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

Unlike the belief in Unicorns and Leprechauns, ID is a position held by many today.

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.

And for those who don't think ID is scientific... 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.”

Answer 2

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 3

Yes, I think ID should be taught in schools... and the teaching of Evolution and all other sciences, should be a mandatory part of all Religious services as a counter position to the ridiculous suggestions made in all religious books.

Time should be taken at the end of each reading of scripture to explain why the reading is incorrect, to describe the violations of the laws of Science, medical knowledge and common sense that, the specific scripture made.

Makes sense to me!

Answer 4

No, because doing so would be as absurd as teaching astrology along with astronomy, or alchemy along with chemistry. I.D. is a religious concept and as such should not be part of a schools curriculum. It's 2007... isn't it about time we emerged from the dark ages?

Answer 5

Because ID is not an alternative to evolution it is a fairie tale based on no evidence, no proof, no actual scientific data. By your reasoning let's just teach greek mythology as fact as an counter to evolution. It's the same thing, Creationism is merely christian mythology.

Answer 6

Faux-science has no place in science class. Intelligent Design is nothing more than a thinly veiled "God did it".

In fact, in a ruling against I.D. being taught as a "counter" to evolution, it was written: "Irreducible complexity, I.D.'s alleged scientific centerpiece, is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design."

There is no positive scientific case for I.D.

Answer 7

ID is a philosophy & should be taught as such.

Problem for the Fundy element behing it's push, that would mean that ALL indigenous creation mythos need to be taught to keep things fair.

Not that Any Fundy wants to be fair.

.

Answer 8

Intelligent Design is a religious belief, evolution has nothing to do with religion, it is a scientific theory with scientific facts.
No, it should not be taught, we are talking about a science class, not a religious class.
And my God and religious belief is not threatened or weakened by scientific discoveries. Even if another intelligent life landed on our Planet, I can accept both.

Answer 9

Because ID isn't science. Teach it as a social studies elective under mythology and folklore, but it's not a "counter position" to evolution at all. It has as much business in biology class as rain-dancing has in a class on meteorology.

Answer 10

A little thing called separation of church and state. If you want your children learn I.D., then you homeschool them.
Why are so many people who are all for religion being in schools offended by Muslims demanding foot baths in schools? If you want to allow religion in schools (which I.D. is), then you better be prepared for all religions and belief systems to be allowed in. That's not going to leave much time for English, math, science and history though.