Teaching Intelligent Design in Public Schools -DHAI

[Riddle]

In most public schools in the western world, the only scientific theory on the origin of humans that iis taught is evolution. As you all know the theory of evolution states that humans, and all other species, gradually changed and became new species as a result of natural selection. This is widely accepted by the world, and most people have no problem with this theory. However, some people would have other theories taught in school, namely Intelligent Design. Intellligent Design is the theory that A 'Creator' (such as God) Individually created each species as it is. This has flared into a debate (not really, that makes it sound important) and I would like to hear your opinions.

Background information aside, I'd like to ask you all your opinions on the matter.

Do you think we should teach intelligent design in school? Why?

I believe that the theory of evolution is true beyond a shadow of a doubt. As an atheist I am opposed to intelligent design for a number of reasons. First of all, the thought that there is a creator to create the world is completely unsupported whereas there is a lot of evidence for a scientific beginning to the universe, such as the big bang. (look here) Secondly, there is also a lot of evidence to support evolution itself. Why do we need a new flu vaccine every year? Because the flu virus is evolving. The theory of evolution is so well-supported that it is considered a fact by many,, including me. (evidence)
On the flip-side, Evolution truly is only a theory (so is gravity), and there are other possible explanations. Why should we limit the knowledge of children to just one possibility?

However, I believe that it boils down to this: Teaching kids intelligent design is a waste of time.

Relevant if somewhat dated article here

 

[Faithkeeper]

Spoiler

DHAI... if it doesn't count, oh well.

I will preface my reply with that I am what most people would call a religious person. I'm not exactly sure that it is important, but you mentioned you were an Atheist, and I can only assume you did so with reason. So for whatever reason that my be, I too make such a statement.

From what I understand, Intelligent Design is an "umbrella term" for many different things. All of them point to a God creating the universe (to the best of my understanding). ... Well, cutting right to the chase, these things have no place in public schools. If we apply the definition of intelligent design you have provided, intelligent design is completely false. (to the best of human knowledge at this point) The overwhelming majority of evidence points towards evolution and the big bang. Now if one were to say "Yes, but God started the big bang, and set up all of the laws of the universe, including the process of evolution" I could understand where one comes from, but at this point I feel it ceases to be a scientific theory (if it ever was one) and is more of a religious/philosophical belief. Either way, the current theory for the origin of mankind is what should be taught in public schools. If that is evolution, great. If new evidence is presented and this evidence points towards some other explanation, then perhaps another theory for the origin of species may be taught, but today, I really don't see any competition in where the evidence leads. If one is adamant about teaching one's own beliefs, even if they are not supported by evidence or the majority of the scientific community, there is always private school.

On the flip-side, Evolution truly is only a theory (so is gravity), and there are other possible explanations. Why should we limit the knowledge of children to just one possibility?

So many people misinterpret the word "theory", they assume nobody is really very sure about it. This isn't the case. A theory simply explains how something happens. Evolution is a scientific fact, we know animals change, it is observable, testable and all of those other things they told me in high school biology. (maybe someone else remembers them) The process of natural selection in evolution is only a theory because it explains how evolution occurs. That doesn't make it any less true or backed by scientific evidence. [I'm not entirely sure why evolution is so often addressed as a theory, when I was in high school biology(high school biology and zoology are the extent of my education in this field...), they told me it was a fact. If someone could clear this up for me it'd be nice.]

 

[SuSa]

Going to have to agree with Faithkeeper on pretty much every single point.... I was hoping to add something new to the table, but he really summed it up....

 

[:mad:]

I'm seeing a trend here. We all tend to agree on every topic. I don't fully understand the other side well enough to argue on their part, so I won't be playing devil's.

Food for thought. Make Intelligent Design an optional class for anyone that would like to take it. Using the school's budget to fund, of course.

 

[aeghrur]

I'm seeing a trend here. We all tend to agree on every topic. I don't fully understand the other side well enough to argue on their part, so I won't be playing devil's.

Food for thought. Make Intelligent Design an optional class for anyone that would like to take it. Using the school's budget to fund, of course.

Why not just teach it at Sunday Schools?
Most schools are already having budget problems, they don't have the money to waste on teaching Intelligent Design to a select few.

