Question about ID/Creationsim in Science class?

Question

The definition of Intelligent Design is "The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes."

The definition of Creationism is "the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed."

The definition for Science is "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." OR "Any of the branches of natural or physical science."


Now these definitions are right from dictionary. These definitions show that ID+Creationism are in *NO* way natural or involved by natural forces.

So by definition they are *NOT* scientific.

So how can anyone reasonably say they should be taught in science class?

Isn't that like saying we should teach Algebra in English Literature?

gzlakewood> I suggest you read the definitions again. and again try to understand that science deals with the natural....not the supernatural......so no they are in no way possible to the imagination without lying to oneself valid science questions

Steve H> While I agree they are great topics of discussion..I don't think they belong in science class any more than astrology, tarot, etc belong in there......becaise science is for science and philosophy is for misc ideas

Answer 1

I like the very first answer above. I have no objection to talking about creationism or intelligent design in a classroom situation. In fact, these issues can really get the class involved in a healthy debate.

What I vigorously oppose is the idea that they somehow deserve to be placed on an equal footing with evolutionary theory. That's dead wrong, and people should be shown exactly why.

I've encountered several teachers who just duck the whole matter because it is so red hot. I suppose my attitude can get me into hot water someday, but so be it.

Answer 2

Here's what should be taught in science class.

What is the scientific method, how do we use it, and what have we learned by using it? Here is the range of evidence related to evolution. What conclusions are reasonably supported by the evidence?

Some say that the structure of the universe looks more like it was designed than like it happened by chance. What can science say about this question? Think!

Cosmology is beyond any beginning science class. But it's fair to mention the concept of ultimate cause. What are some common ideas? What can science say about it? Some say a God outside of the physical universe created it. What can science say about that? Can it prove it? Can it disprove it? Think! Don't teach that God created it. Don't teach that God didn't create it. But don't pretend there is no controversy.

Answer 3

Science presents the "idea" then attempts to prove the theory. Science deals with verifiable data. We have not much proof for either theory at this time. Perhaps one day we will know for certain why there is something instead of nothing.

Science wants to know, therefore both concepts are a valid scientific question.

Answer 4

The main argument against ID and Creationism is that they start from a dogma ('god', 'holy scripture') and produce results that aren't verifiable, and can't be part of any scientific system. QED

Answer 5

I am in complete agreement with you on that, and in fact would question the LEGALITY of teaching a religiously-based subject such as creationism in a public school.