Should Intelligent Design be Included in Science Classes in Christian Schools?

[Servant222]

In another thread, the question was asked "Should Intelligent Design be Taught in Public Schools?"

I would like to ask the same question with regard to Science classes in Christian schools. I would also like to assume a broader definition of "Intelligent Design" to include any discussion of God's hand in creation in a science class.

So, to reiterate, here is the question:

Should Intelligent Design be Included in Science Classes in Christian Schools?

 

[nikostheater]

Νο.
Τhis is just nonsense.
It's better for children to learn about science the scientific way,not the "Born-Again" way.
Science searces for the "how" of Creation and life.
Religion is not science.The role of relegion is not scentific but spiritual.
Let it be that way.
Gone are the days of Spanish Inquisition and the prosecution of Galileo Galilei and others...

 

[ArnautDaniel]

No.

For the simple reason that ID isn't science.

 

[ab1385]

I did type out a lengthy answer as to why not, but I suppose the answer technically should be 'yes, of course', since to "include any discussion of God's hand in creation in a science class" would be to discuss why ID is not valid science - something that kids should know.

 

[Samuel_Rigby]

I say No. But I do wish the weaknesses of evolution would be taught in addition to its strengths. We need to know that there are things which evolution cannot explain or has not yet explained as opposed to it being taught as a perfect theory.

 

[chickenutbread]

well, i go to a religious school and i'm taught God and the Big Bang can coexist.

 

[elsbeth]

No.

For the simple reason that ID isn't science.

Ditto this!

 

[Servant222]

So you're saying that if I'm a teacher in a senior geology class, for example, talking about the origin of the Earth and the Universe, I should not be allowed to say that an alternate belief to the Big Bang theory proposed by astrophysicists is that God created it?

Sorry, I couldn't do that- I take as many opportunities as I can to tell others about God.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

So you're saying that if I'm a teacher in a senior geology class, for example, talking about the origin of the Earth and the Universe, I should not be allowed to say that an alternate belief to the Big Bang theory proposed by astrophysicists is that God created it?

Sorry, I couldn't do that- I take as many opportunities as I can to tell others about God.

Well as you are teaching a science class, I'd assume you would teach *science* which is to say theories representing various views within the scientific commune as identified through the peer-review process.

Throwing in creationism about like a world history teacher saying: "Oh, by the way some people think space aliens built the pyramids".

 

[Servant222]

As a parent of a student at a Christian school, I would expect that teachers would take every opportunity to bring God into every aspect of my child's education.

I am quite surprised that some of you Christians feel differently.

I don't think that comparing God's role in creation to the possibility of space aliens building the pyramids is an appropriate comparison for a Christian to be making.

 

[ab1385]

As a parent of a student at a Christian school, I would expect that teachers would take every opportunity to bring God into every aspect of my child's education.

I am quite surprised that some of you Christians feel differently.

I don't think that comparing God's role in creation to the possibility of space aliens building the pyramids is an appropriate comparison for a Christian to be making.

Perhaps not generally, but in a science lesson the space aliens building a pyramid is actually more scientific.

Unlike the creator or ID 'science' argument, this idea is seeking an idea to explain the evidence (rather than seeking evidence to support an idea) falsifiable (through archaeology and related fields).

Now don't get me wrong, I don't feel that aliens built the pyramids, or God did not create the world, only that ID is not scientific, and therefore should not be taught in a science class.

Note that I don't think that because something is scientific it should necessarily be taught in a science lesson - science lessons are about helping children to understand the way the physical world works, and so only science which helps them understand that should be taught.

 

[Ave Maria]

No, intelligent design is not science and does not belong in a science classroom whether in a public school or private school.

 

[Servant222]

John 11:

25Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"

As a Christian, I KNOW he is alive, and I BELIEVE he created the Universe, so why would I not acknowledge his presence and work in EVERYTHING I do???

