If schools are going to teach evolution, shouldn’t they also teach intelligent design?

Question

The courts have banned the theory of creation by intelligent design from public school biology classes, arguing that the theory is based on religion, not science. If schools are going to teach evolution, shouldn’t they also teach intelligent design? Would that be a violation of church and state?

Answer 1

They can't teach Intelligent Design as science because (1) it isn't science and (2) it is based on religious faith, and violates the establishment clause of the Constitution.



The Constitution protects religion, it doesn't prevent it. You cannot have freedom OF religion without guaranteeing freedom FROM religion.





The following is not a rant - it is a statement of facts delivered in a calm voice and fully supported by U.S. legal precedent and demonstrable evidence:



Creationism is not science, regardless of whether it is labeled "Creation Science" or "Intelligent Design".



Evolution is science because:



Evolution is testable:

(e.g. if evolution is true, we should find a fossil for this unknown species in this location)

Example: http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik.html



Evolution is falsifiable:

29 examples: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html



Evolution has known mechanisms: genetics, DNA, natural selection

http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/



Evolution is observable:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26lab.html?_r=3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment



Because it is science, because it is the foundation of biology, evolution is taught in our schools (those schools that care about their science education).



Creationism is not science

Creationism offers no mechanisms (how did life "appear" - out of thin air, did the mud rise up and become animals, etc.)

Creationism is not testable.

Creationism is not falsifiable (nothing supernatural can be falsified because by definition it doesn't exist in the natural world, where science works. It's just faith)

Creationism is not observable.



Creationism has been ruled legally to not qualify as science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District



"Creation Science" and "Intelligent Design" are just labels to make Creationism look scientifically legitimate to people who don't understand science. Without the Bible, there would be no "Creation Science" or "Intelligent Design", so they are driven by faith.



The Intelligent Design movement wishes to change the definition of science so that it will allow supernatural causes. They want to change science. They're not appealing to the scientific community, they're going directly to the public and to politicians using what is called the Wedge Strategy. By publishing lots of books and papers using questionable logic and scientific-sounding language, they're trying to look as legitimate as science to people who are uneducated. According to the Discovery Institute's Wedge Strategy, they target school boards and other politicians to get school science standards changed. In 2007 the school board of Dover, PA, tried to put Intelligent Design into the curriculum. Parents sued and won, and the town was saddled with a million dollar legal bill. The Conservative, religious, Bush-appointed federal judge concluded quite definitively that Intelligent Design was faith, not science, and its introduction to the school curriculum was unconstitutional.



If we allow Christian religious beliefs to be accepted in science education, we cannot keep other faiths out of science and other classes. We can't accept Christian "Creation Science" and exclude Creation according to Scientology. We can't exclude astrology. Only through the application of proper scientific standards can we choose what should be in our school science curriculum.



http://ncseweb.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

Answer 2

Creationism is not a theory and you are misusing the word by calling it the "theory of creation by intelligent design". It is an untested hypothesis with no basis in reality. It is based entirely on a 2000 year old book that people still cling to out of fear of the unknown, not rigorous testing and observation.



theory (n.) - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena that has been repeatedly tested and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.



A theory is something that has been proven to be true every step of the way. If a certain set of variables were to show that the theory is imperfect, the theory would be modified to reflect reality. At that point, the theory of evolution would be different from what it is today. However, the theory still stands as it presently is on solid scientific footing. With our present technology and computational ability, it is the only theory that works, and if our technology improves, we will only be able to refine what is now a skeletal outline of a very complex system. Perhaps the details will be added in later, but the fact of the matter is that DNA undergoes environmental changes, and enough of those changes result in a trait change as well. We're no longer at the point of asking "IF" evolution occurs, we're at the point of finding out "HOW" evolution occurs.



Anyone who says otherwise has been fed bullcrap by their pastors and other clergymen trying to defend their fairy tales, or at the very least have never actually read a biology textbook.



Intelligent design is intellectually dishonest and not based on any science whatsoever. To call it a theory is an insult to science and mathematics. And to teach it as "fact" or "possible fact" is outrageous, because there is nothing observable in all of reality that points to it being even remotely possible.



Besides, when the great black bird Nix laid the egg from which humanity spawned, there was all ready life, so clearly the theory is moot anyway.

Answer 3

This was ALREADY ruled on by the courts in the Dover trials.



If you check out the papers for Intelligent Design they are about 99% verbatim to the idea of Creationism....all they did was replace the word "God" with "Intelligent Designer"



So it was found to violate the seperation. Also all of the claims made by ID have been proved 100% false and so are not taught in class any more than Earth is flat is taught.



Now to be fair I think ID is an interesting idea that would be fine in any religion or philosophy class as it promotes creative thought. However, due to it being completly baseless it is not science room content.

That may change as we learn more and maybe we will be able to scientifically prove ID one day.....but we could also prove one day fairies are what make gravity work..that doesn't mean we teach that now

Answer 4

Questioner said:



"Unlike leprechauns and a flat earth, etc., a significant percentage of the (tax paying) population believes in ID."



Science isn't about what the tax paying citizens think, it's about what the evidence says. Evolution actually does have solid evidence to support it.



Intelligent design, on the other hand, is just a bunch of ignorant claims that were refuted in the Dover trial.



As far as separation of church and state, the Judge determined that Intelligent Design was motivated by religious convictions, based on the writings of Behe and Dembski, the two main intelligent design "theorists". Dembski actually says in print that any theory that studies nature is actually studying Christ, and if a theory denies this then it should be seen as fundamentally deficient.

