Should Intelligent Design be allowed in classrooms?

[otseng]

Should Intelligent Design be allowed to be taught in schools (public high schools)?
Should it be taught as science or some other subject area?

Please also provide your reasoning to your answers.

I suspect that this thread will cover similar ground as the Should Creationism be taught in classrooms? topic. For the ambitious, you might want to browse through that thread. But, one thing I do ask is to please provide logical arguments to your answers instead of making any blanket statements.

[Cathar1950]

Thanks Grumpy and Jose. That was the point I was trying to make.
I was just reading an article and it reminded me of this thread and others.
It was called:

Sex, IQ & ET: How We Got Big Brains
http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti ... 20926.html

Many researchers have considered how the processes of natural selection might encourage higher IQ. For example, predator-prey relationships can do this. When a lioness bags an antelope, shes more likely to snag one of the dumb ones. Result? The lioness has a meal, but the average ability of the antelopes has been raised. The next night, the dumber lions will have a harder time getting dinner, and will preferentially drop out of the leonine gene pool. In this animal arms race, the IQ of both species is ratcheted upward.able
This is survival of the functionally fittest, and intelligence is certainly one component of making it in a competitive environment. But theres another type of mechanism that might have been more important in creating our cerebral machinery. Its called signaling for fitness, and its a widespread component of beastly behavior.
"I think this is one of the key evolutionary processes that can produce intelligence anywhere in the universe," he says. "And its universal because any evolutionary system will have some kind of genetic code. That code will be vulnerable to mutations of some sort -- and fitness indicators reveal just how many mutations you have."

"Clearly, one of the best ways to signal is through behavior that can only be produced by a highly complicated nervous system whose growth depends on most of your genes. So in my view its a very powerful evolutionary process. Theres good evidence that its important in just about every other animal species. And we have one example -- us -- where its led to intelligence." And on other worlds around other stars? Miller laughs: "I think aliens who are obsessed with showing off their brain power to the opposite sex will be fairly common out there."

So if and when we discover the extraterrestrials, you shouldnt be surprised to find that they are slick talkers, good musicians and -- unlike their Hollywood ciphers -- able to tell a decent joke.

It is good to be alive.

[QED]

That it speaks of an intelligence behind it all remains nothing more than a hunch does it not?

It's more than a "hunch", but arguments that point to intelligence.

I'm sorry but those arguments still make it a hunch -- otherwise we would not be debating here. Before you can be so sure of the essential role of intelligence in design perhaps you ought to take a look at Enigma's challenge: Spot the design, for fun and profit. Until we have a way of distinguishing between those things in the word which are the product of intelligent design and those that have arisen from Self Organizing Systems we won't be able to confirm the hunch one way or another.

[otseng]

I'm sorry but those arguments still make it a hunch -- otherwise we would not be debating here.

Does that mean that evolution is also a hunch just because we debate it here?

IMHO, those arguments I've made are valid arguments and more than a hunch. From an evidence and logic point of view, they are sound arguments. Of course, I don't expect everyone to embrace my conclusions. But, the paths that I took to reach my conclusions are rational ones.

Before you can be so sure of the essential role of intelligence in design perhaps you ought to take a look at Enigma's challenge: Spot the design, for fun and profit.

Just because one cannot determine the source of design in one scenario does not mean that we can conclude that for all scenarios. Furthermore, the source of the algorithms were from an intelligent source. Plus, the algorithms were designed to have some result in mind. So, because one cannot determine the origin of those examples have no bearing on other situations.

Until we have a way of distinguishing between those things in the word which are the product of intelligent design and those that have arisen from Self Organizing Systems we won't be able to confirm the hunch one way or another.

Does that also mean that materialistic answers are a hunch?

Let's take an analogy, suppose we have a 5 foot wide bullseye target placed 100 yards away from two shooters. One is an expert and the other is a novice who is blind and has never picked up a gun. We see a bullet hole in the dead center of the target. Who could we logically conclude shot it? Though statistically, it could've been the novice, it would be better to conclude that it was the expert.

And it is this same reasoning with us being at the center of the universe. I do realize that this position seems quite antiquated. But, looking at the evidence for myself and thinking about it, it makes the most sense to me. And if we come to the conclusion that the earth is at the center, a logical conclusion is that it is the result of an intelligence source. The odds of us being here at the center on a random chance would be too miniscule. So, would this simply be a hunch of an intelligent source? I would argue no.

