Do you think intelligent design should be in school textbooks?

Question

Should we learn intelligent design along with Darwin's theory? Why or
why not?

Answer 1

No.

Intelligent design is not a coherent theory. It is a Trojan horse for creationism.

The high end intelligent design proponent holds that the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old and that evolution DID happen. They assert that random mutation couldn't have caused the living creatures by itself. They merely assert something they haven't the means to actually prove in an effort to prop of their religious beliefs.

The low end intelligent design proponents are young earth creationists who assert that the earth is no more than 8000 years old and that life was created pretty much as is and that no evolution happened at all.

There are of course many shades of cosmology in between the people who assert that evolution happened but was guided and those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Israelite creation myths. All of these people want to sneak their religious ideas into biology classes by trying to say that evolutionary theory is flawed.

None of those ideas have any place as some kind of scientific alternative to evolution. The high enders proposition doesn't contradict evolutionary theory, it just tries to tack on something which is scientifically unprovable. The low enders are just religious zealots or unscrupulous politicians whose willfully ignorant opinions on the subject don't merit consideration .

Answer 2

Not in a science class - although you could teach it in a religion or philosophy class.
The problem with intelligent design is that it is a RELIGIOUS idea which is trying to pass itself as SCIENCE. This seems to be an extremely difficult topic in America today. Interstingly, you can think about Darwin's theory in two contexts - microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is evolution over a small time scale and can actually be observed - for instance you can study the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria or look up the study about the peppered moths (I think) [ some moths were mostly white with little dark dots, but during the industrial revolution there was lots of pollution and the trees gradually became darker on the outside from the residue. As the trees got darker, the white moths were more visible and easier for the birds to find. The moths that happened to be a bit darker with less white were more likely to survive because they were harder to see. Eventually most moths were darker with ligt spots! ] In this case, evolution is not such an abstract "theory".
Most people tend to have more trouble with macroevolution, which deals with things like the origin of species. As a scientist I am a firm believer that evolution is indeed a fact, not a theory. However, I am also a religious person. Believing in both is not such a problem as some people seem to think it is: it just means that the bible can not be interpreted literaly. I hope that one day people will feel comfortable letting their children learn about science in science class and learn about religion in religion or philosophy class instead.

Answer 3

No. Nope. Please please no.

Intelligent Design (as it exists currently) is BAD SCIENCE. It makes no predictions. It has no explanatory power. It cannot be tested. It has no foundation in published scientific papers. Almost no reputable scientists takes it seriously. It does not even rise to the level of a hypothesis (a proposed explanation), much less a fully flushed-out theory.

It proposes no evidence ... only counter-evidence of evolution, ALL of it faulty. I.e. it does not serve to explain, but to *confuse* ... which is precisely why religious groups try to push it.
Evidence: A recent poll (see source) shows that since 1985, fewer Americans accept evolution, but fewer people reject it either. What has increased? The number of people who are "unsure" has risen from 7% to 21%! Some creationists are delighted ... but schools should be apalled. That means 1 in 5 Americans are so confused they don't know what to think, or what scientists believe. Biology education in the U.S. is already failing ... the U.S. ranked 33rd out of 34 countries (behind only Turkey) in acceptance of evolution and undertanding of genetics.

However, among scientists, support for evolution is about 95% in the U.S. and 99.8% among scientists from other nations. The mismatch between scientists and laypeople shows that the anti-evolution movement has been particularly successful here, not at gaining converts to creationism or ID, but in leaving people confused.

If and when ID does a better job of putting together a coherent theory, some published papers, and some evidence *for* that theory (instead of just trying to build a case *against* evolution), then it may be worth a course at the college undergraduate level. ID does ask some interesting questions (about the origins of complexity, or thermodynamics and information), but (1) a bunch of questions (no matter how good) is not a theory; and (2) scientists have answers for these questions (in information theory, chaos theory, thermodynamics, complexity theory ... all things taught at the university level, not in high school or elementary school science classes).

Until then ... you do NOT introduce experimental, barely formed 'alternate theories' in school textbooks or classes.

Answer 4

no. it has no scientific backing whatsoever. Evolution on the other hand is easily demonstrated with just a few generations of bean plants.

Does anybody out there really believe that intelligent design is science? I don't see how anybody could seriously believe that.

This attempt to force a doctored up form of creationism into the classrooms of America is laughable at best and nefarious at worst, and is so obviously a power play that I'm surprised the schoolboards who bring it up (yeah, you Kansas) haven't been forced to retire in shame.

For all those of you who believe that intelligent design is science, please develop an experiment I can use to measure it. lol.

Stardust - there is no 'both sides' of the story - there's empirical data, and there's religion. One is scientific in nature, the other is not. It isn't hard.

Answer 5

Only for five minutes. It should be included in a *brief* discussion about how some people have other theories based on religion or intelligent design.

The best scientific theory we have is called evolution and that is what 98% of the lesson should be on.

Mike Honeycutt

Answer 6

Yes, but not along with Darwin's theory.
It should be in the same section as the theory that the holocaust never happened and nobody has ever been on the moon section.

Answer 7

Do not be silly, little girl. Darwin's theory is supported by innumerable facts, has great predictive power and is logical, internally coherent. Intelligent design is none of these things.

Answer 8

Yes, but that takes intelligence.
Eventually Darwin repudiated his own theory.

Answer 9

Absolutely, it should be included. I think that the purpose of school is to educate and expand the thinking of students. Intelligent design is a theory....you need not try to teach it as "gospel" so to speak, but simply put out there that there are several theories on the origin of the universe and life. Its a great opportunity to teach students to think critically for themselves..to compare and contrast the various theories (big bang, Darwin, Intelligent Design etc). I think it not only improves critical thinking, but it also reflects to students how much there still is to know and understand....after all, if you give someone an idea to ponder rather than just "memorize this" things...you spark curiosity...and that leads to great discovery.

Answer 10

Questions like this point out the need to do away with pubic education and go to a voucher system. That way parents will have some control over what their children are taught without forcing their beliefs down someone else’s child’s throat. I can send my kid to a school that teaches evolution and you can send your kid to a school that teaches creationism and we can still be friends.