Science teachers on intelligent design.

Science teachers have gathered for their annual Midwestern conference in Chicago. Most teachers interviewed said that biology curriculum standards should follow evolutionary study.



I completely agree with James Keefer's statement.
"Science is already difficult enough to teach to children without a nonscientific entity being introduced."

Originally posted by Umbrax
I completely agree with James Keefer's statement.

You completely agree with James Keefer's statement?

Keefer said as per your quoting:

"The thing we need to do is stick together as members of the scientific community and make sure that actual science is propagated in the classroom rather than a theory that conflicts with evolutionary evidence,"

That's a terrible thing for a science teacher to say. What he says is that a theory that conflicts with evolutionary evidence is not science. This just further demonstrates how insane this whole debate has become. You can't immediately classify something as not being science just because it conflicts with existing theory. That's what science is - a self correcting process.

And while I am not trying to turn your thread into an is ID science thread, but I feel I have to state for the record that I DO believe ID IS, or at least has the potential to be scientific. My personal feelings on ID not withstanding, I don't believe ID should be taught in schools - at least not now.

I think this because it goes against the natural grain of the way education appears to operate. Education is really not the place for a political war, and in many ways, I feel that's what these suits are, and I don't believe this entirely the fault of the christian fundamentalist community... they certainly have their fair share of blame in this, but the 'secular humanist' is not guilt free in this matter either.

The point is that text books change - science texts anyway, as a result of changes within the field of science. In particular science texts shouldn't respond to political pressure to change, rather they should respond to a natural sort of pressure from within the scientific community.

And while I basically agree with many of the overall philosophies re: the scientific potential of ID. I don't agree that it has established itself as a legitimate scientific theory per se. The fact of the matter is that there isn't peer reviewed literature, etc. This isn't to say that the process of peer review is everything either... actually I've been planning on doing a thread for ATS re: peer-review and it's resistance to accepting new theories, but that's a work in progress. But there isn't any information to be referenced per se, other than books. The movement is gaining steam so to speak, though I think the idea is still confused in the minds of many. I would imagine that some institution will eventually start 'peer-reviewed' journal, the most likely place is the Discovery Inst., but it's unlikely that such a journal will gain immediate acceptance amongst those who publish in 'mainstream peer-reviewed' journals.

In any case, while I think it's out of line to force schools to teach anything that hasn't worked it's way naturally into the cirriculum, I think that Keefer's statements re: the scientific status of theories that compete with evolution as being equally out of line.

Whether or not ID will be taught in schools really should rest on the merits of ID itself. While there is a growing interest at the university level, it remains to be seen whether that will amount to any actual time spent voluntarily on the part of university professors discussing ID vs. fending of students armed with internet knowledge that they are not likely keeping up with.

Personally - and I am not currently teaching, but it's likely I'll be teaching next semester, I wouldn't actually plan a lecture around ID, as at this point there isn't a huge amount to discuss that's relevant in a science class. Honestly, I've got so much crap to teach as it is, I don't want to have to add something else that isn't going to add much to a students science knowledge. When Behe and others actually have some accumulated data that's amounted to coherent scientific knowledge, I'll be more than happy to teach it. I should probably state that I don't really enjoy teaching evolutionary concepts... though it doesn't usually come up in my classes as I teach more molecular oriented stuff.


[edit on 12-11-2005 by mattison0922]

Funny to point out that one of the reasons my daughter decided to go into biological sciences was due to the fact that she got interested in biology because the high school in the county we live in GA bypass completely Darwin and the evolution theory due to religious reasons.

I took upon myself to teach my daughter about who Darwin was and his great works to science and Biology.

If ID advocates think that they will be able to shut down science and evolution and allowed the creationist advocates to bring their myth into the classroom they are completely mistaken it just going to make many intelligent students wanting to find more about what is all about like my daughter did.

What many forget is that this is more of the creationist groups advocates effort than the real ID advocates.

Science and evolutions goes hand in hand.




[edit on 12-11-2005 by marg6043]

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by Umbrax
I completely agree with James Keefer's statement.

You completely agree with James Keefer's statement?

Keefer said as per your quoting:

"The thing we need to do is stick together as members of the scientific community and make sure that actual science is propagated in the classroom rather than a theory that conflicts with evolutionary evidence,"

That's a terrible thing for a science teacher to say. What he says is that a theory that conflicts with evolutionary evidence is not science.

Actually, you misread my comment.

I completely agree with James Keefer's statement.
"Science is already difficult enough to teach to children without a nonscientific entity being introduced."