Also, I thought Gravity was a law of physics, like Newton's 4th law. =/

 

[Riddle]

So many people misinterpret the word "theory", they assume nobody is really very sure about it. This isn't the case. A theory simply explains how something happens. Evolution is a scientific fact, we know animals change, it is observable, testable and all of those other things they told me in high school biology. (maybe someone else remembers them) The process of natural selection in evolution is only a theory because it explains how evolution occurs. That doesn't make it any less true or backed by scientific evidence. [I'm not entirely sure why evolution is so often addressed as a theory, when I was in high school biology(high school biology and zoology are the extent of my education in this field...), they told me it was a fact. If someone could clear this up for me it'd be nice.

Also, I thought Gravity was a law of physics, like Newton's 4th law. =/

By saying so is gravity, I was trying to point out that in my opinion evolution is a fact. however, this is almost always the argument I hear for teaching Intelligent Design so I decided to put it in the OP.

I can play Devil's advocate here though.

The evidence for intelligent design is right in the words themselves. There are so many things in nature that could be as a result of nothing but design. Evolution could not create such perfect things as the human body. Da Vinci's Vitruvian man (found here) Shows us the symmetry of the human body. There are even instances of this in science. The term 'molelcular machine' imples a creator, and I'm sure there are others. If you have seen any of the beauty of nature than you should be able to see that this could not have been made by evolution, the only explanation is a creator. /devil's advocate

 

[pacmansays]

Thanks for playing Devil's Advocate Riddle as you've mentioned an argument often used but in its essence is flawed.

What you just gave is a philosophical argument for God (the teleological argument I believe) which is saying the world is so complicated and beautiful a God must exist to have created it which is an opinion you're entitled to have.

But its not a scientific argument, it is basically saying: hey things seem so complicated that something must of designed it which is basically in science saying "I can't answer this so I'll resort to using God"

You don't prove one theory just by disproving another and the evidence against evolution is weak

btw: here in the UK, we're taught it but in religious education, not science

 

[Riddle]

This thread needs more devil's advocate!!!

I'm going to introduce and define a few concepts here for greater understanding. Something that is cumulatively complex are made such that if any part is taken out than the greater structure can continue to function. Something that is irreducibly complex can not function if one of the parts is removed. An example of an cumulatively complex structure is a city. People, buildings, or other parts can be taken out, but the city still runs. An example of an irreducibly complex structure is a cilium (a flagellum), because if a cilium's microtubules, nexin linkers, and motor proteins are not precisely ordered then the cilium ceasees to function. An irreducibly complex structure can not be created by nature and must be created by a designer. This is because, a pre-cursor to a cilium or any other irreducibly complex structure would by definition be missing one of its parts. (if it was the same then it wouldn't be a pre-cursor) Any irreducibly complex structure missing a part would not function. Therefore, anything with this pre-cursor to a cillium would be no more likely to survive and the pre-cursor would never evolve into a cilium. Thus, the cilium would have to appear all together for it to exist at all. Since it does, this points to a creator. (Find stuff about this here)


Note: This post does not concur with the views of Riddle. (Lol third person)

 

[RDK]

This thread needs more devil's advocate!!!

I'm going to introduce and define a few concepts here for greater understanding. Something that is cumulatively complex are made such that if any part is taken out than the greater structure can continue to function. Something that is irreducibly complex can not function if one of the parts is removed. An example of an cumulatively complex structure is a city. People, buildings, or other parts can be taken out, but the city still runs.

Your first mistake is comparing a biological organism to a city, or any other non-living, man-made object. It's not scientific, don't do it. A living thing is not a machine, a computer, or a program. Analogies are descriptive at best, and obfuscatory at worst.

An example of an irreducibly complexstructure is a cilium (a flagellum), because if a cilium's microtubules, nexin linkers, and motor proteins are not precisely ordered then the cilium ceasees to function.

This has been proven to be false. Relevant articles here, here, and here.

An irreducibly complex structure can not be created by nature and must be created by a designer. This is because, a pre-cursor to a cilium or any other irreducibly complex structure would by definition be missing one of its parts. (if it was the same then it wouldn't be a pre-cursor) Any irreducibly complex structure missing a part would not function. Therefore, anything with this pre-cursor to a cillium would be no more likely to survive and the pre-cursor would never evolve into a cilium. Thus, the cilium would have to appear all together for it to exist at all. Since it does, this points to a creator. (Find stuff about this here)

There are a million things wrong with the above statement, but I'll try to make my response concise.

