Should Intelligent Design be Taught in Public Schools?

[Servant222]

I think now we are straying off topic into a discussion of origins.

We should focus on the original topic: whether Intelligent Design should be taught in science classes.

First, though I want to be clear on how everyone defines "Intelligent Design".

 

[ChristBearer]

If what a kind is isn't clear to you yet, and how they have limitations is what we observe, then I'll drop the topic because I can't explain it more than I have. Macro is still a huge difference, and it has never been observed to occur, so evolutionists still have the burden of proof that variations within a kind can produce another kind if given enough time.

The universe had a beginning, this is generally agreed upon. Even Stephen hawking's came to this conclusion. The universe can't be eternal because we wouldn't surpass an infinite amount of events to reach today. Time space and matter did have a beginning.

As for ID William Dembski wrote a great book about the subject. I will summarize how he defined it in one chapter:

ID is committed to the following propositions:
1. Specified complexity and irreducible complexity are reliable indicators or hallmarks of design
2. Biological systems exhibit specified complexity or employ irreducibly complex subsystems
3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of specified complexity or irreducible complexity
4. Therefore, ID constitutes the best explanation for the origin of specified complexity and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

ID starts with data of nature and from there argues that an intelligent cause is responsible for the specified complexity in nature. Moreover, in making such an argument ID relies not on narrowly held prior assumptions but on reliable methods developed within the scientific community for discriminating designed from undesigned structures. ID is free from religious entanglement, it makes no claims on the origin or the duration of the universe, is not committed to flood geology, can accommodate any degree of evolutionary change, does not prejudge how human beings arose and does not specify in advance how a designing intelligence brought the first organisms into being.

ID doesn't ask the questions

Who is the designer? or How does the designer go about designing and building things?

 

[Servant222]

There was an interesting mix of science and religion when arguably one of the greatest achievements in modern genetics was announced for the first time on June 26, 2000- the completion of the sequencing of the human genome.

Present at the announcement at the White House was then-President Bill Clinton and Dr. Francis Collins, the head of the National Human Genome Research Institute, which had spearheaded the research efforts of hundreds of scientists.

President Clinton was the first to speak and made this rather bold statement:

“Today, we are learning the language in which God created life.....we are gaining ever more awe for the complexity, the beauty, the wonder of God's most divine and sacred gift.”

Collins then reinforced Clinton's reference to God by saying

“We have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God.''

So was there really anything wrong with these remarks? I think not- they conveyed both speaker's conviction that within the science of modern genetics lay, in their opinion, the unmistakable hand of God. Of course, not everyone believed them- and some did take exception to the fact that the remarks were made at what was essentially a scientific event.

But those remarks, and many others that Dr. Collins has made on the subject, convey to the world that arguably one of the foremost geneticists of our day believes that, at the very least, the circumstantial evidence for a Creator is undeniable. If that is the case, is there really anything wrong with presenting this kind of information in a science class?

This is especially interesting given the fact that Dr. Collins was once an avowed atheist.

 

[ebia]

But those remarks, and many others that Dr. Collins has made on the subject, convey to the world that arguably one of the foremost geneticists of our day believes that, at the very least, the circumstantial evidence for a Creator is undeniable. If that is the case, is there really anything wrong with presenting this kind of information in a science class?

As part of the curriculum, yes, because it's stepping outside of science. Just because something is said by a scientist, that doesn't make it science, even if it is also true.

If such a thought was suggested as part of the natural flow of the class, then that's fine - any classroom will have conversations that are around rather than part of the curriculum - provided of course it's done in such a way as to properly cater for the belief systems of all present.

 

[Ave Maria]

No, not in a science class at least. It could be taught in a religion class or philosophy class though.

 

[Servant222]

No, not in a science class at least. It could be taught in a religion class or philosophy class though.

Again, I think this is unrealistic- in my experience, few schools offer religious or philosophy classes, and if a religious study program is offered, it is broad-based and covers all religions, not just Christianity, and may not be taught by someone with any religious beliefs at all.

As Christians, we have an obligation to do whatever we can to spread the good news of Jesus Christ; here is what it says in Mark 16:

15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

We must never lose track of that important goal and always ask ourselves if our actions are helping or hindering the spread of the Gospel. I believe that as Christians, we should be doing everything we can to bring others to know Christ and must therefore always support every effort to do so, even if they are not always successful.

Bible readings and prayer in school, more Christian religious studies programs, more support for Christian schools and- yes- more inclusion of Christian material in Science classes are things that we should always be supporting. If those goals are ultimately watered down; fine, we have to accept that- but we always need to be advocates for Christ in everything we do.

 

[Servant222]

If such a thought was suggested as part of the natural flow of the class, then that's fine - any classroom will have conversations that are around rather than part of the curriculum - provided of course it's done in such a way as to properly cater for the belief systems of all present.

I can't agree with your last statement- we always need to be advocates for Christ in everything we do.

Let others do the watering down- we always need to stand up boldly for what we believe in.

We should NOT be like the minister in a church that says to his congregation "Get out of this church right now and spread the good news."

but instead be like the minister that looks up at the ceiling in the church and says:

"Get out of this church RIGHT NOW and spread the good news BECAUSE ONE OF THE ROOF BEAMS IS ABOUT TO COLLAPSE!"

The point being that we need to take our message of salvation with urgent fervor to the world.

 

[elsbeth]

I used to teach Biology in public high school. ANd yes, I taught evolution. ANd yes, someone always brought up creationism. That allowed me to state my views about theistic evolution, and allowed for others to state their views, and in general led to an interesting class. I never had any complaints from students, parents, or administrators because it was a DISCUSSION with many views presented. ID should not be taught as science, but neither should evolution be taught such that it seems to exclude the possibility of God.

