Is Intelligent Design a concept that should really be taught or even mentioned in science classrooms?

Question

Well?

Just to let all of you know, I am totally in favor of EVOLUTION. If any of you want to argue, let me tell you that I have a formidable understanding of evolution.

Answer 1

There is no place for this garbage of an everyday theory whatsoever.

Intelligent design is not science, it has not undergone the stringent requirements for it to be even considered a valid scientific theory - to date there has been no proper peer review, no inferences and in particular, NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

This 'theory' also implies the existence of a creator - a major flaw, the assumption that there are some things that are so complex, that it must have been designed. No other scientifically accepted theory has ever implied this, the simple fact being the presence of a creator cannot be proved beyond doubt, hence it should not be considered as valid.

Intelligent design implies yet another garbage idea - irreducible complexity - the idea that one part of an organism is so complex, that each of its separate parts cannot function on their own, and hence must be designed as it goes against evolutionary theory. This has been proven to be false. Take the prime example of bacterial flagellum, apparently it is too complex to be formed from simpler parts - hence it demonstrates this theory perfectly - wrong. The flagellum is made up of a chain of proteins, removing any number of these proteins should render it useless, however it does not, in fact it leaves behind a pore like structure of which the bacteria can use to inject a cell with toxins.

Hence the theory (not even scientific) is nothing more than pseudoscience, in fact using this term gives it too much credit. It is simply garbage - not real science at all.

The very fact that this supposed theory violates every code of practice a scientific theory needs to go through before acceptance justifies it not being taught at any school.

And there is a difference between an everyday theory (a hunch or guess) and scientific theory (supported, observation, inferences, evidence, peer review, evaluation, critical examination).

Answer 2

you should teach your own children about the truth of where we came from and not wait upon the world to suddenly change. Also evolution is just a theory without 1 bit of proof behind it. for the history of the world read the Bible trust it before you trust any man, for true historical info only the bible is to be trusted get a free copy of time has an end from www.familyradio.com it includes a complete history of the world.

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


The notion called evolution can be easily shown to be utterly impossible. Consider a simple object like a table. How did that table come into existence? No one can deny that a human being designed it and then carefully constructed it. Under no circumstance can anyone conclude that over a long period of time that table somehow evolved. Every person with even the slightest intelligence knows that.

Jump now to a human being with his more than three billion pairs of DNA in his genome. Obviously, the design of the human genome is a million times more complex than the design of the table. Thus, if a simple object like a table requires a designer, certainly, a being as complex as a human being also requires a designer. Furthermore, if this table had to be manufactured by someone after it was designed, it should be immediately obvious that a human being also has to be made by someone. For that matter, everywhere we look in this universe, we find millions of objects far more complex than a simple table. If a simple table could not be a product of evolution, then neither can any of these other millions of objects in the universe be a product of evolution.


also 1 more thing science isnt what you believe to be science there is a thing called the scientific method which evolution cannot fit into so therefore it is only a hypotheses.
there is a fact in science that has passed the scientific method and that is Life must come from Life. so science itself proves that Life came from Life. so dont ever try to say science disproves God because that is a lie. science only disproves men and silly theories like evolution.

look below at the person who wrote where did the first cell come from?? remember Life must come from Life. that automatically disproves any theory i have heard except, God created man.

Answer 3

We detect design all the time. If you find an arrowhead on a deserted island, you assume it was made by someone, even if you can’t see the designer. We can tell the difference between a message written in the sand and the results of the wind and waves on the sand. The carved heads of the presidents on Mt. Rushmore are clearly different from erosional features.

And reliable methods for detecting design exist and are employed in forensics, archeology, and data fraud analysis. These methods can easily be employed to detect design in biological systems.

When being interviewed by Tavis Smiley, Dr. Stephen Meyer said, “There are developments in some technical fields, complexity and information sciences, that actually enable us to distinguish the results of intelligence as a cause from natural processes. When we run those modes of analysis on the information in DNA, they kick out the answer, ‘Yeah, this was intelligently designed’ . . . There is actually a science of design detection and when you analyze life through the filters of that science, it shows that life was intelligently designed.”

Life is more than just physics and chemistry; life is built on information. Tightly coiled up inside the center of every cell, this information is contained in that molecule of heredity, called “DNA” which has a digital code inscribed alone its spine.

Now, information is something different from matter and energy. For example, a book contains information, but the paper and ink are not the information—they can only transmit it.

Life is an information-based process in which the DNA contained within each cell is based on a genetic language using four nucleotide bases. It has been estimated that if transcribed into English, the DNA in the human genome would fill a 300-volume set of encyclopedias of approximately 2,000 pages each.

And, of course, an order of letters is meaningless unless there is a language system and a translation system already in place that makes it meaningful. The language system that reads the order of the molecules in the DNA is itself specified by the DNA.

We know from experience: If you have a computer program, you need a computer programer. Any time we find information, whether it is in the form of a hieroglyphic inscription or a newspaper article, there was invariably an intelligent agent behind that information.

