Intelligence: Random Chance or Deliberate Design?

[matrixman]

In the "creationist" thread, poor Lord Foul was repeating to anyone who'd listen that abiogenesis is actually the study of the origin of life, not evolutionary theory.

[ur-bane]

Here's an article that I happened across:

Fanning the Controversy Over 'Intelligent Design'

I laughed when I saw the pic.

[Loredoctor]

That is a funny image.

As to Bush's comments: at least keep ID out of science classes. It's not science, it's philosophy.

[Kinslaughterer]

Would it be ok to start teaching this?

OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.



In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.

[lurch]

...well,,so much for our secretive status...Thanks alot kings!!,,All Hale The Flying Spaghetti Monster!.." Sketti" for us who are close to it...MEL

[Plissken]

Seriously, this illustrates the point of the conversation that I don't understand - even if we're going to teach creationism in science class (personally, I can't even get over that mental hurdle) which creation myth do we teach, and how do we justify ignoring the ones we ignore?

I mean, even if you want to make the argument that you picked the "one this country was founded on" (and ignore the religions of some of our earliest immigrants, many of whose traditions we still hold onto today) there's still a variety of Native American tales to choose from. There was a particularly pretty one told on Air America the other day that feels very truthful to me. It involved a coot, and a turtle, and all the peoples of the water and the people who live on top of the water...

[Cail]

But teaching the myth of macro-evolution is OK?

What's the problem with saying "Some people believe that there was some sort of intelligent design behind the Big Bang"?

[Lord Mhoram]

Cail,

Because it isn't science. That's why you shouldn't teach it in science class.

In a religious ed./religion or philosophy class, sure, but not science.

[Cail]

No, it's not science, however it is an opposing or complimentary theory relating to the origin of the universe. Why is it so bad that the general idea is broached? I'm not saying that days of lecture time be devoted to it. In fact, if I recall correctly, I think we only spent 1 or 2 classes on the Big Bang and evolution in high school (which is where we're debating it be taught, is it not?). It may have been a week's worth (5-50 minute classes). Regardless, I fail to see the harm of mentioning it, as long as it's not specific to any denomination or faith.

I don't think that religious teachings belong in public grade schools (colleges are a whole 'nother matter), but I don't see an issue or conflict in mentioning it.

For those who do have a problem with it, would you want Christmas, the Jewish Holidays, Halloween, Easter, and all the other observed religious holidays done away with? No more days off, no more explaination in class, no celebrations?

[Lord Mhoram]

Cail,

Regardless, I fail to see the harm of mentioning it, as long as it's not specific to any denomination or faith.

By it's very definition, creationism or intelligent design is specific to certain faiths (Judeo-Christian). It has absolutely no place in the science classroom because it simply is not science.

I don't think that religious teachings belong in public grade schools (colleges are a whole 'nother matter), but I don't see an issue or conflict in mentioning it.

I do: It's not true nor is it factual.

For those who do have a problem with it, would you want Christmas, the Jewish Holidays, Halloween, Easter, and all the other observed religious holidays done away with? No more days off, no more explaination in class, no celebrations?

Tough question. I'd have to consider it.

[[Syl]]

For those who do have a problem with it, would you want Christmas, the Jewish Holidays, Halloween, Easter, and all the other observed religious holidays done away with? No more days off, no more explaination in class, no celebrations?

Well, nobody outside of Nevadans get a day off for Halloween (Nevada Day), and Yom Kippur, Passover, Channukah, Purim, etc (except when they coincide with Christian holidays) are not federal holidays (I don't think Easter is, either, since it falls on a Sunday). Personally, I'd be fine with a system that allocated a preset number of days off for religous/personal reasons, to be taken whenever the person chooses (all of which expire at the end of the year). Heck, I'd like to be able to work on Sundays and have Friday off.

[Plissken]

This is not the real choice anyway. The bottom line is this: Evolution is observable science, regardless of what the benders of the word "theory" wish us to believe. Creationism, by definition, is not.

I am all for our children's education being as broad and all-inclusive as possible. Intelligent Design, and the various myths related to it, should be taught in in comparitive religeon - or classic lit.

