Do you think "intelligent design" should be taught in schools as an alternative to evolution? Why or why not?

Answer 1

I think both evolution and itelligent design should be taught. Only giving children one side isnt going to help them learn for themselves.

Answer 2

No, because Intelligent Design isn't an explanation of any kind. I actually don't know what I.D. entails, just that it means that nature was created by someone. That's not a theory, that's a statement. It will take two seconds to plow through everything we know about Intelligent Design. Just about everything I've heard from I.D. proponents is percieved flaws (actually, unanswered questions, which is a different thing) in Evolution.

It is also certainly not a scientific theory, unlike Evolution (and the Atomic theory, the theories of Gravity and Relativity). There's nothing to test, it can not be falsifiable, it can make no predictions. You just have to accept it at face value.

The reason scientist barely give ID proponents the time of day is because all those things were refuted a long time ago, and they like to focus on discovering things, new not repeating old arguments.

If you think scientists are narrow-minded, it's because that's how new ideas are always approached. They do the same thing to each other. They're just making every effort to find and expose any critical flaw in a new theory. If it holds water, it's useful. If not, start over with a new theory!

Search for 'cold fusion' for a phenomenon everybody loved but which was discarded because it didn't work.

Answer 3

No, ID is not science. If it is to be taught let it be taught as mythology. Keep religion in churches. There are private schools for those that like ID. The reason it is not in schools, is because it has no fact to back it, and is just a story. That separates it from science.

If it was to be taught all creation stories would need to be taught. If not all were taught, then that would be saying the ones not taught are wrong. That is establishing a state religion. So evolution, or all stories need to be offered as an alternative to evolution, or none. That includes FSM, and anything anyone makes up.

Answer 4

I think that SCIENCE should be taught in SCIENCE class.

Intelligent design, is not a scientific theory. Michael Behe (arguably THE #1man responsible for ID) admitted under oath that it does not meet the standards of science.

Even ID promoters don't think that it is science. So why should it be taught in SCIENCE class?



because you want to "teach both sides" of the controversy.

First, there is no scientific controversy. There's no debate in the sciences about whether or not evolution occurred, only debates as to the mechanisms and pattern of evolution.

Second, there are not TWO sides. If you teach ID in class, then I demand that you teach MY side as well. Which is that the FSM created the world starting with a mountain, trees, and a migit [sic].
You can't claim that you're only interested in teaching kids all sides, but then leave out sides that YOU don't like

Third, ID is religious. The conservative judge (appointed by W Bush) in the Dover case came right out and said that the ID promotes perjured themselves on the stand when they claimed that it was not religious, yet internal documents of the ID movement presented at trial quoted these same people as saying that it WAS an attempt to get religion in the schools. And of course the 1st amendment prohbits all of this.

Fourth, there isn't an ounce of positive evidence of ID. All "tests" of ID are not that... they are attempts to attack evolution. Again, the judge in the dover case wrote this in his decision. You can't prove A by disproving B. Period.





I doubt that any ID promoter on this board can address any of these issues.

Answer 5

No. We already have enough trouble with the "theory" that is being taught as "science" now. ID is just a Band Aide at best.

What we need is the Bible as literature at the High School level along with a good course in comparative religions. College is to late.

Some knowledge of the Bible is relevant to our social structure, laws, history, religions, art and political existence. To leave it out shows cultural bias and anit-religious bigotry.

In the shrinking global situation a good balanced course in comparative religions is also needed; as so many hidden religious agendas are fostered in society. They, like drugs, have crept into school systems at the secondary level.

This is an urgent situation because information shrink is lowering the maturation levels of the world. Students, while increasing knowledge, are also dealing with esoteric concepts and real life situations; perhaps five years earlier than past generations.

This is not just information overload, but many types of overload. The American educational warehouse system is stressed out.

DL is not an answer just more stress. It does not address the problem of religious evolution. If evolution were taught as a theory we would have no problem. But it is taught as being science perse with pure science and scientific method put in second place.

