Should Intelligent Design be Taught in Public Schools?

[DaApostle]

I do not believe that I.D. should be taught in public schools.

Firstly, I.D. is a religious belief. It is not science. What I am saying is, if any group of scientists can come up with a theory for I.D. it should be taught in schools. That is what science is. You teach the tested theories.

Secondly, evolution has not been disproven by any rational group of scientists so far. SO as long as none of it is disproven, it is the best theory there is. And in fact, the only mainstream accepted theory.

WHat are your beliefs on this?

 

[christsblood]

Nope.

 

[ReformedChapin]

I do not believe that I.D. should be taught in public schools.

Firstly, I.D. is a religious belief. It is not science. What I am saying is, if any group of scientists can come up with a theory for I.D. it should be taught in schools. That is what science is. You teach the tested theories.

Secondly, evolution has not been disproven by any rational group of scientists so far. SO as long as none of it is disproven, it is the best theory there is. And in fact, the only mainstream accepted theory.

WHat are your beliefs on this?

I disagree. I think that ID is an excellent alternative to evolution. By the way, what I mean by evolution is macroevolution since everyone agrees in microevolution. Secondly it's hard to falsify macroevolution considering a lot of it's premises are based on future discoveries some that if the theory is right we might never discover in the first place. I think macroevolution is dead already based on the lack of evidence and the Cambrian explosion which doesn't show a gradual change of the species but a sudden appearance of all major species that still exist.

We also have to examine the definition of science and the scientific method. Evolutionist can't explain how their whole system got started. They just stated it was by some arbitrary natural cause that is unknown. THAT MAKES NO SENSE and it violates the law of causality. Not only that but they have little evidence if any real evidence at all to support their claim they are just applying the philosophical principle of naturalism. In the other hand ID supporters* notice that everything that starts has to have a cause there must be an uncaused cause...an infinite creator. This along with EMPIRICAL observations of DNA and the complexity of life has lead them (Huge Ross along with other ID supporters) to come to the conclusion that an intelligent cause created the universe. It's not based on religious doctrine but SCIENCE.

If you want to argue that there is some sort of philosophical principle that isn't science it happens in BOTH theories. The only logical conclusion would be to teach BOTH evolution and ID...let the kids decide.

 

[DaApostle]

Thanks for your response NewGuy101. I will address you soon.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Thanks for your response NewGuy101. I will address you soon.

You're welcome. Although I think this might be moved to the origins theology section. It seems to fit in there a lot better than here.

 

[dumbregistrationsystem]

Evolution doesn't make any claims about abiogenesis because abiogenesis isn't a part of evolution.

Intelligent design is just a system of overreaching sophistry. It's meaningless.

 

[Myriah]

Actually, I think there is a specific forum for this type of discussion.

 

[ab1385]

Evolution is fact, therefore it should be taught in schools as such. And I don't mean micro/macro evolution, because there is no macro/micro-evolution, there just is evolution.

Creation and ID should be taught about as religious ideologies in religious education, because they are in fact religious ideologies, and not science.

That this much is not obvious to everyone makes me cry. Well, OK, not literally.

 

[ebia]

Not in a science class, no, because ID isn't science. Whether ID is, or is not, correct in its conclusion it still isn't science.

If you want to teach it as a topic in a religion or philosophy class, then that's another matter.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

ID isn't science. It is philosophy. It is a philosophy that necessitates the existence of a higher power. That is religion.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Evolution is fact, therefore it should be taught in schools as such. And I don't mean micro/macro evolution, because there is no macro/micro-evolution, there just is evolution.

Creation and ID should be taught about as religious ideologies in religious education, because they are in fact religious ideologies, and not science.

That this much is not obvious to everyone makes me cry. Well, OK, not literally.

Except that macroevolution isn't a fact because there is a split in the theory.

And your rhetoric doesn't help your argument.

 

[ab1385]

What on earth is this 'macro evolution' that people harp on about?

If a species does so called 'micro evolve', but is separated into two different groups by geology or any other reason, they will genetically diverge. They will eventually diverge far enough that they will no longer be able to interbreed. This is what, I believe, you refer to as 'macro evolution'. There is no macro- and micro- evolution, there is just the same process on different timescales. What you refer to as 'macro evolution' is not only the same process as what you refer to as 'micro evolution', but is an unavoidable logical consequence of it.

There is simply no way round this argument. We have all the evidence we need to show that it happens. We cannot watch it happen, logically, as it takes too much time. Where do you stand? ID? Do you not worry that you didn't observe God designing? Or creating, should you be a creationist?