To a Christian, this is not speculation or myth, it is an absolute truth. You wouldn't look at a beautiful ancient church and say "look at those beams, look at those windows, look at that alter- they are beautiful, but I'm not going to speculate about whether it was built by gifted craftsmen, or just appeared here accidently one day".

I appreciate that in a secular world, you may need to respect the beliefs of others, and perhaps be cautious about how and where you bring up the notion of God, but in a venue where God is fully acknowledged to be the Creator of the Universe, why would you not give glory to his name in everything you do, including teachings in science classes?

I would certainly expect- even demand- that my children's Christian science teachers point out every example of where God's marvelous creation is evident. Does anything think that this would somehow detract from their education?

 

[ArnautDaniel]

As a parent of a student at a Christian school, I would expect that teachers would take every opportunity to bring God into every aspect of my child's education.

I am quite surprised that some of you Christians feel differently.

I don't think that comparing God's role in creation to the possibility of space aliens building the pyramids is an appropriate comparison for a Christian to be making.

I question whether you really should be teaching science *at all*, since you are displaying total ignorance of what is at the core of science.

Science is about evidence based reasoning. That is the ability to make observations in nature (which should be appearing in your class as simple experiments) and make inductive and reasonable generalizations from them.

It is not about memorizing a bunch of laws and theorems out of a book.

If I taught a science class and a student couldn't remember any law or theorem, but could do an experiment and draw reasonable and correct conclusions from it and apply them in other situations, then I would say that student could be a brilliant scientist, and constituted a success. A student which memorized every law and theorem from the book but couldn't look at the evidence to reach a conclusion at all would be a failure.

I can only see one viewing ID as a perfectly good scientific theory if they were viewing science as nothing more than memorizing laws and theorems out of a book.

Heck, as long as you are memorizing doctrines you may as well memorize alternative doctrines since at no level do you care whether the doctrines have anything to do with reality.

 

[Servant222]

Professionally, I am in a field where my adherence to strict principles of science is tested in virtually every project that I do. And yet I still try, in everything I do, to put God first and acknowledge His presence in every way I can.

If I was a teacher, I would do the same. And as a Christian and a parent, I would have no problem with teachers who use opportunities to bring His presence into their education.

But if my childen are going to a Christian school, I would not only want, but would expect, teachers to bring God into as many aspects of their education as possible

So if a music teacher plays one of Vivaldi's or Mozart's symponies, and then comments on how the incredible order and yet mystery of how so few composers are able to produce such masterpieces must be due to God's guidance within their pysche, that is fine.

If a science teacher shows pictures of a coral reef, with its profusion of life forms, all perfectly ordered and exquistely beautiful, and remarks that this must have been made by a Creator, that is also fine.

 

[ReformedChapin]

I question whether you really should be teaching science *at all*, since you are displaying total ignorance of what is at the core of science.

Science is about evidence based reasoning. That is the ability to make observations in nature (which should be appearing in your class as simple experiments) and make inductive and reasonable generalizations from them.

It is not about memorizing a bunch of laws and theorems out of a book.

If I taught a science class and a student couldn't remember any law or theorem, but could do an experiment and draw reasonable and correct conclusions from it and apply them in other situations, then I would say that student could be a brilliant scientist, and constituted a success. A student which memorized every law and theorem from the book but couldn't look at the evidence to reach a conclusion at all would be a failure.

I can only see one viewing ID as a perfectly good scientific theory if they were viewing science as nothing more than memorizing laws and theorems out of a book.

Heck, as long as you are memorizing doctrines you may as well memorize alternative doctrines since at no level do you care whether the doctrines have anything to do with reality.

Rhetoric isn't a scientific principle, I guess that by your own logic you have no knowledge of it either. Oh wait, your comment isn't valid since it isn't based on the laws of nature. Oh crap.

The problem is how do you DEFINE science. Since most people like yourself seem to have a neomaterialist definition of it. And ID applies to your own definition, an intelligent designed structured the universe. It doesn't directly imply it's God...although I think it's the best bet.

