PDA

View Full Version : Intelligent Design in Our Schools


Genesis 1.0
08-11-2005, 10:01 AM
No, I'm not posting any links for this particular topic. I want only people who are willing to do the legwork in order to be involved.


Just yesterday President Bush put his full support behind the Discovery Institute and a Bill to intergrate Intelligent Design in schools and universities across America. Already Kansas and Ohio have revamped their schools to include this scientific belief and now that the President's full support is behind it, it's expected to get that extra push through Congress with the Red in control of most of the government branches.

Of course this has every scientific buff going out of their minds, but this has been a movement long in coming. The surveys read that 90% of red states and Republicans in general are pulling their children out of the public school system not just for violence, but so they can be placed in private schools where their specific system of Christian beliefs can be taught without prejudice. Apparently across America, religous tax payers have been complaining that their money goes into schools where their children can't learn what they feel should be included in the curriculum. In effect, they're funding institutions that won't abide by their own set of beliefs and are being ignored as invalid. For decades religon motivated scientific experts have been dismantling Darwin's Law and the basis of the Evolution theory. They've persisted that the basic cell structure was created by God and was then allowed to evolve, accepting the latter half but refusing the origin. This theory is not born out of imagination, ever since research of the evolutionary chain began scientist in general have agreed that these strains looked more like they were designed to evolve rather than the callous and random theory accepted today. The Chairman of the Discovery Institute has been touring schools all across the country poiting out the many flaws in the theory of Evolution, which is well recieved by many who are enticed by the very idea that such an accepted theory will now not only be challenged but taught alongside another that strongly resonates a religous overtone. A bill was put into motion in early 2001, but simply did not have the support needed to implement it nationwide, but all that has changed with the support of President Bush.

Well, it seems this situation is reaching it's boiling point and the Red has had enough of an educational system that ignores a vital part of their system of morals. So now with 2 states already abiding by this, a Bill supported by our President in the works, Intelligent Design may be taught right beside the theory of Evolution in our schools and universities anywhere between the next 5 years to the next decade. With students in Kansas and Ohio already having a different curriculum, how will this affect them should they attend a college outside their own state boundaries that have not taken the same measures? Already some students have blank spots in their academic records where a teacher could not fail them because of the varying policies state-to-state but as this spreads, the issue can only grow.

Also, the outrage of the scientic community also stems from what they feel is a blurring of the line between Church and State. So what do you think? This Bill, if accepted, will impact your lives regardless of age or educational ststus because it completely revamps the scientific community's future leaders and leaves some wondering what will be altered next?

Incongruity
08-11-2005, 05:18 PM
note: there are three ways to discuss intelligent design. Morally, legally, and scientifically. I'll cover legally as briefly as possible, and morally will show up occasionally in the main portion, which discusses intelligent design scientifically.

Legally: Establishment clause people. To say that a divine being created the cell and allowed evolution would be an open federal backing of a single interpretation of a religion. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. To prohibit Intelligent Design does not prohibit the free exercise of religion. We have religious presidents, signs of religion hung around one's neck, churches, synagogues, and mosques on every street corner, the privacy of one's home to practice religion, religious books being placed in their own section as opposed to Fiction. Trust me, the Christian persecution complex is a poor attempt at appearing like a nonconformist.

The rest of it, and I believe the more important part.

Personally, I think there are only two real flaws with the MODERN theory of evolution. Refusal of (many of) its opponents to learn the theory in detail, and to differentiate it from Darwin's theory The origin of evolution (and the origin of that origin); for example, the most popular belief right now is the heterotroph hypothesis. Well, that's great, but what created that, and what created that, and what created that? But then again, this should be a problem in any theory that attempts to explain the origin of all origins.

But for Intelligent Design... It's not religious so much as it is... well, a product of curiousity. It doubts the current theories we have. As much as I believe that Intelligent Design is incorrect, doubt is the basis of science itself. Doubt is how evolution came about! I myself would be happier if schools taught that the few flaws of the theory exist, but if we need an opposing idea in order to instill doubt, so be it; and by the way, I also dislike how many Christians disregard what it means to be a "theory" in the scientific community, Intelligent Design not being one.

