Should Intelligent Design Be Taught In School?
69
We teach children theories about how the universe came into existence. These theories are allowed just as long as those cosmological models do not have an intelligence behind them. Why the bias?
Has the universe always existed? I don't think the universe has always existed, nor has an endless cycle of universes existed.
Human reason would question:how long "always" was, until this point in time. We would be forever waiting for now to arrive.
If the universe had a beginning it is portrayed as an uncaused cause on a galactic scale, even a mind boggling universal scale.
Einstein said " we have all been fooled " there is no matter, just energy. As he reasoned this, I can't help but consider the billions of other human beings with self-awareness pondering these same things. Very organized energy has awoke to self awareness and are taught that this is just a probability due to expanse of odds.
I don't think so.
I think it should be allowed that children be encouraged to think outside the secular "box", thought and opinions in today's school.
God stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing .-Job
This is accurate, The Bible also tells us that the stars are as the sand an innumerable. Scientists at the time believed there were 3000.
Many top physicists today and in times past have marveled at the laws of the universe . Why do these laws exist? Why does the universe seem fine-tuned for existence ? Some have said that the universe looks as though it was expecting mankind.
For over 40 years the piltdown hoax was taught in public schools, evidence at the monkey trials presented by Darrow was nothing more than a hoax. Recapitulation theory was taught in public schools for 150 years, a basically worthless discredited theory.
Much of the debate is centered around a literal and often personal interpretation of Genesis. That God had created everything and every animal in 6 days. Lets take a look at that :And God said: Let the waters bring forth. And God said: Let the earth bring forth. Abiogenesis: The study of life from non-life
Should Intelligent Design be offered in some form in Public Schools at least elective?
See results without votingMost of the original colleges in America were founded by organized religion, namely Christianity. As well as the one-room school houses that were originally Churches. More than likely your ancestors were taught how to read and write in these one room Church/schools.
Later, this property was usually donated to public school systems.
Where was the separation of Church and state then?
Shouldn't public schools give this property back or at least acknowledge the debt that the citizens of the United States owe, for their very literacy?
But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.
~albert einstein
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (3)
- Funny (2)
- Awesome (2)
- Beautiful (2)
- Interesting
CommentsLoading...
Intelligent Design should be taught in schools.
Most of the universities owe their beginnings also to Christianity, e.g. Harvard, Yale, etc.
Why are the universities not speaking up in protest against those who would like to ban prayer and taking out words like "IN GOD WE TRUST." America was built up by the pilgram fathers and became the greatest nation on earth. What happens now? That America has fallen down in so many areas? Wake up America!
Exactly Einron , most of the original colleges were founded by Christians and no one want to acknowlege this fact , as well as most hopsitals .
this was very interesting i really enjoyed this hub thx for sharing your thought.
I believe it should be taught to our children. I don’t find it any more ridicules than Darwin’s theories’s that we all evolved. The balance in nature and in the universe is too perfect to have happened by chance. On the other side I think the fundamentalists that want to say the earth was created in seven days are shooting themselves in the foot. On which one of the seven days were the dinosaurs created. We have the fossils to prove their existence. They want to take the Genesis account to mean a literal seven days. Do a little research first. The bible says a day to the Lord is as a thousand years. The day of judgment in revelations is described as a thousand years. There is no reason science and intelligent design theories can not coexist.
Imagine the outrage if the discussion were, should Wicca be taught in school? The answer would be no.
Intelligent design is not science, not even science fiction.
Children have a hard enough time understanding was is real and what is not. We put up with silly notions like the Tooth fairy, Santa Clause, the Great Pumpkin, but we wouldn't teach that stuff in school as science. Nor should we teach ID in school as science either.
An intelligent designer is a potential cosmological model. Conversely ,alluding to : Tooth fairies , Santa Clause {sic ,The great pumpkin are disingenuous, sophomoric arguments.
of course intelligent design should be taught in school. it is one of the most widely believed theories of how man came to be. evolution is also a theory and a non fool proof one at that. children should be taught both sides so they can come to their own conclusion and learn how to reason through a difficult issue in which the real answer is unknown.