This is the statement I said I agree with.

Since you bring up his other statement we can talk about that too.
I don't think he is saying a theory that conflicts with evolution is not science. I believe he is saying that ID is not science. I'll agree with that too.

Where is the science in ID?
Is ID not a hypothesis that life is to complicated to not had a designer? That hardly sounds scientific to me.

Originally posted by marg6043
Funny to point out that one of the reasons my daughter decided to go into biological sciences was due to the fact that she got interested in biology because the high school in the county we live in GA bypass completely Darwin and the evolution theory due to religious reasons.

I took upon myself to teach my daughter about who Darwin was and his great works to science and Biology.

Marg you say some of the most grossly inacurrate comments when it comes to ID. Where exactly in ID theory do you see the conflict with Darwinian evolution? I ask cause i'm willing to bet dollars to donuts you haven't got a clue. You've never struck me as someone who understands either ID or evolution, even though you can be found railing against ID in just about every ID thread. It's really ironic coming from a long standing respected member of a site that promotes; "deny ignorance". Not that you should agree or disagree with IDT, but you have such strong opinions on something you've quite obviously never spent any time studying. Atleast get familiar with a theory before you decide it BS...just a thought. *shrug

If ID advocates think that they will be able to shot down science and evolution and allowed the creationist advocates to bring their myth into the classroom they are completely mistaken

What ID advocate specifically, is pushing for a creationist school curriculum? Again i'd wager you don't know one. ID is an origins theory at odds with the naturallistic pre-supposition.

What many forget is that this is more of the creationist groups advocates effort than the real ID advocates. Science and evolutions goes hand in hand.

I don't even know what to say anymore..this has gotten so ridiculous. Ok here's the new curriculum for Kansas....that you guys are all up in arms about. www.ksde.org... Read it! For the love of reason...the sky ain't falling.

Rationale of the State Board for Adopting these Science Curriculum Standards

We believe it is in the best interest of educating Kansas students that all students have a good working knowledge of
science: particularly what defines good science, how science moves forward, what holds science back, and how to
critically analyze the conclusions that scientists make.
Regarding the scientific theory of biological evolution, the curriculum standards call for students to learn about the best
evidence for modern evolutionary theory, but also to learn about areas where scientists are raising scientific criticisms of
the theory.

These curriculum standards reflect the Board’s objective of:

1) to help students understand the full range of
scientific views that exist on this topic,

2) to enhance critical thinking and the understanding of the scientific method by
encouraging students to study different and opposing scientific evidence, and

3) to ensure that science education in our
state is “secular, neutral, and non-ideological.”

From the testimony and submissions we have received, we are aware that the study and discussion of the origin and
development of life may raise deep personal and philosophical questions for many people on all sides of the debate. But
as interesting as these personal questions may be, the personal questions are not covered by these curriculum standards
nor are they the basis for the Board’s actions in this area.
Evolution is accepted by many scientists but questioned by some. The Board has heard credible scientific testimony that
indeed there are significant debates about the evidence for key aspects of chemical and biological evolutionary theory.
All scientific theories should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. We therefore
think it is important and appropriate for students to know about these scientific debates and for the Science Curriculum
Standards to include information about them. In choosing this approach to the science curriculum standards, we are
encouraged by the similar approach taken by other states, whose new science standards incorporate scientific criticisms
into the science curriculum that describes the scientific case for the theory of evolution.
We also emphasize that the Science Curriculum Standards do not include Intelligent Design, the scientific disagreement
with the claim of many evolutionary biologists that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. While the testimony
presented at the science hearings included many advocates of Intelligent Design, these standards neither mandate nor
prohibit teaching about this scientific disagreement.
Finally, we would like to thank the Science Standards Committee for their commitment and dedication in their work toward
the standards.

(emphasis mine)What specifically is your problem here folks? Ya know i've never said i thought this should have been handled this way...way too political for my taste. But i'm starting to wonder if i was wrong. I'll be looking forward to mattison's thread on the "peer review issue". I don't think people realize how bad and ugly this has gotten. It be interesting to see how many people, whom have condemend the new Kansas standards...have actually read them. But no what's the point in that right...it's BS, has to be, Talk Origins said so.

Take a look at this link: NPR Exposes Attacks On Scientists Skeptical of Darwinism

Hagerty reports that NPR spoke with:

"18 university professors and scientists who subscribe to intelligent design, most would not speak on the record for fear of losing their jobs. One untenured professor at Kennesaw State University in Georgia wrote that talking to NPR would be 'the kiss of death.' Another said there is no way I would reveal myself prior to obtaining tenure."

