Ben Stein

[skeptik]

It used to be considered a worthy topic of discussion within philosophy hundreds of years ago, but then this one guy named David Hume sufficiently cast doubt on this theory even before Darwin came along (Hume even anticipated Darwinism himself). Also, I think almost no high schools in this country offer philosophy courses, which is extremely unfortunate in my opinion. We teach kids in this country about fucking polynomials but we don't teach them how to think critically about some of the most pressing and important questions of our fucking existence? What the fuck is up with that?

You'll of course find no argument from me.

 

[cookiecutter]

^It's one thing to develop and try to support a system of views, and identify it as such. It's quite another to call it fact and present it as such to the world, including my kid.

I had to stop here and explain why you are wrong. If you are talking about evolution here it is a fact since it has been observed by people. That's about as factual as you can get.

If you mean the scientific method in general, it is not presenting itself as fact, merely the best way to arrive at facts, which it has proven time and time again to be.

 

[Melodeath]

I thought he was asking for the evidence of evolution

 

[cookiecutter]

We've been through that and if he hasn't gotten it by now he never will

 

[MasterOLightning]

The saddest thing about such arguments is that there's no reason to believe that ID - if that's what you choose to believe - is incompatible with evolution. If you have to believe in god, then why not say that he dictated evolution every step of the way? At this point, it is the same as chemistry or physics (which are incredibly complex), so if you wish to believe in god, you can say he directed all aspects of science.

I just don't see why this is ever a point of debate for Christians. There's no need to teach ID alongside evolution. Would you teach ID alongside the periodic table? Because that thing is just fucking hard to believe... Better pull god into it. :eyeroll:

 

[Zephyrus]

I suggest everybody watch this, especially you AcK.

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

 

[CAIRATH]

The saddest thing about such arguments is that there's no reason to believe that ID - if that's what you choose to believe - is incompatible with evolution. If you have to believe in god, then why not say that he dictated evolution every step of the way? At this point, it is the same as chemistry or physics (which are incredibly complex), so if you wish to believe in god, you can say he directed all aspects of science.

I just don't see why this is ever a point of debate for Christians. There's no need to teach ID alongside evolution. Would you teach ID alongside the periodic table? Because that thing is just fucking hard to believe... Better pull god into it. :eyeroll:

It all depends on how strict a stance you take on creationism. If you take a loose/metaphorical interpretation of the Genesis story then you can combine the two if you wish to do so. This is the stance that most "moderate" Christians seem to take. But if you are a young earth creationist then obviously you are going to run into irreconcilable differences between the two.

This issue is something that is dealt with in Ken Miller's book that I mentioned before. It is a book that even Dawkins recommends to religious people that write to him who are torn between their religious views and science (he mentions it at the end of the discussion that was linked yesterday). Despite the fact that he does not personally agree with the premise of the book that evolution and religion are compatible. Perhaps you should seek it out, AchrisK. I haven't read it myself so I honestly don't know what it argues for, but since it comes recommended by both Christian organizations and people like Richard Dawkins (and Krauss) that certainly makes it intriguing.

 

[Einherjar86]

I had to stop here and explain why you are wrong. If you are talking about evolution here it is a fact since it has been observed by people. That's about as factual as you can get.

Wrong.

I believe in and agree with evolution, but it's not fact, which is something that most people who support it seem loathe to admit. Evolution is a theory, and even evidence based on observation cannot be construed as fact.

And why is everyone so against teaching intelligent design in schools? I'm saying that it should be taught with the utmost level of skepticism; I don't care if in practice it wouldn't be, I'm only saying it should. Education means the informing of all avenues and opportunities. Just because you guys are adament about evolution and have a seething hatred for intelligent design doesn't mean we shouldn't tell people about it. It's really unnerving to hear so much encouragement of pure neglect for a belief system. This is the kind of rhetoric that leads to evolution becoming a cult of its own. Evolution has all the best cards in its hands, it has the best evidence and the most logical, rational support. Don't let anger get in the way of teaching other beliefs just because you find them inconceivable and implausible.