Intelligent design remains a doctrinal issue...do we teach science in church? The reason for separation of church and state is not a mystery--this separation allows people to teach their children as they wish--and to continue with the rights of equality for all humankind at the state level.
When religion gets mixed up with politics and vice versa we cause issues of totalitarianism. These are important isms to avoid in government.
Politicians have enough trouble staying above board without religion taking over.
In our school systems, is it not wiser to teach that a child may learn without having to filter everything through the lens of religion?
Freedom of religion is a democratic right--let's not bog down our schools with issues that a child can deal with as he or she matures. There is enough illiteracy on this planet without having to worry where to teach the earth's genesis.
Thanks Rand. Intelligent Design is a cosmological model. Why is secularism afraid of theory?
I think Intelligent Design should be allowed to be taught in schools as at least one of many options for "origins". Nothing else scientifically or in any other way compares to making the most logical sense as intelligent design does. Nothing else even suggested has been shown to be able to achieve what we do know and see all around us and in history and in mankind. Great hub.
Its odd that scientists are open minded to so many cosmological models, but become amazingly biased if someone proposes an Intelligent Cosmological Model.
I have observed that as well. Sometimes I think it may be that they are allowing their held materialistic worldview to dictate what is even "allowed to be possible". That doesn't make sense.
I think the first thing anyone should hear is the truth after that it's up to themselves if they want to believe it or not that is why God give us the holy bible God cannot lie so people should be taught his way. If they aren't happy with it I'm sure they will be using google to find out the alternative and the lie that is evolution.
I find it incredible that in 2012 people still don't accept evolution. Why don't you take a step back a pick an easier fight. Evolution is obvious, just look at molecular evidence, no need to debate fossils or the age of the earth, it's all right there in the code. So say God created the first life form or God created the Universe and had the outcome all planned out or whatever, but please stop making yourselves look like the idiots that forced Galileo to confess that indeed the earth is at the center of the solar system.
I think you are confusing ID with creationism HSAdvocate. Scientists are allowed to speculate and come up with all sorts of "cosmological theories ie "this topic" without any; or any hope for that matter, of empirical evidence- "just as long as it is not intelligent". That is censorship with an agenda.
It is you that is confused if you are trying to jump through logic hoops to distinguish ID from creationism. It is well known that ID was an attempt by religious fundimentalists to push creationism into a secular curriculum. You are a kidding yourself if you think otherwise. ID is not a competing theory because the mechanism is supernatural (life is so complex a something supernatural must have created it). Science doesn't do the supernatural because it can't be observed, tested, modeled, or anything else that science does. But hey let's go with it life is so complex something had to design it, so what designed the designer, cause he must be really complex... You sound intelligent so please don't tell me with a straight face that you don't see the logical fallacy there.
So you can only debate a strawman? Because someone may or may not have used ID as a way to promote creationism, that is the only way you can view a hypothetical intelligence behind reality? You keep trying to compare ID with evolution, but not really because you have to change ID into a strict personal interpretation of Genesis, then compare that to evolution.
That is not the case of this article which you obviously have not read. Scientists have many theories, hypotheticals and speculations that will probably never have empirical evidence eg multiverse, cyclic universes.
So your claim that scientists do not do that is invalid. (that scientists only have hypotheticals that can show empirical evidence)Your strawman argument of false comparison or analogy that ID can ONLY mean creationism is denied for the dishonesty it is shown to be.
Your argument of irreducible complexity is incompatible with a cosmological rebuttal.
HSAdvocate wrote -just look at molecular evidence, no need to debate fossils or the age of the earth, it's all right there in the code.
Evidence and codes? Interesting that we have evidence, have the ability to discern and evaluate evidence and understand there is "codes" in a reality that denies intelligence out of hand.
You've made it clear that you have no idea what I'm talking about. Actually the molecular evidence makes "intelligent design" look silly because the designer would not be very intelligent due to the fact that much of the code is useless relics of our evolutionary past. But I'm sure all you've done is read books that reinforce your rediculous (il)logic. Again, stop doing mental gymnastics trying to cast doubt on evolution... It happened, get over it, it doesnt mean there is not a God it just means you don't really understand how he works. Move your energy areas like theoretical physics where you can make up anything you want and god can operate at the quantum level. Then at least I can respect your arguments.
