Intelligent Design
is a Religion centric issue
Intelligent Design out of public schools
Intelligent design has no place in public education outside of a philosophy class. In schools run by religious organizations, the teaching is fine, but in the public school science classroom, what should be taught are the facts, and the fact is that evolution is the most correct theory around.
ID is a breach of the doctrine of separation between church and state because the account used as its basis comes from the book of Genesis, obviously a religious text. The fact that a majority of Americans believe in this account is not a reason to teach it or any other doctrine based off of anything non-scientific. It is actually dangerous and detrimental to teach ID as one way that the species on Earth came to exist, because the US is already starting to fall behind other nations scientifically, and it is very difficult for anyone to make an exceptional scientific advance through the study of religion.
Furthermore, the idea behind ID is wrong, because it is based on the assumption that people are too complex to have been created by natural selection, so there must be an intelligent designer. Anyone who thinks this not only insults science, but also their deity of choice, because people are incredibly flawed in their design:
- 10 of the 14 enzymes that replicate DNA are moderately to highly likely to make mistakes, some on the order of 1 out of 100 bases, increasing the chance for cancer and children inheriting genetic diseases.
- The eye, with light sensitive cells behind nerves and blood vessels, causing obscured images, and of course there is the blind spot from the spot where those nerves and blood vessels must go through the retina.
- The female pelvis, having not been designed for both walking upright and giving birth, made childbirth the most dangerous for human females of all the mammals before modern medicine made up for the problem.
- The appendix; no real use, but if it gets infected, you can die.
- DNA in the mitochondria, where they can be damaged very easily by free radicals and the intermediates of respiration, making these genes most susceptible to harmful mutations.
- The Y-chromosome is slowly gathering mutations because it cannot swap DNA as most people don't have 2 Y-chromosomes. On the other hand, the X-chromosome lacks this problem, as about 50% of the population has two and mutations can be swapped out, or at least not effect every cell, as each individual cell in a woman randomly shuts off one of these chromosomes.
- There are many more instances of poor design, both macroscopically and microscopically, but I think I made the point.
Evolution makes mistakes, it cannot create a perfect creature, and the fact that this is the case means it is working far more than an unseen God.
(This was originally as a response to another topic under this issue, but I want to see responses to this directly).
I actually don't mind Intelligent Design in schools for the simple reason that children are going to have face Fundamentalist ideas at some point in their lives. I mean sure, it doesn't make any sense, but it's kind of one of those non-issues like flag burning and public display of the 10 commandments. As long as it's in the lesson plan right next to Evolution there's really no huge worry for me. Kids and their parents are smart enough to make their own choices. Personally intelligent design seems somewhat laughable to me, but I had to sit through years of CCD as a kid and it didn't effect me too much as a child other then to give me the experience to make my own choices (in my case that I was an athiest) when I grew up. I don't think schooling alone necessarily indoctrinates children one way or the other. In the information age where we're all talking to each other on sites like Political Base there is the oppurtunity to hear, dispute and argue all manner of information. Luckily kids today will get to live in a world where that kind of resource is available to them from an early age.
I don't think its something that should be regulated by federal government. Each region needs to make their own decision on what to do. What makes perfect sense in Memphis is not the same as what makes sense in San Francisco. I personally don't believe it should be taught in public schools, and if I lived in a region where it was being done, I would probably leave that area. The last thing I want is a blanket statement by the government saying that it should not be taught in the US, cause there is no way I'm leaving the country.
I must question the most recent post for a number of reasons. Why should the federal government not have a say in what is taught in public schools? After all, the federal gov't has passed legislation seeking to bring all schools to a certain level of competency, and in many cases, usually through block grants, the federal government finances public education. Since this is the case, the federal government is entirely entitled to regulate what is taught in schools.
Also, "What makes perfect sense in Memphis is not the same as what makes sense in San Francisco" makes no sense; how can science be different in two parts of the country? More people may support ID in some regions, but that doesn't mean that the truth of evolution is less correct there.
More people may support ID in some regions, but that doesn't mean that the truth of evolution is less correct there.
