Question for the proponents of Intelligent Design being taught in school?

Question

This question is for people who want Intelligent Design taught in public schools.

What is your reasons for wanting this taught in public schools?

This question is not meant to mock anyone or anyone's beliefs, just to see the reasoning behind why people want that.

For those of you who don't want it taught in public schools, can we at least wait a few minutes to get a good database of answers from the people who do, before there is any "yahoo answers response".

Maybe someone will write something that will change our minds.

Thanks.

Answer 1

Science is a method. Science class should teach that method. This would not be an issue, if scientists would have stuck to natural science. But people like Freud, Darwin, Kant, Marx, Lenin, and a long list of 'social engineers' stepped over a moral line when they presented survival as justification for our actions.

There was a young couple, scientists, who made a moral decision to give atheists the most dangerous discovery of science. Their name was Rosenberg. There fate, will be the fate of any and all scientists try to teach as they did. How dare scientists believe that their lessons are benign? This is ignorance, on a monumental level. To think that your science teacher is going to give you the facts, is as naive as it gets in a Nuclear Age.

Inteligent design was not presented by religous people. It is disinformation, from your government. And I applaud the debate, as it distracts the religous, as well as the atheist.

Answer 2

First as far as teaching evolution, when I was growing up (39 now) it was the theory of evolution. It left room for creation or intelligent design. I remember mt biology teacher acknowledged that it is a theory and respected that some believe in creation. It appears to me now that it's not taught as a theory, and is a fact. When obviously, it is a theory. No one can 100% prove something that was suppose to happen millions or billions of years ago.

I have no problem with both being taught. However when we leave out intelligent design, we leave out that we were created for a purpose. If evolution is the truth, then we are all cosmic accidents. we just happened. Therefore if we were not designed then morality is subject to opinion and is only relevant if we choose to allow it to be. Who decided murder, rape and theft is wrong? There is a reason we have a basic desire for morality, even if it's at it's most basic form. Animals don't truly have morality, they have instinct. So apart from being created for and with a purpose, we don't really matter. What happened happeneds. How on one hand can we tell a child they matter, and then teach them that they and all humankind was an accident, a chance happening.

Answer 3

I am for it within the context of a religious theory elective type class only. Just so our children will know what all sides of the debate are talking about, when the topic arises. We don't want to send them into a debate only partially equipped with knowledge. I am an atheist, but I do not want to suppress opinions so much that a void of ignorance to the diversity of theories remains as a result. Censorship is for children and fundies. When you are an adult, the doors of information should be wide open and unfiltered. I shelter my son from extreme violence and sexually explicit things in print and on TV. But, that is all. He knows the truth about Santa Clause, tooth-fairy, death, where babies come from, the works. And I do not force my ideas about religion or "god" on him like my parents did to me. I let him make up his own mind, and just tell him that no one really knows for sure, those who say they do are only convinced about one theory or another. He is a sweet, loving, balanced person who does well in school. So, I must be doing something right.

Answer 4

Education in school should be relevant to the times that they are teaching. Therefore Creationism should be taught as a "This is a point of view that many people have these days so lets discuss it fairly"

Answer 5

First of all, ID is not Creationism as per the genesis account. It is a comprehensive study of the reasons, pro/con, for a Creator, a Creator being an undefined God.

It is a philisophical and scientific question: did we get here naturally or were we created (irrespective of religion since religion is faith based)?

It is valid to review the pros and cons of natural creation vs ID in school, as long as it does not get to religion.

Answer 6

Public school is required by the state and the teachers should not bash the parents intention of educating their son or daughter in their faith. Religion points to a creator and designer of the universe. My biology teacher told us that the topic of evolution was in hot dispute - which it is. That is the least that schools can do is to not conflict with the religious kids and parents and try to wrest your kid away from their faith in a creator by only teaching evolution and that evolution is 100% correct. Because of this, many kids are being sent to school and told not to listen to their teachers who teach evolution. Nice way to introduce your biology teacher - hey son or daughter, don't listen to his/her evolution crap...

Answer 7

My reason is simple--it is an alternative belief that is held by many and people need to be aware of it so that they can respect the beliefs of others. Teach it as a theory? Okay. As a religious belief? Okay. But it is a widely-held belief and should be respected.

Answer 8

If creationists don't want their children taught science, then I think they should have that option. I think they should be allowed to graduate without science, and they should have equal opportunity to get into the college of their choice. Colleges, however, have an annoying way of looking at highschool transcripts.