Intelligent design and schools?

Intelligent design and schools? Topic: Intelligent design and schools?
June 16, 2019 / By Delphine
Question: Intelligent design is in the school system, it's in the textbooks. I've seen it. However, it's only there for the purpose of making it look unrealistic. Textbooks mention intelligent design in the way that they provide arguments against intelligent design, such as, the eye is wired backwards therefore bad design The thing is, if a student wants to discuss that statement further, his professor is not allowed to do that. If you're going to include intelligent design in the textbooks, don't do it the North Korean way, indoctrination style. Is it fair that a certain topic be criticized, and responses to criticism are not allowed? @Comicbook Reader I am not interested in your personal biased and false opinions. I asked a very specific question. Is it fair that a certain topic be criticized, and responses to criticism are not allowed.
Best Answer

Best Answers: Intelligent design and schools?

Cailyn Cailyn | 7 days ago
Obviously the answer is no, it's not fair. I can't imagine an honest person coming to a different conclusion. Apparently, academic freedom is for other subjects. At the moment, educators are in the interesting position of not teaching students, but instead conditioning them to recite the “correct” answers without a second thought to other possible explanations. Today’s science education does not sufficiently emphasize inquiry-based learning. What are the Darwinists afraid of? A little critical analysis never hurt anyone who had the evidence on their side. The Darwinists worship their idol but don’t listen to him. He said, “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question...” (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species). Cal Thomas made an interesting comment: “Why are believers in one model—evolution—seeking to impose their faith on those who hold that there is scientific evidence which supports the other model? It’s because they fear they will lose their influence and academic power base after a free and open debate. They are like political dictators who oppose democracy, fearing it will rob them of power.” And as Gary DeMar put it, “As anybody who is familiar with the 1925 Scopes Trial knows, evolutionists at first only wanted ‘equal treatment’ for the teaching of evolution. Once they got their foot in the door, everything began to change. Now that they control the educational establishment they serve as ideological gatekeepers to prohibit any competing worldview from entering” (Why I Support the New Atheist Monument).
👍 282 | 👎 7
Did you like the answer? Intelligent design and schools? Share with your friends
Cailyn Originally Answered: Why should intelligent design be taught in schools?
Intelligent Design should not be taught anywhere, it is like Scientology, a religion masquerading as science. bible stories should be taught, but in literature classes, not science class, and they should be alongside Greek, Roman, Viking, Egyptian and every other religious ideal. ---EDIT--- What worries me is that people like Coram Deo and Questioner actually believe what they have been told. Coram, you have misquoted Darwin (don't worry, you are not the first theist to do so, some of you have turned it into an art form), I don't have the exact words, but the context was that if evidence showed up that disproved evolution (fossils in the wrong strata, human footprints alongside dinosaurs), the theory of evolution and natural selection would fall in a heap. Now, 120 years later, despite concerted, frantic (one might say desperate) efforts by his opponents to prove otherwise, there is still NO evidence that disproves, or even casts a doubt on this theory. Molecular biology proves evolution over and over again, in fact with no fossil record at all, we could still prove evolution with molecular biology alone Not sure what you mean by deficient fossil evidence, there is more than enough to prove evolution, and as above, if there weren't we could still prove it anyway Irreducible Complexity is a term made up by Creationist Michael Behe, who was spectacularly embarressed in court (Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District) when he tried to argue his case. You should read up on what the judge (John E. Jones) had to say, cos it's hilarious. "ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition" "What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best 'fringe science' which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community" "We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large" "ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that 'irreducibly complex' systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich" This is what happens when a smart person takes on a dumb one. The thing is though, if tomorrow evidence were found that disproves evolution, those of us who follow science would change our views accordingly, you and yours are unable to.
Cailyn Originally Answered: Why should intelligent design be taught in schools?
It shouldn't be. It's been proven in court that Intelligent Design is, and originated as, a religious idea, and not a scientific hypothesis. As long as there is separation of church and state it shouldn't be taught in public schools.

Alphonsine Alphonsine
Yes, not only is it fair but it's mandatory. If I were to suggest only one thing for you to read, it would be the 2005 court case where Creationists pushing Intelligent Design wanted it taught in the science curriculum of public schools as science. The conservative judge, after hearing evidence in a court of law, including testimony from the leading Creationists, ruled that Creationism was a religious approach and not scientific. Creationism/Intelligent Design did not use the methods of science and had no evidence to support it. Here is the full judge's decision which prohibited the teaching of ID in the science curriculum: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html and http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html and a quote from his conclusion: "In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
👍 120 | 👎 0

Van Van
Intelligent design is unrealistic, no one needs to try to make it look that way. It isn't science nor is it based on any academically acceptable research. It's Biblical fantasy based on Christian theology (and a specific fundamentalist teaching at that) and has no business in schools. If you can manage to come up with a legitimate defense of it, then do so. Until then, do not expect professors to play pretend. _- Ah the old "attack the answer rather than show evidence" ploy. Well done in supplying it in under 10 minutes. You haven't asked a specific question. You rambled and ranted. The point boils down to "IT ISN'T CREDIBLE SCIENCE". Supply proof to counter the criticism.
👍 114 | 👎 -7

Van Originally Answered: Should Intelligent Design (a.k.a. Creationism) be taught at Schools?
Most Christians I know don't want biblical creationism taught in science classes. 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. 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. Although it has been around, in one form or another, since the time of ancient Greece, William Paley is probably the most famous for using the design argument. In 1802, he came out with a treatise called Natural Theology. He began by arguing that if one were to discover a watch lying in the middle of nowhere and they were to examine that watch closely, the person would logically conclude that it was not an accident, but had purpose; it had a designer. He went on to argue that the overwhelming design in the universe is evidence of a Grand Designer. Now, is this a valid argument? Well, we detect design all the time. If you find an arrowhead on a deserted island, you assume it was made by someone, even if you can’t see the designer. We can tell the difference between a message written in the sand and the results of the wind and waves on the sand. The carved heads of the presidents on Mt. Rushmore are clearly different from erosional features. Any time we find information, whether it is in the form of a hieroglyphic inscription, a newspaper article, or a computer program, we know there was an intelligent agent behind that information. And the thing is, reliable methods for detecting design exist and are employed in forensics, archeology, and data fraud analysis. These methods can easily be employed to detect design in biological systems. As Dr. Stephen Meyer said (when being interviewed by Nightline), “From the evidence of the information that’s embedded in DNA, from the evidence of the nanotechnology in the cell, we think you can infer that an intelligence played a role. In fact, there are sophisticated statistical methods of design detection that allow scientists to distinguish the effects of an intelligent cause from an undirected natural process. When you apply those statistical measures and criteria to the analysis of the cell, they indicate that the cell was designed by an intelligence.” The four main areas the ID movement focuses on: Information Theory, Irreducible Complexity, The Anthropic Principle, and The Design Inference. 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/... Dr. Stephen Meyer, “I think there’s a tremendous amount of motive-mongering that is detracting from the substance of the debate. And the problem with motive-mongering is that everybody can play that game, everybody has a motive. Richard Dawkins has said that Darwin has made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, something he thinks is a good thing. That it would be completely illicit for us to say, ‘well, Richard Dawkins is wrong about evolutionary biology because he wants to be an atheist.’ Motives are properly irrelevant to the assessment of an argument and to the assessment of evidence; and in any case, they are equivalent, there are motives on both sides: many of the leading people on the Darwinist side have motives, people on our side have motives. We want to see the debate settled and discussed on the basis of the evidence, and that’s where we think it should finally reside.”

If you have your own answer to the question Intelligent design and schools?, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.