You Phoenix are the one who is being dishonest... To yourself. You are the worst type of zealot not because you are too ignorant to understand the folly of your logic, but because you are so intelligent you are able to twist yourself up in logical fallacy effectively blinding yourself to the obvious. I have read your article and it is mostly nonsense wrapped in articulate and convincing language. In one breath you say ID should be treated like any secular theory lacking empirical evidence and in the next you argue it should be taught because many public institution were donated by the church... Again I urge you to pick your battles more wisely.
No one is casting doubts on evolution or attempting to do so.
You wrote: designer would not be very intelligent due to the fact that much of the code is useless relics of our evolutionary past.
Me: You can show an experiment of this in the same time frames? You can reproduce the results? No you cannot. You take it for granted that you can show proof, yet you cannot. That is very unscientific. You claim- relics of our evolutionary past" as if you can actually show that.
All you have brought so far is strawmen and insults and bunches of irrational emotion HSAdvocate.
HSAdvocate:look like the idiots
HSAdvocate: worst type of zealot
HSAdvocate:you are too ignorant
Just another emotion driven atheist are you?
If you will grow up I will debate with you if you like.
HS Advocate, going back to your first post, why do you think this author doesn't accept evolution? You are quick to put people down, but I don't see where you are coming from in making sweeping assumptions without giving reasons.
I am confused as to where you are even coming from, when you say things like, "please stop making yourselves look like the idiots that forced Galileo to confess that indeed the earth is at the center of the solar system."
How about you take a step back, and point out a particular point that you take issue with in the article, and lay off the ad homs? That would be a lot better discussion perhaps, don't you think? Otherwise, things get so far off base, you miss the original point. How about giving a point why you think ID (What it actually is, not dressing it up as something else you rule out, like creationism, or the the creation story..), makes LESS sense than a non intelligence being able to be the cause for the effect we see?
Like here is a good point we can discuss, why does it make more sense that a non intelligence is responsible for the origins of our universe, over non intelligence being responsible? We can discuss also, why one would think so, when the highest intelligence we know of today, can't begin to duplicate what we see, even when we have everything in place, and can create conditions, give it time, etc. I would like to hear your intelligent, scientific, or at least reasonable logical response to these ideas, as you are taking the opposing side to ID being possible for what we see. Thanks in advance.
HS Advocate, What is your proof that all of reality is not intelligently designed, if you indeed believe that to be true? Since you are taking the stance against this author, I wanted to ask that specifically. Thanks.
What is your position HSAdvocate?
1.How did reality come about and produce dna and then intelligent beings like humans?
2.Show empirical proof of your position.
We are talking about drastically different things and conflating the arguments. Here is where I stand...
Science cannot "prove" anything, that's not how it works. Science merely provides evidence to support a position.
Like a murder without a witness.
Evolution = species on earth changing over time beginning from one common ancestor and giving us all the different forms we see today.(supported by overwhelming amounts of data, but not "provable")
Intelligent Design = Life was designed by God in all it's current forms and change doesn't happen. (not supported by any data)
Abogenesis = life from non-life. Science is admittedly very weak in this area and I have no problems with people mixing in God at this point in the debate.
Big Bang = the moment existence, time, reality, energy, matter, and the universe came into existence. I have no idea why and I have no problems bringing up the possibility of God's involvement.
My big issue with saying there has to be a creator cause it had to come from somewhere, is why doesn't the creator have to come from somewhere. Why is it ok to say God has always been there. Been where? Outside the universe, well what is that place like and who created it?
Also you take me out of context in terms of insulting you. My comments were saying how smart you were but you weren't adhering to the logic you were using.
Also zealot = A fanatically committed person. You started a hub about the topic so I am not that far off. I am a zealot for homeschooling we all have our causes. I was trying to point out that when so committed you ignore evidence to the contrary. Look up "cognitive dissonance"
Intelligent Design = Life was designed by God in all it's current forms and change doesn't happen. (not supported by any data)
Your opinion and belief of what ID is, is not fact. You "choose" to debate an ID that says: change doesn't happen.
