PDA

View Full Version : Iowa State "Intelligent Design not supported by science"


Herzig
08-28-2005, 09:56 AM
Personally, I believe in a Creator and my faith, but I don't see why people want to push for Intelligent Design to be taught in public schools and state universities. Religious dogma has no place there...that's what churches, synagouges, and mosqes are for...Does the US Constitution not clearly state the necessity for the separation of church and state?


http://www.iowastatedaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/08/23/430a8680abec8?in_archive=1

August 23, 2005
LETTER: Intelligent Design not supported by science

Editor�s note: The following was a statement sent to the Daily regarding Intelligent Design, signed by nearly 120 Iowa State faculty members. Most of the names signed have been removed because of space constraints.

We, the undersigned faculty members at Iowa State, reject all attempts to represent Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor.

Advocates of Intelligent Design claim the position of our planet and the complexity of particular life forms and processes are such that they may only be explained by the existence of a creator or designer of the universe.

Such claims, however, are premised on 1) the arbitrary selection of features claimed to be engineered by a designer; 2) unverifiable conclusions about the wishes and desires of that designer; and 3) an abandonment by science of methodological naturalism.

Methodological naturalism, the view that natural phenomena can be explained without reference to supernatural beings or events, is the foundation of the natural sciences. The history of science contains many instances where complex natural phenomena were eventually understood only by adherence to methodological naturalism.

Whether one believes in a creator or not, views regarding a supernatural creator are, by their very nature, claims of religious faith, and not within the scope or abilities of science. We, therefore, urge all faculty members to uphold the integrity of our university of science and technology, and convey to students and the general public the importance of methodological naturalism in science and reject efforts to portray Intelligent Design as science.

Mark R. Ackermann
Professor
Department of Veterinary Psychology

Dean Adams
Assistant Professor
Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology

Roger K. Alexander
Associate Professor
Department of Mathematics

Robert J. Angelici
Distinguished Professor
Department of Chemistry

Daniel Ashlock
Associate Professor
Department of Mathematics

Hector I. Avalos
Associate Professor
Department of Religious Studies

Ethan Badman
Assistant Professor
Department of Chemistry

Jeffrey K. Beetham
Assistant Professor
Department of Veterinary Pathology

Roger Berger
Professor Emeritus
Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering

Cliff Bergman
Professor
Department of Mathematics

Terry L. Besser
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology

Amy Bix
Associate Professor
Department of History

Bryony Bonning
Professor
Department of Entomology

Bonnie S. Bowen
Adjunct Assistant Professor
Department of Ecology, Evolution & Organismal Biology

E. Charles Brummer
Associate Professor
Department of Agronomy

Joseph W. Burnett
Lecturer
Department of Chemistry

C. Lee Burras
Associate Professor
Department of Agronomy

Alexander Burstein
Assistant Professor
Department of Mathematics

Anson Call
Assistant Professor
Department of Art and Design

Cinzia Cervato
Associate Professor
Department of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences

Silvia R. Cianzio
Professor
Department of Agronomy

Michael P. Clough
Associate Professor
Department of Curriculum and Instruction

Joel R. Coats
Professor
Department of Entomology

Jim Colbert
Associate Professor
Department of Ecology, Evolution and Organismal Biology

John D. Corbett
Distinguished Professor
Department of Chemistry

Paula J. Curran
Associate Professor
Department of Art and Design

Dennis Dake
Professor
Department of Art and Design

Jane Dawson
Senior Lecturer
Department of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences

Vinay Dayal
Associate Professor
Department of Aerospace Engineering

Alan A. DiSpirito
Associate Professor
Department of Biochemistry, Biophysics and Molecular Biology

James H. Espenson
Distinguished Professor
Department of Chemistry

Nancy J. Evans
Professor
Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies

Steven L. Fales
Professor
Department of Agronomy

David Fern�ndez-Baca
Professor
Department of Computer Science

Herbert J. Fromm
Charles F. Curtiss Distinguished Professor
Department of Biochemistry, Biophysics and Molecular Biology

Douglas A. Gentile
Assistant Professor
Department of Psychology

B. C. Gerstein
Professor Emeritus
Department of Chemistry

Jack Girton
Associate Professor
Department of Biochemistry, Biophysics and Molecular Biology