First of all, you stated that an irreducibly complex structure cannot be created by nature, which is patently false. They can, and are, all the time. See at least one of the links I posted above for specific examples. One is a certain type of soil bacteria that is capable of breaking down PCP, or the chemical Pentachlorophenol - a man-made toxin used as a wood preservative since the 1930's:

The PCP molecule is a six carbon ring with five chlorine atoms and one hydroxyl (OH) group attached. The chlorines and the ring structure are both problems for bacteria. S. chlorophenolica uses three enzymes in succession to break it down, as follows: the first one replaces one chlorine with OH. The resulting compound is toxic, but not quite as bad as PCP itself. The second enzyme is able to act on this compound to replace two chlorines, one after the other, with hydrogen atoms. The resulting compound, while still bad, is much easier to deal with, and the third enzyme is able to break the ring open. At this point, what is left of PCP is well on its way to being food for the bacterium.

All three enzymes are required, so we have IC. How could this IC system have evolved? First of all, bacteria of this type could already metabolize some milder chlorophenols which occur naturally in small amounts. In fact the first and third enzymes were used for this. As a result the cell is triggered to produce them in the presence of chlorophenols. The second enzyme (called PcpC) is the most interesting one; the cell produces it in sufficient quantity to be effective all the time instead of just when it is needed in its normal metabolic role. Thanks to this unusual situation PcpC is available when it is needed to help eat PCP.

The inefficient regulation of PcpC is evidently the key to the whole process. So far as biologists can tell, a recent mutation that changed the deployment of this enzyme is what made PCP degradation possible for this bacterium. It also happens that both PcpC and the first enzyme in the process are now slightly optimized for dealing with PCP; they handle it better than the corresponding enzymes in strains of S. chlorophenolica that use PcpC only in its normal role, but not nearly as well as would be expected for an old, well adapted system. These factors, combined with the fact that PCP is not known to occur naturally, make a strong circumstantial case that this system has evolved very recently.

You also go on to say that any IC structure missing a part would not function correctly. This is true in some cases only because you are looking at the finished product (when I say finished product, I don't mean that evolution has an end or a "final stage"; what I mean is that the current stage is the accumulation of many past stages). Taking away a part and calling it proof of IC does not take into account that there may be old parts that were co-opted for new use, combined with other parts for a new function, become vestigial and not used by the organism anymore, etc.

 

[Deleted member]

Do you think we should teach intelligent design in school? Why?

Sure it should. And I'll tell you why. Yes, evolution is a fact - most sentient human beings will attest to this. However, the main concern regarding evolution (and this is not an attempt to disprove evolution) is that while we know it happens, we don't know WHY it happens. We can point towards survival of the fittest and close the matter entirely, but that would be really silly. There are greater whys involved. We don't know how it started. We don't know how it will end. I could go on, really.

However, I believe that it boils down to this: Teaching kids intelligent design is a waste of time.

Since I believe intelligent design should be taught in schools for the minimum of a single class, it's not really a waste of much time - if at all.. That means teachers would only set aside a single lecture / period / day to teach the kids different theories that will prepare them for the real world. There are many people out there currently debating why evolution happens and how it started, and if the kids are exposed to that in a neutral environment, discussion could really flourish. There isn't even much to teach anyway - simply that it's entirely possible there was a creator. That's not religious; that's just a possibility. And for the cheeky guys here - a Flying Spaghetti Monster could still be a creator.

So that's it, really. It's not a waste of time, it's interesting (that's why we're here, no?) and it's entirely plausible. Evolution is not the be-all and end-all of humanity; it's simply a fact of life. Now how did life get here?

Lastly, I'd like to participate in the DHAI - so...DHAI. Edit: I guess I need to make a thread. Will do so in a sec.

 

[RDK]

Sure it should. And I'll tell you why. Yes, evolution is a fact - most sentient human beings will attest to this. However, the main concern regarding evolution (and this is not an attempt to disprove evolution) is that while we know it happens, we don't know WHY it happens. We can point towards survival of the fittest and close the matter entirely, but that would be really silly. There are greater whys involved. We don't know how it started. We don't know how it will end. I could go on, really.



Since I believe intelligent design should be taught in schools for the minimum of a single class, it's not really a waste of much time - if at all.. That means teachers would only set aside a single lecture / period / day to teach the kids different theories that will prepare them for the real world. There are many people out there currently debating why evolution happens and how it started, and if the kids are exposed to that in a neutral environment, discussion could really flourish. There isn't even much to teach anyway - simply that it's entirely possible there was a creator. That's not religious; that's just a possibility. And for the cheeky guys here - a Flying Spaghetti Monster could still be a creator.