I'm not questioning whether evolution is correct or not, I'm saying the people should decide. It was a poor choice of words. When I say what makes sense, I mean what the people want in their respective regions can differ greatly.
The federal government does have a say what is taught in schools, but I don't believe that it should make decisions that are better left to the people they directly affect. There are some things the federal government should be involved in, deciding whether ID should be taught in public schools, IMO, should be left to states or even local governments.
Let me reiterate that I don't believe in ID, I'm an evolutionary person as well. I just don't want the federal government enforcing something that is better left to the states.
I don't have a strong opinion here, but since I'm a college student, I'd like to just add my two cents about how I was educated about this.
It's actually very common to go over historical alternatives to Darwin: for example, use-disuse theory. Even though it's flat-out wrong, we still learned it, because it gave us a fuller understanding of scientific discourse. Of course, nobody believes use-disuse theory anymore, but in the case of ID should we refuse to teach an alternative just because it's current? I kind of like the "teach the controversy" idea.
Of course, you can't NOT teach evolution. That would screw over little Sally who wants to be an evolutionary biologist when she grows up, or whatever. Students don't have to be indoctrinated in it or believe in it, they just have to understand how it works.
Personally, I think if you include ID in schools, you give it the credibility it's proponents want. While I strongly believe opposing ideas need to be presented in school (since thinking seems to be one of the things not being taught in school, maybe we could that), those need to be well informed ideas, not some fundamentalist nonsense. My only exception to this: if ID is added across the board to science programs, Pastafarianism needs to be, as well!
As a christian student in advanced biology classes, I've been forced to regurgitate and gargle with every Evolution 'fact' known to man. I think it would be unfair and a waste for the largest creation idea to be neglected in a world full of scientific uncertainties. GET YOUR LAWS OFF OF MY TEXTBOOK.
The modern re-conception of Intelligent design is not science. It's proponents have merely dredged up the old arguments used by Paley in the time of Darwin, and slapped a molecular biology veneer over it. Like all creationist movements since evolution became accepted, it has produced no research in support of itself, and makes no falsifiable claims. They have only tried to undermine the average person's understanding of evolution, while wedging ID into schools through appeals to biblical literalist school board members. I disagree with perm735, I believe that as long as the federal government provides significant funding to a school, it is justified in requiring a competent curriculum. In response to Bold Strike. This may be a "world of scientific uncertainties," but reason demands that a line be drawn. Questioning the validity of evolution, based on the evidence we have now, would be like questioning whether the holocaust happened, based on the fact that we don't know the names of everyone involved. For info about evolution/ID/Creationism, I recommend the videos of cdk007 on youtube, and the talk.origins archive. Please surprise me by checking them out, Bold.
Niels says:
"Also, "What makes perfect sense in Memphis is not the same as what makes sense in San Francisco" makes no sense; how can science be different in two parts of the country? More people may support ID in some regions, but that doesn't mean that the truth of evolution is less correct there."
Right on.
The constitution grants the federal government no jurisdiction over education and so it doesn't have the authority to tell state governments what their schools can or can't teach. Like it or not, the constitution is not something that can just be ignored when it's inconvenient, to treat it as such makes it a worthless document. If you feel the federal government needs to be involved in this, the correct way would be to put it in an amendment.
Intelligent design maybe could be taught in schools but not in the science class, it's not science and should not be conveyed to young impressionable people as science, but that is a matter for the states to decide.
Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I'm just going to reply to the original post, I'll probably address issues in other posts later on.
"...but in the public school science classroom, what should be taught are the facts, and the fact is that evolution is the most correct theory around."
Evolution is no where near perfect, there are many flaws in evolution. And scientists disprove evolution everyday. Saying that "Evolution is the most correct theory around." is just your opinion, it's an opinion shared by many people, But its still just an opinion. So I see no reason in just teaching one sides opinion. Whats wrong with teaching both? Other than evolution being much easier to disprove.
