Pro-Intelligent Design position paper written by an 11th grader.

Sail

A few weeks ago an evangelical kid at my school, who knows I'm not religious and is always trying to convert people, walked up to me and handed me his graded pro-intelligent design position paper he did for English. So I did what any normal person would do and scanned it on to my computer.

While the grammar in this essay is laughable, the logic as straight as Lombard Street, and the grading methods questionable, I ask you to please be respectful of the person who wrote in the sense that none of you know him, he is not here to defend himself, and I did not ask for his permission to distribute this. Instead, please focus on attacking the arguments he makes and the institutions that allowed this essay to receive the grade that it did.

The following is an actual essay written by an 11th grade student, with the name removed. Keep in mind that it is graded on a 6 point scale and for a college prep(normal) level class at a public high school. It is also made of epic lulz. Enjoy.

Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Rubric
Bibliography

Li_Akahi

I hate how some people do not understand the concept of a scientific theory. A scientific theory is not a guess or some random idea! Scientific theories have substantial amounts of evidence to support the claims! If it doesn't it's a hypothesis!

Now onto the paper, I love how he states that a lot of the evidence is falsified. Yes, because the scientific community has the massive amount of free time to create so much evidence that would dupe people to believe their theories. It's all a conspiracy, man! Oh, and I love his insane notion that Haeckel cut off parts of embryos to help to prove his hypothesis, because at the time scientists had the equipment to accurately cut and piece together an organism as small as an embryo.

The kid also needs to learn how to break up his paragraphs, as that would allow him to make his sentences flow better (and to vary his sentence structure, as they are very short and could easily be combined with other sentences) to actually earn that 5.5/6.

One final note, believing in a higher power is part of religion! God, this kid pisses me off!

Railith

It's sad that an average to below average essay gets a point boost because of it's religious overtones.

Lyddi

I think the last line of the essay is ironic, because it is often the same line used to attack religion. It is also amusing that he thinks "blood clotting" is an organ. He didn't even explain what evolution and intelligent design are, so someone reading this paper with no knowledge of the two would not know what to think. How is intelligent design NOT associated with religion? He seemed to put much of his effort into "proving" that intelligent design isn't religious instead of disproving evolution (which he did in no way, because he apparently does not even know what it is). Putting aside how ignorant he seems to be, this paper is just written pretty horribly, especially for an 11th grader. Even if the argument was about banana superiority over oranges, I would give it a much worse (more deserving) grade. No teacher I have ever had would give him the grade he received (except maybe elementary school), and I come from a pretty poor school system.

It would be interesting to reverse all of the words "evolution" with "intelligent design" and vice versa. Maybe then the paper would make more sense. (joke... haha)

jcc

I believe that intelligent design gets a poorer reputation than it deserves. Many great thinkers once supported it, although they were more likely to be deists, theists, or unitarians (of the original sort, not the new age type), rather than the strict creationist type who seems to have taken over.

Apreche

I believe that intelligent design gets a poorer reputation than it deserves. Many great thinkers once supported it, although they were more likely to be deists, theists, or unitarians (of the original sort, rather than the new age type), rather than the strict creationist type who seems to have taken over.

Yeah, once. Back in the day before we knew better.

jcc

I believe that intelligent design gets a poorer reputation than it deserves. Many great thinkers once supported it, although they were more likely to be deists, theists, or unitarians (of the original sort, rather than the new age type), rather than the strict creationist type who seems to have taken over.

Yeah, once. Back in the day before we knew better.

How do we know better?

It may seem like an easily discountable idea, but to do so out of hand is to call many of our history's greatest thinkers idiots of no consequence. Although it isn't a position that I personally agree with, I don't believe that intelligent design deserves the ridicule it receives nowadays. To be fair, a lot of this is the fault of the creationists, who have championed intelligent design to its detriment. However, to throw the whole thing away would be to toss the baby out with the bathwater. Marx wasn't right about the revolution of the proletariat, but many of his other economic ideas were sound and worthy of further investigation. In the same vein, intelligent design as championed by creationism is most likely incorrect, but intelligent design as a whole still raises important considerations.

