TED Conversations

richard moody jr


This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Is it reasonable to teach Intelligent Design in physics or statistic classes to seniors in high school?

The purpose of permitting ID to be taught to seniors should be to attempt to find a well-reasoned explanation for intelligent life. What is necessary to permit ID to be discussed “legally”(separating church and state) in the class room is to divorce ID from any religious affiliation e.g. the Bible.

For our universe to originate by chance is about on a par with winning the Power Ball lottery a 1000 times in a row without ever buying a losing ticket! When you factor in all the conditions necessary for intelligent life to exist, it appears the universe is “fine-tuned” to support life e.g. if the force of gravity is off by one part in 10^36 in the range of all forces (the most powerful is the strong force), life does not exist. If the mass of a proton is off a tiny amount only blue giant stars can form; they can't support life.

The scientific explanation for our universe is that there are an infinite number of universes and this one originated by chance. Since we cannot observe, measure or replicate extra universes is this any more reasonable than ID?

Humanity is a pioneer in this universe; after the “Big Bang” 13.8 billion years ago, it takes a first generation star to explode to make heavy elements and a second generation star like our sun to corral those elements to support life on a planet. It takes 3.8 billion years to get from life to intelligent life.

We will be billions of years more evolved than civilizations growing up around third generation stars. By the time our sun becomes a red giant, we can take the moon, Mercury, Mars and Venus (for raw materials) and go into orbit around Jupiter; we will then extract hygrogen from Jupiter for fusion energy that will serve us until the universe ends.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jun 21 2013: OK,
    How about this scenario... there is a universe that is collapsing, sentient beings in this universe see that there is no survival of the pending disaster want to save their civilization. So, understanding the finality of the end, the only solution is to put the "seeds" of their universe into the quantum realm with the hope it would survive.
    The collapse comes with such force all the space within each atom is reduced to almost zero. The resulting mass is so dense and so unstable it explodes. But, as its particles are forced out, locked within is the seeds of regrowth. As the new universe evolves the encoded plan is fulfilled.

    Far fetched? Has anyone got a more "scientific" explanation of the origination of the big bang?
    And wouldn't this be an explanation of Intelligent Design?
    And could it be discussed with the same veracity as: "There was this big bang of stuff and flew out and created the universe and everything in it following natural laws, like the law of gravity.
    I've always wondered, who voted on the law of gravity and how it signed into law

    I think if not in a class, at least one helluva debate topic....
    • thumb
      Jun 21 2013: Well if you're going to teach intelligent design in that perspective is it not the same as the big bang? What exactly varied?

      Also, laws are things we observe, not come up with. The highest thing we can declare are theories.
      • thumb
        Jun 21 2013: One more time, ID is a plausible alternative to the evolution of the universe. The most commonly accepted explanation is that the creation of the universe was a natural phenomenon that came after the big bang. Some people don't want to teach ID, so don't teach it. Some don't believe it could even be possible, so don't believe it.
        I think it would be a great topic for youngsters to have in a class, if only to learn about ID in order to debate about it. I am not talking about major shifts in cosmology or the thinking of S. Hawkins...
        Unless he wants too....
        • thumb
          Jun 22 2013: That's just not how it should be taught. Intelligent design is not a theory, there is no theory. It's purely just a thought. You can't just look at a tree and declare that someone made it. Intelligent design has already made a conclusion without any evidence. Science is supposed to work by evidence and then conclusions.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.