Intelligent Design vs. Darwin's theory.

[Baashi]

Hoodi hoodi qaraabo,

 

Larry Kind had an imperesive panel on his Larry King Live show last tuesday (this week). The show was about the Itelligent Design. Intelligent design is a contraversial theory that asserts that Darwin's theory is not based on science. The challengers side had a one scientist, a senator, and a Christian pastor. The Darwin's theory supporters had a scientist, a congresman, and a prominet author. It was an awesome one hour discussion. I hope some of you had seen it.

 

Now, this topic interest me enough that I read couple of books and I kinda fell in line with the opposite side of argument against Darwin not because of religious reasons but the compelling evidence the other side presented in their argument. However, the overwhelmingly support the Christian Right has given and their Biblical refernces to validate their side of argument gave me a pause. Nevertheless the dogmatic attitude of Darwinian supporters and the endless put down without addressing the substantive claims of the Intelligent Design makes me lil bit disappointed with so called Establishment (Acedemia).

 

Have you guys paid any attention to this new development? What's your take on this issue?

[Elysian]

I read about it a couple of weeks ago in one of the Science issues. Given the fact that it was in a science magazine I imagine it not fully objective to the matter dealt with. If I remembered it correct, they presented this theory as something mainly attractive to Christian students, who were otherwise at loss facing the evolution theory. Don’t recall them presenting the theory more in detail than that it undermined the contemporary evolutionary theory with the argument that it is incapable of explaining the origin of the diversity of living organisms.

 

Since the intelligent design theory has become popular among university students, they have wanted to introduce the teaching of it into the science curricula of the public schools. This has in turn evoked AAAS (The American Association for the Advancement of Science) to take some action against the endorsement of this theory.

 

In general one could always wish the academia to be institutions guided by opened mindness and transparency. However, although they know (or should know) that what is called facts today are only true until proven otherwise, it still is a painful experience for the scientists involved to admit they were wrong, hence the dogmatic attitude.

 

Just for the curiosity I'd like to know more about the intelligent design

[Baashi]

Elysian,

 

There are many variations within the Intelligent Design theories. The Christian Right version is called a Creationism if I recalled correctly. They are largelly motivated by social and political considerations and not so much by Science. For instance, they have issues of how the curriculum is developed at the district level and what sort of consideration should go into the decision-making process and who dictates what their kids learn and what are the parents' role in all of this.

 

The real Intelligent Design challengers like scientist are challenging the assertion that Natural Selection is a purposeless self-driven mechanism. They accept that living organism evolved over time and they will continue to evolve but they reject the assertion that rules out Supreme Being "causing" this mechanism to carry on.

 

Also at issue is whether life has a purpose at all. The Intelligent Design proponents assert that this question is philosophical/theological in nature and Darwin has not provided any new answers that can withstand the scientific inquiry.

 

Not only that, Evolution itself has fallen short to back up its claims. For instance, there are "leaps" in the evolution chain and Darwinist claimed that future discoveries will fill and complete the chain. Intelligent Design propoenents argue that is having faith in the unknown the very thing the Science methodolgy rejects.

 

I'm multitasking here so if my terrain of thought is not coherent enough then plain the stress and this guy who is bugging me to locate a list he had mislocated somewhere.

[Haddad]

Originally posted by Baashi:

They accept that living organism evolved over time and they will continue to evolve but they reject the assertion that rules out Supreme Being "causing" this mechanism to carry on.

The above statement caught my attention. I am curious; do you accept living organisms undergo an evolutionary process due to the environment, for the scope of adaptation? For example, the African elephant differs (some physiology, also aggressive due to living in the wilderness) from its Indian counterpart (docile due to having been domesticated). Another example; humans who live at a higher elevation (mountains) from the ground have larger lungs (helping to breath efficiently at such altitude) than their low elevation counterparts. There are other examples, but I think you get the idea.

[Baashi]

Haddad, if the question is do I believe evolution in the sense of organism evolving to best adopt their environment in order to survive, Yes I do. What I don't believe is that this is self-driven mechanism. And here is where Science disappears!

