One side can be wrong: 'Intelligent design' in classrooms would have disastrous consequences

Guardian UK ^ | September 1, 2005 | Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne

[The Red Zone]

Amazing how "evolution" has been stretched to something that doesn't even rise to the level of generating new breeds of dogs or cats.

[Tax-chick]

Isn't anyone worried that we're teaching our students the outdated parts of evolution?

You mean the proto-giraffe didn't streeeeetch his neck to reach the leaves, and then produce offspring with a longer neck ... and then those offspring streeeeetched a little more, and had offspring with even longer necks, etc., etc. Oh, I am disillusioned!

[Dimensio]

But, as usual, I'm not surprised. For if Darwinian Evolutionary science was so compelling, so convincing, just why on earth would such a lame attempt at tarring ID supporters be attempted?

I notice that, rather than address the problems for ID that the author gives, you single out one analogy that you don't like and focus on that, ignoring the rest of the content.

[hawkaw]

This is a very well written arguement that illustrates the scientific fallacy of ID in a very logical manner. It also highlights that controversies in the sciences do not disqualify current theories and understandings, but merely show that there are always new things for science to learn. It is important, for the sake of science as a whole, to keep ID out of science classes.

Well said and I agree.

[The Red Zone]

In all these charming stories, that all presuppose some kind of matter at the start, we have yet to come across another "in the beginning, [any deity] made the heavens and the earth." Somehow this is a kind of story no people has ever seemed to have come up with. Except one.

[Dimensio]

Amazing how "evolution" has been stretched to something that doesn't even rise to the level of generating new breeds of dogs or cats.

No stretching is involved. Evolution has always covered such things. It's not a redefinition just because you didn't know about it before.

[The Red Zone]

It's a philosophical one.

[Physicist]

It's a political one.

[dotnetfellow]

Science IS a philosophy.

[Coyoteman]

In all these charming stories, that all presuppose some kind of matter at the start, we have yet to come across another "in the beginning, [any deity] made the heavens and the earth." Somehow this is a kind of story no people has ever seemed to have come up with. Except one.

So you are saying that ID can only mean the version of ID in the bible?

[headsonpikes]

Have you read 'Green Grass - Running Water' by Thomas King?

I highly recommend it to all interested in Coyote, et al. ;^)

A very, very witty book.

[The Red Zone]

If all the TOE talked about was fluctuations in the relative populations of variations in some animal or plant, the result would be uninteresting. This doesn't do anything for the assertion that evolution generated all species seen on earth from a simple one-celled ancestor.

[The Red Zone]

It's a controversy in philosophy.

[Dimensio]

Go out and do your own tests.

Expect a creationist to do research or back up their claims? Pshaw.

[Dimensio]

If all the TOE talked about was fluctuations in the relative populations of variations in some animal or plant, the result would be uninteresting.

But fundamentally, that's all that evolution is.

This doesn't do anything for the assertion that evolution generated all species seen on earth from a simple one-celled ancestor.

Except provide a mechanism by which such a thing happened. The rest is in digging up the physical evidence, which has been done in abundance.

[atlaw]

Are you under the impression that Lamarckism is currently being taught as a part of evolutionary theory?

[bobdsmith]

Some evolutionists prophetic warnings are that to allow ID and or creationism in the class room will doom this nation to third world status. (sounds a bit religious, being a prophetic warning and all)

It's the slippery slope of it. It is politics interfering directly in science, which would be disasterous if it became widespread. The act of redefining science in high schools to get ID or creationism into science classrooms is not disaster in itself, but it is a first step to disaster.

It wouldn't stop at highschool. Next would be attempts to use the same political force to get colleges and universities to redefine science too. If the scientific community is ignored and popular demand is allowed to define science education then all bets are off. If it becomes a major political issue then politicians have a nasty habit of getting too involved.

The nail in the coffin would be legislation to prevent "content discrimination" in colleges which forces them to not discriminate against ideas based on their content. This is all based on the ID/creationist concept of "teach all views", "fairness of ideas", "teach the controversy", as if the scientific validity of an idea cannot be determined, or is subjective or is just irrelevant.

This opens up psuedosciences to be taught in colleges, and because they are labelled science they will become entrenched as science in the public mind. It even possible that they could influence political policy decisions with disasterous consequences. I can even imagine new scientific fields being set up solely to support certain political objectives.

Also if scientists don't have trust in the future of science in a country they may very well move elsewhere.

[The Red Zone]

Just pointing out to you something that your own series of stories makes clear by relief: the Bible creation story is in a genre by itself. The concept of a deity that pre-existed ALL matter and physical energy, rather than coexisting somehow with it at the start of all events, is unique to the bible and those works that borrow from the bible (e.g. Koran). I am not here pitching for ID, but for the bible.

[The Red Zone]

Nice plausible philosophizing, but it appears very lame in the light of the fact that 'science' itself claims a superior methodology for actually answering such questions empirically. Will the cobbler wear his own shoes? If he won't, I don't have any sympathy for him going barefoot.

[Tax-chick]

I am referring to what I was taught in public school in the 1970's. These concepts are also found in books for children on the library shelves, as collections are rarely updated unless the books themselves have been damaged.

On the other hand, are you familiar with the "science" curriculum of public school districts nationwide? How do you know they're not still teaching Lamarckian "genetics"?