Sail

That analogy doesn't fit. You are saying that Marx had ideas that were sound. You are saying that intelligent design raises important issues. These two claims do not relate.

In the same vein, intelligent design as championed by creationism is most likely incorrect, but intelligent design as a whole still raises important considerations.

If the hypothesis of intelligent design was never born, then the issues that it raises wouldn't exist because it is intelligent design that made them "issues" in the first place.

But enlighten me, what important considerations does ID raise that makes it valid?

Mr. X

I believe that intelligent design gets a poorer reputation than it deserves. Many great thinkers once supported it, although they were more likely to be deists, theists, or unitarians (of the original sort, rather than the new age type), rather than the strict creationist type who seems to have taken over.

Yeah, once. Back in the day before we knew better.

How do we know better?

It may seem like an easily discountable idea, but to do so out of hand is to call many of our history's greatest thinkers idiots of no consequence. Although it isn't a position that I personally agree with, I don't believe that intelligent design deserves the ridicule it receives nowadays. To be fair, a lot of this is the fault of the creationists, who have championed intelligent design to its detriment. However, to throw the whole thing away would be to toss the baby out with the bathwater. Marx wasn't right about the revolution of the proletariat, but many of his other economic ideas were sound and worthy of further investigation. In the same vein, intelligent design as championed by creationism is most likely incorrect, but intelligent design as a whole still raises important considerations.

He wasn't saying that history's greatest thinkers were idiots. They made the best guesses they could with the limited knowledge available. Intelligent Design was understandable as an idea before because they had no way to explain how the world worked. Modern science shows intelligent design to be so unlikely that it is laughable to even suggest it as a valid explanation of how the world originated/works.

Starfox

Hey, he got the last sentence right!

One has to ask him/herself a question, is it better to believe a lie in order to feel a false sense of power and authority, or to admit to the truth and the implications that follow along with it?

jcc

That analogy doesn't fit. You are saying that Marx had ideas that were sound. You are saying that intelligent design raises important issues. These two claims do not relate.

My apologies. What I meant was that Marx had ideas that seem sound, which shed light on important issues. In the same vein intelligent design has ideas that seem sound, which shed light on important issues.

In the same vein, intelligent design as championed by creationism is most likely incorrect, but intelligent design as a whole still raises important considerations.

If the hypothesis of intelligent design was never born, then the issues that it raises wouldn't exist because it is intelligent design that made them "issues" in the first place.

Does this mean that if I break a window but nobody notices, it isn't really broken? I suppose we could argue it, but that seems like it would lead into fuzzy metaphysical territory.

But enlighten me, what important considerations does ID raise that makes it valid?

I haven't looked into the subject thoroughly enough to understand all the repercussions involved, but here are some thoughts off-the-cuff. If you note any error of thinking in them, please feel free to point them out.

People have noted in the past how their creations, when left to their own devices, have a tendency to fall apart and decay. Stone cracks, wood rots, wool becomes moth eaten. It is only through the active intervention of mankind that this process is halted. Flesh and bone also decay when left to their own devices, yet not while there is still life within them. To believe that this life perhaps is the product of an active intervention upon the body, the same as a person might exert in maintaining their house or clothes, does not seem entirely unreasonable, although counterpoints could be devised easily enough.

Really the important thing that intelligent design brought to the table was its Enlightenment-era insistence on explanations which can be understood without specialized expertise, understood by any thinking individual. Intelligent design was originally a reaction against church orthodoxy, which explained life and the world through divine revelations parsed by a trained priesthood; when perfectly reasonable questions were raised, people were told that these were not questions at all, but simply the product of a lack of theological education. Only those with an education in Theology could have any sort of *real* discourse on how the world worked, and such an education could only be obtained through adopting a certain limiting framework of founding beliefs. Those without such an education, even if rational and thinking people, were forced to take it on authority. This created a very insulated worldview masquerading as ultimate truth.