[Jose]

It's more than a "hunch", but arguments that point to intelligence.

But, they are arguments that do not consider alternatives, and are thus non-scientific. I have no problem with non-scientific arguments, provided they are offered as philosophy and not science.

...based on evidence so far, it can be logically deduced that we are at the center of the universe. To me, this is a strong indication of an intelligent cause

Ah, but it can also be argued from the same evidence that we are not at the center. We are certainly at the center of our point of reference, but it's stretching things a bit to equate our point of reference with the center of the universe. On the other hand, this fits with your later comment concerning the Copernican Principle [which, for the readers, Wiki describes as the idea that the earth is not in a "special place" in the universe]. Actually, if the universe is really "infinite," then we can say that the earth (or any other place, really) is at the center (uhhh...and, at the same time, say that there is no center...oooh, this gives me a headache).

I've also outlined evidence...that the universe is setup for us to exist. The fine-tuning necessary for life is better explained by intelligence, rather than a natural cause.

And again, the alternative is that the entirely natural origin of humanity would, by default, produce a humanity that fits nicely within its universe. The "anthropic principle" sets this argument aside, as if it were irrelevant. The trouble is, unless it has been ruled out, it is premature to infer intelligence. The only valid inference is that we cannot rule out the supernatural. But then, that's always a valid statement for all of science.

...I touch on Behe's arguments of irreducible complexity.

...which, as I have pointed out, is absolute bunk. He's talking through his hat. He made it up.

Therefore, a third option must be given: there may well be a natural explanation.

That is another option, but I would classify it in the same group as "I don't know".

Perfectly fine. Now, let me see if I've got this straight. We must include the option "I don't know." Therefore, the current scientific explanations can, at best, be presented [exactly as they are presented], as "our current hypothesis." Shouldn't the "design inference" be qualified as well? Shouldn't it be part of the "I don't know, but maybe..." group of explanations? My complaint is that the ID folks do not allow the "I don't know" option, and instead claim that they do know.

ID does not allow this option.

ID does allow it as the method of falsifiability. That is, if there is a natural explanation to something that ID ascribes to an intelligent cause, then ID has been falsified in that explanation. For example, if in the future, we determine how the first cell came about through natural causes, then ID has been falsified in explaining the cell. (And I would add that ID would be falsified as a whole, but that's my personal opinion.)

I have two thoughts here. One is that ID is very flexible on what it considers "adequate" to falsify evolution. ID is quite happy to claim that they have falisified evolution if they can identify anything at all that they are uncertain of. By contrast, they disallow application of the same criteria to ID--we don't need to know anything at all about it, or even rule out alternatives, to proclaim it True.

The second thought is the notion that if we can falsify one part of ID, then the theory is questionable. You mention the origin of the first cell as your example. What about actual evolution? Isn't it reasonable to apply this same logic to what ID says about evolution? After all, that's what Behe and Dembski actually talk about. You even cite Behe above as having one of the arguments that makes you favor ID. Why is it not a problem that Behe is completely wrong? We have falsified his argument. Why, then, is it valid to bring it up again?

But, new functionality arising by mutation has been proven.

This is probably a whole nuther topic, so I'll defer this to a more appropriate thread.

Agreed that it is a whole nuther topic...but it's relevant to this one. Behe makes false claims. Do we want to buy his conclusions, if his reasoning is fake? Or does it not matter what reasoning he uses, since his conclusion is what we already believe? I really don't think it's possible to separate the validity of his claims from this topic; if his claims are flat-out wrong (which they are), then we can no longer use them to argue for ID without joining into his charade of bearing false witness.

If you can't see the corner (perhaps because there is another corner before it) is it fair to say that the corner does not, and cannot exist? That is ID's claim.

The claim is that the corner is so far away that we'll never be able to reach it. For example, the time required for a chance origin of the first replicating DNA/RNA is so remote that it is beyond probability of it happening given the age of the earth. Even Crick, the co-discoverer of the DNA structure, recognized the improbability of it naturally happening and explained it through Panspermia.

That's their claim, all right, but they have no basis on which to make that claim. There are other corners in the way, so they simply cannot see the particular corner around which the answer lies. They are making this up.

By the way, I also question the probability calculation...if it uses the same logic as Behe's, it's irrelevant. It merely proves that a model we already know is wrong is, well, wrong. It does not address evolutionary theory at all.

How can they possibly justify the idea that no one in the future will ever learn anything new?

I don't think anyone is saying this.

