Do you think (I.D.) Intelligent Design should be taught in schools as a counter thought to evolution?

Question

If educational institutions are going to evoke responses from students that are not one sided, why is it such a bad idea to teach (I.D.) Intelligent Design as a counter position to evolution?

Answer 1

I am a public school teacher and also a former pastor. I have a good theological education as well as a good secular education in educational policy and polity.

The problem with intelligent design curriculum is that it is very in your face towards the other view points. The best way to look at the situation is that if you are enrolled in a public school they are normally going to do all they can, through the curriculum, to give credit to anyone except God. The other side wants to just present the biblical account. The two have no conscenus or common ground, so intelligent design and the curriculums I have seen, have no common ground with evolution.

Most state curriculum's for science require a teaching of evolution but not to any extent. So....the thing to do is attack the Darwinist right where he ticks. In the basis for his argument. The most famous Darwinist who has ever lived is a dead man named Dr. Jay Gould. He has said on many occasions, and you can quote him, that, "it takes just as much faith to believe either in an intelligent creator..God, or to believge in any scheme of evolutionary science." With that key understoond and respected then the biblical teacher can stand and teach faith in a biblical creator and the Darwinist in his missing link and man from monkeys. It is my opion that the correct teaching of both, all positions is the strongest argumment for 7 day litteral creation as the bible states. Darwinism defies logic and reason.

All that to say this; No, the current curriculum is to narrow and not headed at the target of Faith to communicate its point as a viable alternative to Darwinism and evolution. The real counter position is NOT ID but biblical creation!

A couple of really good books on the subject and how to attack this problem: Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson and The Face that hides the Farce of Evolution by Hank Hannagraf. Great Question

Answer 2

Why is it such a bad idea to teach ID as a counter position to the Theory of Evolution? Simple: because it is not a counter position.

To be such, it would need to be the equal of the TOE, which it is not. One is science. The other is pseudo-science. One relies on empirical evidence. The other on religious dogma.

Teach it in a religion class, but keep it out of the science class where it clearly does not belong.

edit: in response to msears36801's post, and forgive me if this has been said as I have not read all the answers yet: a "scientific theory" is different than how us non-scientists understand the word "theory". When we use the term theory, we think of an educated guess, not far from a hypothesis. A scientific theory, such as the Theory of Evolution, has moved beyond mere guessing. It has moved beyond hypothesis. It has been tested and observed by countless scientists. Evolution is a fact. Scientists may not have all the minute details yet, but you can be assured, the Theory of Evolution is not "just a theory"

Answer 3

You'd probably learn about I.D. in a theology class, a class in which you would be expected to understand, analyze, defend or refute arguments made by different religions. I haven't taken a theology class, but I'm pretty sure analyzing how different religions think the world and beings came into existence is a core topic. Theology, of course, would have more of an academic focus, and you could probably take such a class in some high schools, as an elective, or in many colleges. If you want to learn I.D. for spiritual purposes, then church/temple/mosque can provide you with answers to your questions. Nevertheless, as much as I appreciate my religion as well as others, I'm a strong supporter of the separation of state and church. I think things would get really messy if we were to teach religion as a science, because it isn't. Religion is a matter of faith: either you believe it or you don't. No need for proofs. I believe in Jesus as the son of God, and I don't need anything to back my beliefs. Evolution, on the other hand, is a thing that can be proven. It might be made up of more theories than other branches of science, because we don't have time machines as of right now, but there is ample evidence that something along the lines of "survival of the fittest" did happen. So, in answer to your question, teaching something that is religious in a science class in a public school is not something im in favor of. However, if this case were to happen in a parrochial school, then things would be completely different.

Answer 4

No... there is no such thing as a counter to evolution, period. ID is bliblical creationism with a new jacket on.

The book that discusses it ("Of Pandas and People") was released many years ago with "creationism" where it now says "Intelligent Design." But they couldn't sell it and met with opposition, so they redid the book... with very few exceptions, the only thing they changed was replacing "creationism" with "Intelligent Design."

To the gentleman above me and the "they're both just theories" nonsense... please use the correct definition of "theory" when discussing something that has a scientific basis, such as evolution. I guess you must float around above the ground because gravity is "just a theory"?

For future reference, when the word "theory" is used in the scientific sense, it means it has been tested enough that science is relatively sure it's a fact. First, something is observed, then they create a hypothesis (a guess), then they experiment (run tests, etc.) and come to a conclusion (a theory). To help you remember the process, think OHEC.

ID IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC theory because it cannot be observed (the first letter in OHEC), therefore, the non-scientific definition applies... a guess that is not supported by empirical evidence. You can call it a hypothesis, but it cannot be tested scientifically so you cannot apply the scientific definition of theory to ID.

Therefore, it should not be taught in science classes alongside evolution. Ever. You can discuss it in a literature class when reading the bible alongside other mythologies or in a comparitive religion class (older children only) but NOT in science.

Answer 5

You are absolutely right.
Intelligent design should be taught in schools, but it should not be in science class. I'm sorry, but teaching religion in a science class would be like teaching math in English class. Teachers should use as many mediums as possible, but not pass one off as the other.

