Should a belief in intellectual creation be taught along with Darwin's theory of evolution? Why or why not?

Answer 1

YES!!! Teaching only evolution is wrong & communist. Even in my school (which is creation ALL the way) we learn about evolution & how Darwin's theory is way off course. You can't say that's Darwin's theory is fact, when you have no observation to back it up w/. Even creation is not fact. No observation = no fact.

Answer 2

1. Creationism is an idea that originated from a religious text and not from empirical observation.

2. The idea of creation makes a grand total of zero testable predictions.

3. The idea of God creating the earth is not falsifiable.

The three facts listed above disqualify creationism from being science. It does not matter whether there has been any evidence found for creation or not, creation can never be a scientific theory because scientific theories, by definition, are developed through observation and the testing of hypotheses, generate testable predictions, and are falsifiable. Therefore the answer to your question is no, creation should NOT be taught alongside evolution in any science classroom because it, by the very definition of science, is NOT science. Pretending that it is and teaching it to children in science classrooms will only confuse them about the nature of science and be detrimental to their education.

I have no problem with discussing creation in religion, philosophy, and sociology classrooms, as it is an important idea about human origins held by many people.

Answer 3

A comment that there are other opinions and beliefs about the origins of life, and how species came to be is right and appropriate.

However, schools should focus on science- what can be seen and measured. There are aspects of evolution that can be seen and measured (creationists often call it 'adaptation' or 'microevolution'), and aspects that are, at this time, more theoretical.

We really do not know all the details of how life started and changed on this planet, and we are not doing anyone a favor by pretending that ALL aspects of evolution are 'cast in concrete fact'. It is like doing a screenplay or a book- we have a decent outline, a lot of well-thought-out scenes, and a big handful of finished segments- but not quite the finished product yet.

Creationists have a few good points, but overall, they base a lot of their stuff on some pretty bad science and fancy rhetoric. 'Intelligent design' is just creationism with a few twists to make it seem less religious.

I have no problem with pointing out flaws or weaknesses in our current understanding of evolution and good points in creationism (ditto for geology, cosmology, etc.),

However, I think that there is more validity, proof, evidence, and science behind evolution than there is behind creationism.

Answer 4

Only if you also allow astrology to be taught alongside evolution. There is nothing that distinguishes the believe in astrology from the believe in intelligent design. Both are based on believe and based on scientifically untestable assumptions.
The case against intelligent design as a "scientific" subject has been aptly made in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

From a New York Times article:

The judge found that intelligent design violated the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking supernatural causation and by making assertions that could not be tested or proved wrong. Moreover, intelligent design has not gained acceptance in the scientific community, has not been supported by peer-reviewed research, and has not generated a research and testing program of its own. The core argument for intelligent design - the supposedly irreducible complexity of key biological systems - has clear theological overtones. As long ago as the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas argued that because nature is complex, it must have a designer.

The religious thrust behind Dover's policy was unmistakable. The board members who pushed the policy through had repeatedly expressed religious reasons for opposing evolution, though they tried to dissemble during the trial. Judge Jones charged that the two ringleaders lied in depositions to hide the fact that they had raised money at a church to buy copies of an intelligent design textbook for the school library. He also found that board members were strikingly ignorant about intelligent design and that several individuals had lied time and again to hide their religious motivations for backing the concept. Their contention that they had a secular purpose - to improve science education and encourage critical thinking - was declared a sham.

The judge declared the school board's handiwork unconstitutional and told the school district to abandon a policy of such "breathtaking inanity."

Answer 5

I'm not sure what you mean by "belief in intellectual creation". If by that you refer to yet another incarnation of "literal Genesis creationism", then absolutely not. It has no basis in science or reality whatsoever, regardless of what anyone may say, and you might as well also teach philosophy, music theory and interpretive dance as part of the class. Actually, those might all have more scientific elements...

Answer 6

No. Because Darwin's "Theory" of Evolution is NOT a Theory. It's a Fact and it's Intellectual Design is just bible beaters looking for an excuse to thank a "god" for everything science and technology has already proved.

Answer 7

No. Why would a belief be taught along side scientific theories? Why not teach the Greek God stories? There is only one scientific theory to explain the origins of mankind, and it is evolution.

Answer 8

No. There isn't a single experiment that demonstrates "intellectual creation". Calling it "intellectual" doesn't change the fact that it is a fixed belief.

Answer 9

In a science class, you are dealing with items that can be tested with physical evidence that can support or disprove a hypothesis.

Creationism relies on faith. There is no repeatable test to generate physical evidence in its support.

Evolution can be tested. Most commonly, these tests are performed using fruit flies because their life span is short enough to generate enough evidence to draw conclusions.

In a science class, therefore, evolution belongs; creationism does not.

Answer 10

What is there to teach?

During a lesson on evolution, you might mention that 'Some people believe that none of this happened, despite all the physical evidence supporting it. They believe that some supernatural entity, or possibly aliens created everything in a puff of magic.'

And that part of the lesson is over. There's nothing more to teach there.