Evolution VS. Intelligent Design RE Classrooms

[phoenixflamezzz]

I don't know if this should be in RC or not, since it doesn't deal with politics per se, but I'll put it here anyways

So, what are everyone's thoughts on this? Should Intelligent Design (that's what they're calling it now) be taught in the classroom along side evolution?

I'll start by saying that it doesn't belong in the classroom, because in order for Intelligent Design to be seen as a theory, one has to believe in a higher being. That goes right into faith and religion, where it doesn't belong in a science classroom.

I think it should only be taught at the college level, where you can take classes pertaining to the subject. I don't think it should be taught at the high school level.

[kwancierto de aranjuez]

Creationism (or whatever you call it) has no place in any classroom other than a Theology or philosophy course or some such class which you can take in college.

It should not be in a biology class.

Evolution is a fact. It is happening before our own eyes for God's sakes!

[attyfan]

The United States Supreme Court held, in a case called Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) 482 U.S. 578 [107 S.Ct. 2573, 96 L.Ed.2d 510] that laws mandating the teaching of "creationism" under any guise ("intelligent design", etc.) would be unconstitutional if done to promote religion; a law madating the teaching of creationism as well as evolution in Louisiana was struck down because the legislative records made it clear that the purpose of the law was to promote religion. I think the same thing applies to the Kansas theory -- I don't care what label you give it, keep your religion out of the classroom!

[bjb22]

I believe in both evolution and creationism (non-religous). Evolution does exist.....100 years ago the life expectancy in America was a 60 years old. Then again, the sheer magnificance of the planet Earth indicates, as Aquinas noted in commenting on the "perfect order of nature", the existance of a higher Power (or God)......I contend that proper application of "Intelligent design" can confirm both evolution and creationism.

That agenda/curriculum could appease people on both sides of this "thing".

Note: The winning time in the 1960 Olympics for Men's swimming medal in the 400m medly wouldn't even qualify as a WOMENS time for the U.S. Olympic trials.

Progress or evolution?

[Jayjen36]

I really don't believe that creationism has a place in a high school biology class, but wouldn't have any objection to it being talked about in a civics class or something like that. I agree that it's introduction is used to promote a Judeo-Christian world view.

It's true that if you discuss intelligent design the idea of exactly who or what did the designing would have to come up. Now really, how many of us believe that the Buddhist creation story would be used, or the Hindu, Rosicrucian, Gnostic, Creek, Navajo, or thousand other creation stories in existence that are believed by citizens of the country would be used?? Nope! the old six days work one days rest is what would be taught.

My feeling about any religion being taught in public school, is one in the lot in. If Christianity can be taught in any way, including creationism, then every other religion should be taught as well. And how long would religious conservatives stand for little Jane or Tom being taught about Islam, Hinduism or Wicca or Asatru? The mere mention of any of these is enough to cause tons of complaints and calls for the teacher's job who dared bring them up.

So creationism as science no. As a topic in a civics class or in some sort of "current events" project (if they still have those, it's been a while since I was in high school:b ) Is okay, provided that discussion of other religion's creation stories is allowed or perhaps even encouraged.

[Skatekwan6]

Something had to make creation/evolution happen in the first place, so I don't really understand this debate. Something made it happen. Some people think it's God, some people think it just happened by chance. There is evidence that evolution occurred and still occurs. I don't get it when people totally reject evolution because they're religious...why not just say that God made evolution happen. I mean there was most likely a big bang...but why can't people say "God made the big bang happen" instead of totally rejecting it as something that is against their belief that God created it? God created the Earth...so why couldn't he have done it by making a big bang happen? I don't understand why some religious people don't think that way. If someone can help me understand that, please do.

[Krista]

I agree Skatekwan6. it doesn't have to be one or the other.

[colinmom71]

Creationism or Intelligent Design have no appropriate role in a science curriculum as these philosophies have no scientific validity nor can they be examined critically through science. Parents are free to instruct their children on religious theories of how the world and universe were formed at any time they please. But they are not free to use publically funded schools to integrate religion into academic curriculum.

As for a class about religion, I have no problem with a comparative religion course. In fact, my south Georgia public school offered a senior level course called Humanities that discussed elements of the major religions and philosophies and their impact on literature throughout written history. It was credited as an English Lit elective and was quite interesting.