 

[skeptik]

Evolution is about as close to a 'fact' as humanity can possibly reach. We can't really know anything for a 'fact', as in there is 0 possibility of it ever having turned out to be the contrary, so our definition of what constitutes fact is not purely absolute. Holding evolution to an unobtainable standard makes no sense. Evolution is about as solid a fact as we can get, but that doesn't mean that we can't later find out that we were wrong (which is about as likely as God coming down from Heaven and giving me a high five). Basically, unless you're willing to deny that gravity is a fact (something any reputable scientist would be loathe to do), then you can't strip the title of fact away from evolution either, since both concepts are both theory and fact.

Intelligent Design should not be taught because there's nothing to teach. What the hell are you going to say, "look around you, surely something must have designed this in a reasoned and coherent way, it can't simply have been the product of a random chain of events...class dismissed"? There isn't really anything substantive to the theory of ID that makes it worth teaching. In fact, it's so intuitive that it doesn't even need to be taught, especially since it's not hampered by the need to be supported with evidence. It's not science. It's not math. It's not even rightly regarded as philosophy at this point. Where are you going to teach it, in a creationism class? Just because something has a theory connected to it doesn't mean it needs to be taught. Do you have any idea how many theories about the origin of the universe are not taught in school? What about Scientology? Scientology has about as much scientific standing as ID, so if ID should be taught in schools, so should the principles of Scientology. It also has about as much proof to support its claims.

 

[MasterOLightning]

@Einherjar86
But there's no evidence for ID, and there can never be. It is not science. There is evidence for evolution, even if it is currently incomplete.

 

[Einherjar86]

Intelligent Design should not be taught because there's nothing to teach. What the hell are you going to say, "look around you, surely something must have designed this in a reasoned and coherent way, it can't simply have been the product of a random chain of events...class dismissed"?

Teaching something doesn't mean supporting it, which is what you're implying by writing that.

Let me say this. I'm a supporter of evolution. By bringing up topics like intelligent design or scientology for even a few minutes during one day of class, you lend credence to the theory of evolution. A teacher can say, "look, these are some beliefs that certain people believe. Unfortunately, there are no logical grounds for coming to these conclusions. It cannot be tested. Now, when we look at evolution, we have a large body of evidence to work from, as we will learn about in Darwin's Origin of Species," or something like that. Looking at it that way, I don't see why you wouldn't teach intelligent design. Simple logic and reason will favor evolution, and by demonstrating the extensiveness of its body of evidence next to something fallible like intelligent design you're doing evolution a favor. Outline the parameters of intelligent design next to those of evolution; show how sound and solid the theory is. Show that one is a theory of blind faith while the other is based on rational logic and experimentation/observation.

 

[cookiecutter]

Evolution is about as close to a 'fact' as humanity can possibly reach. We can't really know anything for a 'fact', as in there is 0 possibility of it ever having turned out to be the contrary, so our definition of what constitutes fact is not purely absolute. Holding evolution to an unobtainable standard makes no sense. Evolution is about as solid a fact as we can get, but that doesn't mean that we can't later find out that we were wrong (which is about as likely as God coming down from Heaven and giving me a high five). Basically, unless you're willing to deny that gravity is a fact (something any reputable scientist would be loathe to do), then you can't strip the title of fact away from evolution either, since both concepts are both theory and fact.

Intelligent Design should not be taught because there's nothing to teach. What the hell are you going to say, "look around you, surely something must have designed this in a reasoned and coherent way, it can't simply have been the product of a random chain of events...class dismissed"? There isn't really anything substantive to the theory of ID that makes it worth teaching. In fact, it's so intuitive that it doesn't even need to be taught, especially since it's not hampered by the need to be supported with evidence. It's not science. It's not math. It's not even rightly regarded as philosophy at this point. Where are you going to teach it, in a creationism class? Just because something has a theory connected to it doesn't mean it needs to be taught. Do you have any idea how many theories about the origin of the universe are not taught in school? What about Scientology? Scientology has about as much scientific standing as ID, so if ID should be taught in schools, so should the principles of Scientology. It also has about as much proof to support its claims.

Marry me

 

[Valerie]

Teaching or even talking about ID alongside Evolution is like saying 2+2=5 in a math class, like saying atoms aren't the foundation of matter in a chemistry class, and so on. Just because there's a theory about anything doesn't mean it deserves to be taught in schools, especially if it's not rational, logical, or making sense of any kind. Evolution is grounded in reality, what the earth and our species have experienced; ID isn't.

