A Theory of Education
Evolving School Budgets Could Use Some Intelligent Design

By Alan Sears

November 18, 2005

Science, it turns out, is like so many other academic disciplines in that it is neither infallible nor final.

Scientific theories and hypotheses are constantly subjected to revision, deletion, testing, study, and the vagaries of technological progress. For example, Chinese scientists recently determined Mount Everest is twelve feet shorter than a measurement taken thirty years ago. It didn’t shrink, they found; the earlier measurement was simply inaccurate.

Questions are the lifeblood of the scientific process. They are necessary, expected, and required. That is, with one exception.

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, it seems, escapes this trend. It stands behind an impenetrable wall marked “Do Not Touch.

"Evolution" doesnt say much. What has drastically changed and been revised over the years is the theories of how evolution occurs, how fast? how slow? under what situations? There is no science that comes close to competing with the theory of evolution in any other theory.

Isnt that kind of hippicritical tho? I mean...look at religion..religion is all about the lack of change....dogma. There is no branch of any church that looks to simply toss out new ideas or scientifically critique them. Change has only occurred within the churches because science has gone..."look numbnuts, the world is round, and we revolve around the sun". And people who arnt quite as stupid as the rest looked at the facts and said "gee i guess you were right" and then forced change.

The only reason ID came around is because people were looking for a way to make Creationism look like a science. It IS creationism. Saying "look, bub...this is all just too complex for my simple mind to comprehend.....its GOTTA be god." Thats not science! Thats being lazy. Why take a class in physics, bio, chem, anthropology, etc, when i can just go to church once a week?

niuguy Wrote:"Evolution" doesnt say much. What has drastically changed and been revised over the years is the theories of how evolution occurs, how fast? how slow? under what situations? There is no science that comes close to competing with the theory of evolution in any other theory.

The "science" behind evolution is sketchy...at best. Much of the history of the theory is based on fraud. Seems like that's worth noting. The current theories have big holes in them, and when you see the factions of "supporters" fighting among themselves and pointing out the flaws...you have to ask why is this whole thing taken seriously.

In short, teaching "evolution" in a science class is counterproductive. It adds nothing to the understanding of science, and takes away from it.

Quote:Isnt that kind of hippicritical tho?  I mean...look at religion..religion is all about the lack of change....dogma.  There is no branch of any church that looks to simply toss out new ideas or scientifically critique them.  Change has only occurred within the churches because science has gone..."look numbnuts, the world is round, and we revolve around the sun".  And people who arnt quite as stupid as the rest looked at the facts and said "gee  i guess you were right" and then forced change.

That's absolutely untrue, and your lack of knowledge of Church History is as bad as your knowledge of science.

Quote:The only reason ID came around is because people were looking for a way to make Creationism look like a science.  It IS creationism.

If you say it enough times, does that make it true? ID is not creationism.

Quote:Thats being lazy.  Why take a class in physics, bio, chem, anthropology, etc, when i can just go to church once a week?

You have a valid point for many church-goers. They are lazy when it comes to studying or applying many things. However, it's true across the board. Evolution has become a verb and has been anthropromorphized by the prevailing authors...again they say, "look, bub...this is all just too complex for my simple-minded theory.....we'll just call it 'evolution' and publish."

[quote]and 42 percent of Americans believe humans and other living things “have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.

Fanatical Wrote:Well lets hope no one is wondering why the US is behind other countries in scientific understanding.

Spending inordinate amounts of time on "evolution" ain't helping. If you're suggesting that US schools drop this pointless subject and study something real, then

DrTorch Wrote:Many of these cases have involved the subject of intelligent design, a theory that recognizes that nature reflects a deliberate structure, as opposed to evolution’s random chance.

Recognizes? Isn't that assuming facts not in evidence? If you substituted "believes" or "Assumes" for "recognizes, then you would have a better agrument.

We have a certain financial structure in the U.S. One could study the historical evidence of the Gold Standard, Trust-busting, securities laws, the establishment of a central bank, etc., and come to the conclusion that it evolved into what it is today, OR one could just look at the whole system as it exists today, and say this is too complex and works too well to be the result of random changes over time, it must have be designed this way from the git-go. Someone or something pretty darn smart must have designed this system. It proves itself.


And in any case, like with the financial system, it is far from perfect, so the word "intelligent" comes into question. I also wonder if the old sci-fi stories about Earth (and Man) being old forgotten experiments or toys cast off by superior alien species also fit the definition of intelligent design. It doesn't have to be a God, it could just be those pesky teenagers from Alpha Centauri.

DrTorch Wrote:Many of these cases have involved the subject of intelligent design, a theory that recognizes that nature reflects a deliberate structure, as opposed to evolution’s random chance. The view is not tied to any religion, and many of its adherents do not consider themselves religious or believers in God. They are not part of any conservative or other political movement. Nonetheless, the missing link to religion is made by those who unquestionably assume evolution to be complete fact.

If, indeed there are such people, one must wonder whether they have learned how to tie their own shoes.