Is ID-phobia the next wave of intellectual McCarthyism? Seems so. W. Dembski

Very simple your views and understanding of ID are very logical and you stand by it, I have not problem with that.

My problems is that you like it or not, ID in schools is going to be used by Creationist advocates to win their entrance into the school curriculum.

That's what you are failing to see.

Creationist has lost almost every battler to bring religion into school.

ID has open that door for them.

Do you truly believe that parents are going to allowed ET to be use as an example for an alternative?

Students in school are already confuse between evolution and their Sunday school creation version they come into the classroom with a set mind and a bias view.

And now ID is supposed to open their minds to what? another court battler when the African myth of the chicken toe enters the curriculum as another alternative. [ This just and example ]

I am very sorry to bring these news to you but this what I see in the school system going on and their fight against evolution.

This a religious motivated fight, ID will fade into the background with creationism taking center stage.

Perhaps ID could be better understood and appreciated in a more mature curriculum in a College or University but in a grade school it has to pass the Parent test and religious advocate test.

And there is where you are going to see what the agenda behind this ID victory is all about.

Do you have a link to the books that may be used for the teaching of ID at elementary level?

Because already money has been allocate from religious groups to be used in teaching alternative creation theories.

By the way Georgia is the state I live in and evolution has being forgotten in the classroom curriculum at least in the two counties I am closes too.







[edit on 12-11-2005 by marg6043]

Originally posted by Umbrax
Actually, you misread my comment.

I completely agree with James Keefer's statement.
"Science is already difficult enough to teach to children without a nonscientific entity being introduced."

This is the statement I said I agree with.

Okay, that's all well and good, though it seems like you've probably never read even a shred of ID theory... you or Keefer for that matter. Agreeing with that statement demonstrates that you've actually not read any IDT. IDT specifically doesn't bring an entity into science. Of course, if you'd read any ID you'd realize this.

Since you bring up his other statement we can talk about that too.
I don't think he is saying a theory that conflicts with evolution is not science. I believe he is saying that ID is not science. I'll agree with that too.

Where is the science in ID?
Is ID not a hypothesis that life is to complicated to not had a designer? That hardly sounds scientific to me.

Actually, that's the basis for hypothesis, that yes certain biological systems and, in fact, life itself is too complex not to have a designer. Why is this hypothesis less valid than the assumption that life didn't have a designer. Both are simply metaphysical presuppositions that say nothing about the process of science as a whole.

Have you read any ID... not refutations of ID, an actual IDT books... Dembski, Behe, Johnson? Ever read even the jacket to any of their books? Probably not, which is indicative in your posting.

And your position on what is and what isn't science... I assume it's based on your years of training as a scientist, years of analyzing data and honing your critical thinking skills in an academic environment?

It's all well and good to just dismiss something that doesn't agree with your particular metaphysical suppositions, but you should be at least prepared to talk specifics.

If I want to hear "ID isn't science"... hell, I can read the local newscasters completely uninformed opinion.

Originally posted by mattison0922
Have you read any ID... not refutations of ID, an actual IDT books... Dembski, Behe, Johnson? Ever read even the jacket to any of their books? Probably not, which is indicative in your posting.

What is the purpose of asking this question when you obviously know the answer? This thread isn't about me.

And your position on what is and what isn't science... I assume it's based on your years of training as a scientist, years of analyzing data and honing your critical thinking skills in an academic environment?

Again. What is it you are trying to do? You are trying to attack my non-existent credentials? Am I to assume your position on ID is based on your years of training and years of analyzing data?

It's all well and good to just dismiss something that doesn't agree with your particular metaphysical suppositions, but you should be at least prepared to talk specifics.

I posted a news article. This is my second post on Origins & Creationism Conspiracy. I'm not here for a debate. Don't you notice all the question marks I use?

Instead of going after 'the weakest link' you can debate with someone else on this subject I'm sure there are plenty of people on here you can do that with.

Originally posted by Umbrax
What is the purpose of asking this question when you obviously know the answer? This thread isn't about me.

No... the thread isn't about you. BUT... you did start the thread. I pretty much asked for clarification about your agreement with Keefer, and discussed my position. You replied with even stronger language than you initially posted, claiming that you didn't believe ID was science. I assumed since you were following the ID stories and found it interesting enough to post about, and since you had such a strong opinion that you actually were informed about the topic. Sorry... my mistake.

