Evolution vs. Intelligent Design: Which Should Be Taught In Schools?

[Delusion15]

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. ...

In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. When a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and develop into new species. ...

On August 11, 1999, by a 6–4 vote the Kansas State Board of Education changed their science education standards to remove any mention of "biological macroevolution, the age of the Earth, or the origin and early development of the Universe", so that evolutionary theory no longer appeared in state-wide standardized tests and "it was left to the 305 local school districts in Kansas whether or not to teach it." This decision was hailed by creationists, and sparked a statewide and nationwide controversy with scientists condemning the change. Challengers in the state's Republican primary who made opposition to the anti-evolution standards their focus were voted in on August 1, 2000, so on February 14, 2001, the Board voted 7–3 to reinstate the teaching of biological evolution and the origin of the earth into the state's science education standards.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is another interesting topic that's also something of a hot button. The Theory of Evolution is among the most controversial subjects in recorded human history. What has made it such a controversial topic is that Charles Darwin's theory suggests that mankind evolved from apes and that contradicts the Christian theology of man being created by God in his own image. And, in the United States, Christianity is the predominant religion. Even most people that don't regularly attent church services often will label themselves as simply being Christian when it comes to asking them their religious beliefs.

As the ones who know me know I am an atheist and the idea of Intelligent Design in school is to me unconstitutional. Most of the time Intelligent design "science" is nothing but technobabble (a form of prose using jargon, buzzwords and highly esoteric language to give an impression of plausibility through mystification, misdirection, and obfuscation) about religion.

Those that support the teaching of ID feel that children should be exposed to another "theory" as to how life on Earth began as Evolution hasn't been definitvely proven as factual. Those that are against it feel it's religious dogma disguised as academics and is a violation of seperation between church and State.

What do you think?

[CaptainObvious]

First, I should preface this post by noting that I am atheist. I should furthermore note that I think anyone who believes there is significant doubt in evolution has had their mind crippled by their religion.

Regardless of that, though, there is a very good reason that Intelligent Design ought not be taught in schools, or if it is, taught only in the context of a class on religion: Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. It is not an idea that makes empirically testable predictions: the only thing that Intelligent Design predicts is that God exists. And since it is nothing other than a theory about religion, it ought not to be taught outside of a class on religion.

Of course, there are many who wish it taught because they believe in God in a way that is incompatible with evolution being true. Unfortunately, the problem there lies with their unrealistic religious beliefs. Unless and until they can structure their beliefs in a way empirically testable by the scientific method, those beliefs aren't science and don't get to be part of science class. Simple as that.

[Church]

I really dont care either way, I think evolution could of happened as well as intelligent design, cant know for sure. Due to freedom of speech if evolution is taught so should intelligent design, but it doesnt matter to me, I already went through honors bio.

[Magus]

What I think is that you mention wiki in you post.

Well, in a world wide perspective, Evolution is taught all most every educational system(Not sure about the Arabian Gulf's education system). Those regions which are secularist, there is no doubt that they are teaching evolution in their systems.

It is a shame that people incorporates their believes in Education. Religion is nothing but utter absurdity, and you want schools to be tainted with that?

There are other observations prior to Darwin's Theory. But, we know that Evolution is evident - whereas the Intel. Design is not.

Still, it is a shame.

[Death]

When it comes to what should be taught, it should be the concept that's backed up by evidence, namely evolution. There's no reason why a far-fetched and unproven concept such as intelligent design should be taught at schools, since you're supposed to be learning facts; not mere beliefs.

[darkwoon]

I really dont care either way, I think evolution could of happened as well as intelligent design, cant know for sure. Due to freedom of speech if evolution is taught so should intelligent design, but it doesnt matter to me, I already went through honors bio.
"Freedom of speech" does not make Intelligent Design any more scientifical. You wouldn't want to have theories like "the Flat Earth", the phlogistic, or the ptolémaïc cosmology taught in science courses either - except in an historical perspective.

[The Batman]

I think both should be taught so the students are given the opportunity to choose whichever they want to believe in. Rather it's backed up by facts or not you can't try and shield them from something the majority of the world believes.

[Jenna.]

I think both should be taught. People get way too worked up about religion and whether or not there is a God. Just let people believe/learn what they want to believe/learn and stop criticizing them, that's my opinion. There are much bigger crises in the world today to be worrying about then whether or not God exists. This is a debate that has been going on for years, with no definite result. I happen to be a Christian who believes in God, but I do also believe in evolution. There can be a balance between the two.

