Thread: Should Intelligent Design Be Taught In School?

I guess simple is sarcastic. Ok I'm a sarcastic type, but this usa is a democracy. So lets take a cross section of the world and teach that. I would'nt think that a large number of people would buy into the spagetti monster idea, ok one or two. But a large number of people are bible bangers, so I can see why creationism should be tought. Even if I dont buy it.

I think there should be an option. Like two divisions of Science, one for Evolutionary science and the other for Creationist science. I dunno...does it really have to be one or the other? Just a lil' hint: this is one of those times when the answer isn't black and or/white.

Originally posted by Ramu
Creationist science

LOL.

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Ramu

Creationist science

LOL.[/b]

OK...well, you know what I meant. Just for the sake of peace, have the option of bull science or real science. Just for the kids with the wacko extremist parents out there...

Science class is not the appropriate place to be teaching such ideas. It's not that they have no merit, but they have no scientific merit.

It would be exceptionally irresponsible to present an unfalsifiable argument while at the same time trying to stress the importance of the scientific method.

Talk about mixed messages.

Originally posted by bradybaker
Science class is not the appropriate place to be teaching such ideas. It's not that they have no merit, but they have no scientific merit.

It would be exceptionally irresponsible to present an unfalsifiable argument while at the same time trying to stress the importance of the scientific method.

Talk about mixed messages.

OK, I guess you're right...but try telling that to said wacko extremist parents out there...

yes

they should teach both religon and science and tell the kids to develope their own concusions.They should be exposed to a number of religons and sciences.They need to think more spirtual and yet understand that sicence can prove wheather or not things are right.

Originally posted by eyeofgames
yes

they should teach both religon and science and tell the kids to develope their own concusions.They should be exposed to a number of religons and sciences.They need to think more spirtual and yet understand that sicence can prove wheather or not things are right.

Yes, but they should never be taught creationism in a science class, and the religion should be taught completley seperatley and must be voluntary.

yes

I think the real question is whether teaching should be done by telling or by asking.

From pre-school students are told to accept facts because their teachers say so. Not until college do they offer courses that touch on the fundamental justification of those facts. Throughout school students are presented with countless disputable facts. Most are seldom questioned, but when a large segment of the population doesn't believe something that is being taught to kids in school, as in this case, they try to force teachers to stop teaching it as truth. Very little they teach in school is unquestionable truth, and yet it is taught anyway, and seldom questioned. What they should teach children first is what truth is, why things are true, and if anything can be said to be true in the first place. In order to have a full understanding of any subject a student must have at least some exposure to philosophy. I think it should be a required course as soon as middle school and it should probably taught using the Socratic method.

Students need a reason to accept what their teachers are saying in order for them to develop intellectual integrity.

Intelligent Design should not be taught but presented, debate should be welcomed and other alternatives presented.

Allows students to make up their own minds. I had people telling me the grace of some benevolent male ideal god for years and I never took in a bit of it.

I say present it, so people are well, aware that many people believe it, but for the love of god [ha ha funny pun] don't actually say "this is true". Because, well, it might not be. Let the kids make their own decisions on things like that.

I think it's fine to teach ID in schools, but you will not find it taught alongside evolution because evolution is a scientific theory whereas ID is a social movement. Available evidence, including comparative DNA analysis of existing species, supports the close relation of primate species, including humans, and the divergence of species from common ancestors over time.

The evidence available c. 1953 can be arranged in such a way that it seems to correspond to the book of Genesis, if you already assume that to be the case and ignore 2/3 of the fossil record. Intelligent Design theory gains further credence if you snap your heels together three times while intoning, "There's no place like home."

Originally posted by Roller


Yes, but they should never be taught creationism in a science class, and the religion should be taught completley seperatley and must be voluntary.

Comparative religion in high school? It's hard enough convincing parents that their children should know that mammals reproduce sexually via intercourse.