Again. What is it you are trying to do? You are trying to attack my non-existent credentials? Am I to assume your position on ID is based on your years of training and years of analyzing data?

I am trying to clarify both your position and your reasons for said position. Generally, when I have an opinion on something it's because I've more or less examined the existing options and tried to reach an informed conclusions. I used to assume the same about most other people, and I no longer do that. I'm generally only active in the science type threads- and then usually only those that are related to molecular bio in some way or origins, because that's what I am familiar. Whether or not you have credentials isn't the issue. Whether your opinion and statements are informed or not is.

And in response to the latter half of that quote. Yes my opinion is based on years of study and research on origins science in particular, and my opinion on ID's scientific status is based on my objective opinion as a scientist.

I posted a news article. This is my second post on Origins & Creationism Conspiracy. I'm not here for a debate. Don't you notice all the question marks I use?

Instead of going after 'the weakest link' you can debate with someone else on this subject I'm sure there are plenty of people on here you can do that with.

There certainly are other people here I can discuss this issue with - and I do (Nygdan ).. However you didn't just post a news story. You stated your opinion on said news story. I asked for clarification on your opinion, stated my position to which you replied:

Since you bring up his other statement we can talk about that too.
I don't think he is saying a theory that conflicts with evolution is not science. I believe he is saying that ID is not science. I'll agree with that too.

Now... generally when people are members of Disscusion forums, I tend to assume they are here to discuss things. Then when replies are followed by statements, like the above... I consider that support for my hypothesis about people wanting to discuss things.

And no... I didn't really notice too many question marks until this post. It seems like your opinion on ID was pretty much made up when you posted that information. Is it wrong for me to question the basis of your opinion? As I mentioned, I just like to know whether or not a person is reasonably well informed about the topic they are commenting on. You'll never see me posting in the forums about UFO's or NWO conspiracies - because I don't know anything about it.

So... very specifically: What's wrong with my questioning the basis of your opinion... especially when you seemed so eager to talk about this issue before?

Oh yes... and by the way... Welcome to Origins & Creationism Conspiracy


[edit on 12-11-2005 by mattison0922]

Here are all the answers asked of me.

You completely agree with James Keefer's statement?

Yes.
"Science is already difficult enough to teach to children without a nonscientific entity being introduced."
This is not an accurate statement?

Have you read any ID... not refutations of ID, an actual IDT books... Dembski, Behe, Johnson?

Nope, never heard of them. You have read them? Would you like to tell us all about the scientific discoveries that point in the direction of an intelligent designer? If you have done this already, a link to those posts will be great.
This knowledge would be helpful unlike the knowledge of if I read your books or not.

Ever read even the jacket to any of their books?

See above.

And your position on what is and what isn't science... I assume it's based on your years of training as a scientist, years of analyzing data and honing your critical thinking skills in an academic environment?

No. Did I give that impression?
The teacher in the article I posted you can probably assume these things.

Is it wrong for me to question the basis of your opinion?

As seen above, you never asked me what my basis of opinion is. You have asked me if I have read from a selection of books and a if my education is sufficient to understand what science is.

So... very specifically: What's wrong with my questioning the basis of your opinion... especially when you seemed so eager to talk about this issue before?

Asking me if I've read a book jacket is hardly questioning the basis of my opinion.

Why is this hypothesis less valid than the assumption that life didn't have a designer. Both are simply metaphysical presuppositions that say nothing about the process of science as a whole.

ID is what is being pushed to go into schools. The assumption that life didn't have a designer, is not.
Where is it taught in schools that there is no designer? I don't recall being taught assumptions.


If I have missed any questions regarding the books I've read or my education please send me a U2U.
This threads subject is Science teachers on intelligent design.

Hi Umbrax I realize your last post was for mattison, but if you don't mind i'd like to try and respond.

Originally posted by Umbrax

Yes.
"Science is already difficult enough to teach to children without a nonscientific entity being introduced."
This is not an accurate statement?

The problem with this statement is that ID doesn't introduce a nonscientific entity or a god. Many people have a hard time dealing with and/or understanding that, which imo is certainly understandable. ID doesn't predict or make any commentary what-so-ever about the designer. Ask any scientist, look around the web (opponent or not) from the most famous and respected, to the guys we've never heard of. All will say that the "appearance" of design from biology to cosmology is prevelant throughout the universe. Why is it so offensive, for some, to think we can detect the design that we all are seeing? I do understand your position Umbrax and am not trying to beat you over the head with it, i do believe however that your either mis-informed or un-informed as to what ID is and just as important what ID is not.