[Sage]

I believe one doesn't need to present both sides of an argument when one is full of shit. The theory of evolution is science. At best, intelligent design would be philosophy.

[darkwoon]

I think both should be taught. People get way too worked up about religion and whether or not there is a God. Just let people believe/learn what they want to believe/learn and stop criticizing them, that's my opinion. There are much bigger crises in the world today to be worrying about then whether or not God exists. This is a debate that has been going on for years, with no definite result. I happen to be a Christian who believes in God, but I do also believe in evolution. There can be a balance between the two.

Err. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're speaking of a science course. Science is not about what people believe. People are free to believe whatever they want, but it doesn't mean we should tell them their theories have the same objective value as scientifically grounded hypotheses.

This is actually not a debate about "does God exists" - the whole point is about masquerading a theological interpretation into a scientifical theory. The Intelligent Design Theory is not scientifical, and will never be, as it is not testable by the methods of science.

[Amnesiac]

I really dont care either way, I think evolution could of happened as well as intelligent design, cant know for sure. Due to freedom of speech if evolution is taught so should intelligent design, but it doesnt matter to me, I already went through honors bio.

Freedom of speech protects people from being oppressed by the government. It doesn't have any impact on what's taught in schools. Separation of church and state prevents the government from endorsing either religion or non-religion.

I think both should be taught. People get way too worked up about religion and whether or not there is a God. Just let people believe/learn what they want to believe/learn and stop criticizing them, that's my opinion. There are much bigger crises in the world today to be worrying about then whether or not God exists. This is a debate that has been going on for years, with no definite result. I happen to be a Christian who believes in God, but I do also believe in evolution. There can be a balance between the two.

I'm all for people believing what they want to believe. Introducing intelligent design into schools, however, is going beyond believing what you want to believe. It's the equivalent of shoving your religious beliefs down other people's throats. Intelligent design is creationism in a tuxedo. It has no scientific basis, it's just another failed attempt by the religious right to infiltrate public schools with their own teachings in an attempt to make everyone a church-going Christian.

[huginnmuninn]

evolution is scientific so it should be taught in science if you want to learn about religion go to a history class or any class that teaches religion.
evolution is also proven if you want to go by definition (which most people dont)

[Jess]

Evolution of course. though Intelligent design can be taught in history classes...

[Perseus]

Evolution is a scientific theory, so that's why it's taught. It's backed up with evidence and it's not a religion or does it correspond with a religion. Intelligent design corresponds with religion and isn't scientific. Sure, it could be taught in some kind of class focused on world religions, but to promote it in school isn't a good idea because people will feel like theirs is wrong because of what the majority believes.

[Death]

I think both should be taught so the students are given the opportunity to choose whichever they want to believe in.

I think both should be taught. People get way too worked up about religion and whether or not there is a God.

I suppose that at the same time, we should teach them about Russell's Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot), the moon landing hoax myth, and every other wild idea out there - all of which are based upon no valid evidence (and yes, this includes the moon landing hoax myth).

Besides, when it comes down to it, the point of education is (or should be) to learn facts; not beliefs. Evolution due to its proof without certainty can safely be called the former. Intelligent design due to its certainty without proof can safely be called the latter. Therefore, it is only necessary to teach evolution. If someone wants to believe in Intelligent Design, then that's their business.

[Insanity Fair]

Neither. Each person should decide what they believe in and evolution takes just as much faith as christianity or islam. To brainwash and indoctrinate your child is more disgusting then if you were to molest them. At least your touching there body instead of there mind in that position.

[The Batman]

I suppose that at the same time, we should teach them about Russell's Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot), the moon landing hoax myth, and every other wild idea out there - all of which are based upon no valid evidence (and yes, this includes the moon landing hoax myth).

Besides, when it comes down to it, the point of education is (or should be) to learn facts; not beliefs. Evolution due to its proof without certainty can safely be called the former. Intelligent design due to its certainty without proof can safely be called the latter. Therefore, it is only necessary to teach evolution. If someone wants to believe in Intelligent Design, then that's their business.
The moon landing is documented and proven so any other theories about it couldn't hold water to it.
Quote from wikipedia
The statement "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is often seen in biological literature. Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense of the term "theory"; it is an established scientific model that explains observations and makes predictions through mechanisms such as natural selection.
When scientists say "evolution is a fact" they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical, and when this is what scientists mean, then "evolution" is used to mean observed changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact Takes as much faith to believe in evolution than it does intelligent design the biggest difference is that one is supported by scientists. So if you don't have one concrete explanation to it then you can't ignore another belief that a majority of people believe it should at least be mentioned but not encouraged. You shouldn't try and force someone to believe evolution or intelligent design just give them both and whatever evidence you have for both and let them decide for themselves.

