Should the theory of intelligent design be taught in public science classes?

Question

please add your title and state of residence

Answer 1

It's not a theory -- it's religious rubbish trying to disguise itself as science.

Answer 2

Absolutely not. Intelligent Design has nothing whatsoever to do with science, since science is by definition the study of the natural universe by natural means, while ID necessarily involves the supernatural, and is therefore theology, not biology.

Some have suggested that a statement on ID simply be read at the beginning of a biology course, without subsequent followup or actual "teaching" of the idea. That is totally ridiculous. Not only does it give certain religious groups an opening to insert their personal beliefs into a science curriculum where such beliefs don't belong, but it is also totally contrary to the spirit of education itself! The teacher reads a provocative statement about a subject many of the students haven't even heard of before. Inquiring young minds listen intently, questions begin to form, hands are raised. Then the teacher says, "Sorry kids, we aren't allowed to discuss this further"??

Just so you know where I am coming from, I'm a professional biologist, medical researcher, AND a firm believer in Intelligent Design. So I'm not against ID itself; but I am against attempts to make an end run around separation of Church and State by smuggling religious concepts into the classroom under the guise of "science", when nothing could be farther from the truth.

Answer 3

No. No way. Nope.

Even if ID were a fantastic new discovery taking the scientific community by storm (which it is not) ... you don't bypass rigorous scientific research, and immediately throw an experimental new theory in its infancy in front of high school and grade school students. Galileo didn't do that, nor did Copernicus, Bacon, Descartes. Darwin certainly didn't start lobbying to get his theory into schools. Einstein didn't start demonstrating at school board meetings to get relativity into the classroom. We don't see protesters demanding that string theory be given equal time with quantum mechanics in the physics classroom. That's not how good science is done, no matter how revolutionary it is.

I will concede that advocates of Intelligent Design ask some good, interesting questions that do need to be addressed at the university research level. Questions about the origins of order, complexity, and the nature of intelligence.

But

(1) A set of questions ... even good ones ... is not a theory.

(2) These questions have answers ... in fields such as information theory, chaos theory, thermodynamics, complexity, chaotics, and emergence. All fields that a public high-school student (much less a grade-school student) has no foundation in.

(3) ID doesn't have even the basics to qualify as a scientific theory. It makes no predictions. It is not testable, or falsifiable. It has no explanatory power.

(4) There is NO CONTROVERSY among scientists as to what the reigning consensus is about biological origins of species and variation. *Very* few scientists take ID seriously.

ID is AT BEST, a brand new, interesting but still half-baked line of research. It is not a fully developed theory ready to be taught in schools.

The place to debate these issues is as the university research level ... NOT IN FRONT OF 6th GRADERS. If ID proponents can't build a foundational new science among the scientific community who actually understand the issues, then why do they want these things raised in public schools? There is no reason ... unless the goal is specifically to leave children hopelessly *confused* about what scientists think.

I am all for exploring these issues in college courses for graduate students and *advanced* undergraduates ... but not in public high schools and grade schools among students who are still learning the difference between a beak and a beaker.

Science and Technical Writer, California

Answer 4

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
It is not science, has no scientific principle behind it and by it's very definition is not testable by scientific methods so that means it is NOT SCIENCE. If anyone wants this taught as science they must also want Spanish to be taught as a math or they are being hypocritical.

This is a philosophical or religious idea (hypothesis) and it is not a theory as Science uses the term. It does not have anything close to science within it and hence should be legally forced to stay at least 100 feet from a science classroom.

Keep ID in the philosophy or religious class but it is not a science hence should not be taught in science class. Evolution (yes it is theory but if anyone understood what they are talking about would know that means tested a lot and proven true so commonly called a fact even though it is not a scientific law) is science as it is and has been tested scientifically and within the rules of science, so it is eligible for science class.

Citizen of Mass, USA Technician



bryt_14:: I have to disagree....it the idea has no scientific merit then how do you teach it as science? Should we teach the idea that earth was made by Amen Ra since just as valid? You have to draw line to what is applicable in the class..such as teaching grammar in History class, you don't do it because grammar and history are 2 different fields. and defintion of science is as follows "–noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency. "
This limits science to natural/physical and since Intelligent Design meets non of these criteria it is NOT SCIENCE.

Answer 5

ID doesn't qualify as a scientific theory (which is very different from the common English usage of the word "theory") since it lacks a large body of evidence to back it up. As such, it doesn't belong in a science class.

California

Answer 6

As Newt Gingrich says: Evolution is science, intelligent design is philosophy. Evolution should be taught in schools, and intelligent design should be taught in religious institutions.

Designer, FL

Answer 7

No! Intelligent design is based on faith and its place is in the Church. We should only be teaching science in classrooms because of the separation of church and state! As an FYI, I had a nun teach me about the big bang and evolution...even my catholic school taught science in the classroom.

scientist, teacher...pennsylvania

Answer 8

When studying origins in science (whether it be the universe, life, humans, or any other origins topic) all sides should be presented. Personally, I studyed origins in detail and came to the conclusion that young-earth creation as tought in the Bible is correct. Science teachers should present all students with the same opprotunity. The strengths, weaknesses, and major ideas behind the major origin theories should be taught, discussed and researched. No theory: creation, I.D., macro-evolution, or any others, should be presented as the absolute truth/fact. (That includes MY conclusion!) Presenting one origins theory as fact is indoctrination, and does not teach students how to approch science. Have an open mind, and don't discriminate a theory. (For example, don't totally ignore I.D. and creationism because they include a higher power.) BTW, no where in the defination of science is the statement that all theories must be naturalistic.
serious science student and future veterinarian, Indiana

Answer 9

Absolutely no.

Intelligent Design is both (1) silly and (2) insulting to God.

These ID people are seriously misguided.

Answer 10

I think it should be mentioned, but only because it is held as belief by many people. I strongly feel it should not be introduced as fact or even theory, because it is strictly faith-driven, not at all based in scientific theory.

M.S. in Biology, Alabama