Intelligent Design Ruled "Not Science"

blane.bramble writes "The Register is reporting that the UK government has stated there is no place in the science curriculum for Intelligent Design and that it can not be taught as science. 'The Government is aware that a number of concerns have been raised in the media and elsewhere as to whether creationism and intelligent design have a place in science lessons. The Government is clear that creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science National Curriculum programs of study and should not be taught as science.'"

Comments

Re:How about in the US?

[Hungus]

Not going to happen: Opinion polls suggest 43 per cent of Americans believe God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years. Only 14 per cent believe humans evolved without divine involvement.

Re:How about in the US?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The idiots in Kansas who got intelligent design into schools were voted out. (Although I think it took a few years.) So the system works, just slowly.

Re:Yeah, but ...

[MightyMartian]

Isn't evolution *also* pretty much just a theory at this point, like Intelligent Design?

When one conflates two different usages of the word "theory", one can come up with idiotic statements like this one. The common vernacular meaning of theory is pretty much "any ol' idea I can think up". The scientific formulation is significantly more rigorous, so that ID and evolution, while in the common vernacular, are both theories, when it comes to the scientific notion of a theory, no, they are not equivalent.

Re:When they can explain...

[Skreems]

The difference is, Intelligent Design teaches specifically that certain structures found in biological systems are too complex to have come about through macro evolution. They point to things as varied as the eye, flagella on bacterium, and a number of other things which they call "irreducibly complex", meaning that they would have no function if broken apart, and so supposedly cannot have an evolutionary pathway leading to their creation. ID has nothing to do with explaining the origins of the universe. It's an attempt to prove the involvement of a deity in the development of life on Earth.

Just Science

[Wellington Grey]

While this is indeed a win, the watering down of the sciences in the UK is horrifying. I've written an article about the physics exams to try and bring some attention to this topic. On the biology side, I was shocked by the most recent GCSE paper on which the last question described an experiment on lab animals and the effect exposure of a hormone had on them. The students where then asked: ''How does this experiment contradict the theory of evolution.'' Also they are asked questions like ''Who would oppose contraception'' and they get a mark for writing ''Certain religious groups.'' It's really sad.

Re:Both are theories

[Rycross]

Intelligent Design is not a theory in the scientific meaning of the word. A scientific theory is the best explanation that fits the evidence available, and is falsifiable. What that means is that if new evidence comes to light that disproves it, then the scientific theory can be replaced with a new theory, or modified to fit the new evidence.

Intelligent Design does not meet the requirements of a scientific theory, because it is not falsifiable. Please stop claiming that evolution is a theory using the layman's definition of the term. Also, please do not claim that intelligent design is a theory unless you have a falsifiable model which fits all the evidence in place.

Re:Cheap Smear

[Hatta]

This is not an example of actual evolution - there was no change to the gene pool. This is, however, like the industrial era moths, an excellent example of natural selection.

Evolution is any change in the relative frequencies of alleles in the gene pool. Natural selection is the process which drives that change.

Re:Hah.

[plunge]

"And even he recognized, for example (to use a beaten-to death example, at that!), that the eye was very complex and his theory did not account for it at that time."

Why do critics constantly bring this up, when all it does is display their own ignorance about Darwin? Darwin noted the complexity of the eye and how it SEEMED to refute his ideas, and THEN he DID go on to show how his theory could not only account for it, but that the remnants of many of the necessary transitional stages existed in existent life. Right or wrong, he did NOT think it was "too complex for his theory at the time."

That people think so and claim so is a telltale sign that they've only ever read the creationist quote mine, where they quote Darwin saying that the eye seems confoundingly complex... but then fail to continue the quote or note that he RIGHT AFTERWARDS discusses why theis perception is mistaken.

Re:So...

[Linux_ho]

So for 2000 years, who was ahead of the game, the ones tied to the limits of their scientific knowledge, or the practitioner?

Scientific method: a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

You might say that a real scientist is always a practitioner. What you think you know based on what you heard from someone else (even someone with a reputation as a "scientist") is in some part based on faith. As you put it, "tied to the limits of their scientific knowledge." Faith in science, yes, but still faith, until you have verified it yourself.

The proper scientific attitude is "I don't know, let's check this out for ourselves, what happens when we do this?" which is, coincidentally (?) also the proper attitude recommended by Buddhist teachers. In the Kalama sutra, the Buddha said:

• Do not accept anything on mere hearsay (ie, thinking that thus have we heard it for a long time).
• Do not accept anything by mere tradition (ie, thinking that it has been handed down thus through many generations).
• Do not accept anything on account of rumours (ie, by believing what others say without any investigation).
• Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures.
• Do not accept anything by mere supposition.
• Do not accept anything by mere inference.
• Do not accept anything by merely considering the appearances.
• Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your preconceived notions.
• Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable (ie, should be accepted).
• Do not accept anything thinking that the teacher is respected by us (and that therefore it is right to accept his word.)

But when you know for yourselves - these things are immoral, these things are blameworthy, these things are censured by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to ruin and sorrow - then reject them. When you know for yourselves - these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness - then live and act accordingly."

I always thought it was really interesting to see a 2600 year old tradition which teaches, "don't accept something just because it's in the scriptures -- check it out for yourself!"

Re:Hah.

[WilliamSChips]

Evolution says nothing about abiogenesis. All it says is what happened after the abiogenesis. Same with the Big Bang--all it says is what happens after the universe is created.