We didn't cover Christianity as intensely as other religions since everyone in the class was quite familiar with Christian dogma (since everyone in the class with me happened to be Christian), but we did study some Christian influenced works, such as John Milton's "Paradise Lost". We also read "The Tao of Pooh" as a beginner work for the intro into Taoism, read works by Confucius and Buddha, as well as some of the classics as part of the study on Classical Philosophy (Socrates, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, etc.). A class like this would certainly be appropriate to discuss the varied religions' theories on the creation of the universe...

[bjb22]

I'd like to hear what a Phd scientist:hat from a National Lab :evil would say to class of 6 year olds :D when they ask "Where did we come from?" and "Is there a God?". :angel

The first is easy....carbon-based compounds and gases etc.|I

The second one, well,....... 0]

"The got mystery written all over their foreheads
They kill babies in the crib and say "Only the Good Die Young"
They don't believe in mercy
Judgement on them is something we'll never see
They can exhalt you up or bring you down mainroute
Turn you into anything they want you to be"

"Foot Of Pride"- Bob Dylan

[Jayjen36]

I also agree with you Skatekwan6. It has always seemed perfectly acceptable and probable (to me, IMO) that both are true. I think that the unwillingness of some to accept it has to do with the idea of people being created in the image of God, clashing with the idea of the evolution of men from apes. That and the centuries of distrust that the church has had of any type of science. After all there was a time when someone practicing a scientific discipline was in danger of being accused of practicing witchcraft, and being vilified and/or burned at the stake by the church!

[olympic]

Why should ID be taught as a Science? What is the basis for it? There are many different religions with "God" as their center who all have a different story of how life began. So, which religion do we choose as a basis for how life began?

[bjb22]

The "Gap" between science and religion is bein'G P'erpetuated, often, by wolfish manipulators who know very little about either science or religion.

"Sing "Amazing Grace" all the way to the Swiss banks"- Bob Dylan

[kwancierto de aranjuez]

Something had to make creation/evolution happen in the first place, so I don't really understand this debate. Something made it happen. Some people think it's God, some people think it just happened by chance. There is evidence that evolution occurred and still occurs. I don't get it when people totally reject evolution because they're religious...why not just say that God made evolution happen. I mean there was most likely a big bang...but why can't people say "God made the big bang happen" instead of totally rejecting it as something that is against their belief that God created it? God created the Earth...so why couldn't he have done it by making a big bang happen? I don't understand why some religious people don't think that way. If someone can help me understand that, please do.

Why does someone have to make something happen? Why couldn't it just have happened on it's own? If you want to look at it, the big bang was not caused by "God," it is "God." And therefore, as we are all created from the elemental matter/energy force from the Big Bang, we are all a part of "God."

Since I started studying physics, I became more and more enamored with the idea of pantheitic thought.

There is no God because there is only "one". Since there is only one, we are all a part of that one and therefore we are all extentions of "God."

I could accept a discussion of "God" and Creation in a Physics class however! This discussion could belong here.

[EigthAv]

I believe human evolution has been tampered with over the years. I don't care if you teach it in a classroom or not.Keep on believing that you can take all the components from a simple milkshake machine,put them in a bathtub,shake the tub long enough and you will have a milkshake machine. Look at the Earth from space and explain Cape Cod. It even looks like an artist's brushstroke. Explain Kwan. Evolution or divine intervention??? Species evolution is obvious.One species turning into another very different species is where we run into the huge-big arguments. I don't think we accidently transformed from apes and/or dolphins and/or dogs and cats into humans.If so,why haven't any of the other apes,dolphins,dogs or cats ever evolved??? Let your children have a chance to discover what really happened.If it is true that Darwin's theory is the answer,cool. Until someone can come along and prove it,I don't think children should be taught that it is absolute fact. <!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->In the year 2013,Ron Reagan and Dr.Phil will travel back to the dinosaur era to try and save the species with stem cells. We'll know a whole lot more after they have safely landed back in the 21st century and an intelligent T-Rex is on hand to greet them and thank them.:D

[kwancierto de aranjuez]

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I believe human evolution has been tampered with over the years. I don't care if you teach it in a classroom or not.Keep on believing that you can take all the components from a simple milkshake machine,put them in a bathtub,shake the tub long enough and you will have a milkshake machine. Look at the Earth from space and explain Cape Cod. It even looks like an artist's brushstroke. Explain Kwan. Evolution or divine intervention??? Species evolution is obvious.One species turning into another very different species is where we run into the huge-big arguments. I don't think we accidently transformed from apes and/or dolphins and/or dogs and cats into humans.If so,why haven't any of the other apes,dolphins,dogs or cats ever evolved??? Let your children have a chance to discover what really happened.If it is true that Darwin's theory is the answer,cool. Until someone can come along and prove it,I don't think children should be taught that it is absolute fact.<hr></blockquote>

Are you kidding? You really think evolution works like that? Evolution is not about apes and dogs turning into something else. It is about natural selection. Nature will select who will survive or not. Whenever you see a hurricane, an earthquake, a landslide, a heatwave, you see nature's mechanism to see who will survive. Really, if you are going to bash evolution, you should read up on it and understand.