So that's it, really. It's not a waste of time, it's interesting (that's why we're here, no?) and it's entirely plausible. Evolution is not the be-all and end-all of humanity; it's simply a fact of life. Now how did life get here?

Lastly, I'd like to participate in the DHAI - so...DHAI. Edit: I guess I need to make a thread. Will do so in a sec.

Government-funded public schools - schools that are funded by your and my tax dollars - have no more obligation to teach intelligent design than they do to teach reincarnation or ghost hunting.

 

[Deleted member]

Okay, so what? I'll argue that teaching intelligent design holds a lot more weight in a science class than reincarnation. Both are acceptable to teach. I just think the former is more important and, I guess, prevalent.

 

[RDK]

Okay, so what? I'll argue that teaching intelligent design holds a lot more weight in a science class than reincarnation. Both are acceptable to teach. I just think the former is more important and, I guess, prevalent.

Intelligent design isn't science and shouldn't be taught in the science classroom. A religion class, with the rest of the religions? Fine.

 

[Deleted member]

I got into this stalemate with someone before. I don't give a **** if you think it isn't science. It's scientifically relevant. This is IMPORTANT stuff to know of.

 

[RDK]

I got into this stalemate with someone before. I don't give a **** if you think it isn't science. It's scientifically relevant. This is IMPORTANT stuff to know of.

How is it scientifically relevant? Relevant in the fact that it's an enemy of scientific endeavor and should be avoided at all costs? Sure, but then you're going to have to share time telling the kids why every other whacko theory out there is bad, too. It's a waste of time.

 

[Deleted member]

How is saying an incredibly general, all encompassing theory (evolution MAY have been caused by a creator of any shape, size, creed, true religion, etc) detrimental to scientific endeavor? Please enlighten me.

 

[RDK]

How is saying an incredibly general, all encompassing theory (evolution MAY have been caused by a creator of any shape, size, creed, true religion, etc) detrimental to scientific endeavor? Please enlighten me.

Evolution may have been caused by my Grandma. Should we teach that in the science classroom?

 

[Deleted member]

Yes. In fact, I think clever science teachers would incorporate some sort of humour to keep the kids interested.

"We don't know how evolution was caused. Does anyone know? For all we know, it could have been caused by RDK's grandma. That's how mysterious it is."

So sue me.

 

[RDK]

Yes. In fact, I think clever science teachers would incorporate some sort of humour to keep the kids interested.

"We don't know how evolution was caused. Does anyone know? For all we know, it could have been caused by RDK's grandma. That's how mysterious it is."

So sue me.

You're going to have to give equal time to every crackpot theory out there. Using only RDK's Grandma as an example of theories means that you're endorsing that one at the expense of the others.

 

[Riddle]

Thank you for ripping apart my argument RDK, I was hoping this could promote actual intelligent discussion. Now that we have someone to actually argue against I can stop devil's advocating.

How is saying an incredibly general, all encompassing theory (evolution MAY have been caused by a creator of any shape, size, creed, true religion, etc) detrimental to scientific endeavor? Please enlighten me.

Under no situation should anyhing religious be taught in school. The idea of a creator is clearly a religious idea and has no place in our classrooms. Feel free to teach intelligent design in Sunday school or religious private school, but this should never be taught in public school.

Just because we can't prove that intelligent design isn't true doesn't mean we should teach it. There are a number of things that can't be proven as truu. e.g. you can't prove unicorns don't exist (their invisible), and you can't prove technologically superior aliens aren't about to invade our planet. This would obviously be ridiculous and a waste of time even if took one minute let alone a whole class period, and so would intelligent design.

 

[Deleted member]

You're going to have to give equal time to every crackpot theory out there. Using only RDK's Grandma as an example of theories means that you're endorsing that one at the expense of the others.

Don't be an idiot. You know **** well that's not how it would go down. Discuss it in neutral environment that eschews any sort of bias, and you're golden. The wasting time argument is so stupid when we waste more time as a species debating whether or not it should occur in schools. It appeases both sides and it interests kids.

 

[Riddle]

Don't be an idiot. You know **** well that's not how it would go down. Discuss it in neutral environment that eschews any sort of bias, and you're golden. The wasting time argument is so stupid when we waste more time as a species debating whether or not it should occur in schools. It appeases both sides and it interests kids.

The argument that it would interest kids is total sh*t. If we wanted to interest kids then we wouldn't send them to school.

I don't consider debating about this a waste of time as it is intellectually stimulating and the alternative would be for me to play video games/do whatever. However, your responsibility in school is to learn. Any time in class teaching something that has no grounds of fact is a waste of time,; you could be teaching kids something that is fact.