They are not saying it out loud, because it sounds incredibly stupid.

I think it would be presumptuous to know what they are not saying out loud. Furthermore, I have never come across any statement by any IDers that would closely approach this.

Of course they would never say it. It's too stupid. But how else can they justify their assumption that "a natural explanation will never be found" (i.e. "the corner is too far away for anyone ever to reach it")? This requires one of two assumptions. Either they are privy to information that has not been discovered (god told them?) or no one will ever find new information. They can't claim that god told them, because they are pretending this is a "non-religious theory." Nor, for the same reason, can they claim that lots of new information will be found, but none of it will ever address this problem, despite hundreds of scientists worldwide working on it. How do they know what information will or will not be found unless god told them? Therefore, the only possible basis for their assumption is that no one will find out anything new.

I can think of only two ways that no one will ever find out anything new. The first is that they assume that people are too stupid--i.e. that their own children and grandchildren will not be smart enough to do science. This is not a winning argument. The other way would be to take over the schools, and--as it says in the Wedge document--replace "natural materialism" with design theory. If we teach everyone that evolution is wrong, and god did it, then no one will bother trying to learn how evolution works. Current political maneuvering suggests that this is their plan.

What does it take for an explanation to be "viable"?

Good question. Even in a trial jury, this question is hard to answer. Should it be what the majority of people accept? Or the majority of a select group of people? Or what the smartest or most powerful person accepts?

For cases where absolute truth cannot be objectively reached, I think this question would be difficult to answer.

Well, this is science. We're not dealing with absolute truth. We're asking about "viable explanations." Nor are we dealing with "what people like." The viability of an explanation isn't determined by voting, or by the declarations of those in power. It's determined by the data. If we aren't going to consider the data, then we shouldn't consider putting the conclusions into science classes. If we want the conclusions in science classes, then we have to agree to address things scientifically--via the data.

The viability of an explanation:

• Does it really explain the data? If yes, go on. If no, discard as inviable.
• Is it contradicted by other data from other fields? If no, go on. If yes, discard as inviable.
• Is it the only one left after ruling out alternatives? If yes, it's viable, albeit tentative, since future data may require that we re-evaluate it. If no, go on.
• If alternative explanations exist, and have not been ruled out, you've got to go back to work. Test the alternatives--go on down the list:
• If an alternative is untestable, it's completely useless. Set it aside and go on.
• If an alternative is implausible, but not ruled out by the data, consider it as less likely than alternatives that are plausible--but you can't rule it out on the basis of plausibility alone. Too many things we thought implausible have turned out to be true.
• If you've got two alternatives, one of which is more complicated than the other, favor the simpler.
• Whatever you've got left may be the model you "favor," but you've got to consider any model that has not been ruled out as "a possibility."

But why should it be valid to insist that only our current knowledge may be allowed in reaching our conclusion?

Because it is the most logical position. We can only make conclusions based on the information we have available, not on what we might have available. If in the future more evidence presents itself, we can then make new conclusions. But until then, all we got is all we got.

You're absolutely right. That means we must always state our conclusions as "tentative." Future information may require that we re-think things; we may reach a different conclusion when we have more data.

My argument is that ID doesn't do this--they say "we must conclude that Design is the answer." They don't say "it could be design, but we really don't know." They declare absolute truth. In this way, they are basing their conclusion on current information, but by declaring it to be Truth, they basically forbid reassessment of the conclusion when more is learned. They go beyond making a current assessment based on current data, to making a final assessment based on current data.

The "design inference" cannot be considered anything more than a tentative conclusion based on insufficient knowledge.

Certainly. No one is saying that the judgement is final. Only that it is only the better conclusion based on current evidence.

I wish you spoke for everyone when you say this. Unfortunately, your interpretation is not common. They may not use the term "final," but they do use phrasing that is equivalent to it:

We are driven by the data and the facts to the most logical conclusion: the message carried by the DNA in the first functional cell has all the hallmarks of having been derived from an intelligent source.... If naturalism is true, then DNA must by definition be the product of natural laws and random variations even if our analysis says it is impossible.[emphasis mine]
[ William S. Harris, PhD and John H. Calvert, JD Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution (National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Autumn 2003)
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org ... ources.htm ]

Impossible, eh? Sounds like a final judgement. By declaring their judgement final, and evolution impossible, they lead the reader to the conclusion that scientists are wackos fighting a rear-guard defense against Truth.