So okay, if we teach "creationism" in school, I vote that we teach the Hindu creation story, or how about the Native American creation story?

I could only accept God as a subject matter in High School physics.

[Krista]

evolution occurs because of a mutation, quite a few times, that result in that being having more abilities or defenses. Its not like a giraffe stretched its neck to reach the trees, and thus evolved. The longer neck giraffes just survived, because they were able to reach high trees etc. Survival is largely based upon genetic luck lol

I have no idea who Im responding to, but just felt the need to type that :b :rollin

[EigthAv]

I've watched very brilliant scientists discussing the so-called "big bang". Even the scientists admit that the theory is shaky at best.If you read my post,I didn't say anything about teaching the King James Bible in schools.......or teaching from the Mormon Bible or the Koran. If we teach our children that there was a huge big bang and then proceed to follow the standard evolution script,eventually some of them will prove us wrong.It is the nature of youth to doubt the elders and prove them wrong.I have no idea how it all started,why we are here or why so many of us subscribe to some sort of higher being religion. I do believe there are higher beings,but should this belief be attached to a religion? Some folks see the Earth tself as an entity.I can readily understand why so many different ancient societies saw the Sun as God. It is where we derive all our energy from. I think you have to open your mind to a number of theories and possiblities to ever find the real answers.Maybe we are all really in some sort of Matrix.:eek That movie gave me some weird notions. Who was the German author who wrote "Chariots of the Gods"? A book to be taken with a big grain of salt,but the dude did seem to be on to something. What really disturbs me is the willingness to go to war over what are often minour differences in religion. Catholics vs Protetants.Moslems vs Jews & Christians. Which is more important,where we came from or where we are going?

[pbluu]

Well, so far, nothing comes close to proving Evolution being wrong. So to even suggest that it might be wrong is quite wishful (on those who are hoping that one day evolution will be proven wrong by ID). Have u even considered that even a remote chance of one day Evolution was to be proven wrong, that the solution my not have anything to do with ID?

ID is not based on science, it is based on religious ideas. Of course ID thinkers have come up with away to present the package that sound very scientific and logical. Heck, they even named the darn thing so that it sounds like a scifi movie or something. Intelligent Design my butt. Just a bunch of baloney repackaged and spits out again like a Bush SS advertising campaign.

[bjb22]

I don't want either Phd nuclear scientists or religious fanatics teaching my 11 year old Daughter .

"I know there's a balence
I see it when I swing past"

"Laugh And A Tear"- John Mellencamp ("Scarecrow")

[EigthAv]

We're all talking here and I realize I am way outnumbered.Even my usual more conservative allies wouldn't go along with the notion of "divine intervention" really being brilliant minds from either our own future or somewhere else in space being the interveners. Intelligent design? To me it makes sense. Look at Cape Cod again on a good realistic globe. Just because we can't figure out how anyone could possibly plan something like that doesn't mean it wasn't planned. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that in this infinite Universe what we call "mankind" is the top of the intelligence chain. <!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->I'm cool with being thought of as a fool on this issue.Just don't call me a fool now but then come back later in a UFO thread and try to tell me I'm crazy if I don't think Earth has ever been "visited". This fool will stay on the safe side and choose to believe most of the things the Christian scientists believe.What have I got to lose???? Ya'll can't damn my soul to some sort of burning hell if I'm wrong:lol :lol and ya'll can't take me to Heaven if I'm right and get lucky enough to win the trip. <!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->I do agree on letting it not be a school issue.I also agree with what some of you call the religious right in that straight on Darwinism shouldn't be taught as science either.Not in k-12 public schools.Go for it in colleges and unis. Fears of reform school and/r hellfire was probably the difference in me being a juve deliquent and a juve criminal.I didn't develop the fears from school experiences.When I was going,they didn't teach Sunday schoo-wahl lessons or Darwinism. You had to get the juicy stuff on the side.............<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->Let's discuss the pros and cons of allowing children to believe in Santa Claus and the Eater Bunny in the future,say December and then on over in the early spring.