 

[Zephyrus]

This debate just reinforces the absurdity of religion, because without it everybody would readily embrace most things essentially proven by science, such as evolution and the big bang. But all these religious folk are so fearful that the truth is subverting their own beliefs. I say that if you live in such a fear, then your religious faith are not as strong as you claim it to be.

 

[skeptik]

Teaching something doesn't mean supporting it, which is what you're implying by writing that.

Let me say this. I'm a supporter of evolution. By bringing up topics like intelligent design or scientology for even a few minutes during one day of class, you lend credence to the theory of evolution. A teacher can say, "look, these are some beliefs that certain people believe. Unfortunately, there are no logical grounds for coming to these conclusions. It cannot be tested. Now, when we look at evolution, we have a large body of evidence to work from, as we will learn about in Darwin's Origin of Species," or something like that. Looking at it that way, I don't see why you wouldn't teach intelligent design. Simple logic and reason will favor evolution, and by demonstrating the extensiveness of its body of evidence next to something fallible like intelligent design you're doing evolution a favor. Outline the parameters of intelligent design next to those of evolution; show how sound and solid the theory is. Show that one is a theory of blind faith while the other is based on rational logic and experimentation/observation.

To me, this just sounds like a wasted day in a science class. Intelligent Design does not need to be taught in schools. It has no place in schools. It's not science. Fuck, it's hardly even knowledge. Even placing it in the curriculum is a dangerous tactic that bursts open the doors for teachers who are sympathetic to the idea to legitimately represent it as an idea supported by science, and I would prefer that we don't take that risk. Inteligent Design bullies already push quite enough on the educational and political landscape, we don't need to leave the door ajar so they can stick their foot in.

 

[cookiecutter]

Good point.

EDIT: At all three above me

 

[CAIRATH]

Teaching something doesn't mean supporting it, which is what you're implying by writing that.

Let me say this. I'm a supporter of evolution. By bringing up topics like intelligent design or scientology for even a few minutes during one day of class, you lend credence to the theory of evolution. A teacher can say, "look, these are some beliefs that certain people believe. Unfortunately, there are no logical grounds for coming to these conclusions. It cannot be tested. Now, when we look at evolution, we have a large body of evidence to work from, as we will learn about in Darwin's Origin of Species," or something like that. Looking at it that way, I don't see why you wouldn't teach intelligent design. Simple logic and reason will favor evolution, and by demonstrating the extensiveness of its body of evidence next to something fallible like intelligent design you're doing evolution a favor. Outline the parameters of intelligent design next to those of evolution; show how sound and solid the theory is. Show that one is a theory of blind faith while the other is based on rational logic and experimentation/observation.

You also have to look at the motivation behind why conservative Christian lobbies want it to be taught in school. It's not because they genuinely believe that ID will in any way sway the scientific community or overtake evolution on that territory. What they want more than anything is to elevate ID to the level of scientific discourse in the eyes of the lay public. And the best way to do that is to have it appear alonside actual science in the school curriculum.

Doing so gives ID an air of validity. It makes it seem as if science is divided on the issue, as if scientists outthere are researching both evolution and ID and just aren't quite sure yet (which certainly is the way that many teachers would like to explain it). Which is ofcourse completely ridiculous. Aside from Michael Behe and a few other fringe "scientists" no one in the scientific community takes ID seriously because it is so very plainly not scientific (the only person who has even attempted a real scientific spin on it is Behe who failed miserably, even in court in front of a Christian judge, to convince anyone of that).

And even if it is strictly addressed in the form of extreme skepticism bordering on mocking as you propose there, what is the point of that exactly? Do we waste time dwelling on the fact that people used to think the earth was flat? Or the fact that people used to think that the earth was at the center of the universe (perhaps we should as apparently many people in America still believe this)? Should we also teach about phrenology? What about Alchemy?

The answer is ofcourse, no, we shouldn't. Because the purpose of the education system is to educate and enlighten people, not to needlessly dwell on all the areas in which mankind has shown or is still showning itself to be ignorant, gullible and superstitious (aside from perhaps history lessons where that might be very interesting). In science classes though, the focus should be on what we know and not on debunking alternate theories that don't even enter the realm of science. And ID neatly fits into that category.

Intelligent Design is itself a marketing gimmick. A PR campaign lead by wealthy Christian lobbies to dust off creationism and put it into a new 20th century packaging that is less offesnsive (at first glance) to the intelligence of generation Y'ers (though on closer scrutiny, not by much). It has no place whatsoever in public schools and least of all in a science classroom. The Christian PR machine is a powerful and dangerous one and the last thing that should be done is to give them an inch, because they will take a mile.

