Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Evolution (Darwin etc) is just a Theory.
    Intelligent Design (Creationism) is also just a Theory.

    As Evolution is being taught in Science Classes, do you think Intelligent Design should also be taught in Science Classes?


    What do you guys think??

    Personally, I dont think that ID should be taught in Science classes because you cant "demonstrate/prove" it. However, technically it does offer another view on how we came to be. I think that it belongs in history class (if at all) because it is not a science. it may be true, but not every truth is a scientific truth.

    hit me backk
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    A layman's theory and a scientific theory are two very different things. Guess which one ID is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I thought it was more 'Creationism in a cheap tuxedo.' I would say including it in any syllabus for any subject would be proof of dumbing down - at least creationism gives you a bit of religious knowledge.
    Offline

    12
    No
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    One is a theological theory and the other scientific theory. Scientific theory differs in that it is founded on evidence and has made testable predications based on that theory.

    Evolution belongs in the science class room because it is a scientifc theory, evidence includes fossils which are (to most sane people) not easily explained away. Also with bacteria you can actually witness evolution within a human lifetime. So it both is supported by evidence and has had its predictions satisfied. Allthough no scientifc theory is ever 100% beyond doubt and i am the first to admit that.


    ID belongs in the RE class.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    What science lessons should teach are the theories which are currently best justified by evidence and best able to explain natural phenomena in a logical way. The theory which does this currently for the development and diversity of life is evolution. If creationism - sorry, 'intelligent design' - came up with evidence as strong as the evidence for evolution, then it could be taught, but unless it does this it has no place in the science classroom.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The idea of ID came about the wrong way round to be scientific. People took the idea of life being created by god and went out to look for evidence for it. Where as the theory of evolution came about by someone looking at scientific data and coming up with a theory that fits it. That's the way science should be done.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Occams Razor. Adding "And God watched it all happen" doesn't give any extra predictions, any extra logic or sure up any hypothesis or theory within evolution any more than saying "Thor and Odin watched over it all" or "Shiva watched it" or "The Invisible Pink Unicorn watched it all happen".

    If you let in Intelligent Design to the science room then you MUST also say "It might not have been the Christian God, it could have been Allah or Thor or Set or ..."

    I once told that to a very christian friend of mine who replied "Those are all crap though, it was God who did it!" Clearly going for an open minded approach. When I said "But in other countries the previaling view would be Allah, not God" to which the response was "Who gives a **** about other places, they're all backwards anyway! We'll teach the truth in our country!". He should move to Midwest America, he'd fit in more....
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlphaNumeric)
    Occams Razor. Adding "And God watched it all happen" doesn't give any extra predictions, any extra logic or sure up any hypothesis or theory within evolution any more than saying "Thor and Odin watched over it all" or "Shiva watched it" or "The Invisible Pink Unicorn watched it all happen".
    dont take the piss out of the ipu. i demand you show some respect for my religion!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Teaching ID as Science would be completely unforgivable. The teleological argument should, in my (extremely strong) opinion only be taught alongside the ontological arguments, the cosmological argument and any noteable others (of which I am sure there are) that I've forgotten as the Philosophy of Religion either in some kind of RS or philosophy and only then with a balanced and thorough analysis and critique of them with arguments both for and against.

    Evolution is scientific fact. It doens't overlap with any religious issues unless the religious people want it to. To compare an extremely sketchy theological argument with the concept of creatures that are more suited to their environments being more likely to pass on their genes is absurd.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    The idea of ID came about the wrong way round to be scientific. People took the idea of life being created by god and went out to look for evidence for it. Where as the theory of evolution came about by someone looking at scientific data and coming up with a theory that fits it. That's the way science should be done.
    Dodgy. People make hypotheses in an unscientific way, THEN they are tested scientifically. You can't look at the world and just see a theory: some creative input from the scientist is required to make a model.

