intelligent design? in school science lessons?
Posted by: woodchurchscience in B1b, biology, discussion, ks3, ks4, warren, y10state schools could teach the theory of intelligent design in science lessons, the church of england’s new head of education has suggested. the rev jan ainsworth, who is responsible for more than 4,600 schools, said intelligent design - which argues that living species are too complex to have evolved through natural selection and must therefore be the product of a guiding “designer” such as God - could form part of discussions in science lessons.
keith wood, executive director of the national secular society, said:
“intelligent design is nothing to do with science and therefore nothing to do with the history of science. We challenge the church of england to keep religion out of science lessons and unless it does so its educational reputation will be tarnished with the stigma of fundamentalism.”
stephen cox, executive secretary of the royal society, said:
“the theory of evolution is supported by the weight of scientific evidence. the theory of intelligent design is not. the royal society supports questioning and debate in science lessons, as long as it is not designed to undermine young people’s confidence in the value of scientific evidence.”
so, what do you think? let us know by clicking on the comments link.
Entries (RSS)
June 4th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
It’s the starting point that makes all the difference, because the evidence is absolutely overwhelming. If you start with an open mind and just happen to have read the opening chapters of God’s word, then all the evidence from microscopic up causes you to praise our maker, for His amazing design. Molecules to man is just not possible without the DNA code, which is not a random series of bases, but follows an intelligent, orderly plan.
June 4th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
you make the assumption that the Bible is a guidebook that should be followed word for word. many creationists fall into this trap. they end up cherry picking the bits they want to believe in and ‘re-interpret’ those bits which they don’t want. either you follow it as God’s word or you don’t, you can’t surely pick and choose.
there is however overwhelming evidence for evolution both small-scale, (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale, (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).
June 5th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
I like your assumption about Creationist assumptions. Yes to guide book and to word for word, but cherry picking is for the person who doesn’t regard it as wholly trustworthy. Actually, the evolutionist who wants to accept the Bible as the Word of God is the cherry picker. Anyway Jesus was a Creationist, and He rose from the dead, so that’ll do me. It all depends on where you start from. Back to science - you’ll have to do better than saying
“there is however overwhelming evidence for evolution both small-scale, (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale, (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).”
How about some real evidence of this ? Meanwhile, I’ll just look at organs of the body, the legs of a sparrow and the chemical processes involved in photosynthesis. They are truely awsome and He deserves the credit. Thanks for the discussion. What assumptions does the person who denies Intelligent Design need to make ?
June 5th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
so, you accept everything in the bible as truth, and should be followed word for word? if that is the case i’ll stop this ‘debate’ now. surely you don’t believe (though i predict that you absolutely do) all that extremist violence stuff in the old testament (Leviticus 20:13, Numbers 15:32-36 etc) as well as the more well known, creation in six days, noah’s ark, the flood and the whole young earth creation mantra, notwithstanding all the inconsistencies found in the new testament. as scientists lets really stick to the science, you give me scientific proof (not ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ and ‘evolution is the work of the devil’), some real scientific proof for the existence of god and a 10000 year old earth and perhaps then we’ll continue with this. and please don’t turn this argument around, there ‘is’ plenty of evidence for evolution. i’d argue that there is less evidence for creation or intelligent design.
June 10th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
The Royal Society admits that discussion and debate is good as long as it does not “undermine young people’s confidence in the value of scientific evidence”. Therefore, we must ask ourselves if teaching the theory of intelligent design would do this. Our belief is that this theory is actually built on scientific evidence! After all, any design at all would, by definition, require intelligence for without intelligence design would not be possible. Every product has to have a designer, be it a house, a chair or even a kit-kat or a bar of soap. As human beings, christians believe that we are products of a super-designer’s handiwork. The question becomes “Who is that super-designer?” and more importantly “Is there any alternative theory?”
The designer can only be someone outside of and higher than us mortal beings and we inevitably come to the conclusion that only a Creator/God could have designed bodies with the complexities of ours. That we are here by chance is surely unthinkable. How can anyone regard himself/herself as an accident? Of course, it may be convenient to those who would feel uncomfortable about being in debt to a higher being, to simply accept without considering the scientific evidence, that there is no super-designer, but for Christians, their conclusion must be that we are in debt to our Creator and we must devote our whole lives to the purpose of knowing him?
June 11th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn’t understand evolution as ‘we are here by chance is surely unthinkable. How can anyone regard himself/herself as an accident?’ Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don’t interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.
The origin of the first life (abiogenesis) is also not due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn’t need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).
Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don’t state what the “givens” are but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.
June 20th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
The argument is very complex. on one hand you have this all powerful creator, on the other you have the theory of evolution.
the theory of evolution suggest that everything came from one single cell organism. The main problem with this is that no one was around to determine that this is true. Even the greatest scientist cannot be certain that this is right.
The bible on the other hand has many faults as well. For instance who created God. All the animals kill each other. if God exists and loves all animals, then surely he would let them all live.
June 20th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
WHAT SHALL WE TEACH THE CHILDREN?
Both points of view should be mentioned- creation and evolution- as mutually exclusive theories believed by different groups of intelligent and educated people.
To write off creationists as ‘blind fundamentalists’, or to give children the impression that all scientist believe in evolution, is to betray our own ignorance.
The last Q to be asked –who made God
Answer- nobody made him, God is the maker of all things.
The Bible never tries to prove the existence of God, because everyone knows by instinct that someone must have made this amazingly complex and wonder filled world.
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Okay Holden, thanks for taking the trouble to respond. It is a very important issue. The Bible teaches that God made all things good and when Adam disobeyed God, Sin and death entered this world for the first time. God cursed the earth and we continue to suffer the consequences. However, the same God has entered this world in the person of the Son, taking our flesh and blood and endured the curse of His father in the place of sinners like me. Having taken the curse for his people, Christians look forward to entering heaven where there is no sin or death. So, Christians worship God who is both Creator and Redeemer. Indeed, one of the best resons to worship God is when we think that the Person who suffered His Father’s wrath upon my sin in my place, was actually the Creator of the whole universe. You wonder who created God, but that is to ask the impossible, because the bible teaches that God is eternal, without beginning, He has always been and will always be. He is not like us or he would not require our worship. The wrath of God upon sin is crucial, and not easy to accept, but how else can we explain the point of Christ’s cross. On that cross we see both Justice and mercy and the fulfillment of several thousand years of promises that there would one day be a Saviour who would deal with our guilt, by dying like an inocent lamb to the slaughter. Maybe it’s time to stop there, except to encourage you to look at the world of biology and consider the amazing design at every level. I am a creationist because the Bible teaches it clearly, but as a science teacher I find the evidence only supports my belief and provides a myriad of reasons to stand in awe of His handiwork. All the best with the Chem and Phys tests on Monday.