Dr BLT's Blog n Roll Studio
an innovative fusion of music and discussion centering around a variety of topics
A blog about Arts & Entertainment, Health & Wellness, and Kern County.
Real Name: Bruce Thiessen Member Since: July 29, 2006 Last Signed In: October 10, 2008 Profile Views: 14805 Blog Views: 86933 Ridin' the Wild Horse on Wall Street Dr BLTrivia: Name the 7-consecutive-Star-Search-winning-band that first played on this Dr BLTune Sign of the Times: Topic, tune and talk about the sign-stealing incident minus consequences We all Suck: Song inspired by the one Bako blogger who dared to be different Sing us a Song (We're the Taliban): Sung to Obama to the tune of Joel's "Piano Man" Reid between the Lines: Why does he always look so stern? Oh Nancy! Why is a non-partisan like me unabashedly bashing Pelosi in this rock song? Everything is Fallin' Apart (The Humpty Dumpty Song): I hope I'm wrong about the economy. Deal or no deal? Apparently, nobody asked House Republicans And I Quote: Excerpts from the Dr BLT interviews: Stealing signs may be a sign of a deeper rage. August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 http://www.drblt.net 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
Is There Room for Intelligent Design in the Classroom?
Some people consider it pseudoscience, a complex hoax designed by the conservative Christians to smuggle the Bible into the classroom. Some people, on the other hand, believe it to be a viable theory that is worthy of classroom consideration. Quite frankly, I don't care what "some people" think. I want to know why you think on the subject. Does Intelligent Design make sense as a theory? Is there room of Intelligent Design in the classroom?
You know the blog n roll routine. After listening to the song, and reflecting on the lyrics contained therein, and after reading what I have entered right here on this blog space, make a comment. Say it respectfully, say it in the spirit of intelligent debate and dialogue. But by all means, speak your mind, before somebody else speaks on behalf of your mind. BTW, the song featured here, Handful of Dirt is from the Daniel Sisco CD: Daniel Sisco Sings Dr. BLT's Handful of Tunes. For more information, visit: http://www.drblt.net I'm also at myspace.com and Phantom Tollbooth, to name just a couple. http://www.tollbooth.org 19 comments from 9 users
1
posted by
jermox
on Nov 17, 2006 at 12:08 AM
The problem is not intelligent design as a theory, but as a scientific theory. Scientific theory is tested by experiments and is supported by scientific evidence. The theory of intelligent design can not be tested and verified. Without that it cannot be considered a science.Now as a philosophy major I would say the argument of metaphysics is a valid one and maybe that is where ideas like intelligent design belong. But as a science it doesn't hold much merit. As for the song it's a pretty song and refreshing not negative. I can't say much more, music isn't my stong point. posted by
blognroll
on Nov 17, 2006 at 06:50 AM
I appreciate your thoughtful, reflective comments, and also the compliment on the song. I think perhaps folks in religious circles have become defensive, and may have fallen into the trap of thinking that if it's not scientific, it's not legitimate.
posted by
robbwillis
on Nov 17, 2006 at 07:45 AM
Song's not bad, but I'd have them crank it all the way up to Concrete Blonde intensity. As for Intelligent Design, something I've learned from others here is that I'm ok with it being taught as long as all the other crackpot theories are covered without favoritism to any. posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Nov 17, 2006 at 07:46 AM
Intelligent Design is a fascinating question and a worthwhile question. . That said, it is also a philosophical question. Intelligent Design theory can only make scientifically testable predictions about the world and the universe if one first commences with a profoundly unscientific step: making assumptions about the nature of the intelligence thought to have designed things. . For instance, if you attribute things like "purposeful" and "not cruel" to the intelligence, would you expect creations like fleas, ticks, and tapeworms? Probably not. You can use science to rule out certain characteristics of a designer, but not much else. A teacher adept in the subject could use an Intelligent Design curriculum to rule out the Bible God as a possible candidate. . On the question of whether Intelligent Design theory is being used to smuggle religious dogma into science classes, those of us who are wary of it base our concerns on what we have caught them trying to smuggle in. In both the Dover and the El Tejon Unified cases, we caught them tipping their hands. There was no idle speculation to be dismissed as paranoia. It was there for all eyes to see. posted by
randomfactor
on Nov 17, 2006 at 07:59 AM
Right next to the phlogiston theory of heat and the geocentric model of the solar system. But with all the accurate information we have to impart to students in a relatively short time, do we really have time to teach them all about the discredited ideas of the past too? My favorite Intelligent Design song (New York Dolls): http://www.youtube.com/watc... posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Nov 17, 2006 at 08:33 AM
As long as Jedi gets the same amount of time, I guess it would be OK.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/... It's catching on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... posted by
mattloch
on Nov 17, 2006 at 09:29 AM
I need to remember that during the next census, Pete.I wouldn't object to it being taught in a philosophy class, as long as my pasta pal is (as well as myself are) included in the discussion..... posted by
randomfactor
on Nov 17, 2006 at 09:32 AM
That's the catch in teaching creationism--either you teach *ALL* the creation myths--Inuit, Babylonian, Roman, Christian--or you single out some and make them "state-approved" religions. Which is what the ID Creationists want, of course--their mythology taught above all others.