Leave the insults behind and I wont "take them out of context". Correct?
Now- Is there or isnt there a bias against an Intelligence in regards to an overall cosmological model?
I have to assume your position is that all of reality is "self existing" and that furthermore and in an argument of linear fashion "this self existing reality not only produced material that could logically produce patterns within the material, it also produced biological systems that would eventually produce very sophisticated things like "instinct". It is one thing to believe that water turns to snow in the atmosphere, it builds up into snow banks or drifts caused by the wind, and the sun comes out and melts or evaporates the snow and cycle repeats. It is quite another to explain inexplicably things like instinct and self awareness etc. but all this is besides the point.
here is the point:
Your wrote: Like a murder without a witness.
What if I were tell you that you had to go to this scene and "for a fact" say it only had to be a death from natural causes.
Do you understand the bias?
Science should be objective, not predisposed to orthodoxy.
HSAdvocate, This is getting rather interesting, and I like your fairness to the idea of a God being brought in at some point, like the big bang, or abiogenesis. You said you have no problem with people mixing in God at this point, and thus it confuses me your responses to the question of this hub. It seems that maybe you aren't as against what ID actually is or means after all perhaps.
We have to be careful as there are a lot of people that talk about ID in all kinds of negative ways which turn out to be assertions and opinions and redefining of what it is (which isn't helpful at all).
For instance, I take issue with your definition of ID, as that isn't a correct definition of it, where things don't change or stay the same. No one can deny the evolution we see in the world. I sure don't. Evolution indeed happens, and is kind of a different topic almost from ID really. ID (as well as creationism) DOES address the topic of origins where evolution can't weigh in on origins. It addresses (true or false) what could be the explanation of the big bang. It is fair to say that something like a God could have done such a thing and you seem to have no problem with it.
The next points are very fair, but can kind of be answered in what kind of being would it have to be to account for all we see... It would have to be (among other things) outside of our time-space continuum, just for starters. The creator suggested by many would fit the bill ironically (true or false), as God is a non created creator, eternal in nature among many other things. The being would have to be intelligent and personal, etc.
The question of why do people say God has always been there may not have a satisfying answer to people. Why is he outside the universe, and who created that place? It might be more like asking where "isn't" this being..perhaps?
This gets into the bigger questions, but which ought to be pondered and matter. Again, the ironic thing is, that as uneducated as atheists want theists to be, the idea of a God would actually fit the description of just the being needed to cause what we know for sure IS real and observable. Not much else does. Also, it makes sense that if there is such a being, and that if there were a true seeker of truth, they could be in a sense led back to said being, by following science which is also after truth.
My observation is, that what gets in the way are presuppositions about what is even allowed and not allowed to be on the table for discussion. Which by the way, isn't good science. I mean, ruling things out in advance, rather than allowing the science to lead where it may.
As for ignoring evidence to the contrary, and cognitive dissonance, I haven't seen the author do any of that, but if you care to point out how that would be good to do.
Great and interesting hub!
Additionally, many people don't discuss this much nowadays, but Descartes thought God made our universe and then left it alone; furthermore, he also thought that universes can evolve by themselves after God started them (one of the original concepts of evolution, just that Descartes twisted the whole thing around so as not to intimidate the church in his day...). ...point being, Darwin got some of his ideas from this Cartesian model. However, if universes can create themselves (zillions of miles away) then why is it that life form only exists on earth? Pretty intelligent for something so unintelligent....
Great hub
John
You: Your opinion and belief of what ID is, is not fact. You "choose" to debate an ID that says: change doesn't happen.
Me: That is not my opinion it is the opinion of the Discovery Institute that coined the term. If you want to use the term in the title of the article I think we should agree on using the generally accepted definition which includes irreducible complexity and specified complexity, not just your narrow interpretation of its meaning.
What you actually want to debate and therefore should consider changing your title is, should the scientific community as a institution allow supernatural explanations to compete with methodological naturalism?
The problem there is that proponents of even the most wild theories in physics hope that one day an experiment will provide empirical evidence in support of their hypothesis, whereas a supernatural phenomenon can never be analysed empirically. So under the current consensus it is just NOT science. Which is also why a judge concluded that it violates the establishment clause and should not be taught in schools.