[Sage]

Takes as much faith to believe in evolution than it does intelligent design the biggest difference is that one is supported by scientists. So if you don't have one concrete explanation to it then you can't ignore another belief that a majority of people believe it should at least be mentioned but not encouraged. You shouldn't try and force someone to believe evolution or intelligent design just give them both and whatever evidence you have for both and let them decide for themselves.

Then why don't we teach Stork Theory in addition to the commonly accepted Human Reproduction Theory? Numerology AND mathematics! Astology AND astronomy! The science curriculum isn't built around consensus. It doesn't matter what a lot of people believe, if it's not scientific, it's not being taught in the science curriculum.

We teach evolution because it's the commonly accepted explanation for the diversity of life on earth. That's what you teach in a science class: Science. Intelligent design is in no way scientific, because it can neither be proven nor disproven, which disqualifies it from being a theory, or even a hypothesis. Science deals with facts, not beliefs. Evolution isn't a belief.

It's a fact.

[Death]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact Takes as much faith to believe in evolution than it does intelligent design the biggest difference is that one is supported by scientists. So if you don't have one concrete explanation to it then you can't ignore another belief that a majority of people believe it should at least be mentioned but not encouraged. You shouldn't try and force someone to believe evolution or intelligent design just give them both and whatever evidence you have for both and let them decide for themselves.

But what you're not getting is that if you should teach theories like Intelligent Design despite a complete lack of evidence (or even basement), you may as well teach every other theory no matter how crazy it might be. That's why only evolution should be taught, as at least some research has gone into it and we do have some sort of evidence to back it up (and, as Deschain said, it's based on facts, as opposed to nothing but mere belief), even if we can't be certain.

[darkwoon]

Takes as much faith to believe in evolution than it does intelligent design the biggest difference is that one is supported by scientists.
Ah, hum, no. Really no.

You see, the biggest difference is that the Theory of Evolution is not based on faith. It is true we cannot be sure it is what actually happens/happened. But we can, through reasoning alone based on factual data (fossile records, physical axioms, etc), build the whole Theory of Evolution. On the other hand, the Intelligent Design Theory, and any other Creationist Theory, cannot be built on logic and known facts alone.

Now of course, nothing proves that the Theory of Evolution is right - new facts may appear someday that will not fit it anymore, and it will become invalid. This is a huge difference with Intelligent Design: regardless of what can be found in the future, Intelligent Design cannot be disproven. It is easy to imagine facts that would contradict evolutionarism; but it is impossible to imagine a fact that would contradict I.D. with 100% certainty.

The scientifical world - the serious part of it - does not want you to believe in a scientifical theory; quite the opposite, it actually works on the idea that scientific theories can and must be questioned whenever they don't match facts. I.D does not allow that. Hence, I.D. requires faith to work, while evolutionism doesn't.

Or, to explain it differently, I.D. postulates that "the complexity of life we're observing cannot self-emerge and required guidance". But could the I.D. proponents demonstrate how self-emergence was impossible? Of course not - in none of the documents they wrote are they attempting such a demonstration. Instead, they rely on a few "sample cases" of complexity, pointing at them saying: "can you imagine that appearing out of nowhere?". They do not attempt to quantify the amount of guidance needed, or how it was applied, or when. They do not provide any way to simulate parts of the hypothesis. And finally, they do not provide a theory that is globally valid: I.D. explains how life evolved on Earth through an external, intelligent influence, but does not even try to explain how the complexity of that intelligent influence itself appeared.

So if you don't have one concrete explanation to it
There are quite concrete explanations - but we cannot be sure it is the absolute truth. The theory could be wrong, partly or completely. It could be based on partial factual data, or it could rely on scientific principles, laws or theories that can later be proven wrong themselves.
But it doesn't matter. In the current state of our factual knowledge, the Theory of Evolution is fully explained by natural, measurable mechanisms, and explains the past and current data in a globally satisfying way.

then you can't ignore another belief that a majority of people believe it should at least be mentioned but not encouraged.
Except that, as I said, you are comparing a reasoning based on factual data alone with a religious conviction.

