FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Intelligent Design in Schools?






Should ID be taught in schools?
Yes
42%
 42%  [ 6 ]
No
50%
 50%  [ 7 ]
Not Sure
7%
 7%  [ 1 ]
Total Votes : 14

Soulfire
Do you think that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools?

I, for one, think it should. You might expect me to say that, because I am a Christian, but really that's not the only reason. Evolution is just a theory, it can't be proved, and intelligent design is also a theory, why can't students learn about it?

It doesn't only refer to a Christian diety either, it refers to any intelligent being that created life. I'm not sure if a science class would be the place for it, but it should be taught, students need to learn all points of few not just one.
Aiz
Thats where all the arguments begin.

If you teach intelligent design, what about those that have different belief systems that don't quite fit the whole "intelligent design" system? Also, what about athiests? There wouldn't be nearly enough time/resources to cover all the different dieties and the such, thats what churches are for.

My opinion on the matter is, yes, kids have a right to learn different ideas such as creationism, big bang, etc. However, schools are really not the place for it, schools are for learning scientific facts, or near facts, too many versions taught at one place would just confuse people rather than giving them the information and let them decide for themselves.

Nothing would stop the kids from going to churches and learn the stuff about God and such, why must people want to bring them into the school systems? Isn't it just another way to impose their own ideas on others?
Jasna
Right, I don't think Intelligent Design should be taught as well. And I'm a Catholic. And I'm a Conservative Republican. ^^;; It doesn't follow the scientific method, and it cannot be proven false threw experimentation (if anyone's heard of falsifiability).

Though I am going a bit off-topic, about creationism (since Intelligent Design is just a pseudo-scientific term for creationism) and evolution, I believe their both right in this sense: God (not to offend non-Christians/Jewish/Muslims, etc.) created the world in the order mentioned in Genesis (which does not conflict with the theory of evolution) in "seven days". However, these "seven days" mentioned don't necessarily mean our 24-hour days, and I believe they don't. "Seven days," to me, is... how old is the earth? 4.5 billion years, if my 8th grade science is credible? Or something like that. And evolution is just the process in which everything is "created."

I don't know, something like that. My teachers always told me that religion is the "why," and science is the "how". I can agree with that.
Xipha
I think students should be encouraged to think for themselves by being taught more about evolution and about intelligent design. They should be made aware of the complexities of the universe, and taught the evidence for what it is, and both ways of interpreting it. They should be taught the problems with the theories as well. In this way they would be encouraged to think for themselves and follow the evidence where it leads them. Teaching only one side is cencorship and actually discourages further scientific inquiry. By teaching the theories and the questions that arise from them, anyone who is curious would be encouraged to think for themselves and come up with an answer.
SunburnedCactus
The issue was more that it was being taught as a science rather than in a religious studies class which got angry parents provoked.
gonzo
No, all flaws in evolution should be suppressed lest students be tempted to think for themselves.
DX-Blog
Intelligent Design is being taught in schools where I live. Part of the subject "religion" which is optional and teaches people about the christian/chatolic religion.

No problem with it being there, as long as they leave Darwin's evolution of theory within the science section.
Soulfire
Intelligent Design doesn't have to be taught as each religion and their respective diety. It can just be taught as just the concept of a, say God, who created the people, not necesarily the Christian God or whatever.

Also, Earth was created in 7 days. And in the bible it says God does not count time as men do, so that 7 days doesn't mean 24 hour days, it could mean *many* things. So I agree with you on that. It is not completely illogical.

To those of you who say science class is only for scientific fact, then why do we learn about evolution? Evolution is no more scientific fact than creationism (or intelligent design) is.

SunburnedCactus wrote:
The issue was more that it was being taught as a science rather than in a religious studies class which got angry parents provoked.

It's funny, people will get upset over the stupidest things (like saying Merry Christmas). I wonder if they just want the attention. Also the pledge is a big one. If you don't want to say "Under God" then don't say it, case closed.

What happened to America? We're pushing aside and insulting religious beliefs so that we don't insult non-religious people. Who's rights are more important? Apparently we aren't equal, because most people are siding with the non-religious people.
DX-Blog
Evolution has been paired to DNA sequences to make it no longer just an assumption but to show that there definately is a connection between those organisms. So technically, the evolution theory has gotten a scientific basis.
LeviticusMky
Creationism is the exact opposite of the scientific method.