Nope, never heard of them. You have read them? Would you like to tell us all about the scientific discoveries that point in the direction of an intelligent designer? If you have done this already, a link to those posts will be great.
This knowledge would be helpful unlike the knowledge of if I read your books or not.

Well i shouldn't speak for Matt (although i know the answer) so i won't. I have a thread in this forum where i tried my best to discuss the science behind IDT. Mattison has a couple posts and a short (so-far) back and forth with Nygdan that speaks directly to some of your questions. I'm certainly no expert and i'm not a scientist in any disipline but i think layman like us can come to an informed opinion. Here's the thread i hope it's helpful.

ID is what is being pushed to go into schools. The assumption that life didn't have a designer, is not.
Where is it taught in schools that there is no designer? I don't recall being taught assumptions.

methodological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism The two terms are ways that various people (especially those involved in the creation-evolution controversy) have tried to distinguish between two approaches to the philosophy. The first refers only to the application of the scientific method to science that assumes that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes. The second refers to the metaphysical assumption that the natural world is all that exists.

It's been about 12 years since i graduated highschool and i can't recall ever being taught this in school either. Not saying it wasn't, but i don't recall it and don't think it was a big part of my science class. Never-the-less it is the default position of science pertaining to the origins of life, and that is what ID theory is at odds with. If natural causes are insufficient to explain the origin of life what are we left with? And of course, technically speaking, the designer does not have to be "un-natural"...but i do get the concern. Why not let these scientists finish their work? I agree there's no reason to be pushing this in the public schools and have always said so in any thread where this topic comes up. I just get aggravated at the people who scream it's a conspiracy to get creationism taught in the schools, it's absolutely not. I don't think there's anything wrong with the position that ID is unscientific even if i lean towards disagreement. But the ideological and often hatefull rhetoric spewed by many opponents is unfounded, somewhat delusional and slightly paranoid imho.



As to your final comment, this thread subject is- Science teachers on intelligent design. Mattison is a scientist (phd in molecular biology) and a part-time (college level) science teacher. Who has intimate knowledge of all sides of this issue from the science behind the debate to the dogma and intimidation aimed at ID advocates. Not saying that makes him right and you wrong, but his opinion is an informed one and i think that's key and should be welcomed by anyone who wishes to know more about the subject.

Originally posted by Rren
The problem with this statement is that ID doesn't introduce a nonscientific entity or a god. Many people have a hard time dealing with and/or understanding that, which imo is certainly understandable. ID doesn't predict or make any commentary what-so-ever about the designer.

However it suggests that there is a designer but has no evidence to back this assumption which means it cannot be considered a science.
I'm wondering.. how could suggesting that there is a designer not imply a god or entity? That doesn't make any sense.. perhaps you mean evolution designs itself?

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by Rren
The problem with this statement is that ID doesn't introduce a nonscientific entity or a god. Many people have a hard time dealing with and/or understanding that, which imo is certainly understandable. ID doesn't predict or make any commentary what-so-ever about the designer.

However it suggests that there is a designer but has no evidence to back this assumption which means it cannot be considered a science.

Riley ID theorists have proposed experiments and have put forth testable hypotheses. Check out the link to the thread i included in my last post and let me know what you think. How is it any less testable/falsifiable/scientific than the naturalistic model? Mattison gets deeper into it in that thread, you'll see if you ask the same questions of the accepted paradigm you end up with the same hypothetical or theoretical strawman.

For me if i'm to accept that ID is unscientific, which btw i'm completely open to, then the same would have to be said for the un-testable/falsifiable naturalistic model. Or atleast until they actually propose a model to be evaluated and critiqued.

I'm wondering.. how could suggesting that there is a designer not imply a god or entity? That doesn't make any sense.. perhaps you mean evolution designs itself?

Those would be philosophical ponderings, opponents say that ID and philosophy are inseperable. That may be true as of yet i'm unconvinced. There's certainly nothing that i've have seen conclusive one way or the other imho. Is it a personal God or some inanimate (unknowable) guiding force...that even most atheists believe could exist. I have my beliefs but ID doesn't support or refute those.

The big question is can we detect design. Is there a way to distinguish between the appearance of design (that all admit is there) and actual (purposefull) design. The question is scientific not philosophical imo. I get what you're saying really i do, but it's not a question ID has an answer for and i don't think it's fair to require that it does.

Originally posted by Umbrax
Yes.
"Science is already difficult enough to teach to children without a nonscientific entity being introduced."
This is not an accurate statement?

