Why cannot both Design and Descent be taught in science classes

[Meerkat_SK5]

@Dan_Eastwood

Isn’t Quantum Mechanics a subject far beyond high-school student, and even most undergraduates? Even if your premise is accepted, I don’t think you could practically teach to unprepared students.

Since we are not quantum biologists, I don’t think we can make this determination.

@Dan_Eastwood

Again assuming we accept the thesis, it has no practical application leading to students finding jobs after graduation. Why teach Common Design as science when it has no scientific applications? This seems more suited to a philosophy of religious studies class.

That is not true. Watch this brief video to see why:

What is Intelligent Design’s practical application? - YouTube

@John_Harshman

Sorry, but as with your previous iterations, I find all this incoherent. It most certainly is not science, and therefore should not be taught in science classes. Maybe we shouldn’t start, since it didn’t work out at all well last time.

@Roy

Because Universal Common Designer theory is not science.

@T_aquaticus

There’s also the problem of Common Design not being science.

@nwrickert

Quite simply, because it isn’t science.

All this does is beg the question. What is science?

@T_aquaticus

In the context of public schools, it can’t be taught because it violates the First Amendment. That’s what the Dover trial was all about:

The Common Designer theory that theists have been constructing all these years is not an alternative hypothesis to evolution like what was presented in the Dover trial, but an addition to the theory. So this objection does not apply here.

@T_aquaticus

High school isn’t the proper place to teach new hypotheses or theories.

Well first off, this is not a new idea nor is it my idea. Second, I never pretended to be an expert in the field but I mainly been showing how the Orch theory is essentially the Universal Common Designer theory they are advocating based on science that’s been done already. Most of my definitions or information I am using came from Penrose and Hammeroff research into their Orch-OR Theory. In fact, Penrose is an atheist and neither one of them are Christians . Instead, they are qualified experts in their field who have conducted their theory 25 years ago using the scientific method (NOT the bible) and has survived testing ever since.

Of course, Penrose is not advocating that his precursor mind interpretation has omni attributes or human characteristic that are akin to the Christian God. In that case, it can be suggested that I am being manifestly bias here BUT it is testable bias that even atheistic physicists, like Sean Carroll, recognized.

In regards to the common design model, this idea has been first proposed well over a 150 years ago by Richard Owens, which was before Darwin’s common descent model was ever proposed. See for yourself:

Richard Owen (1804-1892) (berkeley.edu)

@T_aquaticus

Your ideas would have to gain traction within the scientific community before they are taught in high schools.

@Faizal_Ali

The reason this shouldn’t be taught is because science classes do not teach every crackpot “theory” someone dreams up and posts on the internet. I suggest you review the usual process by which a scientific idea becomes accepted enough to make it into a high school textbook.

@Paul_King

My thought is that even if there were a nominally scientific theory it should not be taught at school until it gained wide acceptance in the scientific community. Speculative, fringe ideas don’t belong in school.

This is not consistent with the topic I am afraid. The question is “Why cannot the Universal Common Designer theory and model be taught in science classes” .

Invoking the scientific consensus is merely an example of why it should not be taught

@T_aquaticus

Looking through the proposal in the OP, it lacks what almost all such attempts lack: an attempt to explain the facts of biology.

That’s because I have already addressed and answered all these questions in the last topic I created. The reason why I did not repost it here is because I did not make any major changes to the common design theory even though it is flawed in some areas.

Instead, I just wanted to highlight and address the flaws that are classified as fatal for the purpose of this topic to make sure it is not brought up as a reason it cannot be taught in science classes.

@jammycakes

Before any theory can be taught in science classes, it must demonstrate that it has been developed in accordance with the rules of science, and that it meets the high standards of rigour and quality control that science demands.

Yes, this is exactly what the universal common designer theory has done throughout history, which is why I created this topic to get answers as to why it cannot be taught in science classes now.

@djkriese

What scientific value is there in a theory that cannot be tested, does not make successful predictions, and does not explain the evidence better than the current one?

Nothing, but this does not apply to the common designer theory. Like I told someone else, I think you need to read the last topic I created which addresses all these things: Universal Common Designer theory [UPDATED and REVISED] - Peaceful Science

@djkriese

When my students must design and run their own investigations, can they use ID 's methods and arguments? Is there evidence of technological and scientific progress from ID?

Yes. The Orch-OR theory has 20 predicitions that show how the mind is non-material. Although only 6 out of 20 predictions have been confirmed for a quantum mind, most of the 14 other predictions survived falsification from testing.

Here are snippets from a recent review article on it and judge for yourself:

"Undoubtedly, the Orch-OR theory co-established by theoretical physicist Penrose and neuroscientist Hameroff is currently the most convincing theory. Even more exciting, with the emergence of new drugs, new research methods, and new quantum technologies, this theory is constantly being enriched and perfected. Especially in the research of anesthesiology (96-100), memory (71), cognition (42,101-103), neural synchrony (104) and vision (49), mounting results and evidence indicated the Orch-OR theory could be self-explanatory and could be invoked to many different conscious backgrounds. More recently, Li et al. found that xenon’s (one kind of anesthetic) nuclear spin could impair its own anesthetic power, which involves a neural quantum process (105). " [emphasis added]

The finer scale of consciousness: quantum theory - PMC (nih.gov)

This includes biology:

“…OR played a key role in life’s evolution.
We conclude that consciousness plays an intrinsic role in the universe”

b2237_Ch-14.indd (arizona.edu)

@djkriese

Hope is not sacrificing 50% of my students evolution unit to give equal coverage to an idea that cannot be applied. Your suggestion amounts enabling one religious minority’s perspective vastly greater coverage and to dominate a secular institution. This is not peaceful. This does not take into account other perspectives or the needs of the students.

I think you have a misunderstanding of what I am presenting here. This is still evolutionary theory we are talking about where Its more like an improvement than an alternative. The only differences between Common design and common descent is…

Common descent: discontinuities in the fossil record are artifacts of incompleteness, species were distributed and diversifyied outwardly from one location using a strictly bottom-up process, the Adam and Eve story is false, and there is a LUCA .

Common design: discontinuities are real, basic types were constructed (using a bottom-up and top-down process) from different locations and times around the globe, Adam and Eve story is true, and there is no LUCA or there is only FUCA.