You shouldn't try and force someone to believe evolution or intelligent design just give them both and whatever evidence you have for both and let them decide for themselves.
Intelligent Design belongs to the realm of philosophical hypothesis and theology. As long as its proponents do not apply the scientific process over it, it will never belong to a science course. And, as a side note, science is not a matter of democratic vote - it is a matter of "who explains facts in the most satisfying way". Just because millions of people believed that Earth was flat during centuries didn't make the Flat Earth Theory any more valid or even scientific.

[The Batman]

Then why don't we teach Stork Theory in addition to the commonly accepted Human Reproduction Theory? Numerology AND mathematics! Astology AND astronomy! The science curriculum isn't built around consensus. It doesn't matter what a lot of people believe, if it's not scientific, it's not being taught in the science curriculum.

We teach evolution because it's the commonly accepted explanation for the diversity of life on earth. That's what you teach in a science class: Science. Intelligent design is in no way scientific, because it can neither be proven nor disproven, which disqualifies it from being a theory, or even a hypothesis. Science deals with facts, not beliefs. Evolution isn't a belief.

It's a fact.

But what you're not getting is that if you should teach theories like Intelligent Design despite a complete lack of evidence (or even basement), you may as well teach every other theory no matter how crazy it might be. That's why only evolution should be taught, as at least some research has gone into it and we do have some sort of evidence to back it up (and, as Deschain said, it's based on facts, as opposed to nothing but mere belief), even if we can't be certain.

Ah, hum, no. Really no.

You see, the biggest difference is that the Theory of Evolution is not based on faith. It is true we cannot be sure it is what actually happens/happened. But we can, through reasoning alone based on factual data (fossile records, physical axioms, etc), build the whole Theory of Evolution. On the other hand, the Intelligent Design Theory, and any other Creationist Theory, cannot be built on logic and known facts alone.

Now of course, nothing proves that the Theory of Evolution is right - new facts may appear someday that will not fit it anymore, and it will become invalid. This is a huge difference with Intelligent Design: regardless of what can be found in the future, Intelligent Design cannot be disproven. It is easy to imagine facts that would contradict evolutionarism; but it is impossible to imagine a fact that would contradict I.D. with 100% certainty.

The scientifical world - the serious part of it - does not want you to believe in a scientifical theory; quite the opposite, it actually works on the idea that scientific theories can and must be questioned whenever they don't match facts. I.D does not allow that. Hence, I.D. requires faith to work, while evolutionism doesn't.

Or, to explain it differently, I.D. postulates that "the complexity of life we're observing cannot self-emerge and required guidance". But could the I.D. proponents demonstrate how self-emergence was impossible? Of course not - in none of the documents they wrote are they attempting such a demonstration. Instead, they rely on a few "sample cases" of complexity, pointing at them saying: "can you imagine that appearing out of nowhere?". They do not attempt to quantify the amount of guidance needed, or how it was applied, or when. They do not provide any way to simulate parts of the hypothesis. And finally, they do not provide a theory that is globally valid: I.D. explains how life evolved on Earth through an external, intelligent influence, but does not even try to explain how the complexity of that intelligent influence itself appeared.


There are quite concrete explanations - but we cannot be sure it is the absolute truth. The theory could be wrong, partly or completely. It could be based on partial factual data, or it could rely on scientific principles, laws or theories that can later be proven wrong themselves.
But it doesn't matter. In the current state of our factual knowledge, the Theory of Evolution is fully explained by natural, measurable mechanisms, and explains the past and current data in a globally satisfying way.


Except that, as I said, you are comparing a reasoning based on factual data alone with a religious conviction.


Intelligent Design belongs to the realm of philosophical hypothesis and theology. As long as its proponents do not apply the scientific process over it, it will never belong to a science course. And, as a side note, science is not a matter of democratic vote - it is a matter of "who explains facts in the most satisfying way". Just because millions of people believed that Earth was flat during centuries didn't make the Flat Earth Theory any more valid or even scientific.
It's just as much a theory as it is a fact and a lot of high school history books do have information that is built around common beliefs rather than fact. I'm not saying you should tell people that the only way we became how we are is because of intelligent design but I am saying that you should at least let them know that "although evolution is more accepted by the scientific community most people would like to believe in intelligent design" then explain what it is. I don't see what the big problem is on taking 5 minutes to do that. Even if it's not based on science it's at least giving them a choice(which I've probably said before). Even if you're teaching a religious or philosophy course I'd argue the same thing since a lot of Christians do believe in both.

[darkwoon]

It's just as much a theory as it is a fact and a lot of high school history books do have information that is built around common beliefs rather than fact.
If it is the case, then your school system is definitely in trouble. Nobody needs school to learn about common beliefs...