 

[Valerie]

Another award-winning post by Cairath.

 

[Einherjar86]

You also have to look at the motivation behind why conservative Christian lobbies want it to be taught in school. It's not because they genuinely believe that ID will in any way sway the scientific community or overtake evolution on that territory. What they want more than anything is to elevate ID to the level of scientific discourse in the eyes of the lay public. And the best way to do that is to have it appear alonside actual science in the school curriculum.

Doing so gives ID an air of validity. It makes it seem as if science is divided on the issue, as if scientists outthere are researching both evolution and ID and just aren't quite sure yet (which certainly is the way that many teachers would like to explain it). Which is ofcourse completely ridiculous. Aside from Michael Behe and a few other fringe "scientists" no one in the scientific community takes ID seriously because it is so very plainly not scientific (the only person who has even attempted a real scientific spin on it is Behe who failed miserably, even in court in front of a Christian judge, to convince anyone of that).

That's one of the best points that's been raised; and I'm not sure I have an answer for it. It's true, it would lend it an air of credibility.

And even if it is strictly addressed in the form of extreme skepticism bordering on mocking as you propose there, what is the point of that exactly? Do we waste time dwelling on the fact that people used to think the earth was flat? Or the fact that people used to think that the earth was at the center of the universe (perhaps we should as apparently many people in America still believe this)? Should we also teach about phrenology? What about Alchemy?

The answer is ofcourse, no, we shouldn't. Because the purpose of the education system is to educate and enlighten people, not to needlessly dwell on all the areas in which mankind has shown or is still showning itself to be ignorant, gullible and superstitious (aside from perhaps history lessons where that might be very interesting).

Well, this goes back to the point I was saying earlier about Joseph Acosta's account of the Americas. Acosta could not reconcile scientific fact with what his Jesuit beliefs told him. This, I feel, is important and essential to understanding scientific history. However, you bring up a good point. Maybe something like intelligent design would be better discussed in an history class rather than science. However, the fact remains that it is an important religious ideology that presents an opposition to the theory of evolution. If we wish to teach evolution and support it, then it should be presented alongside all beliefs that oppose it and shown why evolution stands taller than the rest. It would be wise to include intelligent design in a course study that demonstrates perhaps how religious ideologies can interfere with scientific reason and logic.

Intelligent Design is itself a marketing gimmick. A PR campaign lead by wealthy Christian lobbies to dust off creationism and put it into a new 20th century packaging that is less offesnsive (at first glance) to the intelligence of generation Y'ers (though on closer scrutiny, not by much). It has no place whatsoever in public schools and least of all in a science classroom. The Christian PR machine is a powerful and dangerous one and the last thing that should be done is to give them an inch, because they will take a mile.

Well, all theories and ideologies are marketing schemes. Even evolution has money behind it, and there are people who consider it in their best interest to fund and encourage such a theory. Just because it has more evidence doesn't make it any less of a money issue. Science itself is still a business.

 

[skeptik]

Well, this goes back to the point I was saying earlier about Joseph Acosta's account of the Americas. Acosta could not reconcile scientific fact with what his Jesuit beliefs told him. This, I feel, is important and essential to understanding scientific history. However, you bring up a good point. Maybe something like intelligent design would be better discussed in an history class rather than science. However, the fact remains that it is an important religious ideology that presents an opposition to the theory of evolution. If we wish to teach evolution and support it, then it should be presented alongside all beliefs that oppose it and shown why evolution stands taller than the rest. It would be wise to include intelligent design in a course study that demonstrates perhaps how religious ideologies can interfere with scientific reason and logic.

I don't expect that you'll find such a course in high school, but there are dozens and dozens of colleges and universities that do address Intelligent Design in certain courses. This should be a niche class, however, as it currently is, and does not need to be installed within the confines of traditional, basic biology, chemistry, and geology courses, as it is merely a distraction. Theories have to earn their place in a curriculum. Intelligent Design has earned nothing but the scorn that it so rightly receives all for its shoddy reasoning, its dubious claim at being a valid scientific concept (which it is not), and its malicious motivations that drive it to want to stand toe to toe with evolution as though it was simply a matter of choosing between A and B, all things being equal.