What does anyone think of Intelligent Desgin being taught in public schools alongside with evolution?

Answer 1

Absolutely!! We need to learn the viewpoints of 1/3 of the world, other than the viewpts of hardly anyone. If you took a survey, there are really not many atheists out there...except for here on answers. haha...the atheists here are like the gays in San Fransisco. There are an overabundance of them, but thats just because they like to express their opinions more.
My biology teacher taught us Creationism two years ago (I'm a senior now) and nobody had a problem with it. Of course, I live in the buckle of the bible belt, but students need to know the viewpts of 1/3 of the world.
Having the Creationism unit strengthened my faith. Its definitely a big part of science....

Answer 2

Not in a science class.

Intelligent design does not teach students the scientific method. It teaches them to circumvent it.

ID is useless as a science since it makes no predictions. Evolution is useful. We know that evolution is useful because the predictions it makes have serious applications far beyond answering the god question. For instance, evolution is critical to an understand and development of medicine.

ID teaches the students not to investigate the world around them, but rather just throw up their hands and say "goddidit" when faced with something they dont' know.

ID supporters have stated explicitly that the only reason they want ID in schools is to promote their creationist/Christian agenda. The ruling in Dover, PA, holds to this. As such, it is in direct violation with the endorsement clause.

These are just a few reasons.

Answer 3

Here's the problem. Our nation (I'm assuming for the purposes of discussion that we're talking about in America - I DO realize that not everyone on Yahoo Answers is necessarily an American) was founded as a secular one. The U.S. Constitution is the defining and founding document of our nation. In it, it says, "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof".[1] The Treaty of Tripoli, signed into law by John Adams in 1797 says, "The United States of America is NOT IN ANY SENSE founded on the Christian Religion".[2] One only has to put these facts together with famous quotes from our nation's founders to know that our founders intended this nation to be a secular nation in which freedom of religion and a separation of church and state reign supreme.

People can either support these defining values of our nation or not. If they fail to suppor them, I personally think they should move to another country. To oppose freedom of religion and a separation of church and state is ABSOLUTELY UNAMERICAN.

Moreover, science is based on empiricism, observation, calculation and reason. Religions are based on faith. They're distinct. To teach religious beliefs in a science class would be a disservice to students, because it would say that religious beliefs are the same as science.

Furthermore, how do we decide which religions' creation myths to teach in school? If we teach one, we have to teach them all. If we teach Genesis, we'd have to teach Hesiod's Theogony (the ancient Greek creation myth). I'm sure most fundamentalist Christians wouldn't want the Greek creation myth being taught in school.

So, taking these three points together, the fact that this is a secular nation, the fact that science and religion are two separate things and the fact that if we have to teach one creation myth, we have to teach all, it's simply ludicrous to teach Creationism in public schools. It violates the separation of Church and State and implies that the government endorses a particular religion (which it may not), it confuses religion and science (assuming that Creationism is taught in a Biology class), and it necessitates the teaching of every possible belief about how human beings came to be, which there simply won't be time in the school year for. It's just a bad idea all the way around no matter how you cut it.

Religious belief belongs in churches, synagogues, mosques and other religious organizations. If you want to teach it in your Sunday School class that's your right to do so. If it's what you believe, that's your right. But, having freedom of religion for you obligates you to respect the freedom of religion of others.

Answer 4

Evolution should be taught seeing as thought it is pretty much fact. Just because you believe in evolution doesn't mean you can't be religious. Evolution can be the answer to how we came to be, but not why we're here. As for intelligent Design, I'm gonna have to say keep it out. after all, the constitution does make the separation of church and state very clear, although it isn't for politicians, it should be for any normal, educated, thinking human being.

Answer 5

Intelligent design has no basis for comparison with Evolution. Evolution is tangible, it has proof, where creationism states the earth is 6000 years old.
Science can change, religion can't. They aren't the same subject.
That would be like teaching Holocaust Denial in history classes.

Answer 6

I've read a number of responses and the basic argument against ID is that it is not scientific.

