Do we teach intelligent design and creationism for the sake or morality?

Question

Creationists argue that teaching evolution has bad practical consequences (not necessarily true that evolution is incorrect).

If a good reason to teach something is for fear of consequences, then :

*Shouldn't we stop teaching history (especially involving slavery, Holocaust, and communism), because it teaches us to be violent?

*Shouldn't we stop teaching gravity, because it teaches us to throw people off airplanes?

*Shouldn't we stop teaching atomic theory, because it teaches us to use nuclear bombs?

*Shouldn't we stop teaching Newton's 3rd law, because it teaches us to use guns to kill people?

*Shouldn't we teach children that Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy are real so they'd behave and become appreciative?

*Shouldn't we teach that liars and murderers will never go to heaven so they'll be so scared they'd never commit crimes?

Isn't ignorance blissful and safe for the future?

Answer 1

I think all of the first three answers completely missed your point!   (Maybe we *should* teach sarcasm and irony in schools ... then people would learn to interpret it.)

The point is that the people who advocate teaching or even debating "alternatives" to evolution because of "moral consequences" of evolution (I'm looking at you Ben Stein) are misguided on two *HUGE* points:

* First, evolution is a scientific principle of biological origins.  It says no more about morality than the fact that electrons and protons are attracted to each other gives us lessons about "love."

* And second, you don't alter science in order to find one that has "moral consequences" you prefer.

Science is based on three things only: evidence, evidence and evidence.  You can't alter the evidence, or adjust your interpretation of the evidence, in order to draw conclusions about "moral consequences" and then use those conclusions to argue that we should discard a cornerstone theory of modern biology!

That is why Creationism (and its thinly disguised alter ego Intelligent Design) need to be kept far, far away from the science classroom ... because they *start* with religious principles, and then try to alter the science to fit those religious principles.  This results not only in truly BAD science (teaching that science can be molded to religious principles), but also to truly BAD religion as well (teaching that religious principles can and should be verified by science).

Answer 2

Shouldn't we stop teaching sarcasm because it enables people like you?

Answer 3

It's a difficult line to walk, but just teach it.  If there are competing viewpoints in your textbook for example, you could have students write a comparison/contrast essay wherein they have to weigh the two.  You have a right as a teacher to provide both sides of the argument.

Answer 4

This certainly seems to be of an issue at the high school level than elsewhere.  In junior high, there might be a short section in a chapter about it, but not much.  I wonder how much the average high school textbook devotes to it.  In my opinion, there are far more valuable areas in science to discuss and learn about.  To me, the debate on this issue is a tired one.