"Intelligent Design" would never exist, politicians would never spend an inordinate amount of time subverting the recommendations of their own science advisory boards (:wave: Kansas), and otherwise productive scientists would not have to waste inordinate amounts of time defending science from mysticists (:wave: W.D.) were it not for Evangelical Christianity and its obsession with silly dogma that would teach that the earth is only 5000 years old. On this point, the author of the article is being deceptive.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:Recognizes?  Isn't that assuming facts not in evidence?  If you substituted "believes" or "Assumes" for "recognizes, then you would have a better agrument.

Indeed - what nihilists like Demski fail to recognize publicly is that once you redefine science to allow "supernatural" explanation, you can end any discussion with the waving of hands, and say that "god must have done it".

If you purport to prove that a supernatural agent is responsable, you had better produce something that violates at least some known law of nature (perhaps an engraving of pure gold that remains solid at 5000 degrees centigrade with the caption "Earth - made by God as a gift to man, 3000 BC").

OptimisticOwl Wrote:and in any case, like with the financial system, it is far from perfect, so the word "intelligent" comes into question.  I also wonder if the old sci-fi stories about Earth (and Man) being old forgotten experiments or toys cast off by superior alien species also fit the definition of intelligent design.  I doesn't have to be a God, it could just be those pesky teenagers from Alpha Centauri.

On hubris and the convergence of God and alien (<a href='http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/archives/2005/05-08-16.html' target='_blank'>God & Evolution</a>)

Quote:Since IDers say they make no claim on who or what the intelligent designer might be, I contend that if they continue to try to reconcile their religion with science the end result can only be the discovery of an extra-terrestrial intelligence and the naturalization of their deity.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:We have a certain financial structure in the U.S. One could study the historical evidence of the Gold Standard, Trust-busting, securities laws, the establishment of a central bank, etc., and come to the conclusion that it evolved into what it is today, OR one could just look at the whole system as it exists today, and say this is too complex and works too well to be the result of random changes over time, it must have be designed this way from the git-go. Someone or something pretty darn smart must have designed this system. It proves itself.

That's an utterly absurd comparison. Any man-made institution, by definition, posesses intelligent design. You're point is refuted at the beginning. What should be a concern to you is that you don't even recognize how to construct an analogy that makes any sense. You really don't understand this issue at all.

Flame me all you want, but if you're going to make a valid point against my position, at least understand what a valid point looks like.

Quote:And in any case, like with the financial system, it is far from perfect, so the word "intelligent" comes into question.

Not in the least. "Intelligent" does not demand "perfection". Perhaps you think this is an argument against the God of the Bible...but it certainly does not diminish the ID position. You have brought in a false assumption...do you even get this logic stuff?

DrTorch Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:We have a certain financial structure in the U.S.&nbsp; One could study the historical evidence of the Gold Standard, Trust-busting, securities laws, the establishment of a central bank, etc., and come to the conclusion that it evolved into what it is today,&nbsp; OR one could just look at the whole system as it exists today, and say this is too complex and works too well to be the result of random changes over time, it must have be designed this way from the git-go.&nbsp; Someone or something pretty darn smart must have designed this system.&nbsp; It proves itself.

That's an utterly absurd comparison. Any man-made institution, by definition, posesses intelligent design. You're point is refuted at the beginning. What should be a concern to you is that you don't even recognize how to construct an analogy that makes any sense. You really don't understand this issue at all.

Flame me all you want, but if you're going to make a valid point against my position, at least understand what a valid point looks like.

Quote:And in any case, like with the financial system, it is far from perfect, so the word "intelligent" comes into question.

Not in the least. "Intelligent" does not demand "perfection". Perhaps you think this is an argument against the God of the Bible...but it certainly does not diminish the ID position. You have brought in a false assumption...do you even get this logic stuff?

Well, i did have a point, which you completely missed. I will state it in simpler terms.

If you look at any system which is the result of many changes over time, whether that system be biological, ecological, financial, social, or whatever, and ignore the historical record of the changes from the original, then it is very easy to assume that the system was created/designed this way, out of whole cloth, all of a piece.

Some things are not explained at all by evolution, and some things are. ID proponents mostly want to ignore the things explained and focus on the things unexplained. Intelligent design on the other hand explains all things. If twelve foot giants were to issue from a cleft in a mountain tomorrow, ID would explain that. Evolution, not so much. Maybe we could posit that the Designer(s) designed evolution as one of their tools of adjustment.

As for intelligent not meaning perfect, I completely agree. But most people are not as smart as you, as I am sure you will agree, and most people in this country take intelligent design to mean a perfect designer - a Creator, not some bumbling inventor(s) who cobbled together the world as we know it.

DrTorch Wrote:The "science" behind evolution is sketchy...at best.&nbsp; Much of the history of the theory is based on fraud.&nbsp; Seems like that's worth noting.

This is an interesting claim, insofar as it appears to allege academic fraud - or are you merely saying that this is a debate fraught with hyperbole and over-dramatization?

