Public School Curriculum Content
In this era of progressive thinking and open mindedness, it was only a matter of time before society tried to change our school system for the better. The long-standing theories of Charles Darwin on evolution are finally being contested. Intelligent Design has emerged as the leading opposition to Darwin's blasphemy, but another equally valid theory has recently made some noise in the world of evolution. The Flying Spaghetti Monster's Intelligent Design, also known as FSMism, has recently built up quite a following. These two theories are pushing very hard to one day be in our high school curriculum. Are ID and FSMism both worthy of being taught in our schools or is one more scientifically valid?
Intelligent Design, or ID, states that there are certain aspects in nature that show individual signs of intelligence that can not be accounted for, or that are too complex for our understanding. Therefore, an "Intelligent Designer" must have deliberately created everything in nature that shows this unaccountable sign of intelligence.
Followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, also called Pastafarians, follow the same criteria as ID proponents. On top of those ideals, Brian D Rabern, a Pastafarian and a member of the Department of Philosophy at UC Santa Barbara, adds another perspective. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause for existence. Since no scientific explanation can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be supernatural, i.e. a god. Therefore, a god exists. Gods create humans in their own image. The brains of humans resemble a bowl of spaghetti. Thus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true god." This statement brings up the most blaring difference between ID and FSMism, the fact that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is defined and ID has no particular designer.
The fact that ID has no specified designer has both positive and negative effects on the theory. On the one hand, having no higher power defined brings the separation of Church and State out of the equation. Conversely, since no higher power is mentioned, one would have to come to the conclusion that there is not just one higher power. ID states that an "Intelligent Designer" must have created anything that shows an unexplainable intelligence. This means that the "Intelligent Designer" would have to have unexplainable intelligence of his own which would lead to the conclusion that their must be another designer that designed him.
In 1986, Richard Dawkins suggested that Paley's "design" argument might have been the best explanation in the 19th century for the existence of God and the intelligent design of the universe in his novel The Blind Watchmaker. Although Paley succeeded in making his argument, Dawkins argued that it had one major defect; the explanation itself. “Paley’s argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of his day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong.” (Dawkins : 606) Paley gave the traditional religious answer to who our designer is: God.
The Dover Area School District of Dover, Pennsylvania is seeking approval from the General Assembly of Pennsylvania House to include the theory of intelligent design in the instruction of biology. Intelligent design, also known as I.D., is a theory that seeks to refute the widely-accepted and scientifically-supported evolution theory. It proposes that the complexity of living things and all of their functioning parts hints at the role of an unspecified source of intelligence in their creation (Orr). For all intents and purposes, the evidence cited by I.D. supporters consists only of the holes or missing links in evolutionary theory; it is a widely-debate proposal, not because ?of the significant weight of its evidence,? but because ?of the implications of its evidence? (IDnet).
There are several forms of the design argument. The general form of the design argument starts with the basic idea that certain parts of the universe are such that they indicate that they have been designed and have a purpose. The argument uses this fact to prove the existence of an ultimate designer, in particular, God.
In very complex machines, missing or undiscovered parts are more likely to arise; yet, such disorder would no doubt make an individual more curious as to the objects purpose. Although in some cases, a part may seem useless, the individual would continue to question and wonder what purpose that part serves. No one could believe that the watch was assembled together with sheer luck; therefore, an intelligent designer exists. The watch is definitely not made by the principle of order and it is not believable to say or think that the watch was not invented. Design cannot exist without the designer. Every appearance of design, which exists in the watch, exists in the works of nature. While the world is far more complex than a simplistic instrument, like a watch, it is no different when compared at the base levels, especially when seeing that both are so mechanical, showing elements of order.
An argument is defined as presenting reasons for a conclusion in order to convince an audience of a certain point of view and an explanation as a clarification of why something has happened. An argument contains some form of an opinion while an explanation holds only facts, this does not mean that a well-constructed argument is not without facts. The second piece, Lisa Fullam’s, Of God and the Case for Unintelligent Design is evidently the argument. The title itself, “unintelligent design” proves this reasoning, she provides facts/reasoning for her audience to believe that the notion of intelligent design is unintelligent in and of itself because nature has too many flaws. Fullam provides facts about rabbit digestion, horse digestion, mammalian testicles, and human back ache followed by her opinions. First, to Elizabeth Bumiller, who doesn’t take a side while providing facts for each side, Fullam feelings strong about her opinions, her sarcastic questions help the audience tap
John Polkinghorne’s The Universe as Creation does its best to not convince the reader of Intelligent Design, but rather to dissuade the reader from the notion that although the is intelligently designed, but in this way, it has made science possible.
