Why can't intelligent design be taught in school?

Question

Aside from it being unscientific, is it a religious idea? Is it somehow more religious than or the reference to our "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence?

Answer 1

So many people these days are confusing biblical creationism with intelligent design. "Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence" (Dr. William Dembski). That's it; it says nothing of who the creator is and how he/she/it/they did it. Intelligent Design encompasses every "creation" story, even aliens seeding life on this planet.

William Paley is famous for using this argument. In 1802, he came out with a treatise called Natural Theology. He began by arguing that if one were to discover a watch lying in the middle of nowhere and they were to examine that watch closely, the person would logically conclude that it was not an accident, but had purpose; it had a designer. He went on to argue that the overwhelming design in the universe is evidence of a Grand Designer.

Now, is this a valid argument? Well, 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.

The thing is, 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.”

The four main areas the ID movement focuses on: Information Theory, Irreducible Complexity, The Anthropic Principle, and The Design Inference.

What about teaching it in school? I'm sorry, but I have to agree with George W. 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. Most Christians I know don't want biblical creationism taught in science classes. What we want is for molecules-to-man evolution to be taught with all its warts (they are not even allowed to present evidence that would put evolution in a poor light). And we want intelligent design to at least to be presented. Unlike leprechauns and unicorns, etc., a significant percentage of the population believes in ID.

Answer 2

Intelligent design CAN be taught in school, just not in science class. It isn't science and has no scientific basis, therefore it should not be taught as science, nor should it be offered as an alternative to science.

However, to teach it in philosophy, religion/theology, or even history/social studies class is fine. Note: Intelligent design/Creationism should not be taught AS history, but the philosophy is historically significant as an idea held, in one form or another, by a great many people for a very long time. Whether or not one agrees with the idea, the significance of it is still there.

It's the same with the Declaration of Independence. It's a document written a long time ago that has huge historical significance in America. Whether or not one agrees with the reference to a "Creator" is irrelevant. It's the way the document was framed, and it would be dishonest to edit it after the fact.

Answer 3

The reason that it shouldn't be taught in school as science is because it is *not* science. If there was a class set up to examine alternate hypothesis then it could be taught there, or as an illustration of how an unproven hypothesis can be misconstrued as a valid theory.

I.D. was never presented as a scientific theory with supporting data and evidence, instead it's conceiver, obviously knowing it would not stand up to review, published it as a layman's book. This tells you two things: first and foremost, he thought it was a good idea but knew it lacked and never would have the slightest proof; and two knew that the religious community would never understand that they were being duped by accepting it on belief alone.

Answer 4

Intelligent design assumes the existance of not just a Higher Power, but a conscious Supreme Being who acted as Creator (or at least as Editor).
It might perhaps be fair to teach it alongside evolution as THEORY, since it does have some scientific arguments, but at heart it is really more of a religious theory than a scientific theory, since it assumes a presence that cannot be proven. Science does not accept as fact anything that cannot be proven; if it cannot be proven, it must remain as theory. In this case, it is more logical to make a negative assumption (no God, just evolution) and work with the facts, than it is to make a positive assumption (God exists and directed evolution) with no provable facts to back up the assumption.

I'd be fine with teaching this theory in a religion or current events or debate class, but it doesn't really qualify as a scientific theory.

Answer 5

Intelligent Design CAN be caught in schools. In a religous studies course, philosophy course, debate class - perhaps, current events class, too. I don't think it should be in religious studies course, just call it creationism or christian, but current events certainly -- or debate.

It's not Science, so doesn't belong in a science class. Of course, but yes, this (and other current events) should be taught to our children. Additionally, they should be exposed to other religions, that'd be nice too.

However, most of the founders of the USA were not religious, and were strictly not. Many of them were very diest. If not outright athiest. Where the freedom of religion comes from. If they were all christian, well, it'd be a no brainer, wouldn't it? The "founding fathers" would be appauled that any form of religiousity came into play in electing someone.

Answer 6

Well it isn't science is the main reason. That means that it only comes from religion.

And the Declaration was not intended to be a legal document. It only stated their reasons for declaring independence from England. It was in no way a reflection of what they thought the law of the land should be.

Answer 7

It could but why?

It has loads of publicity but very few people really believe it and most of those can't even explain the concept.

It would be an interesting thing to discuss in Media Studies or Communication on how weird ideas can enter the popular mainstream.

Answer 8

smart layout isn't a scientific concept. a scientific concept isn't an "unproven assumption" as one columnist pronounced presently. a scientific concept is a logical, systematic set of concepts or rationalization that has been shown—has stood up against tries to coach it fake. a scientific concept might desire to make testable predictions. smart layout, like creationism, holds a undeniable rationalization approximately our actual worldwide to be real no count what—it won't be in a position to be shown fake nor can or no longer it somewhat is changed whilst new info is got here upon. smart layout, like creationism, starts off with the concept that God created each little thing and it believes that no info or remark can coach in any different case. it somewhat is high-quality as a non secular concept, yet this concept isn't scientific. it somewhat is ok---it rather is ok to hold a non-scientific concept as long one would not confuse a non secular concept with a scientific rationalization and vice versa. smart layout proponents have faith there are some actual issues and approaches that may not be in a position to be understood or defined without invoking a supernatural entity, the grasp dressmaker, and no info or remark can contradict that concept. lower back, it somewhat is high-quality as a non secular concept, yet this concept isn't scientific. smart layout isn't a valid scientific concept because of the fact it has no longer long previous via the standard peer assessment and correction of the scientific technique. issues like organic and organic evolution, atomic concept, and gravity concept are taught in our extreme faculties because of the fact they have been shown and subtle by ability of a lot of human beings utilizing the scientific technique. Any scientist could rather decide to coach those theories incorrect or incomplete because of the fact they could get an excellent variety of attractiveness for making that step forward. Scientists spend years attempting out scientific theories in that pursuit of a thorough ruin from what improve into before concept. Creationism and smart layout advocates seek for to do an "end-run" around the attempted-and-real ability of technology and curriculum progression by ability of legislating their ideals into our faculties. Creationism and smart layout advocates argue from the situation of authority fairly than from the info of the actual universe. careful observations of nature are the only choose. i won't say i'm the terrific option in basic terms because of the fact I somewhat have a PhD in astrophysics from a prestigious employer or because of the fact the bible says so, I might desire to offer you the info.

Answer 9

It's a feeble attempt by religion to teach creation without using the word "god" .
Naturally everybody understands that the "intelligent designer " is god .
The state of the world is such that anyone who designed it has no claim to intelligence .

Answer 10

if you could be fair about it, i wouldn't have a problem with it. the problem is it's all about pointing in the direction of the christian god. why not multiple gods? where did these gods come from? how can you be scientific and objective about answering these questions? you can't. leave it at church.

edit: the simple fact of the matter is there is not as much order in the universe as we tend to perceive. is the ocean in order? no. it's just a chaotic mass of water molecules. there's no order there.