Question:
Why Should we Teach Intelligent Design?
anonymous
2010-08-04 00:57:44 UTC
What Scientific Facts Support it?
Fifteen answers:
anonymous
2010-08-04 01:10:07 UTC
There is no scientific facts that support it. ID is a rebranding of Creationism, which teaches a god created everything, which is an unscientific mindset.
stuff2know
2010-08-04 08:24:08 UTC
No facts, scientific or any other kind, support it--which is why it can't be taught. What would we teach? There's nothing wrong with teaching about religion, and many colleges do. In fact, I'm going to be taking a philosophy class this semester, and learning about religion is in the syllabus. But teaching the fact that many people believe something, and learning why, is not the same thing as teaching as a fact something that doesn't have even a smidgen of evidence to back it up.
StormBane
2010-08-04 08:18:40 UTC
why? we should not teach any pseudoscience in public schools. we have private schools for a reason. if you want to learn about things with no evidence, go to a private school that teaches that. tax payer money cannot be used to support a religion. period. we have a thing called the US Constitution for a reason.



would you support teaching astrology in public schools? why not? many believe in it. never mind that astronomy is based on observable facts.

how about alchemy? after chemistry class? no? why not? many believe in it.



let us not be fooled by the religious ones. we are far smarter than that. intelligent design is a personal, private belief that has no scientific backing. it is the job of parents, not public schools, to teach such things.



do research, keep yourself informed! thanks for asking the question!
anonymous
2010-08-04 08:02:34 UTC
Lakers Baby, I am liberal and agnostic. I am agnostic because the religious could be right. Haven't you wondered why they've argued for millennia? Neither is proven.



BTW: I agree with the answerer, above me, Sam. I'd like to add on to what she said with this: Evolution is just a theory. And if it's true, it's entirely possible that evolution is God's way of "creating" the newer generations of organisms. Of course, this would mean that He'd have to create the first one, but then who's to say that He wasn't the one to originally put amino acids together to form the first organisms millions or thousands of years ago? What if time is not a constant? To God, maybe 10,000 years (Christian Creation) is the same as the extended Big Bang theory millions of years ago? Could they have been the same? I THINK Einstein believed in this possibility because he DID believe time was relative.



Edit 2: Whoops, forgot to add my conclusion. I think that all religions should be taught in American schools as well as the idea behind evolution and atheism. I mean why not? We're depriving our kids of serious education in the manner. It would be foolproof by having a christian, a muslim, a jew, a hindu, an atheist, a taoist and whatever other major religions there are at every major public high school in the country, with the option of taking a course through high school in religion, where each semester they would learn a new one (in any order they desire because that's what the guidance councilors are for). This would go in with the core classes, but it would mean that we'd have to cut down on those other extracurricular classes. P.E. seems pretty stupid to me. If kids want to work out, they can do it on their own time. That's how I did it. There's a lot of fighting over the dissent in the world today. With a little of the taxpayer money going into this program, we would be investing in a more united America. People would understand each others' positions more instead of fighting with and insulting those with other religious views without knowing the facts. It's a hefty investment, but unity is what America stands for. For good reason...without it you can see our ideals corroding and we've resorted to semi-socialism to prevent excessive disaster and allowing the poorest in the country to simply die off.



The answer: Amino acids have never been proven to form outside of an organism's body except in a flask with humans' intervention. So we know this: the only ways life could form from nothing but chemicals is if a.) God did it or b.) It happened by accident under VERY specific conditions AND MORE specific conditions to nurture the newly formed life to sustain it. This part could have happened with OR without His intervention. Which came first, chicken or the egg? It could well have been both.



Sam:

ƒ(x)=∫ (0->1) (Libx-Con) dx

∫f dx = x(libx-con) all divided by just 1.

It's meant to depict the meaningful and simultaneously meaningless difference between conservative and liberal since we're all American and ultimately we will all share the same fate, we're all under one or more God(s) to some and all under one beautiful, chaotic, yet organized reality together.

I put an indefinite formula into a definite-only sequence to convey this. How do we know we exist beyond our own perception of it? What if our dream world is the REAL world and we just keep coming back here to this realm for something else?? What if they're balanced or this theory is incomplete or totally wrong? Whatever. Bed time!!
?
2010-08-04 08:07:20 UTC
We should not teach intelligent design in schools. Two reasons



1. It has not been proven yet.



2. Where are we going to find the money to higher these teachers to teach something that has yet proven to be a fact. If you want fantasy go to Creative Writing.
darkelfling
2010-08-04 08:28:46 UTC
It should be taught - in Philosophy class.



It does not hold up to scientific investigation. It is not science, so it has no place in a science classroom.
Questioner
2010-08-04 17:32:09 UTC
Here is a brief overview of the scientific case for ID:

http://www.arn.org/docs/positivecasefordesign.pdf



The science behind ID:

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/832



How do we test ID:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/a_response_to_questions_from_a.html



And for those who put so much faith in peer-review:

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
anonymous
2010-08-04 08:09:47 UTC
The new National Geographic has a great article about whale evolution.

One of the major claims of ID books is that whales couldn't have evolved.

NG shows in exquisite detail that they did, and how they did.
anonymous
2010-08-04 08:16:42 UTC
Who says we should?



Oh yeah, idiots.
katmandu_85219
2010-08-04 08:11:17 UTC
I don't think we do. We obviously don't teach evolution either. There are some pretty stupid

beliefs concerning evolution both by believers and nonbelievers.

I blame public schools, it is a pretty shoddy system.
Sam
2010-08-04 08:02:20 UTC
ive read many books on the subject. one by lee strobel (a former atheist) called the case for a creator, another called it couldnt just happen. ive heard other arguments from scientists or all backgrounds (physics, biology, chemistry, any type of advanced math). there are plenty of highly educated supporters out there...you can google it and so many pieces of evidence will pop up. i think its just a competing theory with evolution and should be mentioned since it does have significant scientific support.
anonymous
2010-08-04 08:01:31 UTC
"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle." --A. Einstein
anonymous
2010-08-04 08:04:08 UTC
What, rich, free nation bothers teaching this? Oh, yeah, none. Lead by example.
anonymous
2010-08-04 08:08:49 UTC
I didn't know we did. Except in Kansas.
anonymous
2010-08-04 07:59:25 UTC
We shouldn't. It's a pseudo science.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...