In the case of evolution, scientists found an answer to a question.

Creationism sees fake science taking an answer and formulating a question for it.

Creationism is NOT science. It is NOT a theory in the scientific sense. A theory is a heavily peer reviewed and massively tested piece of work that is accepted as truth in the scientific community. Creationism is better described as a religious Hypothesis, something that is a belief, but has no real sound base in science.

Saying that creationism is like evolution is akin to saying gravity is like the idea that we are all held down because of pixie dust.
Soulfire
I never said that evolution was wrong, I said the theory of it was. Our genetics are close, that doesn't mean we came from them. It doesn't really tell us anything except, well, that our genetics are close. One could assume it meant we came from them, but there still is no solid ground.

There's no solid ground for creationism either, yet it has been reviewed by many and accepted by at least 2.5 billion people around the world. That makes it a theory in my sense. Science can't prove it true, science can't prove it false (same with the theory of evolution).
toiyeumetre
I think i don't have to laugh
Bondings
Soulfire wrote:
There's no solid ground for creationism either, yet it has been reviewed by many and accepted by at least 2.5 billion people around the world. That makes it a theory in my sense.

It's not 2.5 billion, it's 2.5 million. And the fact that people believe in it, makes it a religious theory, not a scientific one.

Science can't prove anything wrong nor right. Every imaginable theory is possibly the right one. However science starts from facts - I mean what you see, hear, smell, feel and taste(I know they aren't perfect, but they are the only things we percept in our life) - and tries to explain everything from all those inputs; try to find the most likely explanation. An explanation that may and will change due to new inputs/data making the theory better and better. Take as an example the speed of light. It is/was constantly adjusted (a few decimals added). However if someone can prove tomorrow that it is twice as fast, then all theories will change and try to fit that fact.

A religious theory is based on a belief, not on facts. Creationism is based on a literal interpretation of the bible. The theory isn't able to change. God created the earth on 7 days point. It will never be changed to 8 days even if all facts seem to indicate that.

Biology is pure science and only science should be taught in there.

Religious theories should be taught during religion.

And religion shouldn't be taught in schools but in churches. But that's my opinion.
KHO
Hmm, perhaps, but being that you are a Christian, you should know that such things will likely not come to pass Neutral.

And for evolution, l think they need to modify that a bit, there is decent reasoning in saying that something may adapt to its sourrondings, this does not mean that a dinosaur would evolve into a chicken Neutral, this doesn't help anything Neutral. But to think that an insect might change its' diet to adapt to the food in its' new environment rather than starving to death, well that is fairly reasonable Neutral. l could rant on about this, but l'm sure there are plenty of threads devoted to evolution, so l will not spam this one Neutral.
KHO
Bondings wrote:
And the fact that people believe in it, makes it a religious theory, not a scientific one.

Yes, and if they would only admit to this, then the world could see their lies, and move on! Neutral

A religion is always going to be accepted by faith, there is no denying that Neutral. The true existance of any religion will never be exposed to be true, Science may try and prove them false, but will more often than not fail Neutral.