 

I am a believer. I believe there is a Divine hand guiding this process. I also believe there is a Divine Designer that pre-coded the inclanation that compels organism to adopt to their environment into the DNA.

 

So far Darwin's theory has not convince (scientifically) me to discard this deep held believe by presenting evidence contrary to what I just outlined there. All it does is to emphasise the diversity of living things and explain why and how organism struggle for survival.

 

You've seen it in school hows is the Natural Selectin and the "survival of the fittest" and the why is to simply survive and ensure their genes lives on.

 

Of course I'm simplifying it but you get the picture. BTW, what's ur take on this?

[NGONGE]

Baashe,

 

I think the argument was not to dismiss evolution outright but to suggest that evolution works on a micro level while the creator worked on the macro one.

 

This whole idea though, when applied to schooling is, I’m afraid, wrong. If people want to advocate intelligent design, they should fight for it to be introduced to religious education classes and not science classes. Darwin’s theory, although it is just a theory, can be somewhat proven using experiments and research. The ‘science’ of intelligent design requires faith and faith is, almost always, a bad substitute for thought.

 

Someone above mentioned that theories can be proven wrong. They used that argument against the evolution theory! However, they did not pay much attention to the ‘proven’ part. Theories can be proven wrong because one can carry out experiments to prove or disprove a theory. One can not do so with god (not scientifically anyway, I think). It’s debatable if one can do it philosophically, but plenty have given it a damn good try.

 

As far as I know, this intelligent design idea did not hit the headline until the mad bible bashers decided to force some district schools to introduce it to their curriculum and write the words ‘evolution is just a theory’ on all science books!

 

Do you think creationism/intelligent design should be taught in science classes? How?

[Johnny B]

Originally posted by Baashi:

Haddad, if the question is do I believe evolution in the sense of organism evolving to best adopt their environment in order to survive, Yes I do. What I don't believe is that this is self-driven mechanism. And here is where Science disappears!

 

I am a believer. I believe there is a Divine hand guiding this process. I also believe there is a Divine Designer that pre-coded the inclanation that compels organism to adopt to their environment into the DNA.

 

So far Darwin's theory has not convince (scientifically) me to discard this deep held believe by presenting evidence contrary to what I just outlined there. All it does is to emphasise the diversity of living things and explain why and how organism struggle for survival.

Bashi, Darwin NEVER said there is no GOD or a Divine designer that pre-coded the whole natural sellection machanisim. what he presented is a theory and he proved it scientifically.

Science neither disappears, nor will it deny you to be a beleiver.

Science deleivers knowledge through the normal senses, knowledge implies a beleif, not the other way around.

the presumption that Darwin and his theory are against creationinim(religions) is commonly held ,but according to the "Darwinists" it is upto the creationists to come clean scientifically as there seem to be no other way for mankind to KNOW.

 

Share with us , Why you beleive that it is NOT a self-driven mechanism?

 

Share with us , Why this divine pre-coder has coded it JUST so?

[Haddad]

Originally posted by Baashi:

BTW, what's ur take on this?

My take, Darwin's theories are dynamic theories. You could say those theories itself are evolving. As science and technology develop/progress, theories that were taken granted for many years/decades keep changing/deviating from their original statements. Some of those theories could change comprehensively, others nullified. Many theories of the past would crumble as science and technology are fine-tuned at the micro/nanocellular levels. For instance, species far smaller than submicroscopic parasites, that are a host (among other possibilities) of those parasites, could be discovered. Of course, I, like you, believe in the Divine Designer, and do not believe in an automated mechanisim.

[Castro]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

Do you think creationism/intelligent design should be taught in science classes? How?

Simply, no. Not as science for it is not "science" as you mentioned earlier. On the other hand, when was evolution taught in schools? I never had to take a Natural Selection course. In fact, my first introduction to it was in college. Regardless of which side of the fence one is, faith is the antithesis of science.

 

Intelligent Design is based on Christian theology. As such, it's not even compatible with Judaism or Islamic theology. So not only is it not science, it's not even widely applicable as a faith based "theory".