David M. Gradwohl
Professor Emeritus
Department of Anthropology

Sara M. Gregg
Assistant Professor
Department of History

William J. Gutowski
Professor
Dept. of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences, and Department of Agronomy

Richard B. Hall
Professor
Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management

Chris Harding
Assistant Professor
Department of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences

Mark S. Hargrove
Associate Professor
Department of Biochemistry, Biophysics, and Molecular Biology

Thomas Harrington
Professor
Department of Plant Pathology

Rachel Haywood-Ferreira
Assistant Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures

Stan Henning
Assistant Professor
Department of Agronomy

Madeleine Henry
Professor
Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures

Kristen Hessler
Lecturer
Department of Biotechnology

Matthew G. Hill
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology

Gordon Hull
Lecturer
Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies

Neal R. Iverson
Professor
Department of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences

Carl Jacobson
Professor
Department of Geological & Atmospheric Sciences

Jean-Luc Jannink
Assistant Professor
Department of Agronomy

Lzen
08-28-2005, 04:16 PM
I would tend to agree. I don't think religion should be taught in schools. They would probably screw up the teaching anyways. But I don't necessarily believe that the symbolism should be removed, such as the 10 commandments. But I'm not losing any sleep over it.

All that being said, I don't have a problem with them wanting to provide an alternative to the Theory of Evolution. I'm sick of this attitude that the theory is fact. And that's the way it is presented a lot of times. The only fact is that it cannot be, nor has it been, proven to be anything other than a theory.

/end rant.

Pitt Gorilla
08-29-2005, 12:22 AM
I would tend to agree. I don't think religion should be taught in schools. They would probably screw up the teaching anyways. But I don't necessarily believe that the symbolism should be removed, such as the 10 commandments. But I'm not losing any sleep over it.

All that being said, I don't have a problem with them wanting to provide an alternative to the Theory of Evolution. I'm sick of this attitude that the theory is fact. And that's the way it is presented a lot of times. The only fact is that it cannot be, nor has it been, proven to be anything other than a theory.

/end rant.
I know. It's like those assholes who teach the theory of gravity like it's some sort of fact. Ugh.

Pants
08-29-2005, 01:46 AM
I would tend to agree. I don't think religion should be taught in schools. They would probably screw up the teaching anyways. But I don't necessarily believe that the symbolism should be removed, such as the 10 commandments. But I'm not losing any sleep over it.

All that being said, I don't have a problem with them wanting to provide an alternative to the Theory of Evolution. I'm sick of this attitude that the theory is fact. And that's the way it is presented a lot of times. The only fact is that it cannot be, nor has it been, proven to be anything other than a theory.

/end rant.
Yeah, to add to what PG said, I think you might be confusing "theory" and "hypothesis."

A lot of people bash the Theory of Evolution without actually ever learning what it's about. The best common example is people saying the [always stupid] "Oh, yeah, how come we don't see apes having human children anymore, if it happened, why did it stop?" or something to that extent... well that's not what T of E teaches, but rather it states that we came from a common ancestor, we branched off as humans and they branched off as chimpanzees, gorillas, etc. We didn't evolve from chimpanzee's we just shared a common ancestor. eventually new species will evolve from humans, branching out even more.

skye22f
08-29-2005, 08:54 AM
All that being said, I don't have a problem with them wanting to provide an alternative to the Theory of Evolution.

Can you think of a scientific alternative? There really isn't one.

I'm sick of this attitude that the theory is fact. And that's the way it is presented a lot of times. The only fact is that it cannot be, nor has it been, proven to be anything other than a theory.

I think before getting all hot and bothered you need to learn the definition of "scientific theory." You are displaying your ignorance for everyone to see here.

Theory of gravity and the germ theory of disease are also "just theories."

Boozer
08-29-2005, 09:18 AM
The best such list remains Project Steve. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/

All other lists, whether pro-Creationism or pro-evolution, pale in comparison.

vailpass
08-29-2005, 01:16 PM
How can this even be a subject for debate?
If I lived in a district that even considered letting this into the school system I would move my family the phuck out of there in a heartbeat.
Ignorant, backward-ass loonies trying to water down science? Great, that should help us re-gain the world wide footing in the scientific fields that we lose each year to other countries.
Phucking hicks.

