Intelligent Design is derived from the Bible and Christian Fundamentalist Doctrine.
Science has a place in schools; religion does not.
This is not necessarily true. Though it has its roots in the Bible, Intelligent Design is more then that. Plus they aren't saying that they are teaching it as a religious study, but as a logical one. Quite a few school districts have already defined scientific learning as a study of logical explanations for occurances, therefore this theory a long with any other logical theory will now be taught upon request in those school districts.
My point is this if people want to believe the moon is made of cheese and study this in school they should be able to. Why? Because you can not be above reproach in ideals if you start limiting which ideals everyone else should have too.
Actually people are utilizaing this as a tactic. There are a few organizations that are starting to request that their theories, no matter how ridiculous(though logical) have to be taught now, or else they will take action.
But if that movie can indeed show that ID deserves to be treated as a natural science, I am interested to hear about its arguments for it. But as long as there won't be really big news, I stick to my opinion that ID is no scientific theory and should thus not be taught in science classes.
If people want to teach it in religion or ethics classes, I am fine with it.
Well it does make some arguements for ID. The movie is mostly satire then anything else. The main point it brings to light is that the theory is generally discredited because it has religious ties, which the movie claims to be discrimination and the silencing of a dissenting voice.
Intelligent design SHOULD be taught and the paranormal SHOULD also be taught. There are as many issues with the theory of evolution as there are with the theory of intelligent design. To be frank, we really don't have a clue if either is correct because science is NOT absolute (explained next paragraph). Science only has explored a tiny fraction of Earth and space using limited tools of our design (most of Earth remains unexplored, from the rain forests to the deepest depths of the ocean). Furthermore, the paranormal is something science commonly ignores. There is sufficient data out there to explain that paranormal events (such as ghosts, aliens, and alternate dimensions) exist. However, scientific theories attempting to explain these have either not been drafted, ignored, or set aside.
On the contrary, much of the Earth rainforest has been explored thanks to the marvels of computer technology, flying, and statelites, the oceans do somewhat remain a mistery but dozens of expeditions to the depths happen every year.
As for the paranormal and the proof of such activity through the gathering of data. I Would say that data can be manipulated to say many things and draw many different connections. I could relate the number of pirates to average global temperature. Just because the fact that the number of pirates has dropped and average global temperature has risen does not mean one caused the other.
To define science you have to have
1. a theory
3. rational arguments
Intelligent design is this
1. A theory, magical beings created us all from a seriously flawed design spec that has left us open to all sorts of critical system failures and disease.
2. Proof is well, umm, cause we cant believe that we evolved and the bible says so and my mom says always believe the bible cause it answers everything
3. Dont need no rational argument outside of god did it and thats that.
1. They do have a theory, and it is logical as it follows a 'if/then' hypothesis.
2. They do have proofs, tons of written data and documentation, believed and respected by millions.
3. Well that is a rational arguement, but it matters on your point of view.
A theory that we evolved through billions of minor evolutionary changes over billions of years
the proof is in the fossil record, dna understanding and the visible and proven changes that have occurred within various recorded species such as moths going from dark to light to match smog conditions. thousands of individual proofs joined together to form a fairly cohesive theory
rational argument backed by facts and changeable to suit new understandings, findings and scientific discoveries.
that is the difference between myth and science. Science never says the boogeyman did it.
The fossil record has gaps that range from thousands to millions of years. Plus the theory of evolution does not in any way state a process for how life originated in the process. Anyone can therefore say that God began this process and evolution followed the path he chose for it.
Science itself will never be defined as something that is logical but not true. Science is based on mounds of experimental evidence and experimental confirmation. Just because something seems logical does not mean it's true. That being said, why should we train and learn something that isn't true? Sounds ludicrous.
Because that is not how science works. We only have assumptions, we only have logical arguement, we only have the data we collected. Sure some of it may be accepted, just like the theory of evolution, but that by no means makes it true. Nothing in science is an absolute.
The previous assertions are simply false. The connection between the theory of evolution and Nazism is itself far fetched and weak. Nazism is a culmination of Facism, Militarism, and Nationalism playing on people's traditional ideals of romanticism and mysticism. If anything, nationalism -the idea of a pure blooded German people- had more to do with Nazism than the theory of evolution. Also, how does evolution contribute to global warming? If anything, global warming will trigger evolution of species, not the other way around.
Even if these prior assertions were true, should we stop teaching something simply because certain people interpreting knowledge one way can be a detriment to humanity? Should we stop teaching physics because it contributes to people developing bombs and guns?
I am not necessarily argueing for one side or the other. I just wanted to present a premise for the movie. It was sort of an example of the tactics used to discredit evolution and make ID seem more acceptable by comparison.
Here is where the movie tries to blur the lines. Intelligent design itself is based off of no actual testable hypotheses or scientific facts. Thus, it is not scientific. Intelligent design fails to be supported by scientists because it fails basic scientific principles and thus fails to be published in journals, not because it has religious support. Some of the greatest scientific minds are religious and have immense amounts of support, for instance Francis Collins (director of the public Human Genome Project).
Well the movie states that just because it has roots in religion does not mean it can also not be scientific. It brings to light a sort of discrimination against scientific theories that have drawn influence from a religious doctarine. Not to mention that there is proof for ID, not necessarily scientifically documented, but documented none the less. And although it might be strange to follow something that might be a fallacy the data that supports ID has drawn huge support from educators and the general public.
I guarantee that whichever primary schools decide to do this will jeopardize the opportunity of their students to get into any half decent college. Likewise, any university doing this would likely lose their credibility in the world.
I doubt that, they are teaching ID as an alternative to evolution. They are teaching both, and with hope equally.
I always find arguments for "Intelligent Design" laughable, because they place artificial limits on what is "possible" in the natural world with just chemistry, physics, and natural events left to do what they do over billions of years. Over a universe that's at least many billions of light years across, potentially infinite (we'll never know, due to the limited speed of light), how can one say that life is too complex to arise through natural events?
Laughable as they may be, many more people in that a higher power was involved in creation rather then that life just began through conventional means. I mean the current calculated odds for life place our existance at such odds that to many the chance explanation is not enough. It stands to reason that that might be true, for as of now we have no better alternate, scientific explanation then "it happened, and thats that."