[kwancierto de aranjuez]

I don't want either Phd nuclear scientists or religious fanatics teaching my 11 year old Daughter

Isn't your daughter a little too young to be taking a Biology class? :b

:rollin

[bjb22]

You'd be surprised at the reasonable and balenced curriculum.


www.ourladyofgrace.org/school.aspx (http://www.ourladyofgrace.org/school.aspx)

[probativev]

I just don't know why this conflict/debate can't be resolved by having a required school course in philosophy and teach theories like intelligent design in that class, where the subject belongs. The problem with intelligent design in science class is that there's no way to prove it by scientific method..ie the theory, hypothesis, procedure, results and conclusion that makes science science. By what procedure can one test the factual existence of intelligent design? It can't be done. Science is not absolute truth, but it is something observed by the science testing model. Evolution has been subjected to such tests over time and led to conclusion that evolution does occur.

Anyhow, I think it's not a bad thing to require students to take a philosophy class throughout their education years. Let them think about the thoughts of great philosophers and ethicists instead of how to score higher playing the next Xbox game. Besides, concepts of intelligent design can fit very well there.

[4dogknight]

Frist says 'intelligent design' should be taught in schools (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-19-frist-intelligentdesign_x.htm)

{snip}
"Echoing similar comments from President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said "intelligent design" should be taught in public schools alongside evolution.
Frist, R-Tenn., spoke to a Rotary Club meeting Friday and told reporters afterward that students need to be exposed to different ideas, including intelligent design.

"I think today a pluralistic society should have access to a broad range of fact, of science, including faith," Frist said."

{snip}
"Frist, who is considering a presidential campaign in 2008, recently angered some conservatives by bucking Bush policy on embryonic stem cell research, voicing his support for expanded research on the subject.

Frist said his decision to endorse stem cell research was "a matter of science," but he said there was no conflict between his position on stem cell research and his position on intelligent design.

"To me, I see no disconnect between that and stem cell research," Frist said. "I base my beliefs on stem cell research both on science and my faith."

COMMENT: Anyone else think this is a public atonement for the 'stem cell' stance?

4dk

[Jayjen36]

I'd say that it was a pretty sure bet that his reasons ran along those lines.

I just don't know why this conflict/debate can't be resolved by having a required school course in philosophy and teach theories like intelligent design in that class, where the subject belongs.


Well, I went to look up info on exactly what ID is and what its claims are. It is actually not exactly a part of the Creationist movement which is what I thought, but often proponents of one support the other. From what I read these folks are not interested in philosophical theory, they want intelligent design taught as science period.

Here's what Wikipedia has on exactly what it is:

William Dembski, one of ID's leading proponents, has stated that the "fundamental claim" of ID is that "there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence."

According to the article the official stance of supporters of intelligent design is that there is no specified designer. They have referred to "God or an alien life force as two possible options." for a "designer". Although my general guess would be that schools teaching it now or in the future would not teach students that this creator was for instance Vishnu. The theories in the article are interesting and there does seem to be some scientific thought behind them, but the problem is that none of it can be tested.

My own personal opinion is that ID is perfectly plausible and very likely accurate, but it is just that, part of my own personal spiritual philosophy. Even so I simply cannot see teaching this as scientific theory. Philosophy yes, but it honestly just doesn't meet the standard for an actual science.

It would be nice to see the subject taught in a class on philosophy in elementary, junior, and sr. high schools, unfortunately with school funding being what it is and so many schools in horrible shape that is probably just wishful thinking.:\ I'm really thinking along the lines of home schooling the more I think about this.

[bjb22]

I read an article in which about 1/3 of Masters and Phd. level scientists believe in God or a similar Higher Power (31% for physical sciences (biology, chemistry etc) and 38% for social sciences).

I am not sure what the percentages of the regular population is but I am almost sure it is over 70%.

[4dogknight]

bjb22:

Please cite your sources! (provide link)

4dk

[Jayjen36]

I read an article in which about 1/3 of Masters and Phd. level scientists believe in God or a similar Higher Power (31% for physical sciences (biology, chemistry etc) and 38% for social sciences).

That may be true, but a spiritual belief doesn't necessarily equal even scientific theory much less a scientific truth.