The fact that schools used to be churches is irrelevant.
The fact that the scientific community has been duped by a fraud is irrelevant.
The fact that science has taught incorrect theories IS relevant because when the facts change scientific theory changes with it.
The only way I can "prove" to you that the sun is at the center of our solar system is to fly you millions of miles above it so you can see it for yourself. But we have lots of evidence based on the fact that we can predict the motion of the planets that gives us enough to accept it as fact.
Your definition of intelligent design belongs in a philosophy class during a debate of existence and reality not in a science class.
This is the definition suggested by the discovery institute:
certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Note the language- certain features of the universe"..."are best explained by an intelligent cause- not an undirected process-
Now look at your "versions- which have been many- ID is really creationism- ID really means Life was designed by God in all it's current forms and change doesn't happen.
You want to define it specifically to biological systems that do not change as compared to evolution.
Your definition belongs on a comedians stage not in this debate
That is not even remotely accurate, because I doubt that the discovery institute would say "nothing changes"
Your definition does not line up with their definition.
Here is another definition:
The theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.
Another:
the theory that the universe and living things were designed and created by the purposeful action of an intelligent agent.
Another:
The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes.
Another:
the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence
The definition that can be inferred for this discussion from my previous posts and from the article itself is thus - Is our reality the product of an intelligence?
HSAdvocate-The problem there is that proponents of even the most wild theories in physics """""hope""""" that one day an experiment will provide empirical evidence.
I think if you continue, you will refute yourself and make all my points while I sit back and watch. Thanks. Hope sounds very scientific and valid, please continue.
HSAdvocate-NOT science. Which is also why a judge concluded that it violates the establishment clause and should not be taught in schools.
I agree, "judges" should decide what is science, what is not science and what theories should be "hoped for" in the future"- because judges are qualified in physics and science and are neutral in an agenda to disqualify a theory in favor of an agenda of bias.-sarcasm
HSAdvocate:The fact that schools used to be churches is irrelevant.
Well then they will have no problem returning the property. When can the churches expect that property?
The fact that the scientific community has been duped by a fraud is irrelevant.
Recapitulation theory wasnt a fraud, it was just a really bad theory that got taught anyway for years. But it took an unbiased arena to figure that out.
Piltdown was a hoax. And not only was the scientific community and everyone else duped, so was the JUDGE. Isn't it surprising that a judge was duped by a hoax? Judges are experts in these fields I thought?
HSAdvocate The fact that science has taught incorrect theories IS relevant because when the facts change scientific theory changes with it.
Once again I think if you continue, you will refute yourself and make all my points while I sit back and watch. Thanks.
With information we can infer the sun is the center of our solar system.
With enough information we could possibly infer that cyclic or multiverse exist or happen. Empirically prove? maybe, maybe not.
So, information is available. The ability to discern and calculate that information is here. To draw conclusions based on that discerned and calculated information is in fact done. Because of "just these abilities and things stated above" is it best explained by intelligence or "it just happens". Well nothing just happens because reality seems deterministic. "it just happens" is a lazy,unintelligent and too faith based approach to an alternative theory to explain- a universe that contains information that can be discerned and calculated and reflected upon by biological systems capable of that reasoning.
You are awesome at removing context. Good luck.
Speaking of Judges deciding on ID, can you imagine if we told that same Judge that when deciding court cases involving dead bodies that he could only hear testimony if the testimony was "only that it had to be a death by natural causes". That he would not be allowed to hear ANY testimony other than it HAD TO BE natural causes. Good luck with you as well.
debrakcarey 3 years ago
Of course ID should be taught...children deserve to be thought HOW to think a thing through. Not taught to accept what anyone tells them just because they are in charge! Like you pointed out....many WRONG ideas were taught in the name of science...did those people (kids) get a chance to know or consider anything else? I think it is the height of conceit to think, in this day and age, that science knows everything. Look at how much, just in my lifetime, has been learned. My grandchildren, if given a chance, may know even more than we could comprehend! Great Blog Phoenix ( I almost typed KING...lol