Rate This
Article
[click here]
Publish
YOUR
Article
[click here]
Do Creation and Intelligent Design Belong in the Classroom?
Send comments and suggestions for this page to epicidiot
Contents
- Creationist View - What do the creationists think?
- Evolutionist View - What do the evolutionists think?
- Epic Idiot View - What does Epic Idiot think?
- Want to learn more?
- Viewer Feedback - What did viewers think of this article?
Astrology in the Classroom? |
Creationist View
Creation by God should be taught as a valid alternative scientific theory to evolution. There is much evidence to support the belief in a Young Earth. Education is about the open exchange of ideas, therefore, all theories should be taught so that students can choose for themselves which to believe.
Across America, the freedom of scientists, teachers, and students to question Darwin is coming under increasing attack by what can only be called Darwinian fundamentalists. These self-appointed defenders of the theory of evolution are waging a malicious campaign to demonize and blacklist anyone who disagrees with them (Discovery Institute).
Evolutionist View
Creation is not science, but religion. Intelligent Design is nothing more than a thinly veiled form of creationism. These belong in school, but in a religion or philosophy class, not in a science class. Scientists are not opposed to criticism of evolution, just base those criticisms on facts and not religious beliefs.
Besides, if the Biblical creation story was used in the classroom, what would it teach? Bible scholars don't even agree on the basic elements of the Biblical creation. Was it six literal 24-hour days or six unspecified epochs? Does Genesis 1:2 specify initial creation or a rebuilding of the Earth after the destruction of a previous creation and habitation? See list of various Bible-based versions of creation.
And it would be one busy class. There are literally hundreds of creation stories among the world's religions. By the same reasoning given by the creationists, shouldn't we teach them all?
What about the Tychonian Society, a modern Christian group who believes the Bible teaches, and science proves, that the Sun revolves around the Earth? Should their views be taught in science classes as well?
Epic Idiot View
Students should know not only what science has learned, but understand how it can be used to shed light on nonsense.
The recent Dover case brought this issue to the attention of the American public. The judge ruled that Intelligent Design (ID) was religion and therefore didn't belong in the classroom. It appears that the judge based this on documents, such as the Wedge Document, and statements by school board members and other ID proponents. These made it clear that they were promoting ID in order to promote Christianity. However, IMHO, Intelligent Design should be ruled on according to what it is, not according to the motives of those promoting it. ID, in itself, does not promote a particular religion and therefore is not a direct violation of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof¼", although many others would strongly disagree with my opinion on this.
The other main objection to Intelligent Design is that it is not science. I agree that it clearly is NOT science under the definition of science as accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists in all fields of science across the world, because it invokes supernatural beings (even the alien version of ID requires the aliens to have supernatural powers). Even Michael Behe, one of ID's main supporters, testified in the trial that ID did not meet the criteria for science. Based on this alone, not long ago I would have said ID does not belong in the science classroom. But after discussing the results of this case with others, I became acutely aware that a large percentage of the population doesn't understand the difference between science and non-science and why scientists make the distinction.
Science is about what can be done naturally. Things that are done supernaturally are for other fields of study. Many complain that this automatically excludes alternate explanations. But, scientists want to be able to do things with what they learn. If you are making a new vaccine, you can’t say “Psst, hey God, come here a second. I need you to do that miracle thing you do to make cells.” What good is it if you have to call on God every time you need to perform an experiment or make a new batch of drugs. That in a nutshell is why scientists as a group are so opposed to supernatural explanations. They have no practical value, even if true.
From What's So Funny About Science?: Cartoons from American Scientist
For this reason, I think Intelligent Design should be taught in the science class. But, not just the quick little blurb and advertisement for the ID book as proposed by the Dover School Board. They should devote enough time to put it under full scientific scrutiny and use it as an example of the difference between science and non-science is, and why this distinction is important.
Want to learn more?
- Flying Spaghetti Monster
- The Intelligent Design Theory of Evolution
- http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_denom.htm#other
- http://www.evolutionhappens.net/nodebate.htm
- http://www.botany.org/newsite/announcements/evolution.php
- http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/kenyon4.htm
- http://thedisgruntled.blogspot.com/2004/12/more-on-intelligent-design.html
Viewer Feedback
2005-12-29 Anonymous (Young Earth Creationist) wrote
Interesting, I'm not sure of the accuracy, Fair and Balanced
Add your Comments
Submit a
Rebuttal
Submit an
Article on another topic