And besides this, it is human nature to need something to cling to, to feel an importance. Religion has provided this, saying that man was created from nothing and will return to such without ever fullfiling any "pre-determined goal" would be taking the humanity away from the world. lf the common man would believe in this, then he would have no problem going out and killing someone, or many people including himself, because he thinks that this world is useless, and nothing he does here will ever amount to anything more than a cycle of energy being used and reprocessed Neutral.
Xipha
I think most people misunderstand the nature of both science and religion. I think a lot of people mistake origins science as operational science, but they are two completly different things. What they don't teach you in school is that all science is based on interpretations of observations. This even includes operational science, but it is possible to directly observe physics, chemistry, biology and other aspects of these sciences, so it is possible to come up with theories directly from these observations. However, even these theories are based on assumptions. For example I just finished reading a new publication that has a completely different theory of gravity, based outside of the assumptions of modern science. This person states that today's theory of gravity actually contradicts the laws of physics. For example there is seemingly endless energy that holds objects to the earth and in orbit seemingly without diminishing any power source, without even the existence of a power source. Scientists make this contradiction dissapear by improper application of the work-energy equation. Where the model may work mathematically it is simply an extrapolation of earlier geometric equations that function equally well for the same purpose. I will have to try and find the book to see if they actually have anything valid to add to science, but the point is even operational science shifts if you change your basic assumptions (In the gravity case this is that the orbits of planets has the same equation as a rock swung on a string, which is a completely arbitrary assumption based on geometric appearance. The author of the article points out that a more reasonable assumption would be a rock swung on the end of a spring, which would result in a different theory of gravity. That is if these assumptions have anything at all to do with the physical nature and reasons behind gravity at all. The author claims to have found an alternate atomic principle that underlies the theory of everything, and would mean that gravity is purely an invented force, and that this principle is not just a mathematical and imperfect model of the observations that have been made but a physical explanation.). Origins science is even more based on assumptions and we do not even have a way of validating these assumptions because there is no way to make an observation. So people have come up with basic frameworks to assume our beginnings: the two basic ones are special creation vs. random chance. Both are valid under the guidelines of origins science. Personally I find it pointless to base your faith on naturalist origins science as it is ever changing in its framework and has no real solid foundation. Operational science is the science that gets things done (like putting man on the moon, and curing diseases) and it is not affected by religion or faith in any way because it is based soley on the observed laws of the universe without giving consideration as to why there is order and laws in the universe in the first place (that is the domain, and really the whole point of origins science). So it is perfectly reasonable to believe in and use operational science, and at the same time have faith that it was God that set the universe and the laws that govern it in motion (which would be my stand in origins science). Those two statements go together with perfect harmony. And people can believe in and use operational science without being hindered by the fact that they believe that chance and accidents gave rise to the universe and all the order and laws within it. Personally i think this is absurd, especially when I look into the logic behind reason itself and human conciousness and what the implications of them arising by chance would be, but to each his own. It takes faith to believe in either God or chance as the cause for everything.

What I would like to see changed is people's mistaken belief that because the majority of people believe something it must be correct, the stereotypes that because people believe in creation they cannot be "real scientists" and must be deluded, and for people to start thinking for themselves and asking questions instead of blindly accepting what they are told without understanding what it is they are being told and on what assumptions this information was based. I think this would lead to more educated people who are willing to think, and would make the science industry healthier, because asking questions is the first step to getting answers. Teaching the basis of scientific method and thought would also help, instead of just teaching things as "this is the way they are, regurgitate it on a test and you pass". Some schools do this and others do not. Also, teachers should make sure that the information that is being taught is accurate. There are many textbooks used in school systems that teach outdated (Darwin's finches), disproven (archeopteryx), abandoned (whale, horse evolution) or even fradulent (embryology, pilt-down man, archeorapror) cases as "proof" of evolution without even mentioning that these ideas have lost credibility. Even if a school system is not able to buy new texts the teachers should at least be made aware and teach the errors in the textbooks. As for biodiversity, it fits in perfectly with intelligent design. What some scientists see as showing a common ancestor others see showing a common designer.

As for creation not being real science deserving of a place in education: Modern science was founded on creationist ideas: That is there is an ordered God who created the universe and so logically the universe has order we can observe. If there was no God would you really expect to find order resulting from random accidents and chance? This is just a thought. Perhaps the school system should look more into the nature of evolution as it is a religion that requires just as much faith as any other.


(Gravity theory reference came from the first chapter of the book "The Final Theory"... which I must get and read to see if they have anything really valuable to say or if they just made more arbitrary assumptions lol!)

I know I also posted this in another forum, but it relates to this discussion as well.
Soulfire
Okay, there are over 2.5 billion Christians in the world, and well over 1 billion Roman Catholics alone, so I can assure you here, it is not million, but billion.

Intelligent Design isn't all religious, agnostics and even atheists sometimes believe in some sort of higher power, whether that be a god or not. It's a theory that cannot be proved false, and does have scientific backing, I'll have to get back to you on that. There were some experiments conducted on near death patients that strongly supported an afterlife of some sort, and indirectly hinted at the presence of an omniscient God.

However, I don't believe Intelligent Design should be taught in science class, even though it really is a science in it's own sense. I think it should be taught in some type of sociology class, in which you do learn about belief systems.

