Why are we teaching intelligent design in our classrooms?

Question

What the h**l? Should we teach alchemy and astrology too?

Answer 1

Intelligent Design is as legitimate a theory as evolution (perhaps more so).

Some people might try to discredit it as being just a 'theory', but science has never proven evolution (neither Lamarck's version nor Darwin's version, nor any other version), and it is also just a 'theory'.

So really, you have to decide:  teach Intelligent Design and Evolution as two possible theories (that scientists honestly are divided over), or teach neither because they're both just theory.

(I mean, honestly, who really believes that people came from apes?  What a laugh.  Think on it for a while, and you'll come to realise how illogical it is, and how the facts we have just don't support evolution!)

Answer 2

One of the things we should be aiming for in our kids is for them to think for themselves, not to brainwash them or try to indoctrinate them with our own beliefs.  Intelligent design is what a significant number of people choose to believe in and as such should be taught briefly alongside other perspectives.  However it should only ever be taught in religious studies classes and has no place in a science class.  

TBH I'd have more of a problem with the exclusion of evolution from the curriculum, than with the inclusion of intelligent design as a point of view.

Answer 3

That's what they've got planned next, I'm sure.  Intelligent design is not legally being taught anywhere, but illegally yes.  I've talked so some of the high school science teachers in my area, and they've been threatened with law suits by parents for teaching regular biology in their classrooms.  They've been told not to use the word 'evolution' even when teaching about evolution.  It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard, but we're shooting ourselves in the foot.  4-6 years from now, we won't have any students leaving high school prepared to enter college and study science.  They won't have a clue what it is.  No more doctors or scientists.  And there goes our economy.

Answer 4

Lol... It should have a place in RE, but not in science class.... Its not a science, there is a huuuge difference..... As far as I know its not being taught in the schools where I live... phew!

Kay

Answer 5

Faith based curriculum ideas can be discussed as long as you distinguish faith vs science.  

I wouldn't teach it in my classroom and I certainly don't support legislating faith based curriculums.

But as a social studies teacher I don't mind discussing the arguments for or against it, always a good debate in the classroom.

Answer 6

It's not being taught as truth, it's being taught as a possibility - a theory.  There are many of them out there, in case you haven't noticed, none of which have yet been proven.  (It's a little difficult to prove the exact process of something that happened anywhere from a few thousand to a few billion years ago, but go right ahead and try.)

Why do you have a problem with it?  Are students no longer to be taught to evaluate all sides of a scientific question, to see where the evidence leads them?  Are they no longer to be allowed to think, but to blindly follow whatever a textbook tells them?  That's just sad.

This world is made up of people who all think differently, and who all see things differently.  The ability to discuss and debate ideas, to be secure enough in our own conclusions to allow floor time to others, is what makes society work.  When a conclusion is banned just because it doesn't fit your particular worldview...well, that's not science.  It's anything but.

If a conclusion is incorrect, then science will prove it to be incorrect.  End of story.  That's how it works.  Until that time, let people think through it on their own.

Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean that it should never be discussed.  Let people come to their own conclusions through studying the evidence and theories for themselves.

Answer 7

The question should be, does Intelligent design go against science?

Answer 8

ID isn't being taught around here either

Answer 9

Most schools don't even allow you to say "God" anymore. There so politically correct. Evolution is usually taught now-a-days.

Answer 10

Intelligent design = a euphemism for stupidity

Answer 11

We aren't, are we? The EU (doing something sensible for once) has passed a resolution against it. At least, against teaching it as part of the science curriculum. It maybe has a place in RE!

I have a quote ;

A spokesperson for the DfES said: “Neither creationism nor intelligent design are taught as a subject in schools, and are not specified in the science curriculum. The national curriculum for science clearly sets down that pupils should be taught that the fossil record is evidence for evolution, and how variation and selection may lead to evolution or extinction.”

Answer 12

We're in a world where the amount of information is exploding massively.  New discoveries are made every day.

Surely we should be teaching students how to process ideas.  How to distinguish between good and bad reasoning and good and bad science.   You won't do this by simply spoon feeding them one idea and hoping that they never get to hear of all the others.  