 

[RDK]

Don't be an idiot. You know **** well that's not how it would go down. Discuss it in neutral environment that eschews any sort of bias, and you're golden. The wasting time argument is so stupid when we waste more time as a species debating whether or not it should occur in schools. It appeases both sides and it interests kids.

It's not the public school's job to entertain kids, it's to teach it science. Non-scientific loony-bin theories are not allowed in the science classroom.

Yes, there would be bias - humans are naturally biased. And yes, you would have to give equal time. The intelligent design movement has been a legal nightmare ever since Dover.

 

[Deleted member]

a) Intelligent design is not inherently religious

b) If debating this is intellectually stimulating, then introduce it to the classroom. God knows how many kids are bored in that class

c) Failure to maintain interest results in failure and apathy, which is what we don't want.

d) If you think intelligent design is a loony-bin theory, go for it. But you're just making assumptions

e) I'm done

 

[Riddle]

a) Intelligent design is not inherently religious

b) If debating this is intellectually stimulating, then introduce it to the classroom. God knows how many kids are bored in that class

c) Failure to maintain interest results in failure and apathy, which is what we don't want.

d) If you think intelligent design is a loony-bin theory, go for it. But you're just making assumptions

e) I'm done

REsponses:

a) If Intelligent design is not basded on religion than who is the creator?
b) Science classes job is not too stimulate bored kids its to teach. The Debate Hall's purpose is stimulating discussion, so this is fit for the Debate Hall not the classroom.
c) AGain a classroom's main goal is to teach not interest people.

 

[Mewter]

It's not the public school's job to entertain kids, it's to teach it science. Non-scientific loony-bin theories are not allowed in the science classroom.

Yes, there would be bias - humans are naturally biased. And yes, you would have to give equal time. The intelligent design movement has been a legal nightmare ever since Dover.

First of all, both sides of this debate should be taught in schools. As far as I'm concerned, Intelligent Design holds just as much room in the classroom as the theory of evolution does. It would also encourage critical thinking in the classroom, rather than just preaching one "theory" in science class! Since when was questioning popular belief a bad thing?

In the end, everyone gets what they want, and it gives the students a shot to reconsider their scientific beliefs. Were you insinuating that intelligent design is no more valid a scientific theory than reincarnation?

 

[Reaver197]

Ah, I just cannot resist jumping into this thread any longer. I seem to have some sort of intractable attraction to debates that are somehow related to religion.

Intelligent design, in the manner it was coined to the way it is utilized, is as much as a religious idea as creationism is (which might have to do with the fact that they are, essentially, one and the same). It is simply made to sound more politically correct, and have an air of faux-scientific consideration. A very shallow maneuver.

A science teacher has an obligation to teach and instill in children, not only a knowledge of facts on which to base their lives and careers, but also mental tools and ways of thinking to approach life's problems. The teacher really only ought to bring up intelligent design and discuss if it either gains any evidence (which it has not in the least) or is a concept that somehow obstructs children's ability to learn or understand any of the material that he is teaching them.

Otherwise, talking about intelligent design unnecessarily will only confuse children, and muddle not only their knowledge of scientific fact, but their ability to think critically. It's more than just learning a set of facts; it's learning how to acquire, understand, and verify those facts and any new ones that come up.

I know for sure that time is an issue for teachers, especially science teachers. My science teachers were sweating bullets over whether they were covering the material they needed to fast enough in time for any regents/AP/standardized tests the students needed to take, while also ensuring that the students understood what they were trying to teach. Taking away time to deal with a patently unproven postulation would be an issue for them.

However, at the same time, teachers should try to find a way to stimulate and excite kids, as what is the best way to have people learn? Just not at the cost of the integrity of the science they need to teach. If you're willing to sacrifice honesty and facts to excite, you shouldn't be a teacher but, rather, in the movie or novel business.

Until intelligent design comes up with a way that it could even be proved (a prerequisite to even accumulating evidence for it), thinking that it has any sort of scientific credibility is the assumption here. There isn't any identified mechanism by which you could compile evidence for it. They tried that with the whole "irreducibly complex" nonsense, but that has been shown to be quite the bust.

 

[Riddle]

First of all, both sides of this debate should be taught in schools. As far as I'm concerned, Intelligent Design holds just as much room in the classroom as the theory of evolution does. It would also encourage critical thinking in the classroom, rather than just preaching one "theory" in science class! Since when was questioning popular belief a bad thing?