Note also their weasely phrasing of the first part: natural stuff "has all the hallmarks" of design. These are also the very same hallmarks of natural origin. They reach the same conclusion, for the same reason, as Paley did 200 years ago. Wouldn't you think that in 200 years, they'd have been able to move the argument forward if there were anything going for it besides "I, personally, don't understand evolution, and it looks like design to me, so it must be design"?

Shouldn't we deny heliocentrism before we deny evolution?

Well... I've already convinced myself that the Copernican principle is false. But, the Copernican Principle is a philosophical notion about the center of the universe. It is not the fact that the earth is in orbit around the sun (which is "heliocentrism"--the sun being the center of the solar system, the bodies of which are in orbit around the sun).

-----

Well, there's lots of fun stuff to talk about, but if we keep responding to each paragraph, we'll get longer and longer posts... It seems to me that the critical issue here is this:

ID proponents claim that life was designed by "an intelligence" They present this conclusion as truth, not as an inference that may prove to be wrong when we learn more.
On what basis do the ID proponents reach their conclusion? I understand this to be (1) some calculations made by Behe and others, that are based upon false conceptions, and (2) common sense says that complicated things are designed, and (3) the claim that science has no idea.
Is this conclusion scientifically justifiable? Part 1 is demonstrably wrong. Since this is the only attempt at science of the ID movement, it would seem that the conclusion is not scientifically justifiable. Part 2 is not scientific, and doesn't enter into the equation. Part 3 is a false claim, based upon the distinction between "explanation" and "description," which I will consider in a later post.

[QED]

I'm sorry but those arguments still make it a hunch -- otherwise we would not be debating here.

Does that mean that evolution is also a hunch just because we debate it here?

Science is always open to debate. That's what allows it to rise above mere dogma.

IMHO, those arguments I've made are valid arguments and more than a hunch. From an evidence and logic point of view, they are sound arguments. Of course, I don't expect everyone to embrace my conclusions. But, the paths that I took to reach my conclusions are rational ones.

And I for one commend you on thinking for yourself. When we stop asking childlike questions we cease to make new discoveries. Most of the questions you've posed here are natural ones that have been asked many times before, but it's always good to go over them now and then to make sure we're not missing anything!

Before you can be so sure of the essential role of intelligence in design perhaps you ought to take a look at Enigma's challenge: Spot the design, for fun and profit.

Just because one cannot determine the source of design in one scenario does not mean that we can conclude that for all scenarios.

However, it does show that we lack the methodology to decide the matter. Yes, we are quite good at making guesses when it comes to distinguishing "design by human intellect" from "design by natural occurrence" but the products of GA are definitely in the latter category -- and yet we're still unable to determine whether or not they are the product of any intellect. It helps to see this if you understand that there is a powerful force for design in the logic of nature. But first I need to clear up a misunderstanding of yours that confuses this issue:

Furthermore, the source of the algorithms were from an intelligent source. Plus, the algorithms were designed to have some result in mind. So, because one cannot determine the origin of those examples have no bearing on other situations.

This is nearly always misunderstood and I am determined to correct the misunderstanding because while people imagine this to be the case, they are missing the remarkable fact that there is a powerful source of design buried in the logic of the world. First you have to understand that there are two separate algorithms involved. To make this clear let's say we want to write a computer program that we will call "A" that writes a program of its own called "B".

You want to be sure that ALL the intellect that goes into A is contained and does not enter the product B. Imagine a very simple model: we write a program that outputs random numbers. We look at the resulting sequence and spot a pattern. Did any of the intellect we used to construct the program find its way into the pattern? Clearly it didn't, and this demonstrates precisely how there can be containment between the different "intellectual" entities involved in the process.

You mention the result that's in the mind of the human engineer, well that is a vital element -- but it's only in the form of a selection system applied to the output, it does not provide any input by suggesting any methods for achieving the desired goal. In most cases of design by GP/GA the goal is arbitrary and specific. In the case of nature I suggest that existence is the only natural goal. You could compare the engineer who designs the production system with some sort of God designing the raw materials and logic that preempts the world I suppose, but what pops out is shaped only by the selection system.

Let's take an analogy, suppose we have a 5 foot wide bullseye target placed 100 yards away from two shooters. One is an expert and the other is a novice who is blind and has never picked up a gun. We see a bullet hole in the dead center of the target. Who could we logically conclude shot it? Though statistically, it could've been the novice, it would be better to conclude that it was the expert.