But back to the point; the only thing that the scientific community is outraged about is that there is an abundance of experiments being performed and confirmed to prove the various parts of evolution, yet the experiments to prove Intelligent Design are usually rare, corrupted with bias, or spun post-experiment to fit with partisan ideas. That's what most people are pissed about. How we're teaching something that's not factually based. Intelligent Design does not have the little proof that a fundamentalist approach would have, nor does it have the experiments that evolution has. In the end, it's nothing but an unproven idea.

Now, unproven ideas are fine for the home, they're fine for the family. They're fine to keep in one's mind so that one can perform an experiment to prove that idea. However, why should we teach something that goes against Evolution (in which the basic cell structure was a result of the heterotroph hypothesis)? Why should we teach something that not only has little if any proof of its own, but also goes against something that has backing? We most definitely should allow people to keep an open mind and develop their own ideas, but why should we present two unequal theories as if they have equal backing?

It's a tricky topic, because I believe people should have open minds and develop their own ideas. Yet at the same time, I realize that kids are... well for the most part stupid. They cannot develop their own ideas. They do need influence. Yet, if we were to only teach evolution, no matter how little proof Intelligent Design has, would we not be blocking children at an impressionable age from any opposing theory? To do that would stop scientific progress altogether! To believe that adolescents can naturally have doubt is naive. It gives them wayyyy too much credit. Despite how little I believe is there factually for Intelligent Design, I believe we should allow it to be taught for the sake of science. Purely to instill a little doubt in them. Doubt is always necessary. Too much makes you a stupid goth, but absolute certainty is the ultimate enemy of intellect.

Kenny_C.002
08-12-2005, 04:16 AM
ak, the only flaw to the statement there is that you can create doubt within a student quite easily without the use of intelligent design, simply in stating the flaws of the modern evolution theory out. IMO that should be sufficient. The main problem is that ID is extremely problematic as there is little proof of it, making it literally unsuitable material for a science classroom (perfectly reasonable in arts-based classrooms, tho).

Also the reasoning, the backing behind it is wrong. Basically Bush and the states are putting their religious beliefs into this bill, and absolutely not should this bill be passed under THESE circumstances.

Alakazam
08-15-2005, 09:37 PM
Well, as much as I too see much value in Intelligent Design, it has no place in a science classroom. This isn't a "scientific belief" at all, its a religious one. Things that can't be proven, or at least supported, through scientific means has no place in a science cirriculum.

Whether you agree or disagree with Intelligent Design is immaterial, this Bill is senseless. This is just another case of the president letting his beliefs get in the way of his work.

Dakota
10-10-2005, 07:51 PM
Evolution is whored all around the school system, with science posing it as fact. Tch, it takes more faith to believe in Evolution than it does to believe in God. At least God is plausible...

You either believe in the beginning God or in the beginning Dirt...they're both religions, we might as well teach the one that over 80% of the US believe in. And if people want to teach evolution, they can have private schools that people have to pay to get into >_>

lovelylapras
10-10-2005, 08:44 PM
My issue with ID is that it's way too religious. Religion and science can co-exsist, religion simply explains what science cannot; as of right now, natural selection doesn't fully explain the origin of life. At the same time, religion and science can't co-exsist in public schools. Perhaps neither should be instated.

I'm sorry, but religion in general has been wrong too many times before. Think about anything and everything you ever read in Greek Mythology books; and thats what the masses believed. Al Qaeda crashing planes into NYC - that was a product of religious fanatics. Christian churches in American used to be segregated. And don't get me started on the Catholic Faith... waaaay too many loopholes.

People say you can't prove natural selection, but how would you go about proving the Earth is round, gravity works, the sun is the center of the solar system, or that bacteria exsists?

Bashaamo
10-10-2005, 11:29 PM
I belive in God and evolution and think both are plausible, but only one is "science." Guess which one it is.

God does not belong in our scienc classes. Christians shouldn't be fighting this one which is bound to be lost. We should focus on keeping God in our pledge and money, amoung other things.