Intelligent Design in schools?

[STUFF]

OK, I have been asking people in other forums about this trying to get their opinions. So now it's your turn! weee!

 

OK, here is the deal.

 

In this Pennsilvania, USA district, Public School teachers are required to read this to students before teaching them about evolution and Darwins theories

 

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

 

Because Darwin’s theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

 

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, “Of Pandas and People,” is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

 

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.

 

Ok, now. I don't want to have a Creation VS Evolution debate here. Those never end up very good.

 

What I want to discuss here is, should teachers be allowed to tell students that there is an alternative?

 

Should teachers even be teaching evolution when it is all just theory just like creation would be?

 

Should teachers maybe teach both sides of the story?

 

Does the fact that someone believe something was made by God automatically converts that persons beliefs into myth and not science?

 

Just all those things. Please lets try to respect each others opinions and not trash each other.

[EmanX]

ok this is wat i think i think tachings shouldnt teach these theories cuz. its like a teacher teaching her religion to you and then like expecting you to believe it i mean wat if that isnt your religion and your religion is like direct opposite. i mean if you believe in god and that he create humans its your faith there nothing wrong with u believing wat u believe. Science and religion are like super different cuz science like trys to cancel the beliefs of religions especially cristiananity i mean if ur a kid like elementary student and the teacher is tellin you this then u go home and then ur parents are like really into the religion they might think ur "possesed or have the devil in you" or something im just ssayin that theory is opionated dats how i feel it shouldnt be tuaght

[Weirdy]

I think Biology courses might as well be optional if ppl are going to start arguments instead of having kids go off with a permission slip, offering alternatives, and things of that sort

 

what's so bad about teaching kids about a theory anyway? Teachers oughta just bring it up as a theory instead of some big fact. For ex. if a teacher were to cite the theory during a lecture he/she can just say "according to Darwin, xxxxx xxxx xxxx." I also think if you want to learn about creationism in a more advanced manner, you oughta attend a parochial school.

 

Over here in California public schools, kids are taught theology in the 7th grade btw. Not only about christianity, but also buddhism, islam, judaism, confucianism etc

 

if they're taught theology and what ppl believe in one unit, why not let them learn about evolution in high school after receiving the proper education about theology? In 7th grade I was never asked to take a permission slip home to learn about religions, but in hs if you're in a AP biology class you're sent home with a permission slip at one time to learn about Evolution (I know because I was in that class for 3 days but got out cause I hate biology).

Edited October 5, 2005 by Weirdy

[Gryph]

It should not taught be in a science class room because it is not science. Simply coming up with an alternative viewpoint does not give it enough merit to be put in a science class room. There are other venues to introduce and discuss ID.

[Cominus]

Thats weird, I never got anything like that at any of my schools.

[taratata]

Please lets try to respect each others opinions and not trash each other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is absolutely essential for all intellectual debates

 

Should teachers even be teaching evolution when it is all just theory just like creation would be?

Like has been said so many times, science theories are based on facts. If you can find a solid fact that goes against a scientific theory, that theory is not considered valid anymore. If one could find a solid fact that went against evolution, it would also be considered invalid.

 

Religious theories are based on revelations and are then relayed by books, and other means. You can find an infinity of facts that go against it, it'll still be considered valid by religious people because it's written in their book.

 

In schools here (probably the same in USA, please correct me if I'm wrong), evolution is not taught as a revelation Darwin had. The facts are presented to the students. They are not learning it as a rule, they are understanding it with logical thinking (well, at least in theory). Just like the rest of science. Science is not taught only for itself, it also helps develop critical thinking. It helps kids not believe anything they are said, just because some "authority" said it.

 

Religious theories, on the opposite, don't help develop critical thinking (except when heard from a skeptic's point of view). They can't be questioned, they just are. This would rather tend to help develop sheepish thinking, wouldn't it?

 

It would be very good to teach creationism in school, but in theology class, along with other beliefs from other religions. But certainly not as a valid alternative to evolution.

 

About the word "theory": just because something is a theory doesn't mean it's just some babbling. It means that it's an abstract explanation of some facts. Just because the word theory also applies to mindless babbling, doesn't mean all theories are mindless babbling.

I could quote a famous joke about that, but everyone has probably read it a hundred times already.

 

Do you know if that book "Of pandas and people" is available on-line? I'd like to know what such a "reference" would say. Please note that I'm not ready to pay a single cent for it thought, I'd just like to find an on-line pdf or html version.

[Gryph]

Actually, I do believe in Intelligent Design. I believe that we were created by aliens as a form of entertainment. We're like the UPN of the galaxy. Pure garbage and I'm just waiting for us to be cancelled.

[STUFF]

But see, that's the thing.

 

Is Creationism not science just because there is a belief in God?

 

I'm a Christian and I'm a creationist, but I also love science and I believe there is a lot of great science around.

 

Creationists just look at science in one way and Evolutionists see it in another way.

 

Lets take carbon dating for example.

 

Every living organism has a certain ammount of Carbon 14. When it dies it starts loosing it. It looses half every 5,730 years. That is considered half life. So in 2 half lifes (11,460 years) only 1/4 of the original C14 would be left.

 

Anything over 50,000 years would actually have no detectable C14. However, for ever we've been told that C14 is used to meassure how many million years old something is. When the truth is that if they can even detect C14, that only means something is less than 50,000 years old.

 

So we do use science. We just see things differently.

 

And the big difference is that we believe that there was a God and a Flood.

 

Evolutionists and sadly a lot of scientists want to just take God out of the equation.

 

So, why is it that Evolutionist Science is considered Science but Creationist Science isn't?

 

Again, not making a Creation vs Evolution thing here. Just asking about 2 different ways of looking at science, why is one valid and the other one isnt?

[Ryuken]

i don't really care about what we learn but i don't think that speech is needed

[Gryph]

Creationism is not science not because it believes in God, rather it is not science because it does not use the scientific method. Science is a method of understanding the world by making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses. Testing is the most important part of science.

 

You see, you come from the viewpoint that evolution and scientists try to disprove God and want to "take God out of the equation." That is incorrect. Scientists don't even consider God in their work because that would be a bias. I know many scientists who are religious yet believe in evolution. Hell, the director of the Human Genome Project is a devout Christian yet he spoke against the ID movement beacuse it is not science.

 

See, I have no problem with creationism. People can believe it if they want to but what irritates me is when people try to pass it off as science.

[iamjack]

Over here in California public schools, kids are taught theology in the 7th grade btw. Not only about christianity, but also buddhism, islam, judaism, confucianism etc

 

I went to school in California and they don't actually teach "theology." Rather, if at all, they teach the sociological cause and effect of religons. Try not to facilitate some European kid going to public forum saying "Ooh ooh, America's become a veiled theocracy. I heard it, they said so themselves."

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

 

The whole debate is moot because public institution will never affirm creationism, especially on the federal level. Any such education of "alternative thinking" can be persued on their yahoo parents own time.