Shouldn't cdesign proponentsists get equal time in science classes?

Answer 1

It really depends. If they have cold hard facts with empirical proof to back them up, yes. If creation science can be studied under a microscope then it's a different story. But as I understand it, creation "science" is a misnomer, since creation is all about miracles and faith, and has nothing to do with physical science at all. However, on the flip side, I went to Catholic school, and we had several classes about religion - if parents want their children to have the option of learning religion in school, they are free to send them to a religious school. But since, by definition, science and religion do not mix, I would say that creationism has no place in a science class. Science class is for learning about the scientific method, the workings of our planet, things like the periodic table, dissecting frogs and other creatures (which I hated) and related types of things. Can we dissect god and study him under a microscope and learn more about him using the scientific method? If not, then science class is not the place to discuss him. That's not meant disrespectfully in any way, but to illustrate the differences between the definitions of science and religion.

Answer 2

Absolutely not...until they do some science of their own that backs up their theory. As it stands now, creationists/IDer's do at least three things:

1) Use scientific evidence that backs evolution and natural selection as evidence of their own beliefs;

2) misrepresent facts, misquote authority, or misinterpret data that does support evolution as a case to knock down the theory (somehow believing that "proving" one wrong makes the other more "right" [ugh]);

3) or think that something supernatural, and by any means we know now untestable, should somehow be a comprehensive answer for questions about the natural world, when the logic of science lies in the natural world and the tangible evidence it provides.

So, no.

Answer 3

I know from the phrasing of your question that you already have a strong viewpoint about this one. We can agree to disagree peacefully.

From my vantage point, evolution is not "just a theory." The word theory is frequently misused and misunderstood. Evolution is the basis for all scientific study as we know it today. By definition, a theory explains observations. Theories are not conjectures as the wikipedia article in my source box notes. Theories are based upon facts. In order to preserve scientific rigor, students need to be taught the scientific method.

I propose that discussions of intelligent design and creationism both belong in philosophy classes because I.D. and creationism reflect a way of perceiving the universe and everything in it [rather than hard science.] Students could do research in philosophy classes and learn to construct logical arguments for their points of view. Religious texts could easily serve as their sources if they so choose.

Respectfully,
fluffy not stuffy

Answer 4

Only if they have an equal amount of science to back them up. And I'm not talking crap science, you sneaky monkeys.

I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one who watched NOVA on Tuesday. :D

Answer 5

About as much time as evolutionary biologists should get during Bible studies.

Answer 6

Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!