...e teleological argument is doomed to failure, unless some more concrete empirical evidence is discovered that would perhaps strengthen the inference, for there seems no reason for one to accept God as the intelligent designer, even if one accepts there is a divine designer.
The Intelligent Design argument is the most recent formulation of the teleological argument. “Proponents point out that although we cannot know that something has not been designed, we can detect design in systems whose functions are irreducibly complex” (Peterson 108). These systems are single systems where each has parts that contribute to the basic function. Therefore, the removal of any of these parts would cause the system to stop functioning. Overtime these systems produce a result better than what each part would have produced separately. This theory also disputes that the process of natural selection is enough to explain the complexity of living organisms. The theory states that the complexity must come from the work of an intelligent designer.
The Intelligent Design Theory says that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complicated structures of biology and that these causes are analytically evident. Certain biological features defy the random-chance explanation because they appear to have been designed. Since design logically requires an intelligent designer, the appearance of design means there is evidence for a designer.
In “The Argument of Design,” William Paley argues that the universe has a designer. The need for an intelligent designer is portrayed through his comparison between a watch and the human eye. In this paper, I will critically evaluate William Paley’s argument by giving a brief summery of the content I will be focusing on and discuss how I believe that his arguments are not valid.
Its existence could be purely made by nature and no one would suspect there is a design that has created it. If there is a watch instead of a rock, then the case is different. By inspecting the watch, it is intricate to see many components that interact with one another so that the purpose is fulfilled as time-keeping. This configuration cannot be the product of nature through some certain internal principles. It is unavoidable to imply there is an intelligent planning mind that has conceived it and created it. Therefore, each human artifacts infers an intelligent designer. The universe has more in one way that resembles human artifacts. Given those two premises, a conclusion is drawn that perhaps the universe is also a product of an intelligent design. Moreover, the universe is far more complex and vast in size and variation that the intelligent designer is much more sophisticated and mighty in
"AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory." AAAS. N.p., 2002. Web. 7 Nov 2010. .
In 1859, Charles Darwin published his groundbreaking Origin of Species, which would introduce the seminal theory of evolution to the scientific community. Over 150 years later, the majority of scientists have come to a consensus in agreement with this theory, citing evidence in newer scientific research. In an average high school biology classroom, one may imagine an instructor that has devoted much of his life to science and a predominantly Christian class of about twenty-five students. On the topic of evolution, one of the students might ask, “Why would God have taken the long route by creating us through billion years of evolution?” while another student may claim “The Book of Genesis clearly says that the earth along with all living creatures was created in just six days, and Biblical dating has proven that the earth is only 6000 years old.” Finally a third student interjects with the remark “maybe the Bible really is just a book, and besides, science has basically already proven that evolution happened, and is continuing to happen as we speak.” A secular country like our own does and should treat each argument as valid. However, only the third student’s argument cites scientific backing. Is it fair that we are denying that intelligent design be taught as an alternative to evolution in our science classes? When a belief has no legitimate scientific backing, it is not science, but rather a philosophy, whereas biology is in fact science, which is why intelligent design does not belong in science classes in public schools.
The existence of such finely tuned universal parameters within the universe makes for a strong case of an intelligent design of the universe. Indeed, Collins does support this, by stating that there is a more solidified basis to believe in theism over the atheistic single-universe hypothesis. This suggests that it is near improbable for the existence of fine-tuning under the atheistic single-universe hypothesis that does not support the existence of a higher intelligent being, but is not wholly improbably under theism which supports the existence of a higher intelligent being. It is backed by the prime principal of confirmation, which states that if we are weighing the validity of two hypotheses vying to prove a singular theory or idea, that “an observation counts as evidence in favor of the hypothesis under which the observation has the highest probability [of happening].” Under the prime principal of confirmation, the evidence provided lends more credence to theism over the atheistic single-universe hypothesis because it would be more reasonable and simpler to rationalize fine-tuning to a creator like God who would have the parameters figured out beforehand in the creation of the universe. In addition, a theistic view would help see through the random forces of the universe and give a better understanding of seeing how the improbability of life in the universe is greatly increased with the help of a God not bound to time or the laws of physics.
There is a major controversy brewing in the educational field today. Scientist, teachers, professors, and many others are debating where the world and its habitats originally came from. This is the debate of Intelligent Design (ID) and Evolution. The main debating question of many scholars being, "Is the universe self-contained or does it require something beyond itself to explain its existence and internal function?".