Voices: Room for intelligent design

In her column of Oct. 23, Globe Editor Carol Stark mentioned the Chinese concept of the conflict between the yin and the yang producing harmony in the world.

[MikeF]

The teaching of intelligent design is not banned. You are free to discuss it all you want - as your post demonstrates. But until scientific proof is presented (and peer reviewed), it has no place in a science class.

In public schools, approximately 3% of the total number of hours in a week are devoted to teaching science. The remaining 97% is available to you to teach whatever you want. So what's the problem?

[Erasmus05]

The leaps of logic that creationists take is staggering. From the article:

"My point is that the laws we discover (or postulate) in physics are instances of wider laws that apply in all areas of existence. Therefore, to ban the teaching of intelligent design is to place legal blinders on the mind."

How does one get from physical laws to intelligent design? Why not also say that the theoroms of geometry apply in all areas. Therefore, to ban the teaching of leprechauns is to place legal blinders on the mind. It makes zero sense.

[15th Dalai Lama]

The whole ID/DI thing is reminiscent of Orwell's Minitrue.

[Sheila]

I've never seen so many logical fallacies crammed into such a short statement before ! Using Shakespeare as an authoritative ( irrelevant authority!) source on intelligent design ? A playwright, seriously ? And the "appeal to ignorance ?" When intelligent design has no evidential proof to back it up ? This woman is begging for a thrashing. I loved the false analogy of comparing the movements of the cosmos to sex ! That's really showing her reach is beyond her grasp.

[superdelegate]

whatever makes humanity go ahead,there's 'room' for it

[MIDutch]

superdelegate wrote:

whatever makes humanity go ahead,there's 'room' for it

Absolutely, but that does NOT mean it should be taught in science classrooms.

[The Dude]

Not that ID will make humanity 'go ahead'. It's useless.

[NightSerf]

The places to talk about creationism and intelligent design in public education would be in classes dealing with politics, social tensions, and public debate, not in science classes. In those classes, the focus should not be on whether the "alternatives" have any merit, but on the social and political impact that their proponents are making on society and science education. Except perhaps for exercise designed to hone debating skills, I see no place in public education for promoting them as serious alternatives to real science.

[Mr Giblets]

superdelegate wrote:

whatever makes humanity go ahead,there's 'room' for it

creationism and intelligent design make humanity go backwards, like Islam does.

[karl44]

When teaching intelligent design, how would the teacher separate that concept from “Judeo-Christian” or “yhwh” belief systems?

And how would “other” religions react to the message of one religion in public schooling?

What would be taught as “intelligent design”? How many hours does it take to say that “some people believe that the universe was majiked into existence”? What would they do after that --- bash evolution and “Darwinism”?

[LowellGuy]

karl44 wrote:

When teaching intelligent design, how would the teacher separate that concept from “Judeo-Christian” or “yhwh” belief systems?
And how would “other” religions react to the message of one religion in public schooling?
What would be taught as “intelligent design”? How many hours does it take to say that “some people believe that the universe was majiked into existence”? What would they do after that --- bash evolution and “Darwinism”?

Don't forget bashing the atheists.