If you want "Intelligent Design" taught in schools, then shouldn't we use the Hindu view of creation?

Question

After all, that's just as well-proven as anything you ridiculous Baptists and Methodists have in mind, isn't it?
Yes, I think we will attribute creation to Brahman.

Evolution is no more a theory than gravity.
The whole point is that you trust those things which present the most (and best) evidence in their favor. The existence of dinosaur bones alone kills a biblical view of creation. Does that mean a Supreme Being does not exist? No, but it does mean that the Tanakh (Old Testament) is inaccurate and not trustworthy (which is no more a surprise than that the Ancient Greek religion of Zeus and Prometheus is inaccurate and untrustworthy.) A Supreme Being would be far greater than anything your stupid fairy tales can describe.

Answer 1

I personally would only wish to see that the Flying Spaghetti Monster version of creation, as pointed out by Darwin's Friend above, is taught if it comes down to creationism. May you be touched by His noodly appendages.

Answer 2

They do call it the theory of Evolution in textbooks; Texas textbooks kind of skim over how the universe was created. If we were to teach Creationism, we would either have to go through all of the major religions or just say that the world was created by a higher power and leave all of the students confused. Just because most of the American population is white, does that mean we should leave every other culture out of social studies books? Until we can absolutely prove that Christianity is the one true religion, schools should just teach the theory of evolution because it's based on science. Religion has no more basis in fact than a theory.

Answer 3

OK I will to drop Intelligent Design just as soon as you guys admit the evolution be taugth as a theory not a fact.

If you did your homework you know that "Intelligent Design" doesn't promote anyone religion over the other all it is says some kind of high power is at work PERIOD.


Let me add this when a school district dare to ask the student to bring in their questions about evolution it was meet with the battle cry they were trying to teach creationism.

Well if evolution is so sound couldn't it stand up to the questions by some grade school kids?

Or in Ga when they dare to say evolution is a theory and should be critically review who than said they were teaching creationism?

Now again if evolution is so airtight can't it stand a little critical review or is the case too weak?

With that being said I do have a degree in Cell Biology and with the current set of information evolution is the best theory going now. It has some facts support it but it still have some problems so it isn't air tight yet.
Stephen J Gould admitted that much so why can't you guys take a deep breath and relax?

Those who are insecure about their beliefs are the ones who get the most upset when they are question.

Answer 4

First of all, Christians have no problem explaining dinosaurs:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp

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.

Most Christians I know don't want biblical creationism taught in science classes anyway. 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.

Now, is design 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.”

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.

Answer 5

You do yourself a disservice by simply making fun of something instead of making a solid case for or against. I believe in intelligent design and I am not a member of any religious organization. Allow me to make my case leaving the Bible and all religion out of it.

We can all agree that there is, definately, a physical universe. The latest scientific research shows two things to be true: There was a point of origin where the physical univers began (cosmic egg if you please) and the entire pnysical universe is still expanding.

Now, the question at hand. If the physical universe began, who "began" it? Where did it come from? Even if one believes that the whole thing will stop expanding and contract into an egg again someday where did it originate? I can take a jigsaw puzzle and spread the pieces out all over the place and then reassemble it as a kind of model of a recurring cosmic egg but someone has to provide the puzzle itself. Who created the egg?

I know believing in a 'Creator' who always was and always will be seems far fetched to some but what is the alternative? The unverse always was and always will be? That does not seem very likely either. In fact, to me, it seems far more likely that a creator who is not bound by the laws of our physical universe is an easier fit than our physical universe not following it's own laws.

Now I will admit that the answer to the question of the origin of the universe is not knowable, at least to our current level of ability to know. But so far never, in all of my participation in many a debate on the subject has anyone displayed any reason why the concept of a creator is less logical than any other concept.

.

Answer 6

I think all children should be exposed to a religion class in public school. This class would be a survey of the major religions of the world and what they believe, as well as some of the more ancient historical beliefs. This will be effective at getting children to understand early on that there are billions of people in the world who believe something different. The concept of atheism will also be covered in the class to let the children know that many brilliant, productive, and ethical people believe in no god at all.

Answer 7

Well, I've always said, if "intelligent design" becomes science core-curriculum, then evolution and Darwinism must be, if not taught, then suggested in Sunday Schools and churches.

Remember, they're just theories anyway! Equal time for all!

Answer 8

I like the Nordic version better...
More action. Would keep the attention of the kids better.

But to answer a previous poster... I'd allow creation to be taught in schools, as soon as all the churches hire science professors to teach evolution in churches.

Answer 9

I have said it before, I will say it again. The 2 concepts are not mutually exclusive. They can co-exist and science is no threat to the divine.

Evolution concerns itself with the scientific method and natural observation. We see it all the time. It occurs. Any biological organism has genetic and biological variations from one generation to the next. Some of these mutations in individuals are actually beneficial and increase the chances of survival. These mutations consequently get handed down to subsequent generations. This is evolution. We see it in bacteria for example. One crazy little bacterium happened to have a genetic mutation that allowed it to resist our current antibiotics. It passed that mutation on and now we are beginning to have a problem with lots of bacteria being resistant. So it actually does happen. It is not purely theoretical.

Unless you are a religious zealot who is also a literalist, this should pose no threat to your belief system. Science has absolutely no metaphysical or ontological answers. Biology and particularly Darwinism and evolution do not even attempt to entertain these questions. In fact, science and in particular quantum physics create way more questions and mystery than they answer.

Answer 10

Sure.
I also think we should then teach the Frost Giant vs. Titans idea of creation.
And of course the undisputed fact that The Earth is carried on the shoulders of Atlas.
There are so many to teach.
Too bad math, science, reading and the rest will have to be skipped for all the mythology classes.

Answer 11

Actually we should have open discussion of all beliefs and theories. We may discover similarities or common ground where at least something from each idea can be believed at this point until something better comes along. Anyone, no matter who, is closed minded merely causes problems for himself and others. An open mind offers one the opportunity to understand, not necessarily agree with, others and their views. The knowledge of others can be valuable in soliving problems that may occur at some point in the future.