So as far as that goes, they need to be exposed to a range of ideas, with all their flaws and inconsistencies - maybe including astrology and alchemy.  Otherwise how will they know they are wrong?  And how will they know what tools to use to 'disprove' them?

And you know what?  The intelligent design thing only has any credibility at all  because the universe does have the look of an something rich with ideas, thought and design.  You can't really just dismiss it without looking and showing people why it's wrong.

And please don't read into this support for ID or any other belief.  I'm just a great believer that we should teach people to be critical thinkers.

Answer 13

Intelligent Design is not being taught in public schools (unless a local teacher goes against state curriculum and does so on their own).  It may be being taught in private schools (such as religious schools).

The case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was a *resounding* defeat of legislation being promoted by Creationists for inserting Intelligent Design into school curriculums.   Such legislation is flat-out unconstitutional ... stemming from the *EASILY* demonstrated fact that efforts to bring ID into the classroom, having no scientific standing, are *entirely religiously based*.

---- For Bruce, hsmominit, and others -----

*All* scientists will tell you that they are absolutely in favor of teaching critical thinking habits, following evidence, considering alternative theories, etc.  These are *PRECISELY* the hallmarks of good science, and what makes a good scientist.

But that is NOT what the efforts to get Intelligent Design into classrooms is all about!   Never before in the history of science, or in the history of public school education, have *religiously motivated* groups put pressure on State Legislatures to *change* school curricula to mandate a *specific* "alternative theory" be taught alongside what mainstream scientific community accepts as bedrock science, as an *alternative* to it.   It does not matter that they claim to be using secular (non-religious) arguments in ID, when these arguments fail to be persuasive with secular scientists, and groups involved are shown *CLEARLY* to be religious groups, then this is NOT about "critical thinking" but an attempt to alter science to be more in line with religious doctrine of a minority of Christians who simply cannot abide the teaching of evolution because it offends their belief in a *literal* interpretation of Christian scripture ... a belief that most other religions do not share, including the majority of other Christian denominations that do NOT read the Bible as word-for-word *literal* truth.

The basic fact is that Intelligent Design has practically *ZERO* support in the scientific community.  None.  Zip.   It does not even satisfy the *minimum* standards to qualify as a scientific theory at all, much less a theory worth considering alongside mainstream evolution. Meanwhile, evolution is considered one of the two central *UNIFYING* theories of modern biology (the other being cell theory).

But somehow, with absolutely NO standing among actual *scientists* as legitimate science ... the advocates of Intelligent Design want to bring it into 10th-grade Classrooms to have "debates" with the mainstream science of evolution.  Why?  Because 10th-graders are spectacularly easy to confuse!  (If you don't think so, spend some time in the Biology section of Yahoo Answers!)  The "irreducible complexity" argument is laughable among scientists who have a grounding complexity theory, molecular genetics, and biochemistry.   But "irreducible complexity" can be very persuasive to a 10th-grader just struggling with the complexity of the Krebs cycle or the stages of mitosis for the very first time.   Ditto arguments about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ... laughable to any biochemist ... but persuasive to a 10th-grader who could not tell you what the 1st or 3rd Laws of Thermodynamics are, or even what "thermodynamics" or "entropy" even means!

Personally, I would *LOVE* to bring up Intelligent Design in the biology classroom as a fantastic illustration of what science *ISN'T*.   It is an explanation that doesn't *explain* anything.  It poses no *predictions*.  It is unfalsifiable.  Its arguments are all posed as *negatives* ("the evidence that ID is true is that evolution is false because ...").   It uses arguments from incredulity ("I can't believe humans/this structure evolved, therefore it didn't.").  It teaches that science is *surrender* ("if we cannot yet explain a structure using evolution, then it is a scientifically valid option to simply give up trying and conclude that it was 'designed'.")

Intelligent Design is worse than BAD science.   Intelligent Design is the *antithesis* of science, and science education, itself.

If ID is valid science, and worthy of being debated alongside evolution, then the place for that debate is in front of actual scientists where *ALL* new scientific ideas are debated.  But having failed *miserably* in front of scientists, it is the height of cynicism to use state legislatures to say "we don't care what the scientists think" and take the case directly to 10th graders!

Answer 14

It is not currently being taught (at least not legally).

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, a flat earth, alchemy, etc., a significant percentage of the (tax paying) population believes in ID.

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.