Answer 5

No. Intelligent Design is not science, as another poster has very adequately explained. I only post because I have noticed a couple of the "theory not a fact" responses. The definition of theory used by the general public (i.e. I have a theory that enron stock is going to go up) is not the same as the scientific definition of theory. A scientific theory is really the highest form of scientific information. It is a working, testable explanation that explains the relationship between hundreds of thousands of facts and pieces of evidence, based on both observation and experimentation. Atomic Theory is the best explanation for the millions of observed facts about atoms and subatomic particles, and the Theory of Evolution is the explanation for the millions of observed facts about life on Earth.

Answer 6

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.



Good science teaching should include controversies. But, whenever you mention this kind of stuff, evolutionists jump from their trees and start behaving as if someone had stolen their bananas. Apparently, academic freedom is for other subjects.



As Cal Thomas has said, “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.”



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 (chemical and biological 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 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 (often intentionally) 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). Or, the definition on IntelligentDesign.org: “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process...” 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). Theistic evolution (sometimes called BioLogos) also fits under that umbrella (the creator used evolution to create). 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.



See the New World Encyclopedia entry on Intelligent Design: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design



Oh, and evolutionism is indeed religion:

http://www.icr.org/article/455/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/the-lie/chapter2.asp

Answer 7

The problem you're refering to here is a common one, all over the world. Churches won't teach evolution because they believe it is not what actually occurred. MANY (nowhere near all) scientists do not want to teach intelligent design or creationism because they do not believe that this actually happened either. The difficulty - most schools where there is argument about what is to be taught are run by the GOVERNMENT. Governments are under pressure from many groups in society to teach what the groups believe are valid and important. In Australia - where I live - Evolution is taught in high school Science courses and in senior Biology courses. It is taught as a THEORY regarding how life came to be the way it is in the present. Evidence for the theory is presented in a clear and logical manner. There has been no educational move, as yet, directing teachers to teach either intelligent design or creationism. If a community approaches a public school and wishes to offer religious instruction, the school is obliged to allow time for community members to come in and run their own lessons. Mostly, these instructors tend to focus on the story of Jesus and the Christian teachings - rather than where we came from. Contributing to this problem is that most of the "research" that disagrees with the theory of evolution has been published in independent and non secular (church based) journals. None of the mainstream scientific journals publish research that refutes evolution - due to errors in methodologies and the frequent claims made by some researchers that well-accepted techniques for identifying the ages of rocks, fossils and remains of living things are inaccurate. Science teaching is based on teaching the factual body of knowledge that Science is. The only way to get evolution out of schools is to get it out of science. People are free to employ scientific researchers to debunk evolution. Maybe all of the rich christians (camels and the eye of a needle) should pool their money and resources, employ mainstream and respected scientists with the hope of proving the evidence for evolution incorrect - the works would certainly be published and evolution could then be taught as a theory that was wrong - as is currently done with outdated models of atomic structure. Until: * all of the evidence for the theory of evolution is shown to be false; AND * mainstream and irrefutable evidence for creationism or intelligent design can be demonstrated; evolution should remain as the theory of "how we came to be" that is taught in science courses.

Answer 8

Intelligent Design has not gained any support from the scientific community. It's an inherently religious movement which is deeply rooted in creationist beliefs. Because of it's religious nature, teaching ID in public schools is unconstitutional.

Answer 9

Evolution is based onf facts and evidence. ID is based on religion and theology and violates the establishment clause. Here is why ID is not science. ID presents a non falsifiable theory i.e. "god did it." which can be neither proved or disproved ergo its not science. This is also called "god of the gaps" or also argument from ignorance. "I have no epxlanation for how evolution happened so god did it" "We cannot find these transitional species so god did it." That is not science. That has no place in a science classroom. Its superstition.

Answer 10

Evolution is not religion. It's a solid scientific theory which is supported by evidence, falsifiable but has not been, observed to occur in the lab, supported by every field of science in a position to do so, and does not rely on any supernatural influence. That makes it science, not religion. We don't teach religion in the schools, and intelligent design is definitely religion. It's not testable, makes no predictions, and is not falsifiable. They have found nothing to support it besides their own ignorance of evolution, and that's no excuse at all.

Answer 11

No they shouldn't.



Evolution is based on facts that have been proved by science. There is absolutely no hard core facts supporting intelligent design. There wouldn't be anything to teach the students, without preaching religion.

Answer 12

Evolution is a THEORY, not fact. I do believe that both should be taught. By only teaching one, it gives the impression that it is more than just a theory.



It blows my mind that people on here are saying that theories have been proven. If it were proven, it would be called a fact, not a theory. People are so closed minded to creationism - yes, it isn't proven by scientific standards, but neither is evolution.

Answer 13

Yes, they should. The problem is that most people have been taught that Evolution is correct. Even though when truly scrutinized it falls short. To many gaps and the answer is always the evidence will show it correct when we find it. The Bible has been proven scientifically sound in many areas. Look at the descriptions of creation and compare it to the scientific theories. The Bible uses terms understood for that day. The scientific terms have come about later and mean the same thing.

Now about the Church and State issue it is backwards it was originally puyt there to keep the government out of the church. Not the church out of the government. But then if most people want to think they are an advanced ape or fish. Up to them.

Answer 14

You need to define "evolution" when asking this question. Evolution as you are using the term, is, in fact a religion with no scientific evidence whatsoever. There is no evidence that humans evolved from apes. There is no evidence that life just came about by pure chance. In the classroom, many "science" teachers mix what can be observed about the ability of species to adapt to different environments with their philosophy that humans are just evolved animals.



Because so called "scientists" teach philosophy in science classes, they should also be made to teach the competing philosophy of intelligent design.

Answer 15

Mmmm...

I am not sure what I think about this issue, but I find the hair-trigger vitriolic response from intelligent design critics interesting... and somewhat disturbing.