In the end, everyone gets what they want, and it gives the students a shot to reconsider their scientific beliefs. Were you insinuating that intelligent design is no more valid a scientific theory than reincarnation?

This just has to be said now. As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Theories are not guesses! They are hypotheses(which in and of themselves are more than just guesses) supported by evidence. Evolution is a theory that has tons of evidence and if you need me to give it to you I will.

Evolution is not as you would put it 'popular belief', but a theory with a lot of evidence behind that is widely regarded by the scientific community as fact.

Science classes/ teachers don't have time to teach every theory that has a possibility of being true, and intelligent design can't be taught in schools, because it is inherently religious.

Reincarnation have the same things supporting them (religions) and the same amount of evidence (zero), so at least I do think that reincarnation has the same chance of being true as intelligent design. (also about zero) /rant

Ah, I just cannot resist jumping into this thread any longer. I seem to have some sort of intractable attraction to debates that are somehow related to religion.

Intelligent design, in the manner it was coined to the way it is utilized, is as much as a religious idea as creationism is (which might have to do with the fact that they are, essentially, one and the same). It is simply made to sound more politically correct, and have an air of faux-scientific consideration. A very shallow maneuver.

A science teacher has an obligation to teach and instill in children, not only a knowledge of facts on which to base their lives and careers, but also mental tools and ways of thinking to approach life's problems. The teacher really only ought to bring up intelligent design and discuss if it either gains any evidence (which it has not in the least) or is a concept that somehow obstructs children's ability to learn or understand any of the material that he is teaching them.

Otherwise, talking about intelligent design unnecessarily will only confuse children, and muddle not only their knowledge of scientific fact, but their ability to think critically. It's more than just learning a set of facts; it's learning how to acquire, understand, and verify those facts and any new ones that come up.

I know for sure that time is an issue for teachers, especially science teachers. My science teachers were sweating bullets over whether they were covering the material they needed to fast enough in time for any regents/AP/standardized tests the students needed to take, while also ensuring that the students understood what they were trying to teach. Taking away time to deal with a patently unproven postulation would be an issue for them.

However, at the same time, teachers should try to find a way to stimulate and excite kids, as what is the best way to have people learn? Just not at the cost of the integrity of the science they need to teach. If you're willing to sacrifice honesty and facts to excite, you shouldn't be a teacher but, rather, in the movie or novel business.

Until intelligent design comes up with a way that it could even be proved (a prerequisite to even accumulating evidence for it), thinking that it has any sort of scientific credibility is the assumption here. There isn't any identified mechanism by which you could compile evidence for it. They tried that with the whole "irreducibly complex" nonsense, but that has been shown to be quite the bust.

This is what I've been trying to say the whole time. Thank you REaver.

 

[pacmansays]

I have no issue with kids discussing this in school, but I think it should be limited to religious education.

If it is taught in science then please please please do not teach it as an equal competing theory to evolution....it is not! As mentioned the distinction between scientific theory and a hypothesis is the distinction between these two theories

I do agree that science (as all subjects) should attempt to be stimulating, in science there is some debate and often teachers can go off on tandents or of course there are experiments. But entertainment should not be sacrificed for what is the current leading theory on the complexity and diversity of life.

Actually, I have no issue with it being mentioned as 'a few people believe this as an alternative' and a small discussion may occur, but you still have to teach evolution as the No.1 theory here

 

[Riddle]

I have no issue with kids discussing this in school, but I think it should be limited to religious education.

If it is taught in science then please please please do not teach it as an equal competing theory to evolution....it is not! As mentioned the distinction between scientific theory and a hypothesis is the distinction between these two theories

I do agree that science (as all subjects) should attempt to be stimulating, in science there is some debate and often teachers can go off on tandents or of course there are experiments. But entertainment should not be sacrificed for what is the current leading theory on the complexity and diversity of life.

Actually, I have no issue with it being mentioned as 'a few people believe this as an alternative' and a small discussion may occur, but you still have to teach evolution as the No.1 theory here

I agree that it should be limited to religious classes, but it should not be taught at all in science. If you teach intelligent design in science you also in all fairness have to teach reincarnation, and other similar beliefs.

I know a few people who believe unicorns exist (really), but does this mean it should get mentioned in science class? No! Science should abe used to teach fact and if you want to teach things based on fait teach it in religion class.

