The virus of Intelligent Design, that is. A new survey has shown that 40% of Brits think that ID should be taught in science classes. The first person to comment on this idiocy was David Attenborough, the man who I formerly had thought was practically single-handedly responsible for the general scientific (particularly biological) savvy amongst the general public. But he's been less frequently on our screens in the last decade or so (pace the new phenomenal series shown at the end of last year, Life In The Undergrowth) and we've sunk back into our mud of superstitious ignorance.
there is a scientific basis for this "superstition" the question i ask is why would something like this evolve? http://washingtontimes.com/world/20...11404-8087r.htm
Silas, where was this reported? I'd love to know where the people were polled, 'cos I really doubt 40% could name the Apostles, or even half the books in the bible.
Intelligent design doesn't always have religious implications. Dorian Sagan and Lynn Margulis wrote a fascinating book called Acquiring Genomes, about other forces of change that augment the standard, sexual and natural selection, random mutation models of evolution. They don't argue that Darwinism is wrong just that it is incomplete and forces all modes of change in the natural order into a theoretical bed of Procustus.
Actually, allow me to qualify. I don't think Sagan or Margulis would ascribe intelligent design to their idea of evolution, just propose it as another force for change. I read through the thread too quickly. Ooops.
Cross phyla fertilization as described in Margulis and Sagan's (son of Carl) book: This is from a book review. Having read the book myself, I can vouch for the accuracy of the seq squirt story. The standard evolutionary theorists attack Margulis, (of course), but they don't dispute the authenticity of the examples she uses to support her theory. "But there are even weirder things going on in the deep. In her book Acquiring Genomes, the respected microbiologist Lynn Margulis cites the observation of sea urchins fertilizing the eggs of a sea squirt named Ascidia mentula. Not only did the fertilized eggs survive this bizarre coupling, but they developed fully parental larvae, according to Margulis. Here's the weird part. Not only are the mating pairs from different species, they're from different phyla. One is from the Echinodermata phylum (Echinoderms are spiny sea creatures that include starfish and sea urchins), the other is from the superphylym Chordata. (Chordates include all the backboned "megafauna," such as tigers, alligators, elephants, sharks, condors, etc.) This is far weirder than a man mating with a mouse. It's more like a rhinoceros getting jiggy with a petunia and plopping out rhitunias. Bear in mind that the definition of species, according to the concise Oxford, is: "a category in the system of classification of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding." http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465043917/102-2431603-6186505?v=glance&n=283155
At the end of the day we are all lifeforms stuck on a planet because of the unadaptive nature to travel away from it. (admittedly humans have been evolving ways to escape it's surface, however it's proven to be a very slow process, as with anything stated to be "Evolutionary".) With this in mind it pretty much means we all are genetically connected from out containment not expanding out beyond this worldly barrier. Where differences occur in nature is purely down to microecological environments, for instance cave systems have microecologies that support different "evolutionary" paths of lifeforms, or the depths of the sea to which creatures that survive at the bottom might not do so well near the surface because of the atmospheric pressure being different. Another reason for out genetic soup is the food chain, where some predatorial creatures eat other creatures and therefore ingest their genetics. Those right down at the "Bottom feeding" end deal with some of the planetary cleanup operations like worms, flies (maggots), beetles etc. I don't think there is any plausible arguement to undermine "Evolution". Even if mankind starts to manipulate the evolution of cells, it doesn't support creationism as much as proving Evolution. afterall it would take a sophisticated science to bring about an alteration and that science itself had to Evolve. To put it bluntly, without Evolution there would be no grounds for "Creationism".
it seems the page my link refers to has been removed here is another link http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2004/articles_2004_hamer.html
Thanks. Good old Sir David. But I have doubts about those figures, it seems far too high, so I'd like to know what the questions were, and whether that article distilled the results a little too much. Especially the phrase "religious alternatives to Darwin's theory of evolution should be taught as science". Taught IN science classes maybe, but taught AS science? I really doubt that wording. I'm going to dig some more, those figures disturb me!
These other forces, are they 'intelligent'? Sentient? ID is religious, it's an attempt to sneak religion in via the back door. What possesses the intelligence, if not some god? Maybe they are saying nature is intelligent? If science teachers are forced to teach ID, I'd love them to teach it from a Wiccan perspective, just to piss off Xtians.
Phlogistine, I qualified the "intelligent design" comment in a follow up post. And no, I don't think other theories of evolution and change always infer intelligent design, or offer a back door to let "God" sneak into the classroom.
I have no problem with intelligent design being taught alongside other competing theories. THEORY. :m:
I wouldn't worry about these findings. I live in the UK and nobody I know is seriously religious, although chances are if you put a piece of paper under their noses many of them would tick ID or creationism because it's cuter.
I've no problem with intelligent design, just so long as it's not taught in science as there's no proof of intelligent design that can be tested. It belongs more in philosophy or some other similar course. - N
Silas, another article on this study; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm Where is says ID should be taught IN science lessons, not AS science, ... so I think the wording of the first article was rather sensationalist. Aha, here's the MORI poll questions; http://www.mori.com/polls/2006/bbc-horizon.shtml But, knowing how little attention people give the actual wording of questions, I think most would not have answered differently from 'at school' to in school science lessons' in question 2. I think the concept of teaching ID and creationism in science lessons, instead of Religious Education lessons should have been stressed in the question, to get a fairer picture.
I wonder what they classified 'Intelligent Design' as in the polls? God created all species as they are? All animals evolved, but humans were specially created? Evolution occurred, but God was the driving force? God place a single cell here, created natural laws, and then just let it evolve by itself?
That is the question, isn't it? What I don't get about ID, is the selectiveness of the argument. It seems to rely on just some things being too complicated to have evolved, not all life, which seems absurd. ID proponents make cases based on specific organisms, or species. Just where do you place the bar, therefore? Surely, it has to be all, or nothing? ID seems to be a rather apologetic theory, not discounting evolution as a mechanism (guided by god, of course) but not making any specific claims, so as to not offend fundamentalists.