Another quote I would like to address is this one: "The female pelvis, having not been designed for both walking upright and giving birth, made childbirth the most dangerous for human females of all the mammals before modern medicine made up for the problem." Just to be sure that I'm not taking this out of contexts, here you were talking about the flaws in the human body saying that because of these flaws there couldn't be Intelligent Design.
I'm really not sure what you mean by it not being designed for walking up right, they seem to do that pretty well to me... And if your talking about not being able to walk upright, while being pregnant, that still doesn't disprove anything. As for not being designed for giving birth, Women can give birth with out the help of modern medicine, Its just painful, and according to Genesis 3:16 Its suppose to be. Genesis 3:16 "To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in child bearing; with pain you will give birth to children..." I don't think I really need to add any more to that.
In the rest of that paragraph you list lots of other flaws in the human body. You seem like a pretty smart guy, and you seem to know a lot about the human body, which I respect. But I have to say that these in no way disprove Intelligent Design. If our bodies weren't flawed then theoretically we could live forever. Which Intelligent Design doesn't want.
One last quote: "Evolution makes mistakes, it cannot create a perfect creature, and the fact that this is the case means it is working far more than an unseen God." What I have said above Pretty much already clears up how I feel about this, but I just wanted to pick at the end of this statement. "Means it is working far more than an unseen God." I'm assuming that your implying that evolution is the something that is "far more than an unseen God." But I'm having trouble figuring out why you think that just because something is flawed means that God didn't create it? Has it ever occurred to you that God could have set up processes to happen to create diversity, and with diversity some flaws?
With all this said, I would just like to say that I believe that this argument should be held with out bias to your opinion on Evolution vs. Intelligent Design. Because there is more than one belief and even if you think that evolution is fact, not every one does, and your opinion shouldn't be forced on people in public schools. The argument should be held as if Evolution and Intelligent Design are both equal theories.
And if you took out all your arguments that you based on "Evolution being Fact" then you wouldn't have any arguments on page that you created. Remember that you named this forum "Intelligent Design out of public schools" not "Evolution is fact and Intelligent Design is myth".
With that said, I think your are a very Intelligent person and I am looking forward to seeing a reply from you. But this time please make an argument about why it shouldn't be in public schools keeping in mind that both theories are illegitimate theories, even tho I disagree with evolution, and you disagree with Intelligent Design. That way I can reply to what the topic is about rather than about whether Evolution or Intelligent Design is fact or not.
You are quite correct that the original Darwinian Evolution theory was not right, and that scientists are still modifying the theory to make it the true explanation of the natural world is also the case. But evolution can be tested and can be made more correct with new data, which cannot be said for the Biblical account of creation.
That being said, I will respond to your insistence that I discuss why evolution should be out of public schools. Public schools get their funding from the government, and this nation has as one of its founding protocols that the state and church(es) shall be separate. If a school receives no federal or state funding, then yes, it should be free to teach whatever curriculum it wishes, but if it receives a portion of the taxes I pay, then it shall not advocate a religious theory about the diversity of life, as that would favor a religion (and even if every religious group's ideas were taught, that would be the government advocating the teaching of religion in general). Evolution may not be correct absolutely, but it is the favored theory by the vast majority of scientists, and by being labeled as a "theory" it means that although absolute proof to its accuracy is lacking, the available data does corroborate the idea.
This point is less arguable than the previous one, and I am sure someone will poke holes in it, but I will make it anyway. The teaching of evolution specifically, and the sciences in general, are necessary to ensure that America remains a great nation. Even now, our students score lower on standardized math and science tests than students in other nations; the other nations that also have a higher percent of students go into math, engineering, and hard sciences fields than we do. This century will be one of trials for America and the world, we have a great number of problems to deal with as a species, and as a nation, only continued leadership in the sciences will keep us ahead of the rest of the world in technology, standard of living, etc. When we must come up with solutions to the difficulties that we shall face, I would much rather have people who have learned about the sciences and can solve the problem with that knowledge and exposure than those who believe God did everything whom I believe would be less qualified to find solutions. Here's a YouTube for amusement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdocQHsPCNM
Public schools get there money from tax payers to be more specific. The majority of the people, being the taxpayers believe in Intelligent Design. With that said, from 1st to 12th grade, I actually graduated early, but I'm pretty sure we shouldn't have gone over it any more anyway. We only spent about 1 hour on Intelligent Design, and it was just a video, which basically disproved evolution point by point. (This was a few years ago, and the video was even older so, I'm not sure if the points still stand) But the point is that we don't spend enough time on it to make us any less educated on any thing else.