I'm not saying you should tell people that the only way we became how we are is because of intelligent design but I am saying that you should at least let them know that "although evolution is more accepted by the scientific community most people would like to believe in intelligent design" then explain what it is.
Maybe because the purpose of a science course is to teach the generally accepted contemporary scientific theories, and not to deliver an "history of science and research" course?

And I can already see the trouble science teachers would be if they had to start explaining I.D., because they'd have to be objective. And being so would force them to also explain that it is not scientific and purely a theological hypothesis; I wonder how religious pressure groups would prefer that to not having it being discussed at all.

And just as a side note, I'm not convinced "most people would like to believe in I.D.". From what I gather I.D. proponents are more a vocal minority than a wide majority.

Even if it's not based on science it's at least giving them a choice.
Again, a science course is not a philosophy course. OTOH, it should - it must - give them choice between the current scientific theories being debated (darwinism or neo-darwinism, chaotic emergence, influence of education or genes, etc). It should also underline flaws and holes in the current theories, and explain how those could be solved in the future.

Teaching science shouldn't be about giving choice between multiple theories and "make your shopping as your tastes go". It should IMHO teach you to read every theory proposed with a critical eye, and always question them based on the scientific process.

Even if you're teaching a religious or philosophy course I'd argue the same thing since a lot of Christians do believe in both.
Discussing Intelligent Design in a purely philosophical context, as in a religion or philosophy course, is perfectly acceptable IMHO, and actually probably welcome, as it is a perfect example of the difference between theology and science. The whole point is that it should not presented as an equivalent, or even as a substitute, to science.

[Sage]

It's just as much a theory as it is a fact

Look up the difference between a normal theory and a scientific theory, then you'll be qualified to debate this.

[INFERNO]

I think students should learn about both but they should also learn why the two are not mutually exclusive. Many people have this delusion that if you believe in one, you cannot believe in the other. Obviously for students to learn both, they must learn why both can exist together. Also, students should learn about both at certain grade levels where it's clear that they have the ability to question and think what they're taught. I say this because when children are younger, they'll believe that what they're told is factual and 100% correct. There's no evidence this is true for either evolution or I.D..

Evolution must be taught in science classes while religion can be taught either in religion, history and/or philosophy classes.

If I had to choose only one to have taught, I'd definitely say evolution but if I'm given the choice of both, I'll take both.

Neither. Each person should decide what they believe in and evolution takes just as much faith as christianity or islam. To brainwash and indoctrinate your child is more disgusting then if you were to molest them. At least your touching there body instead of there mind in that position.

How do you decide whether to learn about evolution or I.D. in schools if you haven't been taught them? If students don't know much about either, then what are they basing their decisions on? The only way they could know is if they study outside of school, or the parents teach/indoctrinate and then decide. If their parents indoctrinate them, then the students are learning about what the parents want them to learn because they haven't had an opportunity to equally learn about evolution and I.D..

Evolution requires less blind faith than Christianity because there is evidence that can be verifiable by anyone whenever they want to verify it. For Christianity, there is no evidence of God existing outside the bible. Heck, even the bible is contradictory on so many things partially due to translating over the ages and being altered to fit with societal norms at different time periods. The theory of evolution does not suffer from this, it's clear and if there's uncertainty on certain areas, there's evidence why there's uncertainty. It takes much less faith than it does for Christianity.

[Camazotz]

Let us not forget that Intelligent Design includes the unpopular, but almighty God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I choose to believe that He created us, therefore my God should be taught alongside these other theories. After all, it'd be wrong to exclude my religion. And I understand there are many other beliefs that hold multiple gods to creating the universe. These have to be taught too. It's only fair to include everything. Science can't answer everything, so why not make completely random assumptions instead of observing nature and concluding an intelligent answer, like the Theory of Evolution.

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

[deadpie]

Why don't they explain all the opinions and not say which one is correct. Let's try and be honest as possible and not offend people at the same time.

If we explain all theories and opinions with the same amount of respect to each then no frustration should be caused.

I also think we should have a definition of scientific and theoretical theory thrown in on some pages too.

[Dorsum Oppel]

I demand that intelligent design is taught in our schools, because if we do not spread the word of god almighty, the curse of homosexuality will tear apart our entire nation.

Amen.

[dead]

Let us not forget that Intelligent Design includes the unpopular, but almighty God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I choose to believe that He created us, therefore my God should be taught alongside these other theories. After all, it'd be wrong to exclude my religion. And I understand there are many other beliefs that hold multiple gods to creating the universe. These have to be taught too. It's only fair to include everything. Science can't answer everything, so why not make completely random assumptions instead of observing nature and concluding an intelligent answer, like the Theory of Evolution.

