Should schools teach intelligent design and evolution?

Do you think schools should teach intelligent design and evolution?

I personally liked the way thay evolution was explained to me in 7th and 10th grade in the public school.

My science teachers told us that evolution is a theory, which means that it is the best explanation that science has for the given set of facts. They also reminded us that plate techtonics, cell theory, atomic theory, and the theory of the inner structure of stars were also theories. Much of what science teaches in schools is a theory, and I think that we as a society are none the worse for wear.

They did address what they called creationism. They said that it is the belief that an intelligent being deliberately created the world and everything in it. They said that some people believe that it happened according to the bible and some think that he/she/it created using evolution.

They told us that we can choose to believe whatever we want to believe, and it wasn't their place to make us believe anything. However, we would be tested on the theory of evolution. Then they told us that we would study the theory of evolution because there is good science associated with it. We even conducted some experiments on our own.

That experience didn't cause me to lose my faith, but it did make me ask informed questions about my faith. I think that it was a positive experience.

No. Not in public schools. There is no scientific evidence of intelligent design.

I agree with underwaterophelia, not in public schools.

Not in any schools.Young minds should learn by and only by reason.Unreasonable things will cloud their future judgement.

Yes. Especially since evolution can be seen around us EVERWHERE!!! For example the many viruses that have affected humans for thousands of years which continue to evolve, overcoming our medicines all the time. How this could be seen as unreasonable is beyond me, it is about as unreasonable as the much of the knowledge that was considered flawed, back when everyone was taught the world was flat...or the sun actually revolved around the Earth...or that it would be impossible for a man to go to the moon...or much of the things that has been proven WRONG over the last few thousand years...let the children research it, I'm sure in 20 or 30 years they will have much to say about our world that today we consider inconceivable. But, intelligent design I'm not sure about...I could be wrong though!!!

Intelligent Design should be presented as a pseudoscience along with astrology, phrenology, numerology and all that other garbage. That would take maybe 15 minutes of classtime and then we could move on to some real science.

I live just south of a town in PA where a school board, against the warnings of the schools legal council, voted to bring in ID teachings. A suite was brought against the school and presided over by a Bush-appointed judge. The multi-million dollar case was lost by the school board on the grounds that ID inappropriately brings religion into a government institution (the school). (Next election, every board member that voted ID was defeated.) The ACLU, which provided legal help to the parents who brought the case waived most if not all of their fees, but the school district was still left with millions in expenses.
Religion can be a great force for social change, but it is NOT science.

Suppose for a minute that we DID teach intelligent design. Here's what the sylabus would look like:

Day 1: Something intelligent went *poof* and here we are. The end.
Day 2+: Watch Spongebob reruns

Not only is ID not a theory in the scientific sense, it isn't even a developed idea that COULD be taught. It's nothing more than a single sentence, because it's untestable and based on nothing of substance.

I think that private schools should be free to teach whatever they want. Public schools should not teach religion thinly veiled as science.

As a teacher, I know that it's very hard to teach something that you don't believe in yourself. I've heard non-Christian headteachers in Britian giving agonisingly wooly talks about a Bible story just because they felt they had to. We would all have been much better off with something moral but non-religious, because these people couldn't deliver a Christian message with conviction or even passing interest. And why should they? They weren't Christians. It was a very false situation.

Thus, if schools in the US are instructed to teach intelligent design, it will be passed across to the pupils with disinterest and bearely-concealed scorn by the many teachers who don't believe in it. The pupils who haven't already encountered the idea will not be interested in it, because they will pick up the underlying messages from their teachers.

And from a moral and theological point of view, I believe that the two should not be presented as being in opposition. I believe in the wonder of God's world and that evolution was a slow and incredibly intelligent tool used to create it.

My conclusion, in our very secular French education system, is that my sons can learn the scientific details of the Big Bang, evolution etc at school (and from their science books and magazines at home). I would not expect them to learn about the religious implications of those creative 'tools' at school, and I would not try to set our family's faith in opposition to what they have learned.

some people don't realize, or aren't educated on how amazing, and complex science is. intelligent design has nothing to do with it. so why don't we just sum it up to misunderstandings. I bet in the future religion will be disregarded like gods and goddesses. and NO intelligent design should not be taught in schools. evolution is fine and should be.