 

[ab1385]

Science is the process of exploration of the natural world through the scientific method.

Beauty is not an argument to say that God exists, because, for a start, beauty is very subjective. Order arises naturally in a selective environment. Etc etc.

What this is not to say is that Christian should not appreciate the beauty of creation and thank God for it. You can believe that God created the world and made it beautiful, and be thankful for that, however you can never scientifically show it and therefore it is not suitable for a science lesson.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Rhetoric isn't a scientific principle, I guess that by your own logic you have no knowledge of it either. Oh wait, your comment isn't valid since it isn't based on the laws of nature. Oh crap.

The problem is how do you DEFINE science. Since most people like yourself seem to have a neomaterialist definition of it. And ID applies to your own definition, an intelligent designed structured the universe. It doesn't directly imply it's God...although I think it's the best bet.

There is no question of defining *science*, there is a question of defining the *scientific method*.

"Science" is simply the collection of the best results the scientific method has produced at a given time.

The scientific method works in terms of evidence and hypotheses which can be compared to each other in terms of the evidence. That is to say science consists of evidence, hypotheses, and statistics.

I'd be interested to see the analysis of the evidence where the notion of "creator" can be formally analyzed as a hypothesis and compared to other hypotheses and weighed scientifically, and conceivably disproved.

Or to put it another way:

If you really believe the notion of a creator is scientific, *and* you believe in the scientific method, then you have to be prepared to say "I will no longer believe in God, if the scientific evidence points in that direction."

So anyone that is willing to renounce their faith in God if the evidence points in that directions, is the only one with enough intellectual honesty to postulate a creator as a scientific hypothesis.

Who is willing to renounce their faith on the basis of scientific evidence?

 

[Servant222]

What direct scientific evidence is there for the Big Bang? Oh yes, we have expansion of the Universe, residual radiation- but direct proof- no.

And wouldn't statistics alone, as demonstrated by the vast order in the Universe, be ample evidence for a Creator. Science doesn't require direct proof, after all.

But more to the point, even scientific thought has to start somewhere with just an idea, a thought; eventually formulated into a hypothesis, and then into a theory and finally a principle or law.

So where does science really begin? I can see it now: "Einstein- get that E=mc2 idea out of your head- this is a SCIENCE classroom".

And even more to the point, what is wrong with discussing all of this- including God- in a science classroom- especially one in a Christian school?

Especially by someone that has accepted Jesus as Lord. Someone that believes that God is as real as a rock.

PS I find that my knowledge of science and engineering greatly validates my faith, not the other way around. As I design and build things, I constantly marvel at God's guidance, and the foundation that He provides for my work. Now if he would only help me finish my reports...... (prayer please).

 

[ab1385]

If you really believe the notion of a creator is scientific, *and* you believe in the scientific method, then you have to be prepared to say "I will no longer believe in God, if the scientific evidence points in that direction."

So anyone that is willing to renounce their faith in God if the evidence points in that directions, is the only one with enough intellectual honesty to postulate a creator as a scientific hypothesis.

Who is willing to renounce their faith on the basis of scientific evidence?

A very good point. I actually say that I would renounce my faith if scientific evidence pointed toward the non-existence of God. Of course I don't believe science can do this, but you're right, if you believe science can prove God then science can just as easily disprove Him should He not exist. In order to be intellectually honest we must be as open to that as to the idea that He does exist, and in fact for a school to be teaching in an intellectually honest way, if they teach that science may show God exists, then they must also point out that science may show that God does not.

Schools are about educating children so that they can make up their own mind, not about indoctrinating them.

What direct scientific evidence is there for the Big Bang? Oh yes, we have expansion of the Universe, residual radiation- but direct proof- no.