 

[Mewter]

This just has to be said now. As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Theories are not guesses! They are hypotheses(which in and of themselves are more than just guesses) supported by evidence. Evolution is a theory that has tons of evidence and if you need me to give it to you I will.

Evolution is not as you would put it 'popular belief', but a theory with a lot of evidence behind that is widely regarded by the scientific community as fact.

Science classes/ teachers don't have time to teach every theory that has a possibility of being true, and intelligent design can't be taught in schools, because it is inherently religious.

Reincarnation have the same things supporting them (religions) and the same amount of evidence (zero), so at least I do think that reincarnation has the same chance of being true as intelligent design. (also about zero) /rant

Yes, I know what a theory means in science, but evolution is in truth not a fact, just a theory, hence the name theory of evolution!

I would like to see your evidence for evolution, then.

Just being a theory with lots of people backing it doesn't make it any more true than the alternative. What many of them are doing is just misinterpreting the evidence, anyways. A fine example of this is Haeckel's Embryos, which are drawings depicting various species of embryos slowly aging until they are a full size baby, tracing their evolutionary process along the way (Fish, amphibian, early mammal, ape, human; an evolutionary record), which has been disproven many times over in the past. Many scientists rely on this as a strong piece of evidence for evolution, when really, there is no evidence for evolution at all present in these embryos! Of course that should be evident in these fraudulent drawings, as Haeckel had in reality tweaked the drawings to make the species look more similar to each other than they actually are. There goes one of evolution's "evidences".

Would you care to tell me why ID has just as much claim to truth as reincarnation?

 

[Riddle]

Yes, I know what a theory means in science, but evolution is in truth not a fact, just a theory, hence the name theory of evolution!

I would like to see your evidence for evolution, then.

Just being a theory with lots of people backing it doesn't make it any more true than the alternative. What many of them are doing is just misinterpreting the evidence, anyways. A fine example of this is Haeckel's Embryos, which are drawings depicting various species of embryos slowly aging until they are a full size baby, tracing their evolutionary process along the way (Fish, amphibian, early mammal, ape, human; an evolutionary record), which has been disproven many times over in the past. Many scientists rely on this as a strong piece of evidence for evolution, when really, there is no evidence for evolution at all present in these embryos! Of course that should be evident in these fraudulent drawings, as Haeckel had in reality tweaked the drawings to make the species look more similar to each other than they actually are. There goes one of evolution's "evidences".

Would you care to tell me why ID has just as much claim to truth as reincarnation?

Okay, I'll give you some links/arguments:

Fossils

Fossils allow scientists to observe change over time in living organisms. There are a wealth of species found in fossils that are not alive today and many of these fossils show transitional traits between two different types of animals (think reptiles with feathers). This shows that species aren't fixed and can evolve over time. And any gaps in this can be attributed to incomplete data collection.

Chemical and Anatomical Similarities

All living things on Earth are fundamentally similar in the development of their anatomical structures and their chemical compostitions. Everything starts as a single cell that continues to divide, and everything grow old and dies. Also, all organisms (that we know of) share the ability to create complex molecules out of carbon and a few other elements. 99% of the molecules of living things are made from only 6 of the most common elements. This isn't just coincidence. Also, all plants and animals inherit genes from their parents through DNA. Even all of the tens of thousands of proteins in living thins are only made of about 20 amino acids.

All living things get their energy from the sun, even directly (photosynthesis) or indirectly (eating something that went through photosynthesis, eating something who ate something that went through photosynthesis, etc.). The evidence keeps piling up. In addition to this, humans, dogs, whales, cats, and birds (there are others) all have the same arm bones (or flipper/leg/wing bones) the humerus, radius, and ulna. This points to these animals all having common ancestry, and makes it hard to believe that they were all created seperately by a creator.

Geographic Distribution

Major isolated land masses or islands very clearly all developed distinct species of animals (and plants). For instance, before humans came Australia had more than 100 species of kangaroos, koalas, and other marsupials but none of the more advanced mammals such as dogs, cats, bears, horses. In fact, more isolated islands such as Hawaii and New Zealand were completely devoid of land animals, but were full of insects and birds. These uniquely exotic biomes suggest that these areas evolved differently over millions of years.

All information came from http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

@ Mewter I believe that reincarnation has as much right to be taught at school as ID, because they both have no evidence to back them up and they are both religious beliefs (my point is neither should be taught in science class).

 

[Mewter]

That post is beautiful, Riddle (I'm serious), but you failed to address my case for Haeckel's Embryos.