There is nothing inherently inaccurate about this statement... yes it in fact is tough enough to teach anyone science without having to introduce a non-specific, or non-scientific entity. I agree with the statement at face value... however, when you put it in the context of ID, the context it WAS TAKEN FROM, it becomes inaccurate. As I have tried to point out (though somewhat less diplomatically than Rren) IDT makes no effort to introduce ANY designer. That's an important clarification, and one that seemingly 99% of people who post re: ID here don't understand.

Nope, never heard of them. You have read them? Would you like to tell us all about the scientific discoveries that point in the direction of an intelligent designer? If you have done this already, a link to those posts will be great.
This knowledge would be helpful unlike the knowledge of if I read your books or not.

Yes, I have read most of the major work surrounding IDT, and in fact have read most of the major stuff relevant to origins science. In addition I've got a couple of filing cabinets full of 'relevant' articles taken from journals... some going as far back as the 1850's. I've got a beautiful leather bound copy of the Origin, that I picked up at a thrift store for $2.

No. Did I give that impression?
The teacher in the article I posted you can probably assume these things.

No you didn't give me that impression. However, as I mentioned I was interested in clarifying your position on ID and the reasons for it. Generally, when people reach such a strong and definitive conclusion about something, it's because they know about it. Usually knowing about something comes from reading about it, or being directly involved with the field. These are usually my starting points... has the person read anything about the topic, and is it otherwise a part of their life... etc.

Now... this isn't to say these are the only ways to acquire knowledge, and if you've learned something significant about ID via some other medium, then I am up for hearing about it.

With respect to the science teacher: I disagree that it's likely his opinion is very informed either. He makes blatant misrepresentations of IDT, these stem from either ignorance or malicious intent... personally, I'd rather believe it ignorance. Furthermore, I don't know if you know any teachers in real life, but high school teachers are generally so over worked that they don't really have time explore alternative theories. Most aren't really scientists either, most have Masters Degrees, and often those are in education rather than their particular 'field of expertise.' Of course none of these statements are meant to denigrate or belittle high school teachers, or teaching in general. Teachers are probably one of the most underpaid and abused groups I can think of. For the most part, I have nothing but respect for those who choose this noble path.

All I was really interested in knowing was this: What is the source of your opinion on IDT? I still don't have an answer. You say it's unscientific... WHY do you say this? These are totally reasonable questions.

As seen above, you never asked me what my basis of opinion is. You have asked me if I have read from a selection of books and a if my education is sufficient to understand what science is.

Hmmm.... maybe not in so many words, but this in fact what I was trying to drag out of you. And while I didn't say specifically, "What is the basis of your opinion about the scientific status of ID?" I did attempt to find this out by asking a set of very pointed questions to elucidate your position. So far, here is what we know:

1. You believe ID is unscientific.
2. You believe ID should not be taught in schools.
3. You believe ID introduces non-scientific entities into school cirriculum.

However we STILL don't know WHY you believe what you believe.

Asking me if I've read a book jacket is hardly questioning the basis of my opinion.

No, it isn't. However, let's not let those just joining the thread believe that's all I asked you. I asked you IF you'd read any IDT, and I also asked if you were a scientist. The book jacket thing was really nothing more than a snide follow up to the first series of questions I asked. However, it did serve a minimal purpose too... I guess I was interested in whether or not you'd even considered reading any IDT. Generally, one of my considerations for whether or not I'll read something is based on the jacket... is this book something I am interested in.

Otherwise, if you're not really interested in a topic, but you go ahead and post a news story on it and offer your opinion (which is based on.... ) it just kind of seems like your trying to post controversial stories that will create dialogue and boost your ATS points. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Why is this hypothesis less valid than the assumption that life didn't have a designer. Both are simply metaphysical presuppositions that say nothing about the process of science as a whole.

ID is what is being pushed to go into schools. The assumption that life didn't have a designer, is not.
Where is it taught in schools that there is no designer? I don't recall being taught assumptions.

Whether or not ID is being pushed into public school cirriculum has nothing to do with my question. Please re-read my question above.

And actually, you're wrong. The assumption that life didn't have a designer is in fact pushed by the scientific community. In fact, that's what this ENTIRE debate is about. You'll never hear that stated in a public school, but this the underlying philosophy. What you are taught - and please bear with me, I graduated from High School... well let's just say more than 15 years ago- is that there IS a natural explanation of not only the origin of species, but in fact the origin of all life. But this may or may not be true... origin of life theories are severely lacking at this point, despite more than 50 years of research. And I am not sure how old you are, but I don't remember the concept of a 'designer' specifically being mentioned in my science classes, but then again the political environment was different back then. The concept of design was not prevalent.

