Should intelligent design be taught along with evolution?

Question

http://www.dinosaursinthebible.com/

http://my.execpc.com/~awallace/create.htm

Answer 1

In a philosophy class? Yes.

Answer 2

So many people these days are confusing biblical creationism with intelligent design.  "Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence" (Dr. William Dembski). That's it; it says nothing of who the creator is and how he/she/it/they did it. Intelligent Design encompasses every "creation" story, even aliens seeding life on this planet (directed panspermia).  The God of the Bible is just one possible candidate.  Some creationists (like those at Answers In Genesis) don’t like the ID movement because they say it divorces the Creator from the creation.

Most Christians I know don't want biblical creationism taught in science classes (they would butcher it). What we want is for molecules-to-man evolution to be taught with all its warts (they are not even allowed to present evidence that would put evolution in a poor light).  And we want intelligent design to at least to be presented.  Unlike leprechauns and a flat earth, etc., a significant percentage of the (tax paying) population believes in ID.

Here is a brief overview of the scientific case for ID: http://www.arn.org/docs/positivecaseford...

And for those who put so much faith in peer-review, check this out: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/...

Here is a growing list of scientists who signed “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism”: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/...

Answer 3

NO.   Not in a science class.

I really urge people to visit the links you posted ... especially the first two ... and ask themselves if cartoons of T-Rex holding the Bible, or a verse-by-verse analysis of the book of Genesis, are *really* what we want we want to be teaching in science class.   People who do want this taught as science are not really interested in science ... they have no basic understanding of science, no basic love of the topic.

The advocates of Intelligent Design are unable to convince even 1% of the world's scientists that Intelligent Design has any validity whatsoever.

And so, unable to convince scientists, they have turned instead to trying to convince 10th-graders!  

That is NOT how you do science!  That is NOT how any theory in the history of science has gained acceptance.    ALL scientific ideas, ALL OF THEM, have gained acceptance by scientists doing science, writing papers, standing before other scientists who grill them mercilessly.  That's were new ideas are vetted.   That's where the good ideas are separated from the rubbish.

Do you think that Darwin, or Newton, or Einstein, or Galileo, or Maxwell, Watson, Crick, Copernicus, Faraday, Bohr, Feynmann, Hawking, etc. etc. ever thought "Hmm ... scientists with PhDs. are a tough audience ... I should instead just try to get my ideas directly into grade school and high school curriculums."?

Can anyone name *ANY* currently accepted scientific idea, that was introduced into the science classroom BEFORE gaining even minimal acceptance by the scientific community?

Trying to convince 10th-graders is not doing science ... it is only confusing the 10th-graders.

Why do ID advocates want to present it to schoolchildren?  Because arguments about "irreducible complexity" or "mutations can't generate new information", or "evolution violates the 2nd Law of thermodynamics" are *EASILY* refuted by any scientist with understanding of complexity theory, information theory, thermodynamics, genetics, biochemistry, etc.   But to a !0th GRADER ... at the very moment he's struggling to learn the complex Krebs cycle, or the phases of mitosis for the first time ... arguments about "irreducible complexity" sound awfully persuasive.  Or at the very least, the discussion will leave the kid hopelessly confused.  And that is precisely the goal!  Just make sure the kid leaves biology class a little lost about what to think ...  thinking that evolution is 'controversial' or 'confusing' ... when it is really both non-controversial (among scientists) and incredibly *SIMPLE*.

So unable to convince scientists, the advocates of ID will settle for confusing schoolchildren.

It is cowardly, and despicable.

So until Intelligent Design demonstrates even a *SMIDGEON* of support among the actual scientific community ... then NO, it has no place in the science classroom.

Answer 4

No.  Should we also teach that 2+2 = 7 if you really believe it enough?  Or should we just stick to the stuff that works, that makes predictions, that's testable, and that's potentially falsifiable?

Yeah, I think we'll just stick with the actual science.  Evolution it is.  And check out this website, because it looks like someone's been lying to you.

http://www.talkorigins.org

Answer 5

I firmly say yes on this!  Until we get to "the other side" and have all of the answers, why shouldn't we be exposed to many different theories?  Why can't the Bible's teachings and science co-exist together?  I always believed in int design, but never knew it had a name.  And that others held the same School of thought.  It took me into my late 20's to know that others felt the same way.

Answer 6

Yes. There should be freedom to choose from all the information available. Lets have open minds in the sciences.