    At least, that's the normal approach of Philosophy of Science. Karl Popper, for instance.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by master-chafe)
    Evolution is scientific fact.
    It's scientifically a highly justified theory, but thats not enough to make it absolutely certain. Not that this means evolution isn't far more worthy of being taught than intelligent design, though.

    It doens't overlap with any religious issues unless the religious people want it to.
    Well, since the major monotheistic religions claim that God created humans, evolution is in direct conflict with them. For the most part, those who claim to be religious whilst also claiming to believe in evolution are fooling themselves; ask a religious person how they reconcile some major scientific theories with their religion and you'll generally find they really haven't thought about it properly.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think it should be taught in a science lesson, no.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Evolution is not a theory, its just called the evolution theory for technical purposes. Evolution is fact, like the air we breath, and the gravity which pulls us down to the earths surface.

    The Intelligent Design theory is a pathetic, and sad attempt by the American Evangelists to validate, and bring an ounce of credibility to their belief in religion in the face of groundbreaking scientific advancement.

    Placing Intelligent Design, on par with Evolution would be absurd. The Evolution theory was not founded, or did not evolve to what it is today with the secret agenda of those scientists who worked on it, unlike Intelligent Design, which came about and is sustained by individuals who actively are trying to find some sort of evidence for their religious beliefs. The aims of these scientists, if you could call them that, is to find evidence for their Bible, not to progress our greater understanding of the earth and life.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    ID should not be taught in the Science classroom.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by phawkins1988)
    ID should not be taught in the Science classroom.
    The only place ID should be taught, if any where, is in the literature class, or in sociology. It has no place in the natural sciences.

    Ideally, ID, along with those who beleive it should be thrown in the trash lol.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If you teach ID, then why not teach that the earth is flat as an alternate "theory" to the theory that says that the earth is round. After all, can we ever be 100% certain beyond all possible doubt that the earth really is round? Have you personally tried to verify it for yourself? Probably not. So, we should dig up the old theory that the earth is flat and let everyone "make up their own mind". Or here's a better idea, we dismiss it as a load of crap and never speak of it again. Then we never run the risk of our kids getting wrong when they are "making up their own mind".
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chumbaniya)
    Well, since the major monotheistic religions claim that God created humans, evolution is in direct conflict with them.
    Only with a naive view of creation

    (Original post by Chumbaniya)
    For the most part, those who claim to be religious whilst also claiming to believe in evolution are fooling themselves; ask a religious person how they reconcile some major scientific theories with their religion and you'll generally find they really haven't thought about it properly.
    Only inasmuch as few people think about anything of that sort properly. Most people's world views are rather confused, mangled and contradictory.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -1984-)
    Evolution is not a theory, its just called the evolution theory for technical purposes. Evolution is fact, like the air we breath, and the gravity which pulls us down to the earths surface.
    I'm afraid you seem to have a misunderstanding of the way science works. Everything in science is a theory; an explanation of a phenomena. No science produces any theory which is not refutable; indeed it is necessary that any good scientific theory is open to refutation, which is why the theory of intelligent design is scientifically poor.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mercer)
    Only with a naive view of creation
    What exactly would be the non-naive view of creation? Has God been subtley tampering with genetic mutations over millions of years to create humans, making it seem like evolution occured unaided? Evolution, if taken to be true, necessarily reduces God's role in the creation of humans. If indeed creationism according to the words of the bible is 'naive', why is it written in a book which is supposed to be God's word?

    It should be noted here that evolution is a minute problem compared to the most significant challenge posed to God's phsyical interventions by science; the laws of conservation of energy and momentum. In order to have any effect on the physical world at all, God must violate these laws, so if he was influencing evolution, he's still contradicting one of the most fundamental scientific theories that exists.

    Only inasmuch as few people think about anything of that sort properly. Most people's world views are rather confused, mangled and contradictory.
    Certainly, but maybe I didn't express my point strongly enough; what I should say is that I do not believe it possible to reconcile religious creationism with evolution unless either of both are to be weakened.
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.