Do you think intelligent design should be taught in school as an alternative to evolution?

Question

Personally, I think intelligent design is junk science. How about you?

Answer 1

Intellilgent Design is not junk science. It's just junk. My old pet dog left more scientific reasoning in tightly coiled piles on the lawn.

Please, creationists, stop pretending you're scientists. It was cute for a while, but now that you're trying to shove your crap on my kids, it's not funny anymore. (Well, I don't have kids yet, but I will someday.)

Answer 2

It's funny how the shoe is now on the other foot. The Scopes trial was so that evolution could get in the door of the public schools, so it could be taught alongside the idea of creation.

Over time, evolution became the official "science" of the origins of mankind. Now, just as the Christians were shocked at how unbelievers could force their way into schools and teach such nonsense, we see it happening in reverse.

Evolution exists because there are some who hate the idea of God. These are called "secular humanists." They have an agenda to remove the idea of God from the public square. Evolution is but one way to do this. But evolution has its own problems. Let's take a look.

Because there are no witnesses to what occurred during creation, anything that man comes up with is a theory, and unable to be proven through a scientific process, which requires the scientific method.

The scientific method requires:

# 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
# 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
# 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
# 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
# 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

But this is supposed to be based on observable facts. Evolution cannot achieve this using the traditional scientific method. What does that leave?

Faith. Just like those he criticizes for following myths, the evolutionist is practicing his faith. The evolutionist believes in the theory. They have their own scriptures, and apologea. And woe unto those who knowingly or unknowing tread on "holy" ground. They'll eat you alive. You'd think for all their vitriol, that you were in a church full of hypocrites.

As far as Intelligent Design (or creation) being taught in the public schools, it's funny. We have learned from your history how to bring an agenda through the courts. You have taught us very well. We can't thank God enough for your showing us how.

Answer 3

Yes, I definitely think it should be taught. However, that doesn't mean it needs to be taught as a science. Just like evolution, intelligent design is a theory of our origin, anything's origin, in this universe. The main difference, though, is that as of the past couple centuries, intelligent design has had more of a humanities root than a scientific one. Although many scientific communities don't discount intelligent design, almost all agree that evolution exists in some form or other. Intelligent design should not be discounted, however, because so much of our culture, and much of our modern faith, is centered around this intelligent design concept, and should certainly not be simply obliterated from schools! If it could be simply mentioned as an alternative theory in a science class, and then more thoroughly taught and discussed in a humanities and cultural history class, both viewpoints could be weighed in the students' minds, not simply as origin theories, but as ideas, and how they affect the student's view of the world around him, as well as his view of himself.

Answer 4

Absolutely NOT, as an alternative. Evolution is just common sense.
However, teaching that 'the big bang' is NOT the proven beginning of the universe is also common sense. Students should be told that their are several theories as to how everything began, and presented with a short summary of each. And then be told it's up to them to investigate the ideas further. Kids are entitled to their own opinion, just like everyone else.
As for it being junk science, may notable scientist have believed in intelligent design. Einstein said it the best I think: "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". but of course, you probably think Einstein was a junk scientist, don't you?

Answer 5

It's not science. There is no basis in fact for any of the arguments of intelligent design. Evolution is a theory that has developped, been challenged, and evolved (heh) over time. It may not be correct, but it's stood the test of time so far. Intelligent design is just another venue of religious teaching. Its initial assumption, the 'intelligent' of intelligent design, has not been empirically verified, thus throwing off the entire subject. Basically, it'd just be another way to get religion into schools, and I think we know certain restrictions on that.

Answer 6

No! NO! NOOOOOOOOO!

If ID is allowed to be taught in schools posing as science, why stop there? Why not teach that toaster ovens work because of the magical toaster fairies?

And if religion is allowed to be taught in a science class, then scientists should also be allowed into Churches to teach Evolution as an alternative to Intelligent Design.

Teach creationism in Churces, and leave the Science to the Scientists.

Answer 7

Intelligent design can be taught, but in the context of what is and is not a scientific theory. It would be excellent to compare its lack of empirical evidence to that of Greek Mythology and other creation stories. The modern perpetuation of the idea of intelligent design is a symptom of the larger problem regarding the education of the fundamentals of science. If the understanding of scientific theory was well taught we wouldn't be having this debate. Scientific theory requires empirical evidence; evolutionary theory has more empirical evidence and associates to far more scientific laws than any other theory. Until there is a theory that has an equivalent amount of evidence and association, there is nothing to make one's mind up about. The scientific laws and theories are NEVER decided democratically they are decided empirically.

Answer 8

Intelligent design isn't "junk science". It isn't science at ALL.

Sorry, going through a document and crossing out "God" and writing in "Intelligent Designer" in crayon does NOT make it "science".

But if it is taught in school some day, they'd better teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as well.

Answer 9

Intelligent design is a thinly veiled attempt to teach creationism in state fundedschools. I don't think that creation theory needs to be taken out of public school completely, but it CANNOT be taught as part of a science class. Maybe I.D. and creationism can be taught in a world religions class or in a public issues class, but not science.

Answer 10

Both theories are flawed, HOWEVER, intelligent design is based on faith that has no proof at all besides that evolutuion isn't perfect. Now I don't see how evolution having flaws like all theories is any reason to justify throwighing blind faith into it. Plus it violates the seperation of church and state and would offend people who follow a religgion without a supreme deity or no deity at all.

Answer 11

"Intelligent Design" is not only junk science... its not science AT ALL.

If that myth based on faith is taught as an alternative, you are removing science from the curriculum and stepping back to the middle ages.