 

[cF=)]

That post is beautiful, Riddle (I'm serious), but you failed to address my case for Haeckel's Embryos.

And you failed to address evolution when you disregarded that Haeckel's work came way after Darwin's On The Origin Of Species. Furthermore, Haeckel was right on a fundamental level since we do have proof that every vertebrates develop following a similar body plan, and that at some point in our development, humans do have structures who resembles in great details to the structures of fish embryos that develop into gills. They just aren't as exaggerated as what we've seen on the fallacious drawings.

In the end, Haeckel's inaccuracies damaged his own reputation, not the body of evidence found in comparative embryology. Look at these sources for more details:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/zoology/devobio/210labs/arch1.html
http://www.uoguelph.ca/zoology/devobio/72hrchck/72ck10.htm
http://www.bartleby.com/107/13.html

 

[Mewter]

And you failed to address evolution when you disregarded that Haeckel's work came way after Darwin's On The Origin Of Species. Furthermore, Haeckel was right on a fundamental level since we do have proof that every vertebrates develop following a similar body plan, and that at some point in our development, humans do have structures who resembles in great details to the structures of fish embryos that develop into gills. They just aren't as exaggerated as what we've seen on the fallacious drawings.

In the end, Haeckel's inaccuracies damaged his own reputation, not the body of evidence found in comparative embryology. Look at these sources for more details:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/zoology/devobio/210labs/arch1.html
http://www.uoguelph.ca/zoology/devobio/72hrchck/72ck10.htm
http://www.bartleby.com/107/13.html

You've covered the last of my points, and there's no way to argue myself out of this one. The funny thing about attacking evolution, though, is that I found it too hard and impossible to do using actual evidence. So, instead of attacking evolution straight out, I took something such as Haeckel's Embryos and misrepresented it to make it appear more important and (especially) damaging to evolution. Of course, this was all a load of garbage. Thanks for the links, though.

But entertainment should not be sacrificed for what is the current leading theory on the complexity and diversity of life.

By all means, sacrifice it all for the current leading theory. You've got to keep people updated and informed, or else you end up like... like... you know what.

Back to stirring the pot.
Intelligent Design in itself, though, is the science we know about, but with a creator, a guide. Surely incorporating the possibility of a Creator into a scientific curriculum and teaching stuff like irreducible complexity and possible divine guidance won't do any harm?

Edit:
A nice little set of guidelines that Alt posted a while back:
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=7341753&postcount=85
Great stuff.

 

[Riddle]

Thanks Mewter I put a lot of time and effort into it. I'm glad you like it. I did not address your point about Haeckel's Embryos, because it was completely correct. However, just because one piece of evidence for evolution is not tru doesn't mean evolution as a whole isn't true. I've provided evidence for evolution with different things and just made your point useless. Sure Haeckel's Embryos were faked, but none of my evidence is.[/COLOR]

Back to stirring the pot.
Intelligent Design in itself, though, is the science we know about, but with a creator, a guide. Surely incorporating the possibility of a Creator into a scientific curriculum and teaching stuff like irreducible complexity and possible divine guidance won't do any harm?

I have no problem if this is taught, but teach it in religion class or Sunday School. The thought that science might have a guide doesn't invalidate evolution or any other scientific principle at all so should not change science class. AS the thought of a creator "guiding" us through science is completely and totally a religious concept it is against the law and unacceptable in Science. Look at RDK's previous attack on my (devil's advoccate) Irreducibly complex argument here

 

[cF=)]

If ID was taught in school, the result would probably look like this:

 

[pacmansays]

By all means, sacrifice it all for the current leading theory. You've got to keep people updated and informed, or else you end up like... like... you know what.

Sorry, typo...meant that knowledge must come before entertainment though it is most productive if both occur

 

[Mewter]

Lol at that picture. ^
I'm done playing devil's advocate now.

Actual Opinions:
ID is not a science, and should not be taught as such (it's just another way to say creationism).
If anything, it is a purely religious concept, and belongs with all the other religious ideas if it is going to be taught at all.

@Haeckel's Embryos:
I just wanted to make it clear that (I knew) Haeckel had fudged the drawings and hurt only himself in the process, but that does not neccessarily mean he wasn't (very basically) right to some extent about similarities between embryos (no "tracing" of evolution lines, but rather what cF=) said).

I agree with you and cF=) wholeheartedly.
Hopefully we can get some actual ID supporters in here to debate with, though.

 

[Reaver197]

Yeah, what happened to those more religious debaters? We used to have quite a few.