Evolutionists have not been able to explain the origin of information in cells; information has not been shown to spontaneously arise from matter and energy. The existence of the information can only be explained through a pre-existing intelligence that put it there.

As Dr. Werner Gitt, Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, said, “A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) … It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required ...There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.”

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with George Bush: "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about . . . Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”

Good science teaching should include controversies.

Answer 4

No, Intelligent design is an attempt to explain creationism, but fails miserably, since the designs of us all are horrible flawed, and show no design. Most of our DNA is worthless junk carried over. If we as humans were so intelligently designed, why are our eyes so imperfect? Why give a falcon eyes that are 60 times better than ours?, and why is it that 98% of the species that have ever appeared on this planet are extinct? Evolution and stuff that really doesn't work every time is far better than intelligent design. Intelligent Design? Get real. I could write a few more examples, but you get the idea. Read more in books like Why Darwin Matters, The God Delusion, and God is not Great -- how religions poison everything.

Answer 5

I currently love in Kansas which lately seems to be the center of this controversy. Evolution is a theory, not a proven fact. Many theories fall over time with increased knowledge. I am not saying this one will. Personally I believe in evolution, but given the mathematical precision and the complexity of life, I believe it was set in motion by a higher intelligence. That said, what is so wrong with teaching evolution and simply adding that there are other beliefs, theories if you will, one of which teaches that a superior being/higher intelligence created the universe and all within it. This belief is called creationism. Period. End of conversation. I do not believe that constitutes teaching religion in schools. It simply acknowledges that not everyone agrees.

Answer 6

No, Intelligent design employs the following:

We have a belief, now lets search for evidence to support it.

This is NOT science.

Science observes evidence, proposes a theory, and then tests to see if the evidence supports the theory. This is the ONLY way a theory should be introduced into the classroom. If you try this with Intelligent Design, it fall apart completely.

(Gazoo, Ignore Schneb. His "link" is to the personal grindstone of Robert V. Gentry, the numero uno crackpot that the Fundies have raised up as their personal god of science. Somehow this nutbag got a physics degree and then lost his mind. Now he's trying to sue Universities to get his poppycock published.)

Answer 7

No--although it would be alright to discuss in a comparative religions course. Since intelligent design has nothing to do with biology, however, it should stay out of there. I do think it's alright for a teacher to briefly mention that some people believe in the concept of intelligent design--just as long as it isn't being taught to the students as a fact. People are quite capable of learning about intelligent design from several sources, without it being fed through what's supposed to be a secular institution.

Answer 8

I am not impressed with your credentials or your knowledge of evolution. Since all your understanding comes from a carnal sin-stained mind you cannot possibly have a proper understanding of the universe as it has an infinite Creator and you are a mortal finite being trying to understand something that is beyond your grasp.

Like all evolutionists with formidable knowledge of evolution I ask you the one question no evolutionist has never been able to answer "satisfactorily" to date. Richard Dawkins and Darwin both skirted this issue and provided no answer.

WHERE DID THE FIRST CELL COME FROM THAT IS AT THE BASE OF DARWIN'S TREE OF EVOLUTION? Since evolution stands or falls on the concept that every evolved form is an improvement on a previous life form I would like to know where the first cell came from. The primordial pool is not the answer since Chemical evolution has been ruled out.

The only answer left for now has to be that it evolved from nothing which takes a leap of faith that requires considerably more faith than accepting the existence of an intelligent Creator.

I know for a fact that intelligent design is under strong consideration from both secular and religious scientists, and 700 scientists and about as many reputable doctors have departed from evolution stating unequivocally that it cannot hold water based on recent discoveries. Those two groups are growing quickly and are a force to be reckoned with. In time the only people who will follow the hypothesis of evolution will be the diehard followers of people like Dawkins who has made a religion out of his disregard for religion.

EDIT: I LAUGH AND CRY AT THE SAME TIME FOR YOUR THUMBS DOWN WHOEVER YOU ARE. THE QUESTION REMAINS UNANSWERED AND WILL ALWAYS REMAIN UNANSWERED BECAUSE GOD IS THE CAUSE OF ALL LIFE AND IT CAME ALREADY MADE WITHOUT EVIL------UTION...

Answer 9

If you think your formidable understanding of evolution carries any weight, think again. I have a formidable knowledge of God...personally...not from the Bible or from church doctrine. He was the CREATOR. I don't know how he did it, or why he did it, or how long it took him to do it, but I do KNOW that he did it because he told me so.

As to whether or not intelligent design should be taught or mentioned in a science classroom....it doesn't matter. People will either respond to God's call on their hearts or they will not.

Answer 10

No

Design does not require a designer; it only requires an observer.

Design does NOT require any intelligence. It can be random and arbitrary, based on chance and purely physical attributes.

Leave a cup of saltwater in the sun. When the water evaporates the salt forms a crystalline design due to well understood physical properties.

Do the designs made by frost on a windowpane requre "intelligence" for their creation? Ripples in a sand dune? Fractal patterns? Snowflakes? Of course not. Same thing applies to everything.