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

This

[MykeSoBe]

I go all the way for evolution in our school systems now, since it in fact makes the most sense to modern America and provided with our secular systems, is the only theory that complies to all secular requirements. I myself am an agnostic Catholic though and I don't doubt the plausibility of the theory of Intelligent Design. I choose not to think about our origins most of the time anyway, just better to think about the now. If God is there He will help us, if not then I guess we're screwed :P

[The Batman]

Look up the difference between a normal theory and a scientific theory, then you'll be qualified to debate this.

Funny I posted a link explaining how it was a theory and a fact that I read myself. So I think I'm pretty qualified to debate this.

[dead]

Funny I posted a link explaining how it was a theory and a fact that I read myself. So I think I'm pretty qualified to debate this.

Yes, but theres a difference between scientific theory's and a regular one. I highly recommend you look it up or show Des that you do know the difference between the two.

[darkwoon]

The wikipedia article over Intelligent Design is probably more interesting to read in that it summarizes quite well why I.D. is not scientifical:

For a theory to qualify as scientific, it is expected to be:

* Consistent
* Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
* Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)
* Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
* Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
* Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
* Progressive (refines previous theories)
* Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency, violates the principle of parsimony, is not scientifically useful, is not falsifiable, is not empirically testable, and is not correctable, dynamic, provisional or progressive.

[Camazotz]

Why don't they explain all the opinions and not say which one is correct. Let's try and be honest as possible and not offend people at the same time.

If we explain all theories and opinions with the same amount of respect to each then no frustration should be caused.

I also think we should have a definition of scientific and theoretical theory thrown in on some pages too.

If we took time in a science class and explained every single guess about how humans came to exist, we'd be contradicting the entire meaning of science. Plus, we'd have to spend countless hours explaining each and every religion that ever existed. I'd be pretty frustrated if my entire science course consisted of learning about religion. What a waste of time.

And my Biology text book had a clear definition of a scientific theory and how it differed from the common use of "theory."

I demand that intelligent design is taught in our schools, because if we do not spread the word of god almighty, the curse of homosexuality will tear apart our entire nation.

Amen.

You demand a secular nation to teach unsupported guesses in a public education science class? Not today, Fred.

[Sith Lord 13]

First, I should preface this post by noting that I am atheist. I should furthermore note that I think anyone who believes there is significant doubt in evolution has had their mind crippled by their religion.

Regardless of that, though, there is a very good reason that Intelligent Design ought not be taught in schools, or if it is, taught only in the context of a class on religion: Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. It is not an idea that makes empirically testable predictions: the only thing that Intelligent Design predicts is that God exists. And since it is nothing other than a theory about religion, it ought not to be taught outside of a class on religion.

Of course, there are many who wish it taught because they believe in God in a way that is incompatible with evolution being true. Unfortunately, the problem there lies with their unrealistic religious beliefs. Unless and until they can structure their beliefs in a way empirically testable by the scientific method, those beliefs aren't science and don't get to be part of science class. Simple as that.

You seem to be confusing ID with creationism. That's actually a rather common mistake. ID has no reference to god, or any deity of any sort. While any god, be it the Judeo-Christian god or the FSM, could fulfill the ID hypothesis, it need not be a god. It could just as easily have been aliens who modified the genetic structure of the earliest organisms. God has no place in a debate about ID.

I think students should learn about both but they should also learn why the two are not mutually exclusive. Many people have this delusion that if you believe in one, you cannot believe in the other. Obviously for students to learn both, they must learn why both can exist together. Also, students should learn about both at certain grade levels where it's clear that they have the ability to question and think what they're taught. I say this because when children are younger, they'll believe that what they're told is factual and 100% correct. There's no evidence this is true for either evolution or I.D..

Evolution must be taught in science classes while religion can be taught either in religion, history and/or philosophy classes.

If I had to choose only one to have taught, I'd definitely say evolution but if I'm given the choice of both, I'll take both.


This. I feel ID should be taught as a corollary to evolution. It does not conflict with evolution, and in fact fits in neatly. Evolution is by far more important, but I'd say there is room for both.

[Jess]

I learned about different religions in my World affairs class, but we only learned about the history and how it came about and the beliefs and all that. As long as the class that is teaching a religion does not "force" (idk what other word to use here) the students that they should believe in that certain religion, it's OK.

my 5cents.