DrTorch Wrote:The current theories have big holes in them, and when you see the factions of "supporters" fighting among themselves and pointing out the flaws...you have to ask why is this whole thing taken seriously.

This is a statement that goes far beyond what the main proponents of ID are willing to say publicly, so far as I am aware. The political efforts to undermine the teaching of evolution usually begin with creationism, then back off toward ID while still mandating the teaching of evolution.

DrTorch Wrote:In short, teaching "evolution" in a science class is counterproductive.&nbsp; It adds nothing to the understanding of science, and takes away from it.

I presume that with this comment, you intend to say that the political controversy detracts from the discussion and understanding of science. Your argument quickly reduces to state that any time a religious or other special interest group can generate enough controversy, the public schools should capitulate to the controversy.

I45Owl Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:The "science" behind evolution is sketchy...at best.  Much of the history of the theory is based on fraud.  Seems like that's worth noting.

This is an interesting claim, insofar as it appears to allege academic fraud - or are you merely saying that this is a debate fraught with hyperbole and over-dramatization?

Your argument quickly reduces to state that any time a religious or other special interest group can generate enough controversy, the public schools should capitulate to the controversy.

Piltdown man, embryonic recapitulation, pepper moths...the list is long and there are plenty of others in line.

Quote:

DrTorch Wrote:In short, teaching "evolution" in a science class is counterproductive.&nbsp; It adds nothing to the understanding of science, and takes away from it.

I presume that with this comment, you intend to say that the political controversy detracts from the discussion and understanding of science.

I mean no such thing. I mean that the teaching of evolution, both the current theory and the current teaching program, are counter-productive to good science.

Take the phrase, "use it or lose it". It has been used casually, usually w/ a brief explanation, to explain blind fish, the human appendix, and other phenomena tied w/ evolutionary theory. It's also completely wrong...at least when you look at LeMark's experiments and data.

Evolution is a pathway to sloppy science and sloppy teaching.

Frankly, biology is currently taught so poorly that it needs a big re-vamping. Take the nearly 100% of the students who wrote, in a upper divisional university P-Chem lab, that the energy released in a bomb calorimetry experiment was due to the breaking of the chemical bonds of anthracene or napthalene. The nature of the chemical bond is a fundamental CORNERSTONE of chemistry...and forming bonds releases energy. It's why so many chapters in texts talk about bonding, MO theory, heat of formation, etc.
Why do so many students write this? Because biology teaches that breaking of the ATP bond releases chemical energy to cells.

I'm no biologist, but I believe what happens is that the third phosphate bond in ATP is particularly weak, and it breaks, costing energy, but then combines w/ another ion/molecule to release much more energy. But apparently, that sort of accuracy isn't important for the "scientists" in biology. So they get the science 100% backwards, and keep going.

With this sort of attention to detail, do you really think the "facts" taught regarding evolution are any more accurate?

How many more mistakes do I have to point out?

Some HS are flipping the traditional science cirriculum and starting w/ physics and moving to chemistry then biology. I think this has merit (although physics after learning trig and vectors is helpful). If nothing else, many students when then fulfil their science requirements w/o taking a pointless, and often mistaken, biology class.

The science of ATP is not wrong but the teaching may be incomplete. You are correct and it is acetate which the phophate jumps on to for ATP's release of energy process. Now it is not incorrect to say that ATP's conversion to ADP through loss of a phosphate is basic to the body's energy storage and release, its just not the whole story. Unfortunately that gives the wrong impression of the chemistry.

Basically poor teaching should not be blamed on the science. There's plenty of other examples for common ancestory such as viral insertions in DNA or chromosome fusion.

But you are correst in the science route of physics, chemistry then biology. Start with the fundamental and move to the applications. An odd thing is, biology may be the hardest to understand why, but the easiest to see how.

Fanatical Wrote:The science of ATP is not wrong but the teaching may be incomplete. You are correct and it is acetate which the phophate jumps on to for ATP's release of energy process. Now it is not incorrect to say that ATP's conversion to ADP through loss of a phosphate is basic to the body's energy storage and release, its just not the whole story. Unfortunately that gives the wrong impression of the chemistry.

Basically poor teaching should not be blamed on the science. There's plenty of other examples for common ancestory such as viral insertions in DNA or chromosome fusion.

But you are correst in the science route of physics, chemistry then biology. Start with the fundamental and move to the applications. An odd thing is, biology may be the hardest to understand why, but the easiest to see how.

The ATP/ADP mechanism is correct as it's readily observed in the lab. No argument from me.

This is not the case w/ evolutionary theory. At least not the controversial stuff. If you want to see viruses mutate (setting aside the debate on whether viruses are alive) more power to you. Very few fundamentalist Christians will be offended.

This is not the end of the claims for evolutionary theory, however.

Moreover, my statement was that the current teaching in biology is counterproductive to teaching science. There is not a single problem that can be remedied...it is the state of the classroom, and the slop needed to believe evolutionary theory is a big reason behind it.