This thread isn't about religion, perse. Instead, it's about the creationists who use the word "science" to describe creationism, and who say that intelligent design has nothing to do with religion.

Here is an episode of NOVA that focuses on a battle for the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools. It explains whether or not intelligent design can be called science, and does a damn good job of it.

[swf=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-404729062613200911&hl=en]http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-404729062613200911&hl=en[/swf]
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-404729062613200911&q=nova+intelligent+design+on+trial&total=25&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Because I know many of you are going to get pissed, let me say that this thread is only about science, about the definition and application of the word Science. As an extension, it is also about whether intelligent design can be taught in schools. I make no argument at the beginninging of the thread, and I'll let it move along mostly by itself.

No, no no no no no no.

A public school should NOT teach any religion.
BUT, they're arguing that it is a science, so it should be taught?

Bullshit. "The power of intelligent design science could overthrow Evolution."

I agree, Intelligent Design is religion in disguise. If you want religion, go to church. School is for learning facts.

No Intelligent Design, is explaining how there is something that has guided life to were it is today. Although for sure it like evolution shouldn't be taught as fact but rather two different ideas about the theory of life. Evolution has more evidence but then again it doesn't explain how life got here. And don't say chemical reactions created amino acids, as they can't survive in a environment with oxygen, which just happens to be the key to life on earth.

No one here knows the precise science for the origin of life.

Most biological science accepts evolution anyway, and our current curriculum couldn't give evolution theory status seriously without undermining the rest of the biology course.

But it can be viewed as another explanation. It wouldn't have to replace evolution, it should be told however though. As some things are ridiculously complicated, and are multi dependent upon each other (In other words the would of all had to of come into existence at exactly the same time for that organism to be as it is today. Take the termite for example, the organism inside of its stomach can't survive in a environment with oxygen, and the termite can't digest wood by itself. So if they both evolved at different times why do they need to be like that now?

The evolved to the most efficient way that lets them survive and reproduce.

Maybe they evolved together?

But for the entire species of one organism to be completely co dependent on another which is also completely co-dependent on the first, isn't what I would call the most efficient way to survive, as if the organism inside the termite dies the termite will as well, and the same applies for the organism.

Why develop another layer of complexity when you can survive perfectly well by your self and don't rely on another organism?

As for them developing at the same time they would of had to done it at EXACTLY the same time. Which is completely improbable.

Let me just say this:
Science is observing and experimenting.
No one observed how the world came to be, so nothing pertaining to the matter can accuratly be called science.
Postulation is a better word.
Or maybe "Best guess".


As a side note, I remember hearing that they officially changed the definition of what can be called science.
It's something like: "Science is only stuff that can be explained naturally."

So philosophy cannot be science, right?
The thing is, that truth claim they make when they say, "If it can't be explained naturally, it isn't science," is a philosophical statement by itself...
[/side note]

Please, please, please, don't start another mini-evolution debate. We have a thread for that.

So, Steiner and possibly Doomdooer, does you alternative theory automatically "win" by default because said termite case doesn't make sense?

I'm not conceding defeat, I'm sure Ash will come and explain it to you. But even if you were proved to be right, would intelligent design win because the other was proved wrong? No. Intelligent design must pass the same test that people put evolution through to be declared the "winner".

That is the thing, nothing wins. They are just two different theories, which are trying to explain the world around them. If you look at it from a philosophical point of view the two can actually supplement each other. As Intelligent Design fills in or explains or theorizes about the gaps that evolution has.

"The God of gaps" .

Not so much a religious God, but rather a eternal thing.

Whether it is energy, or something like that. But yeah the "God gaps" is pretty much it.


Also, science I believe started as people where trying to explain the things that happened around them, science started as Philosophy which just happened to say that everything was created as it was the only explanation available at the time, and now some explanations are unable to be explained with current tech. Hence the return to a "religious" thought pattern. It is a cycle.

Quote from Doomdooer

Let me just say this:
Science is observing and experimenting.
No one observed how the world came to be, so nothing pertaining to the matter can accuratly be called science.
Postulation is a better word.
Or maybe "Best guess".

As a side note, I remember hearing that they officially changed the definition of what can be called science.
It's something like: "Science is only stuff that can be explained naturally."

So philosophy cannot be science, right?
The thing is, that truth claim they make when they say, "If it can't be explained naturally, it isn't science," is a philosophical statement by itself...
[/side note]

I disagree, just because we don't have the ability to see the beginning of our universe, doesn't mean we cant observe the after effects of it, and from those after effects we can deduct what the beginning was like. That is science to me.

Science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Errr, what?

Also, science I believe started as people where trying to explain the things that happened around them, science started as Philosophy which just happened to say that everything was created as it was the only explanation available at the time, and now some explanations are unable to be explained with current tech. Hence the return to a "religious" thought pattern. It is a cycle.

I'm very happy to believe that we are moving away from a religiously controlled generation.

Actually we are starting to explain or feel the need to explain things via religion now days, there is a lot more value places on the human physique and mind, then was before. So the people who are deeply rooted in their science are doing what the people who were deeply rooted in the religion are doing, and denying that it could possibly be true.

I see differently than that. lol.