Karalee: Should intelligent design be taught in public schools?
October 23, 2014
Intelligent design is a pseudoscience that claims some parts of the world, chiefly life, show signs of design, which means they were created by a higher being, usually the Christian God.
While those for intelligent design say it is not Creationism, which is an idea that all things were created by an omnipotent creator (God), intelligent design is just the next generation’s tweaked version made to look new and more appealing. There are many valid reasons why intelligent design should not be taught alongside evolution in public schools.
The concept of separation of church and state, regardless of some murky allowances in defiance of that whole separation principle, is an acknowledged boundary recognized in our country.
Public schools are not the venue for religious ideals. If a parent wants their child to be taught ideas of a certain religion, there are private schools of religious affiliation, church and other avenues to learn about religion.
Public schools are funded by the state, mostly through taxes, and cannot be treated as if all students are of a singular belief of thought.
To teach a concept from a particular religion such as intelligent design is presenting a partial view and has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard, because creation science only caters to that particular religion.
Intelligent design is, generally, a creation of the Christian faith, making it a biased idea. If there was one universal religion that was the standard and accepted practice throughout the world, even if it wasn’t the only one, but a significantly heavy majority followed it, there might be more of an argument to allow it’s teaching in public schools. However, since it is not, intelligent design represents only one view.
Taking into account this fact, we have to recognize it as an exclusive view that does not represent the population as a whole. It is not a public idea or belief, and cannot be taught to the public as if it were.
Intelligent design cannot provide us with a driving mechanism behind how it works, continually fails scientific tests to prove its theories and is thus largely rejected by the scientific community.
It’s a fake science. Intelligent design acknowledges evolution, but, in attempting to explain how it works, seems to aim to reject evolution at the same time, yet it depends on the existence of evolution in order to support its argument.
Are you confused yet? It’s the same insanity that is denying the Holocaust; we all know it happened, there is undeniable evidence in proof, yet there are groups, like Neo-Nazis, who continually deny it ever happened.
Intelligent design is acknowledging and agreeing that five plus five equals ten, but then also saying that it equals fifty-five, because that’s what you get when you put the two together. This is the delusion of intelligent design.
I understand why people believe in the principle behind intelligent design. It’s an attempt to explain the unexplainable in a comforting way, so we shroud it in religion because it seems the most logical and probable of all (inane) possibilities.
However, if your explanation of a thing you are claiming as science can easily incorporate the waving of your hands in front of your face accompanied by the flourished delivery of the word ‘magic’ as additional support, it’s not credible enough to be taught to children in public schools.
Mike • May 3, 2015 at 6:06 pm
A few thoughts:
1. It is interesting to me that people who follow ID (which in reality is just repackaged creationism) will make claims of peer review but when the insurmountable ACTUAL research points to evolution they dismiss it as censorship or not “real science, like you know, in the bible”. Ben Stein’s truly awful and deceptive “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” was probably a life-changing movie for them.
2. The comment citing the discovery institute sure was rich. Believers of ID / repackaged creationism (here comes the “ID IS NOT REPACKAGED CREATIONISM” loons) can’t get into real journals so they create their own to look legitimate. The DI’s goal is to muddy the waters so they can sneak their religion, or at the very least deism, into public schools.
3. In the future I’d stay away from the ad hitlerum as it doesn’t invite any real discussion. I’d go for climate change denial, point out how tobacco companies trotted out scientists to say cigarettes cause no health problems or how scientists were paid to say that leaded gasoline was kosher. Each example shows how monied interests paid people to muddy the waters so they could fulfill their agenda. It took/takes some time but reality always wins.
4. “Not to mention that many genetic scientists are beginning to doubt Darwin’s random mechanisms as being responsible for all diversity of life.” A classic made up stat tossed out by creationists. It is like Fox News’ “Some people say *insert their own opinion so it seems like many people feel that way*.”
5. “Darwinism is the key tenet of the atheist faith system which is the center pole supporting the tent of stealth conversion for the USA to a socialist workers paradise like Cuba and North Korea.” LOL. What?! The red scare was 6 decades ago. If you are that scared just give some money to Glenn Beck and you’ll feel better; and so will he.
Atheism isn’t a religion, it is a relationship… with reality. I know you can’t think outside of your religious frame but atheism isn’t a belief in something. Atheists don’t believe that gods exist because there isn’t a single shred of proof. There is nothing beyond that. I am cribbing many other atheists when I say that you are all atheists when it comes to other religions. Does that mean you have a belief system to go along with your aCthulhu-ism?
6. Everything that has been said in the comments here or will be said has already been discussed many times. For the guy who wants a debate, just type your questions into any search engine or search for the debate about it on youtube. Creationists haven’t had a new idea for decades and they have all been refuted over and over again.
D Bunker Monquis • Oct 25, 2014 at 10:01 am
The only way Darwinism can survive is censorship. This keeps hoards of New York lawyers employed.
Darwinism is the key tenet of the atheist faith system which is the center pole supporting the tent of stealth conversion for the USA to a socialist workers paradise like Cuba and North Korea.
The real science involvement in Intelligent Design research is obvious, intuitive, and in agreement with what we actually see. It is built on real observation and rational analysis and not mere say so and good story telling ability.
Truth telling in the foundational issue of life, origins, has shown its value over centuries of human history. It’s too early to stop progress and return to myth and science fantasy which merely serves a political agenda of subjugation to people claiming to have discovered more evolved wisdom and claim a divine right to rule the rest of us.
Joe jensen • Oct 24, 2014 at 4:44 pm
karalee,
Instead of making fun of a cartoon strawman representation do Intelligent Design, try learning what they are really about.
Check out some of their peer reviewed science papers for example:
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
You will learn that ID proponents don’t want ID taught in public schools but encourage more evolution, both the supporting evidence and the evidence against it.
That is true science education and encourages critical thinking.
If you care to deal in reality, why don’t you debate me on this article thread.
You may learn some real science.
Joe Jensen, Canada
Nathan • Oct 24, 2014 at 10:24 am
Your understanding of intelligent design is severely lacking. For one, you imply that ID is “if it is complex, then it was designed by a designer” when in fact ID is purely “if it is complex, then it was designed”. There are exactly zero ID scientists who will say that ID is about designer detection.
Also, you must not have come across scientific, peer-review validation of Behe’s calculated limits of evolution. Not to mention that many genetic scientists are beginning to doubt Darwin’s random mechanisms as being responsible for all diversity of life. If anything, evolution through methodological naturalism is handwaving fairytales that has yet to prove that random mutations could produce macroevolutionary changes.
Your comparisons of intelligent design to Holocaust denial are unethical, especially since the concept of natural selection was one of the driving forces of the Holocaust. Your understanding of intelligent design is severely lacking an honest view of the theories (can you even name the theories of intelligent design?)