Where do you stand on the Creationism and Intelligent Design ideas?

Question

Personally I don't think it's a science. I think it can be taught in a "philosophy" class but not a science class.

Answer 1

They are both based on myths and legends.

Answer 2

Even though i'm a christian it would be rediculus to try teaching that in school. Teach it in religious/philosphy classes.

Answer 3

They are actually anti-science.  Mythology class, perhaps.

Answer 4

They are both nonsense.  It is a "theory" based on nothing but total speculation.

Answer 5

no it cant be taught in school; other than part of a philosophy package possibly. palin's arguments were if it came up... it could be discussed. which is a slippery slope. she recharacterised her remarks about creationism in school to fit that definition.

it would fit perfectly into a religous curriculum but the separation of church and state makes it off-limits to espouse or instruct public school students on. i think it's a lot to do about nothing and school doesnt need to be a way for people to promote thier religous beliefs or social agendas.

the reason they have to set strict limits on stuff like this is because some people would actually push the envelope to the point where they would be violating the separation of church and state. i would think most teachers would act appropriately but the small minority that wouldnt would ruin that for all. could you imagine a teacher in boston say; instructing students on mohammad? or a zionist instructing students on a greater israel? etc.

Answer 6

I think it is as much science as macro evolution, which is being taught in reading, social studies and science (and probably anywhere else it can be slipped in).

Sheesh!  Don't we get enough of these questions in R&S?  

Answer 7

I think it should be taught right next to evolution. It is a theory, just like all of the others. I took a philosophy class, and learned about EVOLUTION, not creation and was not happy at all. They need to teach on all aspects of how the earth may have come about, or none.

Answer 8

it has about as much scientific proof as evolution,i think they should bother teaching anything of mans origins since there is no proof of anything

Answer 9

Intelligent Design is not any different from Creationism.  Just a different name in order to try to give it new identity.  Creationism is myth, story telling, parable, fable.  It has no place in a science class or even being called science.  At most it could be offered as an elective subject in a philosophy class.

Answer 10

Evolution is not a theory. It is proven. Get over it. Now, I am a Christian, and my faith is absolutely not is opposition to that. Why couldn't God design a plan that was in stages, as different animals and plants appeared? My pastor taught us (FORTY years ago) that the days described in the Bible could have been any length of time. After all, when You're God, and have always been there, and will always be there, time is sort of relative.

Creationism is philosophy, as all religion is, and should be taught thus.

Answer 11

Creationism is delusional fundamentalist fantasy and has NO place anywhere near any educational institution.

Answer 12

Well, it seems to me that neither creation or evolution is an exact science. There are some very huge an unanswerable questions which will always plague them both. Nobody has ever witnessed the spontaneous creation of *new* matter. Such creation is actually integral to both viewpoints. However there must be an answer because we certainly came from *somewhere.*

     Frankly, there are too many unknowns for either creation or evolution to be taught as fact. At least, that's my opinion.  

Answer 13

both are theories but the evidence seems to support intelligent design

Answer 14

I believe in the Big Bang.  I also believe that in a hundred billion years there will be a "Big Crunch", and that from the gargantuan black hole that follows, another Big Bang will create a new universe.

I see this as the heartbeat of God.

I see too much symmetry in nature to consider it all to be an accident.

I support the teaching of evolution in schools.  I do not believe the Earth to be only 6,000 years old (or even six million or six billion).

The current understanding of quantum mechanics can be interpreted to imply that matter itself is conscious.  Einstein's theory of relativity states that matter is energy in a stable form.  

What the scientist calls "energy" the religious man calls "God".

Answer 15

This kind of thing is taught in an RE class (religious education) in England, I know that much! But yeah, it shouldn't be taught as science, science should only be facts.

Answer 16

Since anything is possible, I mean, we could all be wireless robots on some network in outer space and we think we're real, but seriously, I think science classes should teach evolution, and say that some people don't believe it, but show the research. Then if families want to teach their children a religious theory let them do it in their homes or churches.  But public schools should be objective, since many wars have started because of minute differences in religious beliefs and we should be beyond that by now.  I also don't think a teacher should discourage discussions on the subject of intelligent design; I don't think a teacher should openly disrespect anyone's opinions, but just try to stay objective and keep the interest moving along.  It's good for kids to question, even if they're questioning all the research.

Answer 17

They are absurd.

Evolution is where the truth lies.

Answer 18

Creationism and ID are one and the same. Intelligent Design is just an attempt to sneak it in sideways.