Presumably this occurs to you because you think it obvious that God is the ultimate expert. But this relies on a none too well hidden assumption -- that God exists!

And it is this same reasoning with us being at the center of the universe. I do realize that this position seems quite antiquated. But, looking at the evidence for myself and thinking about it, it makes the most sense to me. And if we come to the conclusion that the earth is at the center, a logical conclusion is that it is the result of an intelligence source. The odds of us being here at the center on a random chance would be too miniscule. So, would this simply be a hunch of an intelligent source? I would argue no.

I really must dig out that topic and take another stab at it!

[Rob]

[Disclaimer: Creationism and ID do not belong in the science classroom; they belong in either a comparative religion or philosophy class.]

QED asks the following question about a computer program that “outputs random numbers,” created in the mind of a conscious human being, and compiled on a deterministic device (i.e., computer),

First you have to understand that there are two separate algorithms involved. To make this clear let's say we want to write a computer program that we will call "A" that writes a program of its own called "B".

You want to be sure that ALL the intellect that goes into A is contained and does not enter the product B. Imagine a very simple model: we write a program that outputs random numbers....

Did any of the intellect we used to construct the program find its way into the pattern? Clearly it didn't, and this demonstrates precisely how there can be containment between the different "intellectual" entities involved in the process.

Of course, anyone who has studied computer science knows that contrary to this simplistic and erroneous claim:

Unfortunately, generating random numbers is a task that looks a lot easier than it really is, primarily on any deterministic device. Von Neumann [Neu63] said it best: “Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin.” All we can hope for are pseudorandom numbers, a stream of numbers that appear as if they were generated randomly.

Any computer scientist is well aware of this fact, and would never make the fallacious claim that QED does above. Any computer scientist worth his paycheck is well aware of the serious consequences of using a poorly engineered random number generator when it comes to security concerns.

Clearly, this example is logically flawed both in fact and truth; it is a fallacious argument because QED is attempting to base his conclusion upon the false premise that a human can write a computer program on a deterministic device (i.e., computer) and generate a truly random input rather than a pseudorandom input. This premise is false as it is impossible; therefore, the conclusion does not follow. Both program A and program B are generated within the creative mind of a human, and subject to the limitations of both the human mind and the deterministic device (i.e., machine) the program runs upon, which is also a creation of human mind. A pseudorandom-number generator is not a true random number, and cannot be made one by the simple magical fact of QED’s defining it as such. It is nothing more than a mind created deterministic algorithm that returns numbers that “look” statistically random.

There is never any so-called “containment between” program A and program B, as both are part of a whole system created by human mind.

And all of this tells us is simply that humans are clever enough to fool themselves that pseudorandom-number generators generate truly random numbers, and intelligent enough to create deterministic devices to run their clever programs upon.

It tells us nothing about how they got so clever (or foolish) to both design a deterministic machine (computer), write a deterministic algorithm to generate pseudorandom-numbers as input for another computer program, yet still fool themsemselves despite all this cleverness into believing these are truly random numbers, and claim the this tells them something fundamentally about the universe.

I think this whole exercise tells us more about the little "i"ntelligent designer than any big "I"ntelligent Designer.

Does consciousness matter?

We cannot rule out the possibility that carefully avoiding the concept of consciousness in quantum cosmology may lead to an artificial narrowing of our outlook. Let us remember an example from the history of science that may be rather instructive in this respect. Prior to the invention of the general theory of relativity, space, time, and matter seemed to be three fundamentally different entities. Space was thought to be a kind of three-dimensional coordinate grid which, when supplemented by clocks, could be used to describe the motion of matter. Spacetime possessed no intrinsic degrees of freedom; it played a secondary role as a tool for the description of the truly substantial material world. The general theory of relativity brought with it a decisive change in this point of view. Spacetime and matter were found to be interdependent, and there was no longer any question which one of the two is more fundamental. Spacetime was also found to have its own inherent degrees of freedom…. This is completely opposite to the previous idea that spacetime is only a tool for the description of matter.

The standard assumption is that consciousness, just like spacetime before the invention of general relativity, plays a secondary, subservient role, being just a function of matter and a tool for the description of the truly existing material world. But let us remember that our knowledge of the world begins not with matter but with perceptions. I know for sure that my pain exists, my “green” exists, and my “sweet” exists. I do not need any proof of their existence, because these events are a part of me; everything else is a theory. Later we find out that our perceptions obey some laws, which can be most conveniently formulated if we assume that there is some underlying reality beyond our perception. This model of a material world obeying laws of physics is so successful that soon we forget about our starting point and say that matter is the only reality, and perceptions are nothing but a useful tool for the description of matter. This assumption is almost as natural (and maybe as false) as our previous assumption that space is only a mathematical tool for the description of matter. We are substituting reality of our feelings by the successful working theory of an independently existing material world. And the theory is so successful that we almost never think about its possible limitations.