Hi, paco. How did it mess you up? I have to admit that I grew up the same and (despite appearances) I don't consider myself particularly messed up. I'm still, at the age of 38, happy to study the scientific theories of the Big Bang, evolution etc and simply realise (as a fair number of scientists do) that these describe how God did it. I don't need 'Intelligent Design' as a theory to link the two. However, I think your argument is very reasonable. Good points.

paco: _Everything_ in science is theory. Theory isn't used in the sense it's commonly understood in general conversation - for something to qualify as a theory in science, hat means some very specific things: It makes testable assertions (eg, when I drop an object, it will fall to the ground), and it can be disproven (eg, I drop an object and it _doesn't_ fall to the ground). Laws and Facts in science are simply theories that have been repeatedly tested and found to be good descriptions of how the world works.

Don't believe people who say evolution is only a theory. Only and theory don't belong together in science. Evolution is every bit as solid as many other theories that are taught in science.

I think they should both be taught in schools so people can see both sides of the argument. There is a lot of creation science, but now of you have seemed to research it all.

There _is_ no creation science, hence the lack of research. Intelligent design basically says god did it, which precludes any sort of rational scientific theory. You can't make any predictions based on it, it can't be proven wrong, therefore it's not a scientific theory or a field of scientific endeavour.

Oh, this is a great question, indeed! Intelligent Design/Creation, and Abstinence Only Sex Education should be taught right along all the other subjects that students discuss with their parents and elect to take.
We have been given the idea of separation of church and state meaning that the state won't dictate a particular religion. We have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. How great it is to see Good News Clubs meeting in our public schools after hours. In 92% of the schools approached, the school boards approve of Bible in Schools.net.

Carbon dating has even proved to be measuring beyond the parameters it sets. How then, in 1980 when Mt. St. Helens blew, did there instantly appear petrified wood?

They (the Bible scholars who have extensively researched the geneology timeline...but not a life and death argument) say that we are in the year 5768, that many years since God's creation of the earth and all that is in it. He made them male and female, all things He made.

Science proves creation all the time. Where can we find evolving things other than the cocoons of caterpillars to butterflies in such a short time. Has anyone seen a cog or that? No cat/dogs or dog/cats around. Have to say that with a laugh! There are plenty of examples of perfect organisms around us indicating a highly intelligent maker. Can we be any less in awe when we see the perfect balance of chemicals needed to make ONE cell operate in our body? Let alone the intricacies of such movements of our eyes coordinated with the motor control of our hands as we teach others, by this media. Search with this modern technology anywhere to see a cell and how it operates. If any one protein is out of place, or the chain of DNA is slightly modified, if anything is left out, nothing works. And how many trillions of cells to we have?

Even Darwin concluded in all his research, that there must be some other, well here is his quote on the last page (429) of his book, There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few
forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on... See that!...Creator with a capital C!

Surely there is hope for everyone.! May the power of God Our Father, Christ, His Holy Spirit continue to move with in us as we seek the mysteries He has created through the revealing formulas in science.

Then, if our heart is soft, we can hear His small soft voice singing over us. I love you, Oh, how I love you.

warmheart: *yawn*. Same old 'intelligent design' arguments warmed over.
1. Saying this seems too complex / perfect / balanced / whatever to have not required a designer is NOT a scientific argument. That you can't conceive of it happening through a natural process indicates a failure of your imagination, not of the process.

2. If you're going to quote Darwin, try not to be _totally_ dishonest when you do so. The full quote is: There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed [by the Creator] into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. Note that the first edition didn't even include the phrase by the creator, rather it was added in the 6th edition after the book generated much controversy in the religious environment of the time.

3. Darwin is not the last word when it comes to evolution - far from it. He founded it, but made mistakes, and debunking Darwin would not debunk evolution.

 
Intelligent Design, No! Evolution, Yes.

The reason for the difference is that one is based upon faith/belief whereas the other is based upon scientific evidence.
 

As before, scientific evidence is proving beyond a doubt that by statistical calculations, an intelligent force put us here! The THEORY of evolution says it all. Hear the one about the scientist and God, seeing that for all the stuff available on earth that the scientist challenged God in a race to make another human out of dust? The scientist reached down to get a handful of dust and God said, Get your own dust!! It doesn't get any better than that.

warmheart: No it's not! Please, show us even a single scientific paper, accepted by a reputable peer-reviewed journal that agrees with your claims.