Do you think intelligent and evolution should be public schools? Why or why not?

Question

I am doing a debate for school on why or why not intelligent design should be taught in school and i am the con side, unfortunatly if anything i would be the for teaching intelligent design in school. So i am having some troubles figuring why people would disagree on teaching intelligent design in public schools but not evolution.

evolution is not in the debate, b/c schools alreadyuse evolution! So the main question up for debate is should intelligent desin be allowed in school?

Answer 1

I wrote an article on this, which caused a real stir at my university. You can find it at:
http://umanitoba.ca/manitoban/2005-2006/0111/1817.intelligent.design.php

It was called "the most balanced article ever written on the topic."

And by the way, ID can be presented in a scientific manner. Darwin himself was modest and open-minded regarding the idea of design, which very few people know. Having said that, ID does not really support any particular religion. Read my article for the full scoop.

Answer 2

Intelligent design (ID) is a faux theory. It is a religious teaching in disguise. Here is a portion of a web page on this matter of ID:

"Intelligent design (ID) is an anti-evolution belief that asserts that naturalistic explanations of some biological entities are not possible and such entities can only be explained by intelligent causes.* Advocates of ID maintain that their belief is scientific and provides empirical proof for the existence of God or superintelligent aliens. They claim that intelligent design should be taught in the science classroom as an alternative to the science of evolution. ID is essentially a hoax, however, since evolution is consistent with a belief in an intelligent designer of the universe. The two are not contradictory and they are not necessarily competitors. ID is proposed mainly by Christian apologists at the Discovery Institute and their allies, who feel science threatens their Biblical-based view of reality.

In December 2005, federal Judge John E. Jones III ruled that ID must meet the same fate that creationism met in 1987 when the Supreme Court ruled religious doctrines can't be promoted in secular institutions under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Judge Jones wrote in his decision regarding a policy of the Dover, Pennsylvania, school district that added ID to the school's biology program:

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy....

The arguments of the ID advocates may seem like a rehash of the creationist arguments, but the defenders of ID claim that they do not reject evolution simply because it does not fit with their understanding of the Bible. However, they present natural selection as implying the universe could not have been designed or created, which is nonsense. To deny that God has the power to create living things using natural selection is to assert something unknowable. It is also inconsistent with the belief in an omnipotent Creator. "

Answer 3

Intelligent design is not science. They have very little, actually, NO evidences to back their "theory" up. Their beliefs are based on faith. When cornered IDists simply say things like "God is beyond space and time". Science classes are for teaching science; ID is NOT science, so therefore it should not be taught in publics schools along with evolution. Also the separation of church and state is an important priciple in our nation.

Answer 4

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23532
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1118piltdown.asp
http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/shame.htm
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=589

Evolution is a scientific theory. The scientific method is a standardized set of tools that guarantee that different people applying science, get the same result. That objective set of methods is what makes science, "scientific".

Evolution has been tested using these methods for over 100 years. The results have been the same in every single instance.....complete failure of any evidence whatsoever to be found for evolution. Important observations you would expect to be present if evolution were true are NEVER present. Further, the explanation of evolution for the beginnings of life are patently absurd.....violating the prime principles of biology.

Of a more serious note, evolution has a long history of such evidence being found. There have been many such instances. Every single one of them, later on has been found to be an intentional FRAUD. Worse, most textbooks continue to print these examples of evidence as if they were fact and leave out the part that they have all been proven to be frauds. This is the principle reason evolution is treated as fact when it actually is the farthest thing from it.

This is done specifically as a manipulative attempt to challenge religious explanations for the origin of man with the goal of getting people to abandon religion. Although the appropriateness of the inclusion of religiously oriented information and theory in the classroom is debateable, there can be no debate that attempting to use science, especially fraud in science, against religion is absolutely inappropriate.

Evolution should not be taught in school for three reasons:

1. Evolution has been scientifically proven to be a theory that is false.

2. Evolution in texts and by extension in school are teaching PROVEN fraud as fact.

3. The theory of evolution is being taught for manipulative reasons to try and convince people to abandon religion and that is fundamentally inappropriate both for science in general and the school system in particular.

Suggestion for further reading:

http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Darwinism-Intelligent-Design/dp/1596980133/sr=1-17/qid=1164681379/ref=sr_1_17/103-0524202-0153429?ie=UTF8&s=books

Answer 5

While I have no problem with schools teaching both, I think, when looking at the other answers that Panacea proves Kennethmattos point.
ID is a religious way to skirt the issue.

Answer 6

Neither should, I believe in such but many people don't and it is a waste of time to teach something they wont need or care about.