-- Linde, Andrei, Author. Inflation, quantum cosmology, and the anthropic priniciple. In Science and Ultimate Reality: Quantum Theory, Cosmology and Complexity. (John D. Barrow, Paul C. W. Davies, and Charles L. Harper, Jr., eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004: 450-451.

[QED]

Rob, in order to keep things on-topic here, I've started a new topic: Can designs be evolved without intellectual contamination? to look at your complaint. I hope you'll take a look at my reply there.

[otseng]

First off, apologies for not being able to participate too frequently. It's hard for me to even scrap out one free hour to try to intelligently participate here. But, I've got 30 minutes free now...

We are driven by the data and the facts to the most logical conclusion: the message carried by the DNA in the first functional cell has all the hallmarks of having been derived from an intelligent source.... If naturalism is true, then DNA must by definition be the product of natural laws and random variations even if our analysis says it is impossible.[emphasis mine]
[ William S. Harris, PhD and John H. Calvert, JD Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution (National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Autumn 2003)
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org ... ources.htm ]

Impossible, eh? Sounds like a final judgement. By declaring their judgement final, and evolution impossible, they lead the reader to the conclusion that scientists are wackos fighting a rear-guard defense against Truth.

I read it differently, they say "We are driven by the data and the facts to the most logical conclusion", not "We are driven by the data and the facts to the only logical conclusion." So, it doesn't sound like a final judgement to me. But, even if they stated it was a final judgement, I do not think it would affect the validity of their argument. Yes, it would make them appear dogmatic, but if one is dogmatic doesn't automatically mean their argument is invalid.

ID proponents claim that life was designed by "an intelligence" They present this conclusion as truth, not as an inference that may prove to be wrong when we learn more.

And as I mentioned above, even if they presented is as truth, it doesn't mean one way or the other if it is indeed the truth. The truth should be able to stand regardless of how dogmatically it is presented.

On what basis do the ID proponents reach their conclusion? I understand this to be (1) some calculations made by Behe and others, that are based upon false conceptions, and (2) common sense says that complicated things are designed, and (3) the claim that science has no idea.
Is this conclusion scientifically justifiable? Part 1 is demonstrably wrong. Since this is the only attempt at science of the ID movement, it would seem that the conclusion is not scientifically justifiable. Part 2 is not scientific, and doesn't enter into the equation. Part 3 is a false claim, based upon the distinction between "explanation" and "description," which I will consider in a later post.

I can concede that some IDers could be wrong in some of their calculations. But, this situation is common in science. But, I think what you state is more than this. That they are intentionally misleading people and knowingly deceiving the public. This charge I do not accept.

Part 2 is indeed unscientific, but I do not see any IDers arguing this.

Yes, part 3 is claimed by IDers.

Back to the main question, "Should Intelligent Design be allowed in classrooms?" The answer is yes. We might argue on whether it should be in a science, or religion, or philosophy class, but this should only be decided after its been allowed to be taught.

[Jose]

We are driven by the data and the facts to the most logical conclusion: the message carried by the DNA in the first functional cell has all the hallmarks of having been derived from an intelligent source.... If naturalism is true, then DNA must by definition be the product of natural laws and random variations even if our analysis says it is impossible.[emphasis mine][ William S. Harris, PhD and John H. Calvert, JD Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution (National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Autumn 2003)
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org ... ources.htm ]

Impossible, eh? Sounds like a final judgement. By declaring their judgement final, and evolution impossible, they lead the reader to the conclusion that scientists are wackos fighting a rear-guard defense against Truth.

I read it differently, they say "We are driven by the data and the facts to the most logical conclusion", not "We are driven by the data and the facts to the only logical conclusion." So, it doesn't sound like a final judgement to me. But, even if they stated it was a final judgement, I do not think it would affect the validity of their argument. Yes, it would make them appear dogmatic, but if one is dogmatic doesn't automatically mean their argument is invalid.

You are looking at their first sentence, about which your inference is correct. It is important, however, to go on to the rest of their statements, which include their claim that it is impossible for evolution to have produced what we see. It is the "impossible" bit that indicates they claim to have a final answer.

