What's there to teach about Intelligent Design and Creationism that doesn't involve the Bible?

Answer 1

Science -

In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God.

So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life.

Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Answer 2

Well, is this a trick question? Look around you at creation...does that alone not speak of intelligent design? We can take matter that already exists and make things from it...intelligent design? However, the One who created the matter is far more intelligent than we will ever be. No one else has ever created something from nothing....YOU exist because you were created. You can give the Creator credit, or not, but that doesn't change the fact that you were created by intelligent design. Evolutionists are a dying group, and they lack intelligent back-up.

oh, as for the Bible part, I think that we still were created even though the Bible does back-up this belief.

Answer 3

Some scientists, even some who are not "religious", based solely on the intricate and complex structure of the universe, especially living organisms, have come to believe that there must be a design to all of this, and that would necessarily require a designer. Such a conclusion of course is not a scientific conclusion just because the person who makes it happens to be a scientist. But, the fact that a person is a scientist doesn't negate the possibility of his/her discovering God in Creation, just as any other person might. And, this view does not conflict with scientific findings about biological evolution or any other area of scientific evidence. Science simply explores "what happened?" and "how, in natural terms, did it happen?". The addition question "who was responsible for all that happened?' is an entirely separate issue, which lies entirely outside the purview of science, but which does not really conflict in any way with the findings of science.

Answer 4

If you want to mention a designer then you would have to mention all possible designers - Maybe use Native American beliefs on a creator or from any number of religions, besides just the Christian version. I suppose it would be OK in a comparative religion class but not as science. Just teach the evidence and leave any other creator or design interpretations for church or more appropriate avenues.

Answer 5

Well you can vaguely argue that based upon the complexity and order of things that that would conclude that there had to be a "first mover" something or someone that caused everything to be and to be on the order that it is. That could be taught entirely apart of any biblical discussion. There's just as much scientific "proof" for a theory based upon something like this as there is concerning theory of evolution.
Students would then be free to believe in any type of "first mover" they so choose. Those who truly believe that intelligent design can not be taught apart from the bible are either Christian trying to push their worldview using ID as a guise or closet Christian bashers (and Evolutionists) that are afraid of allowing students to think more openly about the subject. In either case all who are against the teaching of ID in schools are very closed minded and have really not looked at the not so "mounting" evidence for evolution and have not honestly looked at the evidence that some scientists have proposed toward the theory of ID.

In response to bc: I know of the 100 yrs+ evidence regarding the theory of evolution but by opening your mouth and stating that the theory of ID has zero years of evidence, you only revealed your own ignorance of the subject and showed yourself to be a fool.

Answer 6

Not a heck of a lot; to mention Creationism at all, involves the lessons of the Bible.

Answer 7

This is strictly in response to Almack:

The theory of evolution is supported by 140 years worth of evidence. This evidence carries through almost all disciplines of science. There is not a single shred of evidence that disputes it.The only thing about evolution that is not concrete is its exact mechanisms.
ID on the other hand has zero evidence.

To argue that these are even remotely the same is comepletely ludicrous and just shows your ignorance in the matter.

Answer 8

Technically nothing.

However, try to mention it as pertaining to any one faith, and you'll be in deep ****. Pesky second ammendment.

The only way for the ID'ers to get away with it, is to take scientific terms, and twist them in such a way as to apply to faith. According to the spokespeople for the ID movement, it does call for "Theistic Supernatural" origin to be taught...sounds like biblical creation to me.

Bear in mind, any "scientific evidence" for ID doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It uses scientific terms, without the true meaning behind them, to prove a foregone conlusion. Regardless of how much they test, their answer will never change. This isn't science at all, just faith based propaganda.

Answer 9

One can believe in intelligent design and not believe in the Bible. I personally believe in a creator but he/she/it is not the god from the Bible.

Answer 10

nothing. intelligent design relies squarely on the bible. heres how they do it:

they take somehting scientific....and then look for some type of scripture to support it (no matter how vague)

example: a rattlesnak's venom is very poisonus. well since snakes are poisonus and poison is bad and theres a bad snake in the bible...then the bible is true and sciecne has validated it.