Lzen
08-29-2005, 02:29 PM
the∑o∑ry Audio pronunciation of "theory" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thÓr)
n. pl. the∑o∑ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


I think #6 would best describe the Theory of Evolution. And since we have gravity and can run experiments on it currently, I don't think that's a fair comparison. There have been several parts of the TofE over the years that have been changed because they discovered that they were wrong. But don't let that stop ya.

vailpass
08-29-2005, 03:14 PM
the∑o∑ry Audio pronunciation of "theory" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thÓr)
n. pl. the∑o∑ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


I think #6 would best describe the Theory of Evolution. And since we have gravity and can run experiments on it currently, I don't think that's a fair comparison. There have been several parts of the TofE over the years that have been changed because they discovered that they were wrong. But don't let that stop ya.

Do you live in an area that incorpoates ID into the school system? What are your thoughts on teaching school children non-scientific theories?

#1 describes Evolution. #1 cannot be said to describe ID.
One is science, the other superstition.

irishjayhawk
08-29-2005, 03:22 PM
How can this even be a subject for debate?
If I lived in a district that even considered letting this into the school system I would move my family the phuck out of there in a heartbeat.
Ignorant, backward-ass loonies trying to water down science? Great, that should help us re-gain the world wide footing in the scientific fields that we lose each year to other countries.
Phucking hicks.

Thank you! We lose alot of ground because we try to inject religion into everything rather than focusing on what we actually know.

Mr. Laz
08-29-2005, 03:30 PM
religion can be taught in school, i have no problem with it.

science classes teaches evolution and science based classes

theology classes etc teaches creationism/intelligent design type classes


just stop trying to leverage one against the other

|Zach|
08-29-2005, 03:36 PM
I remember my second semester of college I had a BioMedical science classs and a Religion class. I mentioned that I was stressed out because they were 2 of 3 finals I had in one day. One CPer (I can't remember who) said...

"It must be hard trying to study different answers to the same questions with those classes next to eachother."

Gave me a few laughs.

Logical
08-29-2005, 03:51 PM
....
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


I think #6 would best describe the Theory of Evolution. And since we have gravity and can run experiments on it currently, I don't think that's a fair comparison. There have been several parts of the TofE over the years that have been changed because they discovered that they were wrong. But don't let that stop ya.I am sorry but ROFL ROFL ROFL

Mr. Laz
08-29-2005, 04:04 PM
the∑o∑ry Audio pronunciation of "theory" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thÓr)
n. pl. the∑o∑ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


I think #6 would best describe the Theory of Evolution. And since we have gravity and can run experiments on it currently, I don't think that's a fair comparison. There have been several parts of the TofE over the years that have been changed because they discovered that they were wrong. But don't let that stop ya.
and religion wouldn't even rate being classified a "theory"


is there a "wildass rumor" category?

|Zach|
08-29-2005, 04:06 PM
Theories do not assume absolute truth. It is based on as much information as we know and presented as such.

vailpass
08-29-2005, 04:15 PM
Theories do not assume absolute truth. It is based on as much information as we know and presented as such.

With the key component being that it can be either proven or disproven given the right data set and test conditions.

Earthling
08-30-2005, 12:11 AM
Life was so much simpler when the earth was the center of the universe...

KC Jones
08-30-2005, 06:50 AM
the∑o∑ry Audio pronunciation of "theory" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thÓr)
n. pl. the∑o∑ries

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


I think #6 would best describe the Theory of Evolution. And since we have gravity and can run experiments on it currently, I don't think that's a fair comparison. There have been several parts of the TofE over the years that have been changed because they discovered that they were wrong. But don't let that stop ya.

Dictionaries have to include popular usage into their definitions. That is not the definition of theory as part of the scientific method. The only one that fits well fir the general scientific method is number one. Stated another way:

A theory is a generalization based on many observations and experiments; a well-tested, verified hypothesis that fits existing data and explains how processes or events are thought to occur. It is a basis for predicting future events or discoveries. Theories may be modified as new information is gained. This definition of a theory is in sharp contrast to colloquial usage, where people say something is ďjust a theory,Ē thereby intending to imply a great deal of uncertainty.