As for the standardized tests, In America, we teach everyone, the rich, the poor, the people that care, and the people that don't care. Which can't be said for some other countries. I don't see what math, engineering and other hard science fields have to do with teaching a little bit of intelligent design, in the same class as you learn about evolution. Learning more than one theory never hurts anyone.
Now to address your second, "less arguable point". I agree that this century will be one of trails for America and the world, But I don't think that studying evolution is going to help the nation. Learning about Biology, Chemistry, and studying Medicine, is what will make our standards of living better and what will create better technologies. Not studying a little bit more evolution instead of Intelligent Design. The next revolutionary technology, or revolutionary medicine, could just as easily come from someone who believes in Intelligent Design as opposed to evolution. I don't understand how believing that two amino acids fused together to form a unicellular organism,(or what ever the theory is, it changes from time to time so I don't try to keep up with it) would make someone a better doctor than someone that believes God put us on this earth. Both of the people will still understand the human body just the same.
I thought the YouTube video was pretty funny and quite fitting.
kx250f says:
Evolution is no where near perfect, there are many flaws in evolution. And scientists disprove evolution everyday. Saying that "Evolution is the most correct theory around." is just your opinion, it's an opinion shared by many people, But its still just an opinion. So I see no reason in just teaching one sides opinion. Whats wrong with teaching both? Other than evolution being much easier to disprove. Another quote I would like to address is this one: "The female pelvis, having not been designed for both walking upright and giving birth, made childbirth the most dangerous for human females of all the mammals before modern medicine made up for the problem." Just to be sure that I'm not taking this out of contexts, here you were talking about the flaws in the human body saying that because of these flaws there couldn't be Intelligent Design. "
Huh? Evolution is one of the best supports facts in science. And to suggest it might be wrong is about as absurd as saying the world might be flat. I do not want kids being taught such absurdities. But still, constitutionally it's up to the states.
And well that thing about the female pelvis, does attack the 'intelligent' part in Intelligent Design. That is the point of that argument, it seemed to have escaped you.
Also note the foundation of modern biology is evolution. An understanding of it definitely benefits people in medicine and biology. Especially when it comes to genetic matters. To not be aware of evolution in these fields is like trying to study american history, without having any background on the revolutionary and civil war, and just starting from the 20th century.
Yes, funds do come from the taxpayers, but since they don't write checks directly to their local school district and it does pass through the hands of the government, then the funding cannot be spent on the teaching of a religious belief, especially in the context of a science class. Evolution is still extremely well-supported, whereas the support of ID comes from making pinpricks at the theory and suggesting that life is too complicated, but neither of these is proof for that idea. I say "idea" because I will not use the term "theory" for ID, which would lift it to the level of the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of General Relativity, and the Theory of Evolution.
Teaching more ideas does add to the education a person receives, but they must be appropriate ones. We learn about Lamarck's idea of use-and-disuse because it was a competing theory that was disproved scientifically. Learning an idea like ID is dangerous because it is an unproven and unprovable farce, and impressionable children should not be exposed to it as a legitimate explanation for life on earth.
As for the doctors; a person who understands how life works and came to be down to the level of the amino acids, the triglycerides, phospolipid bilayers, and nucleic acids will be a better and more knowledgeable person on the issues of the human body than someone who doesn't understand how all that works and came to be because they think everything just showed up a few days after God said "let there be light". On medicine, during the reign of Charlemagne during the 9th century, something like 12 to 16 percent of women who died did so during childbirth, showing the poor design that modern medicine has luckily fixed in developed countries at least.