I believe schools should have religion classes (here is the part you wont like) that teach ideologies from various religions. Why should people have to wait until college to have the option of selecting classes that teach them about philosophies and beliefs of the workings of life and the universe?

I believe in a well-rounded education, and there is no reason for adolescents to not be exposed to all the wonderful ideas in existence. If it bothers any strict parents, they can write notes or keep religion classes as an option.

But for anyone who wants Christian views only, the U.S claims to have freedom of religion, and schools cannot educate students on one religion and ignore the others. Too many believers on ID want students to believe that it is science or Christianity, and that would be rude to the many other religious beliefs that deserve some time.

Answer 6

'teach the (bogus) controversy' is a political argument, intended to distract from the fact that there is no substantial scientific argument to be made. students are not all that stupid. it's a waste of their time. in a way i sympathise with the idea that more should be done to teach science as a method and not an unassailable body of perfect knowledge, but ID is not the way to do that. its agenda against evolution in particular is misguided at best - there are real problems to be solved in evolutionary biology that students could be discussing instead of creationist claims that are little better than 'why are there still monkeys'.

vv "The most famous Darwinist who has ever lived is a dead man named Dr. Jay Gould."

uh, wouldn't that be Charles Robert Darwin, not *Stephen* Jay Gould? you're a teacher, you say? pardon my skepticism.

Answer 7

The problem with ID or any related instruction, that no 100% consensus shall ever be possible. Properly, no educational institution should even approach such a subject, except of course that the same might foster notion of anthropology and cultural studies which speaks foremost to extant life among varying peoples. Evolution are easily proven, except that the word "evolution" are widely misused to promote some "primate theory" vs. fact that science presumes that from firewood to modern convenience some progress must have occured (based upon inane neanderthal theories). ID ult. becomes but another cheap religious debate, whether explicitly scientific or not. Words and phrases as "evolution", "god", "deity", "intelligent design", "spirit", "heavens", "space", even unfortunately "knowledge" to some extent most every educational system have attempted to equate with mere religion. Anytime the subject of "origin", or anything related thereto occurs, because of incorrect interpretation and use of variant religion over many years, the same shall automatically be construed/misconstrued as if akin thereto. Similarly have the same intellectually inferior nomads attempted to assuage lit. meaning of "substance" and "essence" relevant to life and biology. I don't like what have been done either.

-- Concerning any views of "origin", some "creation" etc. being taught in school, speaks to gross disrespect for the very Constitution in America, and fact that inferior minds intend to dominate every opportunity imaginable with their "Who are we?", "Where are we?", "Where did we come from?", "Where are we going?", "Why are we here?", "What does life mean?", "Why should one care about another?" (avoiding common sense) "Does the universe care?", "Where did the universe derive from?", "What are a deity?", "Whyfore have the universe permitted idiots to prevail?" (again, common sense must be avoided for sake of the intellectually inferior dotes that seek foremost control), "But does a Lord love us?", "How might we appease that Lord?", "Whyfore have people not acknowledged some Lord", "Are the Lord and some [god, God] not the same?", "[Doesn't] God love (-s) us?", "Don't we need some Lord", "How might we get to heaven?", "Where are heaven?", "Surely people do not desire hell", "Anyone who disagrees must be the devil", "We represent [god, God], all others are scum"...

Answer 8

Of course Intelligent Design, or Creationism, should be taught alongside Darwinism, (evolution). Kids need to
use their brain and make decisions based on facts, not
just a B.S. theory some scientists want everyone to
believe as truth.
The root of why a lot of scientists and intellectuals are so against schools teaching Creation and Intelligent Design is because if someone believes in creation, they must believe in a Creator. Therefore that Creator must be Boss, because
he has the awesome power to design and run the entire
universe.
That said, THEN the intellectuals are forced to deal with the reality of their own sin. Many people are very snobbish and proud of their own opinions, and are too self-righteous and self-centered to allow any of their own thoughts or actions to be influenced by God.
The evolutionists and atheists DO have a god, and it's
their own vaunted opinions; of themselves, of morality, and anything else they choose to form an opinion about.

Answer 9

This isn't about evolution vs ID. It's about science vs non-science. ID is not a science: it does not follow what has been accepted as standard scientific methodology; it is not reproduceable; it does not generate a falsifiable hypothesis; etc. It is not science, period.

I honestly have no problem with the Christian view of the origin of the universe being taught in school - as long as it is taught fairly (both to Christans and non-Christians) and as long as it is taught alongside other religious and philosophical beliefs about the origin of the universe - as religion.

But I'm sorry. It is simply not science and therefore should not be taught in a science classroom.

On a side note, I find it incredibly interesting and in fact quite funny that many people question the theory of evolution. What they often don't realize is that, regardless of whether their assertions or inferences are valid, the fact that they are able to question the theory is not its weakness - that is science's greatest strength.

Answer 10

They don't teach about the 'truth' of Santa or the Eater Bunny.

School is where our children go to learn about facts. And like it or not (I don't care about your opinion) evolution is a fact.

Intelligent Design is just an idea out of a popular book. They don't teach Magic Spells from Harry Potter, they shouldn't teach I.D.

Religion should be taught by the family and the churches, where it belongs. I help pay for schooling, and I will not allow this nonsense to integrate into serious studies!