should intelligent design be taught along side evolution?

[davidthefat]

<p>I would argue that evolution is not a scientific problem. I would call it more of a historic problem. Consider the scientific method:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
Now, that means that this experiment has to be repeatable and consistent every time to establish a “law”. However, this can not be achieved for term evolution, e.g. transitional species. Now, it is more like a historic problem in that there are evidence of the phenomena happening in the past and physical evidence to back it up. The evidence is fossils. Yes, they are clear cut evidence that these creatures existed at one point. However, it is not repeatable, therefore it is not a scientific problem. Take for example: Julius Caesar. Now, we are taught that he was the emperor of the Ancient Roman Empire. However, has anyone in our present day seen him? Touch him? Smell him? or even hear him? No. But why do we “know” he existed? All the evidence that points toward his existence, e.g. manuscripts, portraits, sculptures. How is this relevant to evolution? We only have the evidence left over, we have not experienced the actual incident of evolution.</p>

[polarscribe]

<p>Intelligent design is not science because it makes no testable predictions.</p>

<p>In the words of Steven Hawking, “A theory… satisfies two requirements: It must describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.”</p>

<p>Observations throughout nature have confirmed that organisms change over time, and those changes are often driven by natural selection - that is, traits which promote a species’ survival in its habitat are passed down, while those that hinder survival are weeded out.</p>

<p>Ergo, the theory of evolution has made testable predictions and we have so far observed nature to behave extraordinarily like those predictions.</p>

<p>Intelligent design just says “This is too complicated to explain, God did it, the end.” How do we know God did it? Well, it’s too complicated. How do we know it’s too complicated? God did it. And around the circle we go.</p>

[davidthefat]

<p>I have finals tomorrow and the day after that, I’ll get back to you. But you do make valid points, however they are lacking.</p>

[polarscribe]

<p>Of course the process of evolution is repeatable. Each instance of an organism evolving new traits and differentiating to the point of speciation is an individual example of evolution in action.</p>

<p>

@davidthefat

The evidence is fossils. Yes, they are clear cut evidence that these creatures existed at one point. However, it is not repeatable, therefore it is not a scientific problem.

</p>

<p>Of course it’s repeatable - we find the same fossil all over the world, in the same age rocks. Conversely, we never find dinosaur fossils in Paleozoic rock or human fossils in Eocene rocks. If you were to discover a trilobite inside a volcanic flow laid down in Pleistocene time, the prevailing theories of paleontology would be disproven.</p>

<p>

@davidthefat

How is this relevant to evolution? We only have the evidence left over, we have not experienced the actual incident of evolution.

</p>

<p>This is simply categorically false. Scientists have observed evolution in action any number of times. We’ve watched it happen.</p>

<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[HarryJones]

<p>You guys should look at the Science Vs. Religion: Which wins? thread. Whatever your opinion is, it was covered in that thread.</p>

[Xenophanes]

<p>

No one addresses the questions I ask in post #46 and #52.

</p>

<p>I did:</p>

<p>GS, my statement “Evolution is the only scientific theory on the matter” is a FACT. I’m NOT saying it is true or another theory won’t pop up just that it hasn’t at the moment. Also, it’s in the name NATURAL selection. God COULD HAVE guided it but why on earth should a science class entertain that probability? Belongs in R.E. Science isn’t about being PC, it’s about keepin’ it real! </p>

<p>

Are we allowed to talk about about mathematics in science class? What about science in history class or the other way around? Which science classes?

</p>

<p>If the mathematics is relevant, sure. Again, if it’s relevant sure. </p>

<p>

Is Psychology a science? Are there hard sciences and soft sciences? Is every scientific discpline the same.

</p>

<p>Yes, it is. And hard and soft are subjective terms. </p>

<p>

And I’ll ask again, what are the boundaries of “Evolution”? Does it include the big bang? In a biology class? Are you sure? Does every scientist agree with those boundaries? If you expand the boundaries in some ways, why not in others?

</p>

<p>No. Who said the big bang is apart of evolution? No biologist have stated that the big bang is apart of evolution.

Saying, X is science, Y is not, is just narrow minded thinking. I prefer a more open minded education. I am not threatened by exploring ideas that I may not consider appropriate for box X. Learning requires context to foster true understanding. The why provides some of the context, as does history and mathematics.

</p>

<p>To be honest, your opinion is irrelevant. Science is there to teach science and relevant fields to science. Intelligent design isn’t a relevant field. We could teach that god causes rain through the natural process but we don’t, why? Because it’s unnecessary, there’s no need to teaching every single possibility.</p>