Before I reply to this, I would like everyone who agrees with evolution to post what they were taught the first organism was which developed into other species was, what kingdom was it supposedly. How did it develop? Second, what have you been taught regarding the ancestry of man? Third, how long is 500,000,000 years... do you realize how long it is, or does it just "blur" and fall into the "long time" category? Or 1.4 billion years... 1,400,000,000 years? This is more of a poll, I'll leave it up a week, and when the time is up, I will post the different results for what you have been taught. If you are wondering, I truly believe in Intelligent Design, but I have been educated in school about evolution. My teacher is a biologist, but she doesn't even believe it, yet she has to teach it. Also, many of you whoa agree with evolution are very quick to try to disprove intelligent design, when in fact, there is much more evidence of it, and it's proof is much more complete that evolution. Evolution has many "unexplained phenomena"... too many.
Anyways, please answer the 3 questions, and if you believe in Intelligent design, please cast in a vote for it as well. Thank y'all very much ;)
-Hondamx21
I don't really understand how something can be diproven due to the fact that a layperson does not fully understand the scope of the theory, or is intimidated by the scope of the years.
Secondly, ID is a religious idea not a scientific theory. It does have a valid place in a philosophy or sociology class but not in the scientific classroom. Darwin's theory and others that preceded it are scientific because they are based in science and not tradition. When a scientific argument arises there are studies and facts that can be brought to counter other theory's claims. It is pointless to scientifically argue against the Bible because it is just a tool to teach religious idealology. If I am wrong right now, please bring this to my attention and I will be happy to listen to the arguments.
Finally, America has an obligation to teach all of our young citizens and keep them competitive with the rest of the world. Wasting time with religion in the science classroom is just that, a waste. If people want to learn ID there are churches and other classes to learn in. In my opinion, religion has no place in the scientific classroom.
Hondamx21 says:
"Before I reply to this, I would like everyone who agrees with evolution to post what they were taught the *first* organism was which developed into other species was, what kingdom was it supposedly. How did it develop? Second, what have you been taught regarding the ancestry of man? Third, how long is 500,000,000 years... do you realize how long it is, or does it just "blur" and fall into the "long time" category? Or 1.4 billion years... 1,400,000,000 years? This is more of a poll, I'll leave it up a week, and when the time is up, I will post the different results for what you have been taught. If you are wondering, I truly believe in Intelligent Design, but I have been educated in school about evolution. My teacher is a biologist, but she doesn't even believe it, yet she has to teach it. Also, many of you whoa agree with evolution are very quick to try to disprove intelligent design, when in fact, there is much more evidence of it, and it's proof is much more complete that evolution. Evolution has many "unexplained phenomena"... too many. Anyways, please answer the 3 questions, and if you believe in Intelligent design, please cast in a vote for it as well. Thank y'all very much ;) -Hondamx21"
in a nutshell.....
All of life evolved from a simple cell organism which were created from the combination of our atmosphere and lightening (an experiment that has been successfully replicated and proven to be true) these early life forms inhabited the water evolved into fish, the fish into amphibians, the amphibians into land reptilian which some would learn the new trick of live birth creating the first mammals which would later give the rise to primates and so forth. The man from monkey idea is not completely true, we resemble apes more. Religious fanatics like to say they aren't made from either, which is also sort of true. We aren't made from the current forms of either, instead our evolutionary line comes from a common ancestor, which gave rise to both early man and early ape and both adapted into their current forms independently of each other all this is a great length of time. In this time line a man could stretch his arms as far as he could and the existance of man could be represented by the width of a hair at the end of one hand.
did i pass?
as for all the "unexplained phenomena" evolution has a very reasonable explanation for this, chance. All organism live on the will of its environment, nature lacks a conscience. when you combine that with the variation within a species (brown hair, green eyes, height, metabolism) over time you get Evolution.
Intelligent design may have its answers but it is still a theory in early development unable to completely explain or to be understood. If you are looking to prove Gods existence and the eventual afterlife one would better be suited in pursing spirits, the science behind it has often been very weak which could only be described as pure skepticism, yet many have seen forms felt their touch heard their voices.