[The Dark Lord]

both religion and science should be taught and then children should make up there own minds

[enzenzz]

Both should be taught if the school is religious but they should not teach that one is more accurate than the other. The child should be left to decide which one he believes in. You have freedom of religion so it is not up to us to decide what should one person believe in but rather give them options. What is the use of freedom when you only have one choice?

[INFERNO]

Both should be taught if the school is religious but they should not teach that one is more accurate than the other. The child should be left to decide which one he believes in. You have freedom of religion so it is not up to us to decide what should one person believe in but rather give them options. What is the use of freedom when you only have one choice?

If they have freedom of religion, then they can choose to not believe in I.D. and they may not want to learn about evolution either. If they have freedom, then they must be given the choices of believe in:

1) Evolution only
2) I.D. only
3) Evolution and I.D.
4) Neither

[darkwoon]

You seem to be confusing ID with creationism. That's actually a rather common mistake. ID has no reference to god, or any deity of any sort. While any god, be it the Judeo-Christian god or the FSM, could fulfill the ID hypothesis, it need not be a god. It could just as easily have been aliens who modified the genetic structure of the earliest organisms. God has no place in a debate about ID.
That's true. The problem is that nearly all proponents of the ID hypothesis are Christian fundamentalists, so most of the ID debates tend to include the religious point in a way or another.

This. I feel ID should be taught as a corollary to evolution. It does not conflict with evolution, and in fact fits in neatly. Evolution is by far more important, but I'd say there is room for both.
The ID hypothesis relies on ideas like "irreductible complexity" or "specified complexity", which are not compatible with the theory of evolution.

Now, you could imagine a situation in which life was implanted (thus, the ID case), and then evolved from that point to the current situation. The problem there is that fossile records extend back in time to very primitive lifeforms, and tends to deny external interference for the last billion years. At best, E.T.s may have implanted the first unicellular lifeforms. Even so, it only pushes things one step backwards: if aliens created the initial Earth lifeforms, who created the initial alien lifeforms?

Both should be taught if the school is religious but they should not teach that one is more accurate than the other.
Given that the theory of evolution is based on solid facts, follows the scientific method and doesn't require any "X agent" (an external, unproven hypothetical element introduced to make the theory work), while I.D. matches none of those critera, not teaching that one is more accurate than the other would be a fraud.

The child should be left to decide which one he believes in. You have freedom of religion so it is not up to us to decide what should one person believe in but rather give them options. What is the use of freedom when you only have one choice?
Science is not a matter of beliefs. Freedom of speech doesn't mean schools should not denounce scientifical fallacies.

[CaptainObvious]

You seem to be confusing ID with creationism. That's actually a rather common mistake. ID has no reference to god, or any deity of any sort. While any god, be it the Judeo-Christian god or the FSM, could fulfill the ID hypothesis, it need not be a god. It could just as easily have been aliens who modified the genetic structure of the earliest organisms. God has no place in a debate about ID.

That's a flagrantly ridiculous thing to say, and is ignorant of both the obvious state of the movement and its historical origins. ID was started by creationists attempting to circumvent court rulings against teaching creationism as science, and its leading crusaders are all people who believe the "designer" to be the Christian God. The theory makes little to no sense outside of a creationist framework, which is why it's never found anywhere other than religious, creationist groups. You can go on and on about it not being technically creationist and you will not change that fact. In the succinct words of John E. Jones, ID "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents" and it will never be able to do so.

[Dorsum Oppel]

You demand a secular nation to teach unsupported guesses in a public education science class? Not today, Fred.

No, I demand you learn how to detect sarcasm.
Trolololo = Success.

[Sith Lord 13]

That's a flagrantly ridiculous thing to say, and is ignorant of both the obvious state of the movement and its historical origins. ID was started by creationists attempting to circumvent court rulings against teaching creationism as science, and its leading crusaders are all people who believe the "designer" to be the Christian God. The theory makes little to no sense outside of a creationist framework, which is why it's never found anywhere other than religious, creationist groups. You can go on and on about it not being technically creationist and you will not change that fact. In the succinct words of John E. Jones, ID "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents" and it will never be able to do so.

Actually, it's not. Yes, many people, on both sides of the argument forget that. But you cannot make a judgment of a movement based on common misconceptions. Stick to the facts. Yes, some people may use it as a workaround for the idea of creationism, but that's not a reason to prevent the teaching of a legitimate scientific theory.

