Atheism Talk: The Myth of Intelligent Design
The term 'intelligent design' as commonly used today generally refers to a pseudo-scientific and religious view that certain elements of the universe are best explained by or require an intelligent designer. The Intelligent Design movement gained popularity in the 1990's as a way to circumvent a 1987 United States Supreme Court decision barring the teaching of 'creation science' in public schools.
The movement to have intelligent design included in public school biology curricula in the United States was largely spearheaded by a Christian organization known as The Discovery Institute and their Center for Science and Culture. Their efforts to subvert the ban on religious teachings in public schools coined the phrase 'teach the controversy'. The tactic was to try and erode confidence in the established scientific theories and explanations as a way to somehow legitimize alternative creationist theories.
The intelligent design movement basically hit a brick wall in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. The merits of intelligent design as a scientific theory worthy of being taught in public schools were objectively weighed in a court of law. US District Judge John E. Jones III ruled intelligent design is not science, saying it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents,".
What is so wrong with intelligent design?
Intelligent design really boils down to nothing more than a big old argument from ignorance or god of the gaps fallacy. The fact of the matter is that there currently exists no scientific evidence for intelligent design theory.
Why is it pseudo science?
Two creationist academics Charles B. Thaxton a physical chemist and Michael Behe a biochemist are largely credited with offering the pseudo-scientific concepts often used by creationists to try and fool people into believing there is any legitimate evidence. The two academics are credited independently for the concepts of Specified complexity and Irreducible complexity. Both attempt to assert the existence of biological complexity that can only be explained through intelligent engineering. There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of such biological entities.
So what is the real deal?
What proponents of intelligent design try desperately to distract you from is that life wasn't just magically assembled in its current state. It took billions of years to reach our current state and to try and say that our current states were designed as they are is just a complete fabrication. Gradual changes one generation after another add up over time. There is no mandate to skip this lengthy process and arrive at life as we know it in one giant designed step.
Make sure to follow this profile @contentjunkie to stay up to date on more great posts like this one.
As a teacher, I think it's a BAD idea to teach any form of religious belief in the classroom at all.
As a former teacher, I completely agree with you.
In a multicultural society - to not teach world religion is to cripple a child. Isn't that the first rule of writing? Know your audience? If you want to spend your whole life with people that look, talk and smell like you maybe its a good idea. People with religious beliefs make up 80-90% of the worlds population - what on earth would be your reasoning in denying children the education they need to succeed on this planet?
I teach 4th and 5th grade first of all, so what I am willing or able to teach as far as religious based creationism is limited. I do teach about other cultures, customs, and holidays, in fact thats a huge part of our social studies. These teachings include wars or invasions that have been based on religious views. I am in no way closed minded to the rest of the world or think that my students should be kept in some sort of bubble. However, as a teacher there is a fine line that we have to walk. Not all parents are open to any type of religion being taught, and at times I have had parents opt their children out of any learning of other cultures other than their own.
I have serious hope we are gonna be past all this religion here soon. Time to move forward together and drop the myths and focus on the science, questioning , debating and discovering.
Ya the world would be SUCH a better place to live in if people had no fear of eternal consequences.
Religion plays an important role in society (Tribe Totemism and Taboo).. whether you believe there is a supernatural doesn't matter to me.. 6 billion people do - so deal with it.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/24/Appeal_to_Common_Belief
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Well I'm glad that the Earth is round and I do not fall off the edge when I go Cruising, I pleased that Doctors now wash their hands when undertaking any procedure and do not say there are no bacteria, etc, etc. There is room for teaching of all things in schools and life even if they are disparate ideas on the same subject. I am pleased that I can make my own decisions and not have them forced on me by others. I am confident in my faith as a Christian and I know that things people fear they will try to control.
I just think religion should be taught at home, by parents not teachers.
yup..so should everything else. Homeschool
There's a difference in teaching about religions and a particular faith. I'm all for teaching knowledge of different mythologies in history classes, but I'd keep the religious faith teachings in a church.
I agree with you here. My kids' school actually teaches about Hinduism, Islam, Jewish, Christian, Buddhism, and others. They celebrate holidays and customs from many different cultures as well as religions. It's great! Christians are not the only people who have holidays and cultures out there! They are not the only people who believe in a God. Likewise, they are not the only people who do NOT believe in evolution. I am Christian, and I don't refute evolution. Nor would I want to. But there are many who do.
I understand it IS difficult to scientifically demonstrate evidence of God with the tools we may have at present. I get it. We believers don't really have a leg to stand on scientifically speaking.
The problem comes when the Bible and the Koran and the Vedas say one thing, but scientific theories come in to threaten that. Ideally, there COULD be a way to introduce "controversial" scientific concepts in a way that helps assuage people of faith who may have an issue with it. For example. A text book might read:
"Here is the scientific explanation of evolution. Many scientists stand behind this. Here is why: a, b, c. Here are some scientists who do not subscribe to this theory. Here is why. a, b, c. There is some controversy on the subject because of the following reasons: 1) scientific mumbo jumbo 2) religious mumbo jumbo 3) cultural mumbo jumbo. The evidence supporting evolution seems to be the prevailing evidence over all because of a,b, and c, despite opposing points of view."
The end.
Because that's all it can really ever be at this point--A very strongly supported theory. Science can only, by definition, report things that it can observably measure.
Do I "believe" in evolution? You betcha! I'd be an idiot not to. But it's still a theory by definition. Transitions in fossil record, combined with current observable and recorded trends and changes in species makes me convinced in a form of evolution. Do I think we evolved from amoebas. No. Nope. Apes maybe. Amoebas. No.
I find it interesting that you would believe that humans evolved from apes before amoebas. I am more comfortable believing in the amoebas. Otherwise we have relatives that didn't evolve for some reason sitting in zoos around the world.
I don't know why I couldn't reply to this particular comment, so I reply here. I never said scientists couldn't have biases in their research, and you are right, they can. That still doesn't mean science itself is in any way less reliable tool for observing and studying the world around us.
So you get stupid for reading things. What a great rebuttal.
All the apes that sit in zoos around the world have evolved from the same ancestor we did".
I seriously wonder who those scientists are.
This is actually a really good article. I'll give it a closer look. It encapsulates a lot of the popular trend-bucking going on in this arena.
Nice post... I wish I had billions of years to observe..
HomeSchool. If you want a job done right, do it your self. Think of your CHILDREN!
Socialization is usually considered important for humans...
by who? The rulers or the ruled?
This post has been ranked within the top 25 most undervalued posts in the first half of Dec 01. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $12.29 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Dec 01 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
There is nothing wrong with taking the philosophical stance that God fills in the gaps (I don't happen to agree, but people are free to exercise faith if that is what speaks to them). The problem is calling anything involving creation theory "science". By definition, the supernatural cannot be observed for scientific inquiry.
btw - I selected your piece for today's #philosophy-review. Keep up the great posts! https://steemit.com/philosophy/@aaanderson/the-philosophy-review-12-01-2016
God is a lot like the blockchain... Nobody on Steemit seems to understand the concept.
Blockchain is real, and can be explained, understood, and utilized, unlike God.
This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.
Learn more about and upvote to support linkback bot v0.5. Flag this comment if you don't want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts.
Built by @ontofractal