 

I wouldn't expose my kids to that kind of "teaching" in school.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Baashi:

Hoodi hoodi qaraabo,

 

I kinda fell in line with the opposite side of argument against Darwin not because of religious reasons but the compelling evidence the other side presented in their argument.

What compelling evidence? I'd like to read them.

 

Have you guys paid any attention to this new development? What's your take on this issue?

The case for evolution theory, that all living organisms descended from first living organism, is waterproof. There are no 'hard facts' against it. There is growing body of evidence for it.

 

Science considers evolution as a fact as well as a theory. Its important to keep that in mind. Like all science theories its tentative and subject of revision and re-examination. You can bet your life on it that evolution theory will take many turns and twists before your time. This, however, doesn't mean it is wrong, the core of the thoery is pretty much rock solid as far evidence for it is concerned, but a demonstration of science at work.

 

Intelligent design is a repackaged old creationism theory. I have yet to see any compelling evidence they put forth discrediting evolution theory.

 

To discredit a science theory, you need to use the science as your tool. You need to apply the scientific process/method of discrediting old thoeries. Instead of doing that, creationists are using half-baked psuedoscience agruements and holy scripts. As long as they continue to go through this route, they'll never succeed in their objective of discrediting evolution theory.

 

They're simply wasting their time and misleading the uninformed masses.

 

This is also another veiled attempt by christians to get religion back into public schools.

 

They wont suceed!

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Elysian:

 

However, although they know (or should know) that what is called facts today are only true until proven otherwise, it still is a painful experience for the scientists involved to admit they were wrong, hence the dogmatic attitude.

 

How can FACTS be proven otherwise? Isn't fact what is already proven? :confused:

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Baashi:

Elysian,

 

Also at issue is whether life has a purpose at all. The Intelligent Design proponents assert that this question is philosophical/theological in nature and Darwin has not provided any new answers that can withstand the scientific inquiry.

 

This is another case where creationists have introduced ad hoc arguements into the evolution debate. Science explains and provides mechanisms for the facts we observe around us. It has no say on theology or philosophy.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

Baashe,

 

Theories can be proven wrong because one can carry out experiments to prove or disprove a theory. One can not do so with god (not scientifically anyway, I think). It’s debatable if one can do it philosophically, but plenty have given it a damn good try.

 

 

Do you think creationism/intelligent design should be taught in science classes? How?

Science theories CAN NOT be proven right or wrong. Scientific theories are provisional. They are subject to change and revision. Unlike math and logic, you can't 'prove' anything in science. In math, 1+1 always equals two, no matter what new evidence turns up. But science theories rely on evedince and facts, you can not prove them right or wrong since you can not be certain of what new evidence or fact may turn up tomorrow that may either discredit or force a re-phrasing of the theory.

 

If you can prove scientific theory, then you can never correct or revise that theory. For example, Einstien would never have come up with his theory of gravity since there was already another theory of gravity by Newton.

 

Personally I'm against creationism theory being taught in science classes becuz it is not science. But I'm all for it being taught in schools in other than science classes. Perhaps under philosophy, religion or whatever.

[Elysian]

As I said, I don’t know what arguments intelligent design presents, if they don’t have any scientific evidence or arguments, it cannot be part of the science curricula. However, they might have some interesting points that can be integrated when teaching evolution...

 

Socod_badne- Scientific facts and scientific theories, are not flawless certainties! Scientific facts involve not only testable and observable elements but they also involve INTERPRETAION. As technique is progressing we’re able to collect more data and make better interpretations, but they are still nothing more than interpretations.

 

I think the story of the blind men and the elephant is a good example of what I mean, and it also highlights the fact that people tend to understand only a tiny portion of the reality.

 

Long ago six old men lived in a village in India. Each was born blind. The other villagers loved the old men and kept them away from harm. Since the blind men could not see the world for themselves, they had to imagine many of its wonders. They listened carefully to the stories told by travelers to learn what they could about life outside the village.

The men were curious about many of the stories they heard, but they were most curious about elephants. They were told that elephants could trample forests, carry huge burdens, and frighten young and old with their loud trumpet calls. But they also knew that the Rajah's daughter rode an elephant when she traveled in her father's kingdom. Would the Rajah let his daughter get near such a dangerous creature?