Unfortunately, this sort of attitude seems to be becoming more prevalent in the sciences. This has left the door open for scientific metaphysicians to create and reinforce their own set of creation myths just as the priesthood once had. To have people stand up and ask, "Explain to me why you believe the earth was created billions of years ago by clumping dust that burst into flame? Why do you say that man's purpose in life is to spread genes? Why do you say that good character is a set of chemicals?" is a valuable thing. The fact that this is done more often than not by creationists who question with the ulterior motive of proving the literal truth of the book of Genesis is a terrible shame, in my mind. But the fact that it happens at all can be nothing but good, and intelligent design happens to be the current medium for this questioning.

Gunfire

Truth is truth! With that kind of logic, he almost convinced me.

Also, seems like the rubric is a little to blame. I didn't see anywhere where it said the argument had to be supported with facts had to be real.

kage_rod

Well, I didn't really read it. I'll twitch out in an attempt to correct the stupid thing.

But it amused me that there's only one entry for the bibliography. That's a well-rounded and researched essay right there, yup!

Omnutia

Has anyone ever noticed that a big problem with intelligent design as opposed to evolution is that it isn't useful for anything. Evolution isn't just a theory, it's the basis for much of biology.

Rym

I don't believe that intelligent design deserves the ridicule it receives nowadays.

There has never been a shred of evidence for it, nor is there even a testable hypothesis. It doesn't even begin to enter the realm of science. Unless someone comes forward with a measurable and testable hypothesis, or at least with evidence of any kind, it and its proponents deserve everything they get...

Rym

Ok. Maybe I just hold people to an unreasonable standard, but that essay was awful regardless of its content. Were I a teacher, I would have given it at best a "3-" due solely to the poor grammar and inconsistent style. If that was a "5+," then I shudder to think what a "3" or "2" must look like. That level of writing skill should not be acceptable in high school, let alone eleventh grade.

ninjarabbi

That essay looked like one of the ACT practices we had to do. He probably just got a good grade because he had all of the parts of the rubric, not because he was right or wrong. When it comes to some of those kinds of essays, all they grade you on is that you have all the parts of the rubric, other than things like flow.

HungryJoe

People have noted in the past how their creations, when left to their own devices, have a tendency to fall apart and decay. Stone cracks, wood rots, wool becomes moth eaten. It is only through the active intervention of mankind that this process is halted. Flesh and bone also decay when left to their own devices, yet not while their is still life within them. To believe that this life perhaps is the product of an active intervention upon the body, the same as a person might exert in maintaining their house or clothes, does not seem entirely unreasonable, although counterpoints could be devised easily enough.

Wait . . . are you saying that an outside force actively maintains our bodies from decay while we're alive?

Really the important thing that intelligent design brought to the table was its Enlightenment-era insistence on explanations which can be understood without specialized expertise, understood by any thinking individual.

Weren't the Enlightenment philosophers more concerned with reason than faith? I submit that if you went to Voltaire and said that you had an explanation for anything that relied on the actions of some sort of intelligent outside force, he would write a satirical novella about you.

Intelligent design was originally a reaction against church orthodoxy, which explained life and the world through divine revelations parsed by a trained priesthood; when perfectly reasonable questions were raised, people were told that these were not questions at all, but simply the product of a lack of theological education.

Proof, please. Oh, and some ID guy saying, "Oh, I remember when we were struggling against church orthodoxy" won't do.

Unfortunately, this sort of attitude seems to be becoming more prevalent in the sciences. This has left the door open for scientific metaphysicians to create and reinforce their own set of creation myths just as the priesthood once had.

Creation myths? Science != myth.

To have people stand up and ask, "Explain to me why you believe the earth was created billions of years ago by clumping dust that burst into flame?

Because that's the conclusion to which I'm led by physical evidence.

Why do you say that man's purpose in life is to spread genes?
Why do you say that good character is a set of chemicals?

Name me one scientist who says this.

The fact that this is done more often than not by creationists who question with the ulterior motive of proving the literal truth of the book of Genesis is a terrible shame, in my mind. But the fact that it happens at all can be nothing but good, and intelligent design happens to be the current medium for this questioning.

ID IS creationism. Don't try to say that a bunch of creationists are spoiling ID's credibility, because they ARE ID. ID is just a mask that creationists use to try to look credible.

