intelligent design. Help!?

Question

I'm doing a report about WHY intelligent design should be TAUGHT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

I personally think that it should be taught because Science is there to DISPROVE theories.
Studying ID would disprove "Evolution".

However, I could care less if you believe in it or not as I am not here to argue whether or not it is true. I'm asking why it should be taught in public schools.

So far I have:
1. Natural Selection vs. Evolution
2. The Time that it took God to create the world
-In the Bible it states that 1 day meant 1,000 years and 1 second of God took x amount of years.

Please help!

Thanks!

Answer 1

Science doesn't exist to disprove theories. It exists to help us understand our environment and how things occur. Most scienctist do not conduct an experiment with the sole intention of disproving another one, though one theory is often disproved by a new discovery. So I would not use that as one of your main selling points.

I personally don't believe it should be taught in school as there is supposed to be a seperation between church and state, so I don't have many things to offer.

However, it has been argued that all possibilities should be presented to students so that they may decide for themselves. As scientists cannot definitively prove evolution (like they have proved the double-helix structure of DNA) they should present, at the very least, a short description of each theory of how the earth was designed/created.

Answer 2

Scientists do indeed devote much of their time towards testing theories, but it hardly exists solely to disprove them. Science exists to formulate accurate theories in the first place, and it just so happens that the best way of finding out whether a theory is correct or not is by trying as hard as possible to disprove it. So yes, scientists should (and very often do) "attempt to disprove" evolution through extensive testing.

However, intelligent design cannot be used as evidence against evolution because it is not a scientific theory. The scientific process does not take the supernatural into consideration, by the very definition of "supernatural." Something supernatural is (again, by definition) beyond that which is naturally observable, and thus beyond the scope of science. As such, science does not comment on whether the supernatural does or does not exist.

So if you're sitting there in a science class and the teacher says, "Now class, we're going to teach you an unscientific belief today as an argument against a scientific theory," that's a violation of the very material that they've been hired to teach. It's not a question of whether or not intelligent design is real. It's a question of whether or not it's scientific. And as it requires a belief in the existence of God, a supernatural being, it is unquestionably not a scientific theory. I don't think I have to explain why something that's not a scientific theory should not be taught in science class.

Answer 3

The problem with your question is that it assumes that Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools, and it shouldn't be. Why don't you change your thesis to "why it shouldn't be taught."?

Intelligent design is not science, because it isn't falsifiable, and because it is really motivated by religious convictions. Anyone with any understanding of biology will tell you that the arguments that ID "theorists" make are sheer ignorant nonsense. Evolution is scientifically on as firm a ground as the earth's motion around the sun.

Also, scientific theories must go through peer review in order to make it to the public schools, and the IDers are attempting to bypass this, through politics.

So far, your two reasons are flawed because:
1. Natural selection is part of evolution, and both have been empirically observed
2. The Bible is not science, it is a religious text. It is unconstitutional to teach religion as science in public schools, and so what the Bible says on the matter is irrelevant.

Answer 4

Others are exactly right.

Science is NOT "there to disprove theories."

And the CERTAINLY is not the purpose of science *in schools*, which is about getting a *basic* introduction to what science is, how it works, and what the main theories accepted by scientists are. Evolution is definitely one of those main theories. Intelligent Design is definitely not.

In other words, I think that an examination of Intelligent Design would be a great topic for a graduate-level university course. Once you have a grounding in areas like thermodynamics, information theory, complexity theory, chaos theory, emergence, and some advanced biochemistry and molecular biology then you can see why the claims of Intelligent Design go nowhere. They ask great *question* ... but (a) a bunch of questions is not an alternative theory; and (b) these questions have answers.

But kids in High School and Grade School have *no* grounding in any of these, fairly advanced and math-heavy fields. You think you know what words like "information" and "complexity" and "intelligence" are ... but you don't ... not to the kind of rigorous definitions required by science. In fact, most High School and Grade School *TEACHERS* have little background in all of these fields.

So all ID can do in High School or Grade School is leave kids *hopelessly* confused. That is precisely the aim of Creationists ... unable to convince scientists they have turned instead to confusing children. But that's not education.

Let me put it another way.

When you start a sentence with "In the Bible it states ... " you are no longer doing science. (I'm not saying it's wrong ... I'm saying it's not *science*.)

If you don't even understand what science is, you are not nearly ready to tackle the complex issues of information theory and complexity theory.

Sorry I couldn't help. But you are just wrong.

Answer 5

It shouldn't be taught in public schools, because it *is not* science. The arguments amount to finding holes in evolution theory, and then expanding those holes as 'proof' that we were created.

In the end, it boils down to belief, and is really only a step away from creationism. If there is any observable evidence, I'd consider it, but until then, I consider it a matter of faith.

Answer 6

I couldn't even begin to answer a question like that...

You obviously have no idea at all about what science even IS, much less what evolution entails.

One quick hint:

It is not "natural selection vs. evolution"

Natural selection is essentially the "driving force" that causes evolution, not some alternative theory

Start by trying to understand that concept, and then continue your reading in an ACTUAL science text....not something published a church, mother goose, or the brothers Grimm.

Answer 7

This question was answered in complete detail in a fantastic lecture by Dr. Kenneth Miller, a biology professor at Brown University who is also a Roman Catholic, in one of my favorite videos of all time on youtube. Watch it, and you shall be rewarded:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

In short, Intelligent Design is an inherently religious belief, not a scientific theory; not only is there a lack of evidence that supports it, existing evidence refutes fundamental hypothesis in Intelligent Design such as "irreducible complexity". In contrast, the theory of evolution is supported by all types of evidence, which is why it has been taught in science classes.

Answer 8

I will not argue with you over ID. However I absolutely must point out that science is not there to disprove theories. Science is there to develop, and then continually test theories to constantly advance itself.

I am also concerned about your understanding of proper meaning and usage of "theory" but I trust you will research that on your own.

Answer 9

That is no reason. I can not find any reason to teach it, I think you should only teach things that have physical proof. Intelligent design has no physical proof of a designer. It should be taught in religious based classes not science classes as most scientists focus on evolution, etc... that is their area of expertise.

Answer 10

Science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge'), in the broadest sense, refers to any systematic knowledge or practice.[1] Examples of the broader use included political science and computer science, which are not incorrectly named, but rather named according to the older and more general use of the word. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[2][3] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word.

Fields of science are commonly classified along two major lines:

Natural sciences, which study natural phenomena (including biological life), and
Social sciences, which study human behavior and societies.
These groupings are empirical sciences, which means the knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being experimented for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.[4]

Mathematics, which is sometimes classified within a third group of science called formal science, has both similarities and differences with the natural and social sciences.[3] It is similar to empirical sciences in that it involves an objective, careful and systematic study of an area of knowledge; it is different because of its method of verifying its knowledge, using a priori rather than empirical methods.[5] Formal science, which also includes statistics and logic, is vital to the empirical sciences. Major advances in formal science have often led to major advances in the physical and biological sciences. The formal sciences are essential in the formation of hypotheses, theories, and laws,[6] both in discovering and describing how things work (natural sciences) and how people think and act (social sciences).

Science is sometimes termed experimental science to differentiate it from applied science, which is the application of scientific research to specific human needs, though the two are often interconnected.