And as I mentioned above, even if they presented is as truth, it doesn't mean one way or the other if it is indeed the truth. The truth should be able to stand regardless of how dogmatically it is presented.

Uhh...didn't you say, in an earlier discussion, that a major objection to the teaching of evolution is that it is presented as truth? What I object to here is the same thing that people object to about the teaching of evolution: the claim that We Know The Answer.

With respect to school, however, there's a big difference. Any parent can teach their kids, at home, that "maybe god did it differently." That's all it takes to cover the fundamental theory of ID. But, most parents are not sufficiently well-versed in the science to make evolution comprehensible. I want my kids to know what evolutionary theory really is, and to know the evidence upon which it is based. I can tell them myself that "a designer" could have created everything to look just like this.

On what basis do the ID proponents reach their conclusion? I understand this to be (1) some calculations made by Behe and others, that are based upon false conceptions, and (2) common sense says that complicated things are designed, and (3) the claim that science has no idea.
Is this conclusion scientifically justifiable? Part 1 is demonstrably wrong. Since this is the only attempt at science of the ID movement, it would seem that the conclusion is not scientifically justifiable. Part 2 is not scientific, and doesn't enter into the equation. Part 3 is a false claim, based upon the distinction between "explanation" and "description," which I will consider in a later post.

I can concede that some IDers could be wrong in some of their calculations. But, this situation is common in science. But, I think what you state is more than this. That they are intentionally misleading people and knowingly deceiving the public. This charge I do not accept.

Part 2 is indeed unscientific, but I do not see any IDers arguing this.

Yes, part 3 is claimed by IDers.

And herein lies the fundamental problem. For IDers to claim that science has no explanation, requires either intentional misleading, or failure to distinguish between "explanation" and "complete description" (for which I have started a thread to explore the differences). Basically, IDers do claim part 3, and they are flat-out wrong.

I will explore Part 2 below, but note that the claimed validity of the argument rests upon part 1, which is demonstrably wrong.

RE: Part 2: that "common sense" reveals design:

Part of a book review of Dembski's Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology

"Deeply appreciative of the 18th-century philosopher of common sense, Thomas Reid, Dembski accepts that design—like intelligence—is empirically detectable in nature. Commonsensically, we do this all of the time: whenever we attribute an event to human agency, anytime we admire instances of human wisdom. For Dembski, this is after all how intelligent design is connected with the logic of signs and why detecting design in the universe can turn out to follow a well-defined methodology within a scientific theory of information."

Here, we see reference to the intuitive, commonsensical "empirical detection" of design.

In Belief in intelligent design is pure logic On the other hand, an intelligent design theorist thinks more along the following lines. He observes, say, the traveling pattern of our own planet Earth, streaking faithfully through the skies and around the sun at approximately 65,000 mph and rotating at approximately 1000 mph. In addition, the Moon's orbit around us is also quite steady.

In fact, these orbits are followed with such regularity that we humans have translated this reliability into our days, months and years. Furthermore, our exact distance from the sun allows life to flourish here. Indeed if we were only a slight distance farther from the sun, we would freeze; a slight distance closer, we would fry.

An intelligent design theorist would find it very difficult to attribute this particular earthly pattern to random luck, or to some kind of blind force unaware of itself or of its own intentions. He would find it difficult because from his own human experience, he has learned that chance does not ordinarily produce such order.

Rather, his experience tells him that order is caused by some agent that is not a part of the orderly construct itself: a nest implies a bird, a roughly strewn dam across a stream implies a beaver and a lighthouse of Legos in a kindergarten classroom implies a deft young assembler. By this process of reasoning, the theorist arrives at the conclusion that there is very likely a designer of this universe.

But this conclusion requires no "leap" of religious faith. It is nothing more nor less than an opinion or conviction based primarily on logical inference. By itself it required of him no commitment, incorporates him into no community, enlists him into no religious culture of practices and rituals.

What are inferences drawn from personal experience, besides common sense? In this particular bit, the Free Republic supports ID, using exclusively "part 2" of the logic I mentioned earlier, and they distance themselves from religion by arguing that it is "pure logic." Well, it is intuitive logic, based upon no additional analysis.