 

[BigNorsk]

I kind of see the question of teaching intelligent design with mixed feelings. I for one, believe in intelligent design, but I have to say that I have yet to see an intelligent design text that really can stand up to much examination at all. Basically they come down to this is what happened and even though there is all sorts of evidence that seems to contradict what I am going to tell you, just ignore it, it's wrong.

I haven't seen anything out there that would be better done by a reasonable teacher.

For instance the Big Bang theory. Did you know that the proponents opennly admit they cannot get the very beginning of the Big Bang to fit? So the Big Bang can't prove God didn't have a hand in it. Maybe those very first milliseconds was God putting everything in motion.

And it's the same with life. Really evolution can handled things pretty well once they are going along. But the start. You can get some of the precursors to life but to get them assembled in such a way that it is alive and able to reproduce. Well that is the big gap in evolution. Scientists laugh at the idea of spontaneous generation, yet they will turn around and teach a very slow spontaneous generation, but actually due to the complications, the creation of life almost cannot be an accumulation of slow things. It's too complicated even in a simple form the chance happening very much needs to be very rapid. Maybe here again there is a good opportunity to explain the part that can be easily explained by intelligent design. The beginning.

Now one of the biggest burdens intelligent design has are it's promoters. Any form of intelligent design that can stand up to some scrutiny is assured of being roundly rejected by it's strongest proponents, the fundamentalists.

So intelligent design is caught in a real vise. Easily dismembered and made a laughing stock scientifically if it pleases the fundamentalists. Yet it will have no political support to get it taught if it promotes a version that can stand the scrutiny of science.

Marv

 

[ebia]

I can't agree with your last statement- we always need to be advocates for Christ in everything we do.

Let others do the watering down- we always need to stand up boldly for what we believe in.

We should NOT be like the minister in a church that says to his congregation "Get out of this church right now and spread the good news."

but instead be like the minister that looks up at the ceiling in the church and says:

"Get out of this church RIGHT NOW and spread the good news BECAUSE ONE OF THE ROOF BEAMS IS ABOUT TO COLLAPSE!"

The point being that we need to take our message of salvation with urgent fervor to the world.

Who is 'we' in the above?

As a Christian I have a duty as above. But as a teacher I have a duty to properly teach that which I'm paid to teach in accordance with the guidelines of the various bodies that set the curriculum, and I would be acting unethically as a Christian if I didn't do that. Similarly my duty is to educate all the students in my classroom in the discipline I teach in line with curriculum guidelines irrespective of the faith (or lack thereof) of my students. I'm not paid to preach to them or distort the curriculum inline with my religious beliefs and I would rightly be called to account if I did.

A curriculum board has a duty to do provide good, religiously neutral (if it's a goverment board), education.

(Note that I teach in a Catholic school, not a government school, partly because it increases the scope for talking about one's faith, but (if I were a science teacher) I would still be vary careful in talking about ID in a science classroom in case I gave the impression that it is science. It is not, and it would be doing a disservice to my students to give them the impression that it is.)

 

[Servant222]

Who is 'we' in the above?

Of course, just to be clear, I am referring to us Christians.

As a Christian I have a duty as above. But as a teacher I have a duty to properly teach that which I'm paid to teach in accordance with the guidelines of the various bodies that set the curriculum, and I would be acting unethically as a Christian if I didn't do that. Similarly my duty is to educate all the students in my classroom in the discipline I teach in line with curriculum guidelines irrespective of the faith (or lack thereof) of my students. I'm not paid to preach to them or distort the curriculum inline with my religious beliefs and I would rightly be called to account if I did.

A curriculum board has a duty to do provide good, religiously neutral (if it's a goverment board), education.

I agree. I don't think God intended us to be so zeolous in our efforts to share the faith that we get ourselves fired, or even do something contrary to a contract that we are bound by. Even Jesus so much as acknowledged that in Mark 12:

Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

After all, if proselytizing gets you fired, then all hope of you introducing the Gospel to your students disappears- again, I don't think God wants that.

But the original question here- "Should Intelligent Design be Taught in Public Schools?"- I assume asks whether it should be included if it was permitted.

(Note that I teach in a Catholic school, not a government school, partly because it increases the scope for talking about one's faith, but (if I were a science teacher) I would still be vary careful in talking about ID in a science classroom in case I gave the impression that it is science. It is not, and it would be doing a disservice to my students to give them the impression that it is.)

I think this is fine- what you're saying is that your school may have less restrictions for discussing religious topics, and so, if appropriate opportunties for you to share your faith come up, you do so. I would hope, though, that you are not overly cautious about sharing your faith, but, like Dr. Francis Collins, look for reasonable opportunities to do so.

 

[Servant222]

The original question "Should Intelligent Design be Taught in Public Schools?" didn't restrict the question to only science classes, even though that is then implied in the rest of the first post.

But I am curious about how everyone would have answered if the question had been:

"Should Intelligent Design be Taught in Christian Schools?"

or even better:

"Should Intelligent Design be Taught in Science classes in Christian Schools?"

 

[ebia]

But the original question here- "Should Intelligent Design be Taught in Public Schools?"- I assume asks whether it should be included if it was permitted.

In most education systems curriculums aren't normally set by individual teachers - at least in theory.

 

[eb693]

Intelligent design is a religious idea, rather than a scientific principle, because it is unfalsifiable. Teach it by all means, but keep it to philosophy or religious education classes...

 

[intricatic]

If this debate is still raging in 20 years, I'm sure my kids will ask me why, considering they'll have been homeschooled.