What are arguments against teaching intelligent design?

Question

I have an oral presentation in like 20 minutes!! My partner has pros for teaching intelligent design in schools, and i have cons. What are some cons? Thanx 10pts

Answer 1

argue that schools are (now) not in the business of having competitive views, - but rather only in indoctrination and group-think.

pseudo-science takes it upon itself that it can explain everything, - and that everything is of "natural" consequence. Inteligent design includes the "natural" and the "super-natural" for explaination of everything.

Answer 2

There is no con for it, except that there is a single law out there that calls for the separation of Church and State, and it should be upheld in all places.

But religion does bear out science, its just that most people who tend to be ultra religious put blinders on and dont read what they really have, which is why we had things like the witch hunts against people who said the world is round - when in fact the very religious texts that they argued said the world was flat, distinctly said the world was round.

Those that bear power tend to obfuscate the truth, so the truth remains hidden for a long time. But there are many like me nowadays that have actually read what is there and know that the religious texts bear out BOTH evolution and intelligent design - it is a combination of both, but the prefered method is to leave well enough alone and let evolution take it's course - mankind was interfered with because there were two branches of mankind developing, and one was chosen over the other to be genetically modified. That's about it.

The secondary issue is always the time issue - but the ignorant that do not read never see the mathematical formulas built into the religious texts. Todays scientists's figures for the age of the Earth match exactly the the age given by the formulas in the religious texts.

So which is right? Both are, because science bears out religion and religion bears out science - and the result is exactly one and the same in both cases.

In the end there is only one answer. It does not matter how you arrive at it. It is still the same. Those that are blind will never see it, but those that can see and read and apply reason to everything, will find the answers easily.

Answer 3

Although science can prove that the process of random mutation and survival of the fittest is a factor in the evolutionary process that in itself does not preclude more complex systems embedded within the engine of biological transformation which may be far more complex and direct than simple random mutation.
Random mutation and survival of the fittest as an end all solution has become a dogma in it’s self that jeopardizes research into far more reaching possibilities yet to be explored as in the realm of genetic memory itself potentially being able to alter reproductive DNA specific to a given need rather than relying only on chance and probability.
In itself the fact that a single living cell came into being that was capable of reproducing ,mutating and passing the mutation from one generation to the next is a cosmic miracle spawned by the cosmic miracle of the very existence of time, space, physical mass, and energy.
There is a potential here that the initial ability of the first living prototype was endowed with the ability to develop a system or systems that at some point in the process enabled the organism to (subconsciously) determine it’s own physiology through a link or links between genetic memory and reproductive DNA.
No matter how you look at it or how it comes about the whole process has progressively lead to ever increasing sentience, we do not see, hear , touch , smell, or think with organs that we created but rather organs that we inherited which evolved into existence out of the mystery of the Cosmos, does it really matter whether we evolved into sentience whole and in a moment or whether we evolved into sentience over millennia through complex processes, the end result is the fact that the phenomena of the universe is intent upon evolving into intellectual realization through the sensory systems of ever more complex biological organisms.
This has all occurred through the process of the mechanics of natural law.
To attribute the biological phenomena to be a mere “accident”
is to pronounce natural law itself to be an accident which appears to me to be enough of an oxymoron as to raise the question as to whether life and the cosmos itself is better served by attributing natural phenomena as a product of a creative process rather than a random process as proposed by hard-line classic Darwinian evolutionists..

Answer 4

Cons: No scientific data to back it up.
No way to disprove or prove
Stifles creative process (if we can't understand, why bother)
Allows others to dictate opinion, passing it as fact.
Opens gateway towards more religious teaching.

Answer 5

There are no intelligent arguments against teaching Intelligent Design. There is just as much evidence for it as there is for evolution. Evolution is simply a farce.

Answer 6

Separation of church and state is mandated by the US Constitution

Answer 7

Nothing wrong if your for teaching fiction

Answer 8

Like religion and the bible, it is a faith based theory without
scientific basis or evidence...

Answer 9

That there is no primary evidence to support it. At all.

Answer 10

real intelligent don't argue.