If I have missed any questions regarding the books I've read or my education please send me a U2U.
This threads subject is Science teachers on intelligent design.

Again, your particular level of education is not what's important. What is important, at least in this forum, is your commitment to 'Deny Ignorance.' The only thing I ever was interested in was determining your commitment to this particular philosophy as it pertains to ID.

And I think I have my answer.

Originally posted by Rren
Well i shouldn't speak for Matt (although i know the answer) so i won't.

I have a thread in this forum where i tried my best to discuss the science behind IDT. Mattison has a couple posts and a short (so-far) back and forth with Nygdan that speaks directly to some of your questions. I'm certainly no expert and i'm not a scientist in any disipline but i think layman like us can come to an informed opinion. Here's the thread i hope it's helpful.

Thanks for that and trying to answer my questions. Now I know a bit more on ID

My closing statement "This threads subject is Science teachers on intelligent design." was pointing out that the subject is not "What does Umbrax know about ID". This is pretty much what this thread has turned into.

So here are now more questions about me since this appears to be the thread subject now.

Originally posted by mattison0922
All I was really interested in knowing was this: What is the source of your opinion on IDT?

Mainly from threads I've read on ATS.

You say it's unscientific... WHY do you say this? These are totally reasonable questions.

I thought I answered this already.

Originally posted by Umbrax
Where is the science in ID?
Is ID not a hypothesis that life is to complicated to not had a designer? That hardly sounds scientific to me.

Originally posted by mattison0922
Otherwise, if you're not really interested in a topic, but you go ahead and post a news story on it and offer your opinion (which is based on.... ) it just kind of seems like your trying to post controversial stories that will create dialogue and boost your ATS points. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Yes I live an breath for ATS points . How many 'controversial' stories have you seen me post?
So far I've gotten 15 points from this thread. The revised ATS point system has pretty much eliminated 'point grab' threads. Even if there are 50 replies to this thread I will only be getting 52 points. I could of posted this in ATSNN for points, if I felt I knew more about the subject. I didn't so I posted the article here.
If you believe I am trolling for points then perhaps you should stop feeding me.
I found this article while I was reading the news, so I decided to add it to the content of ATS. I gave my opinion because that is what ATS asks of me.

MEMBERS: Do not simply post news articles in the forums without comment. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of current events,
please post the first paragraph, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item.

If you believe my contribution to this forum isn't good enough then please use the gripe/idea button and the mods can decide if new rules should be made.

Originally posted by mattison0922
The only thing I ever was interested in was determining your commitment to this particular philosophy as it pertains to ID.

And I think I have my answer.

You should of gotten your answer from my minimal comments found on my first post of this thread.
Instead of discussing the thread topic we are discussing me. If you would like to talk discuss me further, please U2U a mod to change the thread title and move it to the members board. Otherwise further questions about me can be sent in a U2U.

Originally posted by Umbrax
My closing statement "This threads subject is Science teachers on intelligent design." was pointing out that the subject is not "What does Umbrax know about ID". This is pretty much what this thread has turned into.

So here are now more questions about me since this appears to be the thread subject now.

Certainly my intention wasn't to hijack your thread... Honestly, my intention was to discover WHY you had such strong feelings about the scientific status of ID. I wondered what the source of disdain was for it. I don't think it's unreasonable. When people ask me why I think IDT and NDT are basically methodological equivalents, I'm willing to discuss it.

Though... despite the fact that we're several posts into this thread, I still can't say why you feel the way you do.

Originally posted by mattison0922
Mainly from threads I've read on ATS.

See, that's not so difficult.

You say it's unscientific... WHY do you say this? These are totally reasonable questions.

I thought I answered this already.

So far what you've said with respect to this is the following:

Is ID not a hypothesis that life is to complicated to not had a designer? That hardly sounds scientific to me.

So... that life -all life- ultimately is the result of undirected, random, processes that somehow self-organized into living systems, sounds both reasonable and scientific to you?

Yes I live an breath for ATS points

. How many 'controversial' stories have you seen me post?
So far I've gotten 15 points from this thread. The revised ATS point system has pretty much eliminated 'point grab' threads. Even if there are 50 replies to this thread I will only be getting 52 points. I could of posted this in ATSNN for points, if I felt I knew more about the subject. I didn't so I posted the article here.
If you believe I am trolling for points then perhaps you should stop feeding me.