The old men argued day and night about elephants. "An elephant must be a powerful giant," claimed the first blind man. He had heard stories about elephants being used to clear forests and build roads.

"No, you must be wrong," argued the second blind man. "An elephant must be graceful and gentle if a princess is to ride on its back."

"You're wrong! I have heard that an elephant can pierce a man's heart with its terrible horn," said the third blind man.

"Please," said the fourth blind man. "You are all mistaken. An elephant is nothing more than a large sort of cow. You know how people exaggerate."

"I am sure that an elephant is something magical," said the fifth blind man. "That would explain why the Rajah's daughter can travel safely throughout the kingdom."

"I don't believe elephants exist at all," declared the sixth blind man. "I think we are the victims of a cruel joke."

Finally, the villagers grew tired of all the arguments, and they arranged for the curious men to visit the palace of the Rajah to learn the truth about elephants. A young boy from their village was selected to guide the blind men on their journey. The smallest man put his hand on the boy's shoulder. The second blind man put his hand on his friend's shoulder, and so on until all six men were ready to walk safely behind the boy who would lead them to the Rajah's magnificent palace.

When the blind men reached the palace, they were greeted by an old friend from their village who worked as a gardener on the palace grounds. Their friend led them to the courtyard. There stood an elephant. The blind men stepped forward to touch the creature that was the subject of so many arguments.

The first blind man reached out and touched the side of the huge animal. "An elephant is smooth and solid like a wall!" he declared. "It must be very powerful."

The second blind man put his hand on the elephant's limber trunk. "An elephant is like a giant snake," he announced.

The third blind man felt the elephant's pointed tusk. "I was right," he decided. "This creature is as sharp and deadly as a spear."

The fourth blind man touched one of the elephant's four legs. "What we have here," he said, "is an extremely large cow."

The fifth blind man felt the elephant's giant ear. "I believe an elephant is like a huge fan or maybe a magic carpet that can fly over mountains and treetops," he said.

The sixth blind man gave a tug on the elephant's fuzzy tail. "Why, this is nothing more than a piece of old rope. Dangerous, indeed," he scoffed.

The gardener led his friends to the shade of a tree. "Sit here and rest for the long journey home," he said. "I will bring you some water to drink."

While they waited, the six blind men talked about the elephant.

"An elephant is like a wall," said the first blind man. "Surely we can finally agree on that."

"A wall? An elephant is a giant snake!" answered the second blind man.

"It's a spear, I tell you," insisted the third blind man.

"I'm certain it's a giant cow," said the fourth blind man.

"Magic carpet. There's no doubt," said the fifth blind man.

"Don't you see?" pleaded the sixth blind man. "Someone used a rope to trick us."

Their argument continued and their shouts grew louder and louder.

"Wall!" "Snake!" "Spear!" "Cow!" "Carpet!" "Rope!"

"STOP SHOUTING!" called a very angry voice.

It was the Rajah, awakened from his nap by the noisy argument.

"How can each of you be so certain you are right?" asked the ruler.

The six blind men considered the question. And then, knowing the Rajah to be a very wise man, they decided to say nothing at all.

"The elephant is a very large animal," said the Rajah kindly. "Each man touched only one part. Perhaps if you put the parts together, you will see the truth. Now, let me finish my nap in peace."

When their friend returned to the garden with the cool water, the six men rested quietly in the shade, thinking about the Rajah's advice.

"He is right," said the first blind man. "To learn the truth, we must put all the parts together. Let's discuss this on the journey home."

The first blind man put his hand on the shoulder of the young boy who would guide them home. The second blind man put a hand on his friend's shoulder, and so on until all six men were ready to travel together.

[-Nomadique-]

Check this page out if you havent already!!. Darwinism Refuted and other articles

The authors books are very popular and very well researched. If you check out the comments section you will find there was a lively debate amongst students and lecturers from a Belgium university about evolution as well.

 

The main page also has links to alot of interesting articles. One of my favourite websites without a doubt.