why should intelligent design be taught in school when the scientific community doesn't approve of it?
Are Christians saying they overrule scientists in what is going to be taught in science class?
apeman605, I heavy suggest you check up some statistic on Christians and evolution. It's not exactly classified information.
- ANDRE LLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
Its amazing, isn't it ? They not only demand that their pet religion be treated as if it were proven scientific fact, when its not, but they also demand that no one dare challenge them on the facts, and they insist on playing dishonest name change games, to try to get around the fact that their claims keep being found to be Unconstitutional. So, they changed from creationism to intelligent design (The part in the Kitzmiller case when a creationist manuscript was found to contain incomplete name changes -
creintelligent designism - was hysterical), to try to get past the courts.
On 20 December 2005, Judge Jones found for the plaintiffs and issued a 139 page decision, in which he wrote:
"For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child" (page 24)
"A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." (page 26)
"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism" (page 31)
"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (page 43)
"Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not “teaching” ID but instead is merely “making students aware of it.” In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree." (footnote 7 on page 46)
"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community." (page 64)
"[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case." (pages 86–87)
- zaorox99Lv 41 decade ago
you don't have to be taught to learn. I do think that intelligent design is a stupid concept, just like theism, but I think there should be a world religion class, where kids can be exposed to intelligent design and all the other world religions instead of science and history teachers having to lecture the kids all the time on how post modernist are and how it's ok to think whatever floats your boat. God has no place in science. What really cheeses me off is intolerance look up westboro baptist church and "godhatesfags.com" they came to my area to protest the play the laramie project. It's ridiculous the stuff they say, all they want is attention
- QuestionerLv 71 decade ago
Here is a growing list of scientists who signed “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism”: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-do...
And for those who put so much faith in peer-review, check this out: http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
Whatever you may think of George Bush, he was right in this: "Both sides ought to be properly taught so people can understand what the debate is about. Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”
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.”
And as the Chinese paleontologist J. Y. Chen said, “In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.”
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 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.
- 1 decade ago
ID has pretty much been debunked as quackery at this point.
its not ID that scares me, its the fact that some school districts permitted its teaching IN SCIENCE CLASS. ID was an obvious attempt by the religious right to have religion taught as science.
if you are in a private school or parochial school then have a religion class- fine, however religion should never ever be taught as science unless it is willing to subject itself to the scientific method and standards- which it will never do because it will fail.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Not only are they saying that they overrule scientists, but they are saying that they overrule the LAW.
For some reason, because of their religious beliefs, our school curriculum has to change. Watch how angry they get when someone wants to force the teachings of Islam or Hinduism into our science class. Why are Christians so special that they get to influence the educational system? Aren't we free to practice ANY religion here in the U.S.? So why does one religion get pushed into schools and into our government?
- Mr.SamsaLv 71 decade ago
Intelligent design has no place in any science class. If it's taught at all, it should be only in a religion or philosophy class.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Grade school, middle school, and high school curriculum is designed at the university level. Before I.D. would EVER get taught in mainstream public schools, they have to convince the most brilliant people in our country that it wasn't a load of b.s. - which it most definitely is.
Unfortunately, some po-dunk towns with po-dunk teachers do what they want, but for the most part, it's not permitted.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
It shouldn't be taught in public schools and that is why the supreme court ruled against it.
Christians keep trying to sneak religion in any way they can. Intelligent design is just another word for creationism. They will keep changing the words and keep being rejected.
- qxzqxzqxzLv 71 decade ago
If it passes peer review - fine.
Apparently the proponents of ID want to bypass the normal scientific scrutiny (a bit odd, in my opinion, unless they know that ID is rubbish).
- Jay*MΨLv 41 decade ago
Hopefully it won't be taught to all only to those choosing to take the class. Intelligent design is nonsense.