Two points : (1) Who said it was scientific? What ID proponents claim is that it is AT LEAST AS scientific as evolution. So if evolution is taught, so must ID.
(2) Macroevolution is NOT scientific either. It is a philosophy based on the same foundation as ID.

Those who claim that macroevolution is scientific only have one-half of the situation covered. Scientifically, macroevolution is not a viable proposition.

I think NEITHER should be taught in public schools. Both evolution and ID are based on conjectures, assumptions, and extrapolation. If it is unconstitutional to teach ID in public schools, so is macroevolution.

And for those of you who may not be aware of it, there is no such thing as a THEORY of evolution, NOT IN THE STRICT SCIENTIFIC SENSE OF THE WORD 'THEORY'.

Answer 7

NO!
I'm a Christian myself; but I believe if the wall between "church" and state is eroded and/or destroyed, what will be lefty is a theocracy.

This mistake was made before...for 1260 years the papacy ruled Europe with iron teeth. They are beginning to make the same mistake in Europe, again. Saying that the "pope" is the head of the Christian Church is blasphemous to Christ (the TRUE head) and making the "Vatican" an honorary member (allowing the papacy to print it's own euro's and other benefits) of the EU are more step towards a theocratic EU. God help us if we follow that same path.

I also agree totally with what bluehand and Donny (above) said.

Answer 8

No. It's just the "Scientific" Creationism pig with some cheap perfume. Packaging religion as science in order to try to get it into public schools is pointless. Public education has enough problems. The last thing we need to do is waste classroom time on political non-content.

Answer 9

nicely, if we are coaching it as element of a modern affairs classification or a comparative faith optionally available, then there is not something incorrect with coaching it in the time of the comparable 365 days that a student learns approximately evolution. yet coaching it in technological awareness classification is disgenuine with the aid of fact: one million - it is not element of the medical container. examine any peer-reviewed magazine or examine the minutes (or attend) any medical convention. there is not any debate in the medical community approximately no rely if or not evolution got here approximately. 2 - there is not any concept interior clever layout. It purely ingredient to a god with out certainly speaking approximately why or how a clothier did issues a undeniable way. In different words, "if a god did it, how did he do it?" they don't handle the question. 3 - there is not any learn or application of the medical approach in clever layout. not something is testable or falsifiable. that's precisely what technological awareness isn't. 4 - with the aid of fact there is not any learn, there is not any peer evaluation or replication. In different words, it nevertheless isn't technological awareness. 5 - It makes no novel predictions or learn paths. for this reason, it nevertheless isn't technological awareness. each and every thing trait that is used to describe technological awareness merely can not be utilized to identification. for this reason, it is going to not study as a technological awareness anymore than the "concept" that storks furnish infants could study in sexual training. yet there is definitely a sociocultural debate that is going on related to identification/creationism, the interaction between medical inquiry and societal reaction, and the popular public representation (and misrepresentation) of debatable ideas such as evolution. there is not something incorrect with addressing such subject concerns in an honest way in a classification coping with such subject concerns...yet this form of classification isn't a technological awareness classification.

Answer 10

I don't think either should be taught in public schools.

Intelligent Design is a religious perspective. I don't want anyone teaching religion to my child unless they belong to the same religion as I do. Its my right as a parent to raise my child in the religion of my choice. I don't trust the government to create a religious-based lesson plan that accurately reflects my beliefs.

I don't think Darwinian evolution should be taught in grades 1 through 12. I used to believe in Darwinian evolution until I had to study it in-depth in college. There were too many holes in the theory. At the time it was written it was cutting edge. However, given many of the scientific discoveries since then, the original theory is pretty tattered. There's just not enough evidence to keep supporting it. The theory needs to be completely re-worked.

I do support teaching Darwinian evolution in college. Give the parents a chance to teach the children as they see fit. Give the schools a chance to teach students scientific theory and critical thinking and analysis skills. Then using their critical thinking and analysis skills let them decide if they think there's any merit in Darwin's theory.

Answer 11

Intelligent design is based on what people WANT to believe. Evolution is a decent guess as to where we should be studying. Just because a child wishes Santa to exist, it doesn't mean he does.