The hope of life on another planet is a drive to finally prove the theory of evolution and demote creation to a myth. The drive to create life is yet another attempt. The search for the still missing link, another. There is no sense in pushing DL when honestly presenting evolution as theory is all that is really needed.

"Theory Only" would take the big pressure of adult religious evolutionists off of students and parents who do not subscribe to that religion.
It might give these and other children more freedom to engage in pure research and method; explore the other theories of evolution or propose their own!

Religious evolutionists could no longer hide behind science while fostering their belief system. DL I think would just add to the real conflict that already exists. I love science and see no money for teaching essentials now. DL would add to existing hypocrisy; as tests show that not enough kids can "do science" in relation to the needs of the country.

Scientific evolutionists do not want science they want followers. DL will end up being presented as the also ran or runner up to Darwin. You will have spent a lot of money for nothing.

Answer 6

Absolutely NOT. Intelligent deisgn is in no way, shape, or form an alternative to evolution. Evolution is based in scientific fact and theory. Intelligent design is a fictional story with no basis in fact or evidence. How could anyone possibly even try to compare the two? It is ridiculous. Go ahead and teach intelligent design as an elective class but teach it in a theology or mythology class. Don't try to pass it off as any type of science.

Answer 7

Intelligent design (creationism) is not science because it's not falsifiable - i.e. there is absolutely no argument or evidence you could produce to *disprove* the idea that an intelligence fiddled with the genetic code of living organisms in order to direct them in a certain way. Since it can never be tested, it can only ever be a belief, not a scientific theory.

Evolution is science because it is falsifiable in many different ways (but has never been falsified).

So, ID is not an alternative to evolution, because evolution is science and ID is not.

Answer 8

I don't think either should be taught in light of today's society. This should be left up to the parents to teach. Unfortunately, today's parents are a helluva lot lazier than previous generations.

I was taught the THEORY of evolution, but my parents made sure I received a religious education. They taught me God created everything in 7 days. After He created Adam and Eve, mankind has spent tens of thousands of years destroying everything, including the belief in a diety.

School should stick to reading, writing and arithmetic and leave religion and atheism out of its curriculum. Including sex education. Good GOD! Sex education is also the responsibility of parents.

I thank God that I was born and raised when this country was still a decent place to live. I would not want to be a child or parent in these times.

Can't anyone draw a comparison between America today and what happened to, for instance, the Roman empire? Doesn't anyone see that all great civilizations were defeated once it began to rot from within?

This country is rotting. And I hope I don't live to see the consequences. I am 58 years old and believe me---this country is not as great as it used to be. I pity the children. The adults are leaving a rotting mess for their children to inherit.

Answer 9

Keep in mind, Galileo was placed under house arrest by his employers, The Catholic Church, for about 13 years till his death for stating that the earth revolved around the sun rather than the earth being the 'center of the universe'. From what I remember, same thing happened to Capernicus(sp), also an employee of the Catholic Church. The church has always had a real problem with anything that could have people really use their minds and "Think outside the Box" and be aware. So, if a family wants their offspring to learn that the earth is 5,000 years old(Which is just one "twisted idea of a church philosophy), then take them to a school that teaches that. KEEP IT OUT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 10

Intelligent design is simply theistic creationism under a phony name to try to sneak it past the courts. Why is it that these theists who talk about how important truth is are so willing to lie like crack whores to sneak their mythologies back into school? That's what I don't get. Any lie will do in the name of Jesus. There isn't a shred of scientific support for these throwbacks and they know it, and they think if they talk enough gobbledygook and tell some reasonable sounding lies to scientifically untrained school boards that they can con their way into the public schools and indoctrinate children into believing their faery tales. There is nothing intelligent about ID, and if theists can't get their way without deceipt and subterfuge they should be asking themselves why their case is so feeble that they have to lie about it.

Answer 11

I think all theories of creation and design should be explored in schools. Since they are all theories anyway, it makes sense that kids be given all the information they need to make an educated decision about what they believe. I'm a firm believer in evolution, but I think teaching ONLY evolution in schools is just as wrong as teaching creation. If it were the LAW of evolution, it'd be different, but we are all just learning where we came from, and it makes sense to explore all options.