by a young merciful death, are not just random accidents but the work of God?

 

So let me get this straight? One Faculty member wants to research this theory, so about 120 of his colleagues get a petition together to stop him? How can this be taught at all if the research is not allowed? And just what are these people afraid of? Are they afriad that this guy will come up with a plausible alternative to break their monopoly on their science? I'm sorry, but if this guy wants to use his time and resources to study this, that should be his right, and he will be accountable for any results that he finds.

@ Ragusa, this guy does believe he has a point, and wants to research it. Could you imagine if Gallileo's theories were successfully quashed by the RCC? Or if Sir Isaac Newton was sensured because the King didn't like the law of gravity but instead wanted to believe that things fell because the King wanted them to? Or if the rest of the Scientific Community stifled Darwin when he wrote his theory of Evolution? They all thought they had a point, and they researched it. What separates them from a lot of other scientists is that their theories were something big. If there is nothing provable with ID (truthfully, I don't think it can be proven, but that's Philosophy), then he'll exhaust his time and resources with nothing to show for it, and the whole ugly arguement will be moot. This won't go away until it is researched to one conclusion or another. Why can't we wait for a conclusion (or failure to reach one) before jumping all over this guy?

And of course, they won't be silenced for those same reasons. But would the religious be dismissed even if they put forth criticisms based off the theory itself as opposed to their religious doctrine? I suspect that they would be dismissed readily...

T2Bruno, I could imagine why he wouldn't be asked to speak again. Usually, the person speaking is to talk about the Gospel, not Science. And I did think the Leprecaun was funny, I just thought it was off topic (really bad if I'm catching it)...

 

Intelligent Design = Creationism with a necktie and party manners.

But what is "the pocket watch and the rock"? Does it mean if you hit a pocket watch with a rock, it quits working?

 

What he is saying is that if you were walking along and you came upon a rock, you would say, "OK, nobody designed that because it has not enough internal complexy." But if you came upon a pocket watch, you would say, "My, my! Now that must have been designed! Look how complex and precise it must be!"

The failure in the arguement, when applied to cells, is that a pocket watch has no means of self-replication nor mechanisms by which heritable information may be altered.

It is an arguement designed to influence an uninformed layman; what it is not is a scientific arguement in the least.


@ Gnarf

What you have to understand is that research grants are a precious, and I mean precious commodity. Particulary in the last few years since the Bush administration has cut federal funding for research across the board, but especially for biology. Luckily we have the private sector realizing there is great money in things like genetics and the like, so research continues...although now often under the veil of "trade secrecy". But that is OK...diseases will be cured and that is really the goal after all...

So if I wanted to use research money to embark upon a totally non-scientific endeavor, guess what? I would become ostracized, and rightly so.

What you have to accept Gnarf, and I know you will not like this, is that your fellow religious community members are serving you a red herring; they are taking advantage of your lack of education, but really, aside from a few people like Behe, they are mostly just uninformed themselves, regardless of how willingly they maintian that ignorance.

[ September 02, 2005, 06:41: Message edited by: Late-Night Thinker ]

 

From the red corner we have Professor Guillermo Gonzalez from ISU ....

He made it, again, to the Des Moines Register. You can read about the story of 1/2 of the core element that sparks the debate here at ISU.

Just today, from ISU Daily , there will be a public forum of some sort, hopefully, soon. You guys should come here, we can have a little sorcerer's place convention to go with the debate.

Actually, he is an atheist and also advisor of ISU Atheist and Agnostic Society. So much for "religious studies teacher" huh?

 

Hmm...it must have been all those extrasolar planatery systems he has compared to ours that forms the basis of his arguement...

Doh!

He'll write a book and make lots and lots of money...you ID'ers do read, correct?


Edit...

Jeeze...I just realized I mispelled argument like ten times...I'm such a boob of a man!

 

Thanks, Late-Night. But what about a pocket watch wrapped in a rock wrapped in an enigma? But perhaps we should avoid theological questions in this scientific thread.

 

But if these grants are so precious, could they not be trying to ridicule his research so that they have a better chance of getting it themselves?

 

Of course Gnarf...

The failure in your argument is relativism...

Not all research is equal.

 

Gnarff,

IMO Creationists/ IDists are welcome apply for scientific funding, but then they shouldn't be surprised to see themselves rejected because of methodology and reproducability, or more to the point: The lack thereof.

You cannot reproduce methaphysical explanations.

That is not unjustified discrimination as the Creastionists/ IDists like to allege. LNT put it well when he said that you relativate: Not all research is equal.

You avoid the key point that creationism is by method, by approach, not science -- as BTA said candidly

I have no problem when a creationist/ IDist goes to the theology department, or the Discovery Institute or some other place like that - they might be well willing to fund such studies. And they wouldn't bother him with trifles like methodology and reproducability.

That is to say, there is an alternative to pester science departments with demands to include creationism into the science schedule. Successes here are rather a result of Creationist/ ID lobbies successfully utilising their financial or political leverage, than a reflection of realities in the scientific world. But as I said earlier, that isn't what is actually about.

In the eyes of the creationism and ID activists Darwin's evolution theory in their view contradicts the Holy Bible, as it questions the literal interpretation of the Holy Bible they seem to espouse. Creationism and ID are best described as reactionary in nature.

The movement is a backlash against modernity, and it seems really surreal to me that the rest of the world had and overcame this discussion some 100 years ago. It's a miracle to me how this pointless dispute could possibly persist so long in North America.

 

Well, as long as ID has enough credibility and value from a scientific point of view, it could get in science class. However, the way I see it it is more of an interpretation on the theory of evolution (things adapt and evolve, but at times/always it is because of a higher being guiding that), or simply a rejection of the predominant paradigm, as I would consider the evolution to be.
So my 1.8 cents are these: keep the traditional paradigm in science classes until it is challenged in traditional science circles. ID can be discussed, sure, but not in science classes. Science classes have the purpose to teach students about science the way it is perceived at the present and provide them with some basic framework of facts. This doesn't mean that science classes are the alpha and omega of all knowledge taught in schools. After all, how would religious people like it if they had do listen to scientists debating or merely discussing the Biblical creation myth from their viewpoint?

 

That hits the nail on the head. It's exactly what myself, BTA, and Ragusa have been saying over and over again. Scientists don't want science taught in religious studies classes, and likewise do not want religious studies taught in science classes. They want to keep two entirely different subject matters (quite logically) seperate.

 

I believe the judge on the Simpsons said it best:

Maybe we should give religion a little jail time to remind it of the ruling.

 

There were 4 equations, written by Maxwell that governs the whole school of electro magnatic. Everything that is related to electric, electronic, electricity comes from these 4 equations. These 4 describe, fully, the behaviour of electricity. There is, however, a fundamental flaw in these equation and, sadly, none of physic students, electrical engineering students know about the shortcoming of these 4 equations. They cannot explain where does electron come from, i mean, how does electron exists in the very first place. So, should we, alongside with Maxwell's equations, teach also "intelligent design of existance of matter" as a fact?

What, so far, has evolution told us? External pressure leads to adaptation leads to speciation. Evolution, like Maxwell's equation, explain, fully and with evidance, the behaviour of genome and speciation. Of course its shortcoming is that you cannot use it to explain the origin of life. After all, the book is called "The Origin of Species". Just like Maxwell's equation and "intelligent design of existance of matter", should we, alongside wtih evolution, teach "intelligent design" as a fact?