Admittedly, that was pure speculation on my part, and since I've not posted for a number of months until recently, I was unaware of any changes to the point systems.

I found this article while I was reading the news, so I decided to add it to the content of ATS. I gave my opinion because that is what ATS asks of me.

MEMBERS: Do not simply post news articles in the forums without comment. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of current events,
please post the first paragraph, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item.

And that's fine, but I don't think it's unreasonable that someone ask why you have the opinion that you have. To tell you the truth, it's unlikely I would have even responded to this thread were it not for the following quote taken from your original post:

"The thing we need to do is stick together as members of the scientific community and make sure that actual science is propagated in the classroom rather than a theory that conflicts with evolutionary evidence,"

As I mentioned that quote struck a particular chord with me. And I simply asked for clarification.

I was further invited to discuss this topic with YOU (Umbrax), when you stated:

Since you bring up his other statement we can talk about that too.
I don't think he is saying a theory that conflicts with evolution is not science. I believe he is saying that ID is not science. I'll agree with that too.

So in my own mind, when one makes such strong statements, they are prepared to discuss the topic on some level besides the superfluous surface level. I don't think it's unreasonable for me to inquire what your background is about re: a particular topic when one makes such definitive statements.

If you believe my contribution to this forum isn't good enough then please use the gripe/idea button and the mods can decide if new rules should be made.

Look, feel free to post whatever you want, but also when one is so eager to renounce something as unscientific, I think they should be able to cite some reasons for their belief that amount to more than a single sentence.

Originally posted by mattison0922
You should of gotten your answer from my minimal comments found on my first post of this thread.

Instead of discussing the thread topic we are discussing me. If you would like to talk discuss me further, please U2U a mod to change the thread title and move it to the members board. Otherwise further questions about me can be sent in a U2U.

I am not particularly interested in discussing you per se... I am interested in why people believe what they believe.

So... if you weren't hoping to generate some discussion about ID, what was the point? Is this just another thread to bash and belittle people who think ID has a reasonable basis? If it's unrealistic for me to question what Umbrax knows about ID, what is reasonable? In fact, the majority of my first post in this thread was concerned with science teachers and ID; my response to you was on topic... and in fact YOU (Umbrax) turned the thread into something other than it's intended pupose when you stated:

Since you bring up his other statement we can talk about that too.
I don't think he is saying a theory that conflicts with evolution is not science. I believe he is saying that ID is not science. I'll agree with that too.

So if your thread is off topic, you've got no one to blame but yourself.

In the early 80's I attended a lecture entitled "Dasein and the electron" by a chemistry professor who, I respected and admired. The premise of the lecture was that the seat of conciseness is is undefined under conventional models but not necessarily under the model of quantum physics.

Was this support for intelligent design? No, I don't think so.

Was this support for creationism?

No, not at all.

Was it support for a metaphysical outlook on science? yes.

The fact is, there is room for certain types of questions in scientific debate.

These questions do not necessarily involve God.

People who push the concept of God in those debates are the ones who are trying to corrupt the core concept of science.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Was it support for a metaphysical outlook on science? yes.

The fact is, there is room for certain types of questions in scientific debate.

Howard, what you're getting at here is sort of escaping me, can clarify or otherwise elaborate on what you mean? What other types of questions are you referring to? Can you provide some examples?

These questions do not necessarily involve God.

People who push the concept of God in those debates are the ones who are trying to corrupt the core concept of science.

Same question here: can you clarify your position a little futher? In particular these two statements seem somewhat ambiguous. Are you saying that there IS in fact room to discuss God in science, but you can't necessarily involve God... like say the creation science crowd?

My point was that there are people who are actively trying to connect physics and philosophy. Most of what is written is highly esoteric and difficult to understand (example).

However, this does not invalidate it as a subject of study. These debates will eventually be resolved as our knowledge and understanding of the subject increases.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
My point was that there are people who are actively trying to connect physics and philosophy. Most of what is written is highly esoteric and difficult to understand (example).

However, this does not invalidate it as a subject of study. These debates will eventually be resolved as our knowledge and understanding of the subject increases.

Thanks for the clarification... didn't read the entire link you posted, but I am in fact familiar with Penrose, another guy who is up this alley is Stuart Hammeroff... he's an MD who directs U of AZ's center for conciousness studies.

Hammeroff... at least the last time I spoke with him is convinced that conciousness is related to the particular quantum state of microtubules. It's an interesting hypothesis, but it's been a couple of years since I even thougt about Hammeroff.

Could you perhaps further clarify your position and how it relates to the scientific status of IDT?