...

People have noted in the past how their creations, when left to their own devices, have a tendency to fall apart and decay. Stone cracks, wood rots, wool becomes moth eaten. It is only through the active intervention of mankind that this process is halted. Flesh and bone also decay when left to their own devices, yet not while their is still life within them. To believe that this life perhaps is the product of an active intervention upon the body, the same as a person might exert in maintaining their house or clothes, does not seem entirely unreasonable, although counterpoints could be devised easily enough.

Dude, ever seen a tree in the forest rot? One that wasn't _DEAD_? Stone cracks due to the elements acting upon it, dead wood rots for it's being destructed by bacteria and little creatures, wool is also lifeless, like your hair.

Our bodies don't decay during our lives because they constantly keep making new cells to replace the ones that died!

To answer your question, yes, it seems very unreasonable to believe that there's a being that's actively keeping our bodies from decaying while we are alive.

jcc

Wait . . . are you saying that an outside force actively maintains our bodies from decay while we're alive?

No, I'm saying that I can understand how a person might consider such a possibility. I personally don't support intelligent design, but I can understand how thinking people could.

Weren't the Enlightenment philosophers more concerned with reason than faith? I submit that if you went to Voltaire and said that you had an explanation for anything that relied on the actions of some sort of intelligent outside force, he would write a satirical novella about you.

They were. Voltaire was a deist. Here is his excerpt on religion from The Philosophical Dictionary.

Intelligent design was originally a reaction against church orthodoxy, which explained life and the world through divine revelations parsed by a trained priesthood; when perfectly reasonable questions were raised, people were told that these were not questions at all, but simply the product of a lack of theological education.

Proof, please. Oh, and some ID guy saying, "Oh, I remember when we were struggling against church orthodoxy" won't do.

Such examples seem plentiful in the history of deism. They referred to the problem as "priestcraft", much in the same vein that many refer to the same problem in the sciences today as "scientism".

Why do you say that man's purpose in life is to spread genes?
Why do you say that good character is a set of chemicals?

Name me one scientist who says this.

Richard Dawkins. He broaches the subject when discussing God's utility function. Emil Kraepelin and his successors in the field of psychiatry believe that emotions and their associated behaviors can be explained as the product of chemical interaction, and unwelcome emotions and their associated behavior can be explained as the product of chemical imbalance. This would seem to suggest that a person with good character is simply one whose chemicals exist in a pleasing combination, while one without a good character simply possesses a different and unwelcome set of chemicals, and that through the adjustment of those chemicals, one can also adjust the character.

Rym

Emil Kraepelin and his successors in the field of psychiatry believe that emotions and their associated behaviors can be explained as the product of chemical interaction, and unwelcome emotions and their associated behavior can be explained as the product of chemical imbalance. This would seem to suggest that a person with good character is simply one whose chemicals exist in a pleasing combination, while one without a good character simply possesses a different and unwelcome set of chemicals, and that through the adjustment of those chemicals, one can also adjust the character.

You said "good character." This is entirely subjective. Perhaps you mean "desirable behavior," in which case there is strong evidence that all human behavior is simply the result of complex chemical and electrical interactions in the brain and body. The question isn't "why," it's "what." We're pretty sure of the what.

and that through the adjustment of those chemicals, one can also adjust the character.

The evidence shows that we most certainly can.

...

and that through the adjustment of those chemicals, one can also adjust the character.

The evidence shows that we most certainly can.

Don't anti-depressants already do this partially?

HungryJoe

Why do you say that man's purpose in life is to spread genes?
Why do you say that good character is a set of chemicals?

Name me one scientist who says this.

Richard Dawkins. He broaches the subject when discussingGod's utility function. Emil Kraepelin and his successors in the field of psychiatry believe that emotions and their associated behaviors can be explained as the product of chemical interaction, and unwelcome emotions and their associated behavior can be explained as the product of chemical imbalance. This would seem to suggest that a person with good character is simply one whose chemicals exist in a pleasing combination, while one without a good character simply possesses a different and unwelcome set of chemicals, and that through the adjustment of those chemicals, one can also adjust the character.