[CaptainObvious]

Actually, it's not. Yes, many people, on both sides of the argument forget that. But you cannot make a judgment of a movement based on common misconceptions. Stick to the facts. Yes, some people may use it as a workaround for the idea of creationism, but that's not a reason to prevent the teaching of a legitimate scientific theory.

I am sticking to the facts. What legitimate scientific theory is there here? Intelligent Design makes no predictions that are testable via the scientific method: it is therefore not a scientific theory. Which is entirely besides the fact that it is in every way inextricably linked with Creationism. If it's not, show me some ID backers that are not theistic believers, please.

[huginnmuninn]

isnt the domesticated dog evolved to be domesticated and have certain traits couldnt that be considered intelligent design since we caused wolf to evolve to suit our needs and the same could be said for most domesticated animals. thats as far as i would go teaching intelligent design in school

[Sith Lord 13]

I am sticking to the facts. What legitimate scientific theory is there here? Intelligent Design makes no predictions that are testable via the scientific method: it is therefore not a scientific theory. Which is entirely besides the fact that it is in every way inextricably linked with Creationism. If it's not, show me some ID backers that are not theistic believers, please.

Myself. I believe ID has some basis, as certain improbabilities seem a little too great for me to assume chance, but I'm unwilling to ascribe them to a god.

What testable predictions does the big bang theory make?

[CaptainObvious]

What testable predictions does the big bang theory make?

Relative abundance of primordial elements, cosmic background radiation, galactic evolution and distribution, etc. It would behoove you to look these things up.

[Sith Lord 13]

Relative abundance of primordial elements, cosmic background radiation, galactic evolution and distribution, etc. It would behoove you to look these things up.

Sorry. I mis-processed what you said. I had thought you meant lab replications. (Guess that's what posting on little sleep will do to you.)

Intelligent design theory predicts: 1) that we will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity. We can test design by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an "irreducible core." Intelligent design also makes other predictions, such as 2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record, 3) re-usage of similar parts in different organisms, and 4) function for biological structures.

There's your answer.

[darkwoon]

Intelligent design theory predicts:
The problem is that it predicts nothing - there is no equation, and no logical reasoning except the single postulate: "an intelligence did that". It is very significant that no research paper trying to support I.D. has ever been published - there are only "popular science" texts, novels, and interviews. I've checked the "Articles" section of ideacenter.org: none of the documents available are scientifical research papers. If I were to run a website defending a theory, the first thing I'd put on it is precisely the scientific research I performed to establish that theory, don't you think?

1) that we will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity. We can test design by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an "irreducible core."
Specified complexity was proposed by W. Dembski. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity):
A study by Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit states that "Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results". Another objection concerns Dembski's calculation of probabilities. According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation". Critics also reject applying specified complexity to infer design as an argument from ignorance.

Intelligent design also makes other predictions, such as 2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record,
Except that we are nowadays not even sure there was a sudden explosion of complexity. Darwin and its successors believed there had been such an explosion at the beginning of the Primary Era; however, we now have fossil records he didn't have that show that the so-called explosion was no more exceptional than any other period of life development in an empty environment (this is what happened when dinosaurs disappeared and were quickly replaced by mammals as the dominant genre, for example).

3) re-usage of similar parts in different organisms,
Which was also a flawed argument. The base idea was this: the designer has a toolbox of common elements, and reused those elements in multiple species, fine-tuning them so they fit each specific case. Fine, except that some species have elements that look the same, have roughly the same function, yet those elements have completely different mechanisms, development processes, or DNA expression. Sharks and dolphins have bodies that are very lookalike, yet the DNA encoding each part is vastly different, and so are their internal structure (skeleton, muscles, etc). Either the principle of recycling elements is consistent, or it is not - you can't "cherry pick" a few specific cases that support a theory - on the other hand, a single case disproving it is sufficient.

4) function for biological structures.
That part is actually just another way of speaking about the specified complexity.

You could also add the very popular irreducible complexity argument: "a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". The idea is that since you can't remove any part, you can't create the organism from the evolution of simpler ones, since those simpler ones would necessarily lack essential parts. The problem is that it has been proven that such evolution is indeed possible - computer simulations complying to evolutionary rules are perfectly able to generate irreducibly complex organisms without requesting external interference or planned design.

If I.D. has no other basis than philosophical litterature, disproven arguments and demonstrations based on outdated data, then I think it is safe not to consider it as worth mentioning in schools, except maybe alongside the Ptolemaic Cosmology, alchemistry, or the Flat Earth Theory, as a good example of erroneous postulate that didn't resist facts.