Intelligent Design? Should it be allowed into our schools?

Answer 1

Absolutely not.

Answer 2

Absolutely. Intelligent Design should and MUST be taught in our schools.

Not as a science. Nor as religion. But as a media studies course. Intelligent Design should be compared to evolution in purely scientific terms (ie. no false logic). This would be an invaluable case study to help the next generation think for themselves by showing them how people will try to mislead them. Showing how propaganda works is an invaluable tool.

And at the same time it should teach them about evolution and scientific principles. Win-win if you ask me.

Answer 3

As intelligent design is a plausible scientific theory it should be. If you look at the Raelian philosophy it says that life on Earth was scientifically created, there is proof in this too.

So yes I believe that both Evolution and Intelligent design should be allowed into schools as they are both VALID theories. :)

Answer 4

i personaly believe that teaching a theory of any kind as fact (intelligent design, evolution, creationism, whatever) should be against the school rules.

i don't feel that evolution (the idea that life spontaniously happened and random amino acids decided to come together by the multi-billions to form one object controlled by a central force that moves and decides as one object) should be taught as fact. i think that it should be presented as the scientific theory that it is.

But if it is just a theory, then it should be presented along side other, long-standing and generally accepted theories. Most people discount aliens making us, because that just moves the question of where life came from to another planet (i.e. where did the aliens come from?). Intelligent Design is a theory that has existed for thousands of years. It hasn't yet been proven false, it's just been replaced by a different theory (which i personally believe has more holes in it)

If you teach only one theory by itself, then your presenting it as fact to impressionable children. That's not teaching, that's brainwashing.

Answer 5

NO, NO, NO. Anyone who tells you that the US was formed from Judeo-Christian law and teachings has never picked up a history book. The US was formed on the basis of the separation of church and state as one of it's most important principles. If we stick with the intentions of our Founders ( as well as leaders until Lincoln and beyond!) Intelligent Design cannot be taught in a public school. It is a religious teaching based on the Creation Myths of only three religions. NO seriously trained scientist accepts Intelligent Design, no matter how many phony, actor-scientist specialists news media shows shuffle before the screen! PLEASE don't be fooled. A good Christian can accept Evolution in it's entirety and still be a perfectly good Christian.

Answer 6

Not if it intends to pass itself off as science. The reason it's not in our schools already is because it failed to prove itself as a valid scientific principle. In fact it can't even be classified as science because it is not based on the scientific method. With the SM you first make an observation, predict what the outcome would be if X were true, and then test it either mathematically, through experimentation, or with a body of evidence. What ID does is make an assumption (god exists and is the creator) and then seeks out evidence to support it's claim. Often times this evidence has been manipulated to fit the assumption... That is not how science is done. That isn't even how serious inquiry is done.

The only reason IDers are lobbying the government to get their ideas into schools is because they know they can't hack it in the scientific world and would rather use bruit force than concede that they might not be correct.

Answer 7

I am with these people on here suggesting that we should teach our students about good science. So, lets throw evolution out too. If creation is absurd to these people, it is incredibly difficult to see how something as ridiculously filled with humanistic propaganda is okay. There is no science to evolution. Go ahead and teach survival of the fittest because it is an undeniable reality in our universe, but the concept of evolution is absolutely different. I say, lets go with good science. Teach them about the complexity of the human body and mind, the vast expansion of the universe and so on... but not humanistic theory. As a Christian and a youth minister, I am not even sure why either option has to be presented... neither can be accurately proved using the scientific method, so neither belong in the science classroom.
But I believe the question is whether or not is should be allowed in schools, and I say yes. It should be taught in classes like philosophy, right along with the athiestic concept of evolution. Thanks!

Answer 8

Creationism isn't a thought and you're misusing the word by using calling it the "thought of creation by using clever layout". that's an untested hypothesis without foundation quite. that's based totally on a 2000 year previous e book that folk nonetheless carry to out of concern of the unknown, no longer rigorous attempting out and fact. thought (n.) - a collection of statements or ideas devised to describe a team of knowledge or phenomena that has been many times examined and may be used to make predictions approximately organic phenomena. A thought is something that has been shown to be actual each and every step of how. If a undeniable set of variables have been to teach that the belief is imperfect, the belief could be changed to mirror certainty. At that factor, the belief of evolution could be diverse from what that's on the instant. in spite of the undeniable fact that, the belief nonetheless stands because it on the instant is on solid scientific footing. With our present day technologies and computational ability, that's the only thought that works, and if our technologies improves, we are able to easily have the flexibility to refine what's now a skeletal define of a very complicated gadget. possibly the main substantial factors would be further in later, however the reality of the situation is that DNA undergoes environmental alterations, and sufficient of those alterations bring about a trait replace as nicely. we are no longer on the factor of asking "IF" evolution occurs, we are on the factor of looking out "HOW" evolution occurs. absolutely everyone who says otherwise has been fed bullcrap by using their pastors and different priests attempting to shelter their fairy thoughts, or on the least have never genuinely examine a biology textbook. clever layout is intellectually cheating and not in step with any technological information in besides. to call it a thought is an insult to technological information and arithmetic. And to teach it as "actuality" or "obtainable actuality" is outrageous, because of the fact there is not any longer something observable in all of certainty that factors to it being even remotely obtainable. as nicely, whilst the large black chook Nix laid the egg from which humanity spawned, there grew to become into all waiting existence, so needless to say the belief is moot besides.

Answer 9

If evolution which is a theory based on lies and distortions is taught to unknowing children then YES ID should be taught with the fact that science proves it to be so, regardless of who believes in God or not. Why are so many for teaching young children a theory that is perpetually in the process of being redone. Darwin said we should be stumbling on missing links everywhere, so where are they? Teeth from Paraguay pigs and skulls of chimps, what a sin to back this up in order to try & disprove God.

Answer 10

No, separation of church and state. If people want their kids educated about intelligent design, why not teach them at home?

Answer 11

Not unless it is part of a comparative religions course. And if that is the case, then all creation stories of all religions - past and present - must also be taught. Intelligent Design is a rather thinly veiled vehicle for Christian literalists to spread their propaganda...I mean, message...in schools rather than in church.

)O(