"Broaching the subject" is not the same as saying it. "Seem[ing] to suggest" is also not the same as saying it.

Wait . . . are you saying that an outside force actively maintains our bodies from decay while we're alive?

No, I'm saying that I can understand how a person might consider such a possibility. I personally don't support intelligent design, but I can understand how thinking people could.

If you can see how a "thinking person" could believe that an outside force has to actively maintain our bodies while we are alive so that they don't rot, you must be seeing a lot of weird stuff.

Intelligent design was originally a reaction against church orthodoxy, which explained life and the world through divine revelations parsed by a trained priesthood; when perfectly reasonable questions were raised, people were told that these were not questions at all, but simply the product of a lack of theological education.

Proof, please. Oh, and some ID guy saying, "Oh, I remember when we were struggling against church orthodoxy" won't do.

Such examples seem plentiful in the history of deism. They referred to the problem as "priestcraft", much in the same vein that many refer to the same problem in the sciences today as "scientism".

You don't get off the hook by saying that examples seem plentiful. I could say that examples seem plentiful that you wait until you're high before you write your posts. That's not proof. If you say, "Intelligent design was originally a reaction against church orthodoxy", then prove it.

Linton

Ok. Maybe I just hold people to an unreasonable standard, but that essay was awful regardless of its content. Were I a teacher, I would have given it atbesta "3-" due solely to the poor grammar and inconsistent style. If that was a "5+," then I shudder to think what a "3" or "2" must look like. That level of writing skill should not be acceptable inhigh school, let alone eleventh grade.

Im saddened to say this, but in my school at least (the school for the offspring of european commissioners in Brussels) this would be in the top 5% of my class (We're in our final year, mostly 17 years old). The class has a lot of 2nd language english students and just generally average/poor students, but we have a class average of +80%. School is just rediculously easy.

ZakoSoldier

I have a few issues with this paper but my biggest one is with the teacher. This paper was marked at all. There were no major corrections on the paper. Thus the student doesn't know what he did wrong. Also the student presents almost no evidence and is then still rewarded saying that he did. I know that this is a CP course but then at least make sure they know what evidence is. Also two citations in a paper. I can only say that one is partially relevant. This should be a failure.

HungryJoe

This should be a failure.

Yeah, Sail. Would you get in trouble if you just smacked this kid and posted video of it on the forum? At the very least, you should get together with all the cool kids and ostracize him.

jcc

You don't get off the hook by saying that examples seem plentiful. I could say that examples seem plentiful that you wait until you're high before you write your posts. That's not proof. If you say, "Intelligent design was originally a reaction against church orthodoxy", then prove it.

Fair enough. Further elaboration to come as time permits.

Jain7th

Did he give a single piece of evidence? Or proof? He babbles about one thing, states it's false and that ID or Creationism, or what ever this religious dorks call it, is the only possible solution.

The existence of such a discussion is sad and laughable.

Li_Akahi

I love that he didn't even cite his one source in the actual paper.

lackofcheese

My favourite response to Intelligent Design has got to be "What designed the designer". It really does a good job of pointing out that ID achieves absolutely nothing.

I'd say Rym was slightly harsh on the essay, but only slightly - if the subject matter itself is taken entirely out of the question (since, notably, this is an English essay), a 3+ would probably be in order, if you ask me. Of course, if this were being marked on a scientific basis, it would be far lower.

Logically, there are two significant mistakes in the essay:

• Firstly, the jump from "some evidence for evolution has been falsified" to "all evidence for evolution is false".
• Secondly, the argument presented for ID is simply an argument from ignorance.
  Although the claim is made that there is evidence for Intelligent Design in and of itself, in reality the only argument made was that "a lack of evolution *must* imply an Intelligent Designer", which is indeed an argument from ignorance.

On the other hand, the blood clotting problem is one of the most complicated evolution has come across, so it's no wonder to see it being used as an example. I Googled a bit, and this was the best simple response I found.

Rym

if the subject matter itself is taken entirely out of the question

My grade was based solely on the grammar and style: it had nothing to do with the content.