My main point is that students need to learn all sides of an argument. Schools are only giving the evolution side, which therefore people automatically accept as true and fact (which is wrong, it cannt be proven). If it truly bothers someone so much that they can't learn about ID, then they could opt out. Just like sex ed, but why would people be so opposed to hearing another point of view - the answer, because we're all so stubborn.

There's no option to opt out of evolution, and the theory that we came from monkeys (which I still have trouble believing). I know evolution happens, because it's been proven, but the theory of evolution is entirely different.
Bondings
Xipha wrote:
Also, teachers should make sure that the information that is being taught is accurate. There are many textbooks used in school systems that teach outdated (Darwin's finches), disproven (archeopteryx), abandoned (whale, horse evolution) or even fradulent (embryology, pilt-down man, archeorapror) cases as "proof" of evolution without even mentioning that these ideas have lost credibility. Even if a school system is not able to buy new texts the teachers should at least be made aware and teach the errors in the textbooks.

There are lots of errors in school text books. Not only in biology or history, but also in chemistry and even in languages. The Dutch spelling rules are changing a lot (people are paid to change it every few years) and we always got text books in the previous spelling. It's a problem of the schools, not evolution.

By the way, what's wrong with the archeopteryx? If you claim that those ideas have lost credibility please be completely sure of it.
Sappho
Soulfire wrote:
There were some experiments conducted on near death patients that strongly supported an afterlife of some sort, and indirectly hinted at the presence of an omniscient God.


I have seen this same related posts in different topics and i just dont understand how afterlife (the existence of soul even) imply the existence of God? Just couse its in bible or what? I mean there cant be such thing as soul or afterlife even without this God figure? Sure there can, so why connecting it. :/
Bondings
Soulfire wrote:
Okay, there are over 2.5 billion Christians in the world, and well over 1 billion Roman Catholics alone, so I can assure you here, it is not million, but billion.

Roman Catholics do not believe in creationism. In Europe most people don't even know what creationism is.
Quote:
A number of Christian churches, the Roman Catholic Church in particular, have accepted the Big Bang as a possible description of the origin of the Universe, interpreting it to allow for a philosophical first cause. Pope Pius XII was an enthusiastic proponent of the Big Bang even before the theory was scientifically well established.


Quote:
here were some experiments conducted on near death patients that strongly supported an afterlife of some sort, and indirectly hinted at the presence of an omniscient God.

I can confirm to you that this is not the case at all. They all have a very good scientific explanation like a lack of oxygen or parts of the brain dying/not functioning properly anymore. You can have exactly the same experiences under influence of certain drugs.

There is a part of the human brain responsible for location, the feeling you have of identity, being in your brain. If you stimulate/deregulate it by dying or by taking drugs, you can get an out-of-body experience.
ocalhoun
Bondings wrote:

Roman Catholics do not believe in creationism. In Europe most people don't even know what creationism is.

This being a symptom of the reason I dislike the catholic brand of christianity. (though I still find it more agreeable than islam or atheisim)

Judaisim is more closely related, in fundamental beliefs, to christianity than catholosisim.
Lennon
OK, EXCUSE ME IF THIS IS SOUNDING HARSH COZ I'M A ROMAN CATHOLIC THAT BELIEVE'S IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND I KNOW WHAT CREATIONISM IS AND I'M EUROPEAN...

ok, point taken....

Now, I've a BSc in Science directly involved in Genetics and Microbiology... Basically I could be a teacher in Intelligent Design and Evolution...

In essence, this is a question of who's the wiser... Nobody is... So My opinion is to be open-minded to everything and allow students to be exposed to everything. FINAL ANSWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you're looking for facts and figures to argue about, check out my website http://student.dcu.ie/~lennonr2/Probability%20Vs%20Purpose.htm
Related topics
Graphic Design Portal (Tutorials, Resources and more...)
Why the big change from Creationism to Intelligent Design?
Can anyone (preferrably a Muslim) 'splane this to me?
Conservative Christian Dictionary.
Intelligent Design?Or Evolution?
Science - Anybody Interested
Abortion: Yes or No?
Unintelligent Design
Creationism
Evolution, the religion
March 28: A holy day
Game Design Schools
Evolution or Intelligent Design?
Intelligent Design - Science or Religion?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.