But, and I'm actually agreeing with Pat Robertson and Santorum here, teaching it as science muddys both the scientific and theological waters.

[Cail]

Every school I've been to and/or my wife has taught in celebrates Halloween. Maryland schools have off for Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanna, not to mention Christmas. Schools are already recognizing Judeo/Christian holidays (not to mention a pagan one), and you're kidding yourselves if you don't believe that the signifigance of those holidays is discussed in class.

So that's OK, but the simple mention of Intelligent Design, alongside the unverified theories of the Big Bang and evolution isn't?

[ur-bane]

sci·ence (sns)
n.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to explaining a limitied class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.


Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Emphasis mine.
Science allows for "theoretical explanation." Therefore, until something is proved or disproved, it cannot simply be overlooked, according to a "scientific" viewpoint. Including "Intelligent Design." Therefore it also follows, from a scientific standpoint, that a discussion on the origins of life should also include Intelligent Design as a part of it.
A classroom discussion that includes this topic in no way endorses any type of religion, no more than a history class discussion of the origins of the Protestnt religion endorses that religion.

[Loredoctor]

Seriously, this illustrates the point of the conversation that I don't understand - even if we're going to teach creationism in science class (personally, I can't even get over that mental hurdle) which creation myth do we teach, and how do we justify ignoring the ones we ignore?

I mean, even if you want to make the argument that you picked the "one this country was founded on" (and ignore the religions of some of our earliest immigrants, many of whose traditions we still hold onto today) there's still a variety of Native American tales to choose from. There was a particularly pretty one told on Air America the other day that feels very truthful to me. It involved a coot, and a turtle, and all the peoples of the water and the people who live on top of the water...

Great post. Well said.

[ur-bane]

It's not a matter of teaching creationism, rather a matter of mentioning the idea in discussions.
Heck, science/history classes still teach of Ptolemy and Aristotle's theory that the earth is the center of the Universe, even though Copernicus introduced the idea of the Sun as the center of the solar system, and Galileo proved it.
So according to your thinking, we shouldn't even mention Aristotle or Ptolemy, since they were already proven wrong.

Again, mentioning ideas [creationism, for example] as part of a larger discussion is NOT teaching [creationism], just as mentioning Aristotle or Ptolemy is not teaching that the sun revolves around the earth.

[Cail]

Well put ur-bane.

[[Syl]]

If you guys want a Creation Day, and your local school endorses it or State legislatures will approve it, I'm all for it. It seems kind of hokey to me, but so does Valentine's Day. I still think my original idea would be better, though (no observed religious events/holidays, preset number of free days off).

Aristotle and Ptolemy are very misleading examples (especially since the two combined are lucky to get one chapter, two if you count Aristotle's "eureka!" fable). Their ideas, though flawed, were the rudimentary building blocks of modern science. Similar ID examples would be... biblical scholars. Unless you want to say ID is a flawed understanding of the nature of the universe from which we've worked forward. It's not like every mistaken, crackpot idea is taught in science class. Nobody teaches about the world being carried carried on the back of a great turtle.

Anyways, mentioning is fine. The problem is that people want ID to be taught (correct me if I'm wrong, but the common sentiment I get is 'If evolution has a chapter, so should ID'). Kids are impressionable. It's very easy to teach them something else (say, at church or at home, or in the context of a religious science class), but it's very hard to unteach anything, especially for children. Look at www.snopes.com or the word nauseous for examples.

Yes, a lot of things scientific will be need to be unlearned at one point (say, the concept of "decelleration"), but when we teach science we (should) teach only what has been subjected to extreme scrutiny and peer review to minimize the damage.

[Plissken]

You know, the one year I went to a public HighSchool, creationism was brought up in Biology class and discussed for half a class. The teacher was not thrilled with my theory (which wasn't strict science or creationism, and which I was making up on the spot for fun) but there was he had no problem with the actual discussion.

Has something changed in public schools in the last 20 years that I'm unaware of? I suspect that all of this "All we want is a mention" talk is a red herring.

[Cail]

Quite a lot has changed about high schools. Creationism was never (that I recall) brought up when I was in public school. And you know me, this is no red herring as far as I'm concerned. I have no problem with alternate theories being brought up, but strict religious teachings should not be taught in science class.