posted by
TomW
on Nov 17, 2006 at 09:39 AM
What I have never understood is the mechanism posited for intellegent design. I think it's more philosophical, but once we begin to look at the science, we do enter a strange world where, as H4F hinted, we end up applying scientific investigation into the nature of God.
posted by
mattloch
on Nov 17, 2006 at 09:42 AM
It is entirely philosophical, Tom. You are at a total loss if you try to apply scientific standards to the theory, which is why people are so opposed to it being taught in biology or other science classes.
posted by
randomfactor
on Nov 17, 2006 at 09:48 AM
Actually, Tom, you wind up in a place where we are *DISCOURAGED* from applying scientific investigation because the answer is assumed to be "God did it.". ID is not scientific knowledge--it is a denial of scientific knowledge. posted by
TomW
on Nov 17, 2006 at 10:02 AM
I don't know, that might have come in handy on those visits to the vice-principal's office...
posted by
mattloch
on Nov 17, 2006 at 10:18 AM
Tom, is that anything like "there is no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole"? Or are you looking for a scientific way to disprove the existance of the vice-principal?From Wikipedia: The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. QED" "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing. posted by
blognroll
on Nov 17, 2006 at 10:25 AM
I have three points to make in response. First, the idea that there is a pure science, a 100% irrefutable science is a myth. We can only make successive approximations towards objectivity. Moreover, when we place ourselves at the center of a "scientific" experiment, even as an "objective" observer or recorder of data, we have, by our very involvement (peripheral though it may be) contaminated the results. Second, the assignment of science as a separate entity, is an arbitrary one, based on a Platonically-based dualistic model of the universe with the body and mind being separate. Those proclaiming to be scientists must, at the very least, acknowledge that science and philosophy are inseparable disciplines. Since Plato, Western schools have operated according to the arbitrary compartmentalization of disciplines. This division is for the sake of convenience and simplification and has no real basis in the natural universe. Finally, when begin our so-called "scientific" endeavors, and start with the underlying presupposition that there is no God, we get caught in an absurd, circular argument. God doesn't exist, so if something seems to possess divine attributes, the "divineness," that is perceived cannot be "divineness," and therefore must obviously be based on false perception or deulsion, not reality. posted by
mattloch
on Nov 17, 2006 at 10:44 AM
That is why evolution (as well as gravity, light, relativity, and other things) is termed a "theory", not as in "we think this is a good idea" but as "the preponderance of evidence seems to indicate". There is nothing that is 100% verifiable in science (which is why they use the term "theory" and not "fact"). But there are "testable" criteria, objective ways to confirm that the theory "holds water" so to speak. Evolution can be tested by using the "scientific method", and has been for decades. Intelligent Design cannot. Period. End of science class. If it is your position that scientists cannot put forth valid "theories" because of their "subjectivity" in relation to the scientific process, I would refer you to the "dark ages" in Europe, where the church set forth scientific theories. Because religious leaders and beliefs had the least in common to science, would that not make them the definitive source for scientific theories? Your perversion of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (and perhaps Schrodinger's theory of observational influence) is misplaced and misleading at best, and an outright purposeful distraction at worst.The separation in this case is completely justified and supportable. When talking about the "thought process" and "beliefs", you get into a bit of overlap between brain chemistry and philosophy, but not when talking about evolution. How do you prove "divineness"? The circular argument comes when you argue for ID. I have yet to see a scientific test of "divinity". How would you even identify it, let alone test for it? This argument is the absurdity. posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Nov 17, 2006 at 10:44 AM
Doc, you should introduce philosophy more often. It's one of your best subjects.posted by
blognroll
on Nov 17, 2006 at 01:49 PM
Hardliner, thanks, although I'm unworthy of such a compliment. For me, humility is the beginning of wisdom, and the more I learn, the more I grasp the vastness of the domain comprising that which I do not know. In terms of your question of how I can prove "divineness," mattloch, the answer is that I cannot and would not want to try. It's something that one must experience for him or herself in order to comprehend. In terms of how I would identify "divineness," the human language is beyond words that could even come close to identifying it. It is beyond words. In terms of the prospect of getting into a circular argument when arguing for ID, I have never sought to argue for it. I have simply refrained from arguing against it, and I have tried to keep an open mind. When we try to prove something to exist, we only end up making fools of ourselves. When we try to prove that something does not exist, we end up bearing the title, King of Fools. The only thing that brings us knowledge of the existence of something or somebody is a deeply personal knowledge or an experiential knowledge. posted by
jbgage
on Nov 19, 2006 at 08:33 AM
dr. bruce.unfortunately, i don't believe that we have the power to decide whether or not it is a valuable theory and placed within the classroom. but we should look at the history of those theories that have made it into the classroom. what characteristics do they possess and does intelligent design have them. in my opinion... i do agree with jermox, intelligent design theory will most likely not be included in the classroom because of its lack of measurability. however, by definition measurability is a scientific term and intelligent design does not have roots in science. so, for the time being, it appears that evolutionary theory is winning the battle over intelligent design theory. p's out. j.b.gage posted by
blognroll
on Nov 19, 2006 at 08:55 AM
Thanks. Great comments!
1
Our readers recommend: |