Again and again I see people saying that there is no evidence for evolution, or what you refer to mistakenly as 'macro evolution', when there clearly is. I simply don't understand why this is. But regardless of that, if you accept that a species 'micro evolves', i.e. a species evolves at all, then it will, if separated into two groups in a different environment, separate out into what is essentially two different species. I don't see how you think this argument is at all avoidable.

That is why so called 'micro evolution' being a fact means that 'macro evolution' is a fact, because they are one and the same thing. Therefore, 'macro evolution', or more correctly, 'evolution' is also a fact. The exact way that this happens isn't totally understood, like anything else in science. Therefore we have the 'theory of evolution' - this is the theory of how evolution occurs, not whether it does, as so often seems to be the view.

 

[ebia]

Don't waste your time getting distracted into defending evolution - that's off topic. Even if someone could prove that the theory of evolution was wrong, it still would neither make ID a scientific theory nor consistute evidence that ID is true.

Even if the TofE is, in fact completely wrong (extraordinarly unlikely given the evidence) it is a valid scientific theory at the moment and is perfectly valid in the science classroom.

Even if ID is right, it is not a scientific theory and is not valid in the science classroom.

 

[ab1385]

Good point, well made. I have no disagreements there.

 

[artybloke]

Except that macroevolution isn't a fact because there is a split in the theory.

No there isn't; macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over a long period of time.

And no, ID should not be taught in science class. It's religious philosophy at best, and god-of-the-gaps theology at worst. It's scientifically nonsense.

 

[Servant222]

If we say that the Universe was made in an instant by means of a Big Bang, or whether we say it was made in an instant of creation by a Universe Maker doesn't seem all that different to me.

Similarly with evolution- if we say that all species evolved from an initial accidental making of a cell from inorganic material, and that at the same instant, that first living cell was fortuitously given the ability to reproduce itself; or if we say that God used the mechanism of evolution to produce all the life forms that we see today, doesn't seem all that different to me.

Given the blurred distinction of these two descriptions of how the Universe and life was made, and the fact that science should have no limits as to what can be discussed, what is wrong with presenting both intelligent design and evolution in a science classroom?

I would guess that a teacher that does so would get some great debate and thinking going on- and isn't that exactly what we want students to do in a classroom?

 

[Servant222]

Remember, evolutionary biologists maintain that theories about evolution START once the first living cell was there- the question of where that cell came from, and how it was formed and given both the breath of life, and, at exactly the same instant, the ability to reproduce itself is....... OFF THE TABLE!

 

[Servant222]

Imagine where we'd be if the notion of traveling to the moon had not been considered a relevant topic of conversation in a science classroom before the 20 th century.

Isn't that where the term "lunacy" came from- as a reference, before space travel was even slightly considered possible, to someone who believed crazy things- like that humans could travel to the moon?

I wonder if Neil Armstrong was considered a lunatic in his high school years (sure don't want a lunatic in MY science classroom)?

 

[ab1385]

Imagine where we'd be if the notion of traveling to the moon had not been considered a relevant topic of conversation in a science classroom before the 20 th century.

Isn't that where the term "lunacy" came from- as a reference, before space travel was even slightly considered possible, to someone who believed crazy things- like that humans could travel to the moon?

I wonder if Neil Armstrong was considered a lunatic in his high school years (sure don't want a lunatic in MY science classroom)?

This is a wonderful depth of knowledge of the history of science, I have to say. Demonstrates something, that, I think.

Travelling to the moon was never a topic in science lessons, as far as I'm aware. It was discussed mainly by NASA, a modern day equivalent would be discussing going to mars, not Intelligent Design.

Oh, and no, 'lunacy' has nothing to do with 'a desire to travel to the moon'. I'm assuming (well, hoping) that that was a joke rather than a serious suggestion. However, if you wanted to know where the word lunacy comes from, look it up here.

Even if what you posted was correct, which it was not, it would be irrelevant. Travel to the moon was never an invalid scientific theory seeking to explain anything, merely something that people desired to do. Methods of how to do this would have been more likely to fit in with your argument, but no doubt some ideas people have had over the years were, in fact, lunacy.

So, in summary, no.

 

[ebia]

Given the blurred distinction of these two descriptions of how the Universe and life was made, and the fact that science should have no limits as to what can be discussed, what is wrong with presenting both intelligent design and evolution in a science classroom?

Because the Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory and Intelligent Design is not. The role of a science lesson is to teach people about science, not philosophy, religion or anything else.

The only way you could present intelligent d esign in a science classroom would be in a senior class ready to learn why ID is not science.