Some good information regarding evolution from Scientific American:
The Woodstock of Evolution: The World Summit on Evolution, held in the Galapagos Islands, revealed a science rich in history and tradition, data and theory, as well as controversy and debate

Wouldn't it be nice if there were not two thousand ideas of creation and religion? If that were so, you could try to give the children some background of each. Then let them decide.
But that would be impossible. Provided that most children are already influenced by their peers in some fassion or another towards a specic idea. Also I stated earlier it would be a little confusing to teach two thousand differant doctrines.

Sure. Seeing as how Evolution and Intelligent Design are both theories they should be presented side by side with all the facts behind each. Then you leave it up to the student to make up his/her mind.

No.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Intelligent Design is not a theory and never will be, because A it isn't science and B because of A it cannot be falsified, proven, or anything.

It is not a fact, it is not a theory. It is not anything but an assertion without proof.

There is no controversy there is just a bunch of idiots clinging to old, old ideas that don't hold water making a scene.

Fact is scientists don't give a toss anymore; since, like, the seventies. They just don't care, because it hampers everything and it is pointless.

ID is not science. There is no debate. It should NOT be "taught" in school in place of SCIENCE.

America already does poorly in science as it is. The last thing we need is the generation of more stupid people.

ID is a pseudo-philosophical assertion, not anything that strives to provide an explanation or answer a quesiton.









P.S. Old thread is old.

Sure, let's teach 'ID' in classes. Why not?

"Some people believe the apparent complexity of the universe denounces an intelligent creator behind it's origin. That's called intelligent design."

It would take less than 10 seconds to 'teach' it, just to show how much science ID has.

Yay for 3 year old threads!

The Bible does not have any scientific theories at all on intelligent design! Teaching intelligent design in school would be teaching those kids something completely made up by some christians who didn't understand the Bible.

The whole push for Intelligent Design in America is actually quite disturbing. When did your country, for so many years an economic and technological powerhouse, let science become so demonised? It seems that in America, as with many other countries, science is taught in a very hurried, half-arsed way, and something really needs to be done about it.

I would have no problem with Intelligent Design being taught in schools - provided that it is taught as part of a religion programme that is voluntary - if and only if children are simultaneously taught how to decide things for themselves. One of the most amazing courses that I took in my first year of university was called Argument and Critical Thinking, as part of philosophy. The course examined what constitues good arguments - what is good evidence, whether the conclusions follow from premises etc etc. The beauty of this course is not that it taught what to think, but how to think - it gave us the tools of critical analysis to be able to think for ourselves.

This should be taught in school, i have no doubt about that. If this were taught, people would be able to make up their minds in an educated way, and know when to avoid being sucked in by weak or fellacious arguments. Science isn't being taught in schools because students aren't being taught what science is - that it is a system of critical analysis enabling the formation of knowledge. To do this students first need to learn the basics of critical thinking, although this is such a hard topic to teach because curriculums are geared towards teaching children a base level of knowledge, then rushing them off into jobs.

Platform: Intelligent design should not be taught in science class instead of OR as an alternative to evolution.

Point 1: Intelligent design is religion, not science, so it should be taught in religion class. (subpoint: religion classes have been banned in most or all public schools as part of separation of church and state.) This is the only point that matters.

Point 2a: Macroevolution is not proven, but science has discovered nothing that explains things with a greater likelihood of having occured.

Point 2b: Microevolution has been scientifically proven, so quit saying [whine]"Evolution is not provable, evolution is not provable."[/whine]

Point 2c: Intelligent design has not been proven, and has had far more likely alternatives, assuming that there is an even chance of a creator existing or not. Mathematics have proven that the infinite is impossible (I don;t care what the hell you say about quantum physics and existing outside of time), and one of the requirements ID propagandists give for not being able to prove a creator is that the creator is infinite.

I didn;t want to get all "science kicks the butt of moral anecdotes taken literally," but therew are too many idiots trying to prove points 2a-2c so hard that they completely forgot that POINT 1 IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IN THIS DEBATE!

Actually,

"macro-evolution" = "micro-evolution" = evolution