In Intelligent DesignIntelligent design’s main tie to religion is through the design argument. Perhaps the best-known design argument is William Paley’s. Paley published his argument in 1802 in a book titled Natural Theology. The subtitle of that book is revealing: Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature. Paley’s project was to examine features of the natural world (what he called “appearances of nature”) and from there draw conclusions about the existence and attributes of a designing intelligence responsible for those features (whom Paley identified with the God of Christianity).

According to Paley, if one finds a watch in a field (and thus lacks all knowledge of how the watch arose), the adaptation of the watch’s parts to telling time ensures that it is the product of an intelligence. So too, according to Paley, the marvelous adaptations of means to ends in organisms (like the intricacy of the human eye with its capacity for vision) ensure that organisms are the product of an intelligence. The theory of intelligent design updates Paley’s watchmaker argument in light of contemporary information theory and molecular biology, purporting to bring this argument squarely within science.

BUT--Is the updated argument of ID really updated? Or is it no more than Paley revisited? Let's see what the IDEA center has to say about this:

In their FAQ list, addressing " Isn't intelligent design just a rehash of William Paley's 19th century design arguments, refuted by Hume and Darwin?"

Paley argued only from a philosophical notion of "purposeful perfection," not a mathematical form of specified complexity. His arguments for design were not rigorous like those of modern day design theorists, and had philosophical overtones related to Christian theism. That is fine as a philosophical proposition, but as a scientific proposition it could not withstand Darwin's mechanism of law and chance, and Darwin's appeals to biological "imperfection," arguments for "dysteleology," and his mechanism for how evolution could create things with the appearance of purpose. Today we are in the midst of an entirely different debate. ID seeks to find complex objects which are specified to some pattern. This is the essence of the products of design, and we can best detect design when we can rule out some competing hypothesis, like Darwinian evolution. Darwin's theory no longer triumphs over the design argument. The breakdown of Darwinian evolution to create irreducible complexity represents the breakdown of Darwin's triumph over Paley, and the modern intelligent design argument. Hume simply argued that there is an insufficient analogy between biological design and human design. Again, this objection cannot withstand Dembski's rigorous quantification of the information produced by intelligent agency.

How sad. They rest their argument on (1) specified complexity and (2) "ruling out" evolution. Well, as I've demonstrated earlier, specified complexity is possible only if there is a designer, and impossible if there is evolution. Therefore, to "rule out" evolution by proving that it cannot "specify complexity" is a sham. They rule out a false model of evolution.

It's not just a matter of their "being wrong in some of their calculations." (Partly, this is because their calculations are right.) The real problem is that the calculations are based on falsehood. There is no prior specification in evolution--so what if they prove, mathematically, that evolution cannot achieve the plans of some mysterious prior specification? The calculations are completely meaningless. The important thing is that these are the calculations upon which ALL of ID rests. Without them, it's Paley revisited.

Therefore, All of this indicates that ID really is based on the logic that if something looks designed, it must be designed, based on common sense. ID has nothing else going for it.

Back to the main question, "Should Intelligent Design be allowed in classrooms?" The answer is yes. We might argue on whether it should be in a science, or religion, or philosophy class, but this should only be decided after its been allowed to be taught.

I think we have no choice but to put it in religion or philosophy. The only value of putting it into a science class would be to use it as an example of really-bad science, in which the conclusion is fore-ordained, and the logic designed to produce that conclusion. In the end, this will substantiate evolution, and make ID a laughing stock.

[otseng]

Uhh...didn't you say, in an earlier discussion, that a major objection to the teaching of evolution is that it is presented as truth? What I object to here is the same thing that people object to about the teaching of evolution: the claim that We Know The Answer.

A point to which I was going to make, but I'm glad you made it instead.

Well, my free time is much harder to find now. And instead of just leaving this thread hanging, I'd like to just post my concluding thoughts.

From the majority of responses here, it is clear that Intelligent Design should be allowed to be taught in public high schools. And honestly, I'm pleasantly surprised since I would've guessed the opposite.

If schools are allowed to teach it, then the next question would be what to teach it as. Though some IDers would like it to be taught as science, I would not care. If the foot is already in the door, being welcome should not be jeopardized by demanding to sit in a particular chair. If I were to choose an area to put it in, I'd just make it simply a special elective class and not argue about if it belongs in a science, religion, or philosophy class. I also like one of McCulloch's suggestion of teaching it as a counter-example in critical thinking.

Jose has made many references that ID is simply an example of "bad science". Well, I would say that we should also apply the "Jose principle" here also - let the students conclude for themselves. Simply present the facts and arguments of ID and let the students decide if it's sound or not.