Direct proof is not available for anything, anything is just evidence and strength of evidence. Even the fact that you are reading this relies of the strength of evidence that you are not schizophrenic and your mind is not showing you stuff that is not here, even if that is unlikely. Red shift is as close as we can get to direct proof that the universe is expanding. This was actually a problem for atheists when first realised as it was seen as meaning there must be a 'beginning' - something that had been previously denied - as it meant that everything at one point had to be in the same place.

The idea also fits in very well with later discoveries about singularities and other phenomena which we were previously unaware of.

Direct proof? No. Fairly conclusive evidence? Yes.

And wouldn't statistics alone, as demonstrated by the vast order in the Universe, be ample evidence for a Creator. Science doesn't require direct proof, after all.

No statistics are irrelevant. In fact, Richard Dawkins tries to use statistics to disprove God - He is so unlikely that he cannot exist.

We are very very unlikely and yet we do exist. It was very likely that it would rain this morning here, yet it didn't. Statistics are never a proof of anything, they are just the chance of something happening.

That, and the fact that there is simply no way to calculate the statistical chance of God existing, or us for that matter. You have come to the conclusion that going on statistics God is a near certainty, Richard Dawkins comes to the conclusion that there is "almost certainly no God", on the same evidence. Neither of you had any reliable way of calculating that.

So no, statistics are not ample evidence for a creator since they are not evidence at all.

But more to the point, even scientific thought has to start somewhere with just an idea, a thought; eventually formulated into a hypothesis, and then into a theory and finally a principle or law.

There is this strange misconception that the order you have posted in is some kind of hierarchy of strength of evidence. A hypothesis is just a thought that has been defined, i.e. made into such a way as to be falsifiable. A theory is the explanation of how this hypothesis might have worked.

A law is somewhat different. Something is a law only if proven beyond doubt. This can only happen if there is an "if A happens, B will also happen", on a process that can repeatedly be performed under lab conditions. This is why there are in fact only roughly 18 basic physical laws in the universe (Link).

So where does science really begin? I can see it now: "Einstein- get that E=mc2 idea out of your head- this is a SCIENCE classroom".

Science begins, as you suggest, with an idea. Someone sees something that they cannot explain, then comes up with an idea of how this might be. They then formalise this idea so that it can be tested. They say 'if my hypothesis is true then in my tests I will find...' or 'when observing the universe I will see...' and 'if it is not true then I will see...'

The reason this does not apply to ID is that what we would see if there was or was not a God is not something we can possibly know, since we don't have a world where there is a God and one where there is no God which we can compare, and say 'ours is most similar to the one where there is a God'.

And even more to the point, what is wrong with discussing all of this- including God- in a science classroom- especially one in a Christian school?

The issue itself is something that science and the scientific method cannot be used to explore. A better question would be 'is there any reason why we should discuss this in a science lesson?' And why is a Christian school not subject to the same logic and understanding that normal schools are? Are we to be intellectually dishonest?

What I do think though is that this debate is an excellent way of discussing what the scientific method is and is not, what science can and cannot be used to discover.

Since science can not prove or disprove this point I feel it is irrelevant really, but if you want science lessons to discuss whether there is a God then, as said above, you must concede that it may prove there is in fact not a God. Would you be happy for them to teach that in your Christian school?

Especially by someone that has accepted Jesus as Lord. Someone that believes that God is as real as a rock.

That is irrelevant. This is about the question of whether we should teach something because it seems to fit into our worldview, despite not being scientifically correct. That is why most people have issues with this being taught in a science lesson.

PS I find that my knowledge of science and engineering greatly validates my faith, not the other way around. As I design and build things, I constantly marvel at God's guidance, and the foundation that He provides for my work. Now if he would only help me finish my reports...... (prayer please).

Again, when you have a setback do you view it as a hit to your faith? If you base your faith on what you understand of the interaction between God and science, and if when you discover something good you see it as a proof of God, then you must equally view something bad as proof against God. Otherwise what you have is not strength of evidence but cognitive dissonance.