Creationism vs. Intelligent Design

Well, there are two approaches one could take here (probably more, actually).

I was taught evolution in History class (clearly not a science subject, though apparently science can be taught there). So why can't they teach something that is not "strictly" science in science class?

Intelligent design is rejected because the scientific method cannot be applied to it - it must be taken as a matter of faith. I put it to you that all science must be taken as a matter of faith - faith that what our senses report to our conscious minds is accurate.

I don't see why it shouldn't be taught. There are quite a few people (most actually) in the world who believe in some form of intelligent design (whether the Universe was created "in situ" or whether there is simply a designer behind the accepted scientific theory is a matter for other conversations). If it can't be accepted in the science class-room, let the arts take it. History, sociology, etc.
 
If you look at it from the scientific perspective, then you must include it. Scientific theory is applied to everything in a science class. However, the theory of evolution isn't put through the same scrutiny. It actually goes off of much more imagination than any Intelligent Design theory. True science would include the various theories and then present the proofs and problems with each one. Faith is required to come to any definite conclusion, so tell the kids that instead of a narrow-minded view that we were once a primordial ooze and nothing else is possible.

OR tell them nothing. If it's that big of a problem, then disclude any origin teachings. They don't roll out the more important theories of Einstein or Da Vinci, so why harp on this one?
 
I'm against teaching intelligent design in schools. No matter which way you look at it, intelligent design is rooted in religion, and it really doesn't have any scientific backing. I'm not one to squeel about "those damn radical Christchums with their sheltered ideals and blah blah blah" but this really does boil down to appeasing the fundamental Christians. Personally, I believe in some kind of odd fusion of both ideals, but still, this is something best left to Theology classes in private schools and parents who care about their children knowing about their ideals.
 
Ideally, one should first be taught philosophy that deals in meaning, language, and logic. Then teach both. Let the person come to their own conclusions, be it one or the other or a little of both or neither.

The thing about science and specifically a theory is that it's never complete -- always an ongoing process. If data arises that contradicts some theory, then that theory has to be reworked or thrown out completely. Yes, in that regard, a lot of science is a conditional faith in what's known, a collective, consistent perception of reality. The fact that we're discussing this topic is proof of its consistency. :P

Everything boils down to a subjective outlook, however. That is existence.
 
If science discovers evidence that at some point in time there was an entity that 'designed' what we know of reality--say, the space of the universe, the subatomic particles, their inherent behaviors and properties, etc--then science will acknowledge it rightly. However, then it's science's job to account for how that entity was able to do just that, what that entity is made of, and so on. How far do you have to go back?

The most fundamental question you can ever ask is how something began. How did existence itself begin when there should be nothing to begin with? No line of thought can ever touch it, no computer can be built to find the answer, even if the computer takes 10^50 years to build and it envelops the whole universe. Therein lies faith.
 
The farther science and religion are from eachother the better off humanity will be. Somewhere, the line has to be drawn between fact and fairytales.
 
if the government keeps regulating what kids learn in school why dont we just call ourselves a communist country they need to quite debating what they tech our students i mean come on just teach them something they spend so much time on why our kids shouldnt learn this and that and why our education system is so low they should be trying to fix why its so low instead of what they teach them
 
ShadowStriker said:
if the government keeps regulating what kids learn in school why dont we just call ourselves a communist country
Click to expand...

This problem with this argument is that many (if not most) of our public schools recieve federal funding. This funding always has strings attached, so while schools are recieiving funding they are required to meet certain criteria set by the federal government. There are a few districts which are voluntarily rejecting federal funding in order to have more freedom within the curriculum -- but as they still draw state and local funds, they must adhere to state and local regulations.

However, what this issue boils down to is the constitutionality of teaching intelligent design. When a school district decides to teach it as part of a science curriculum and people object, the issue goes before a court. Because of the nature of our court system, rulings will be appealed and brought before higher courts. What the judges are determining, in essence, is whether it's constitutionally legal -- because public schools are publicly funded and thus fall under state and (usually) federal constitutions -- to teach intelligent design in public schools, usually referring to the "nonestablishment" clause.

The argument for intelligent design is typically that it is simply an alternative explanation and thus should fall under an open-minded scientific rubric. The strongest argument against intelligent design is that, as it cannot be tested and cannot make predictions, it is not truly science. The subtext is that intelligent design may not may not be a thinly veiled attempt to insert religious teachings into public schools.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom