• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Teaching Intelligent Design in public schools

Status
Not open for further replies.

Eor

Banned via Warnings
BRoomer
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Messages
9,963
Location
Bed
I like this topic.

If you're unaware, the controversy in this comes from schools only teaching the theory of Evolution. Some parents, who don't believe in evolution, find this to be dishonest and want "both sides of the debate" to be presented, meaning Intelligent Design. I'm leaving my own views out to try and get people to respond first
 

Zero Beat

Cognitive Scientist
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
3,924
Location
MIT Observatory
NNID
BLUE
3DS FC
4141-3279-8878
Aren't there already classes for this at church? Catechism if I remember correctly. You go to school to learn about things which will help you out in reality, not in the supernatural realm.

So to those in favor of teaching religion in school, what's the point if they provide the same service for FREE at a church?

I took four years of catechism, before I became an atheist. It was all done outside of school, in a church, where it belongs.:)

And no, there is no science in scriptures.
 

Lixivium

Smash Champion
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
2,689
Dover, PA was pretty much the Waterloo of the ID movement. Nowadays even the Texas school board repudiates them. There's really not much to discuss here.
 

Crimson King

I am become death
BRoomer
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
28,982
One could argue that since evolution as the creation of life is theoretical, and since Intelligent Design could be too, that they should be taught side-by-side. As it stands, if you go to schools based on religion, you will get creationism, with a minor side of evolution. If you go to public school, you just get evolution.

Really, though, Evolution isn't a theory, it's a fact, and ID isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis, so the argument doesn't work as much, but I can see the religious side of it.
 

Eor

Banned via Warnings
BRoomer
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Messages
9,963
Location
Bed
Fine, I'll debate.

The Theory of Evolution is not as concrete as it used to be, a lot of what Darwin thought was wrong, as he thought traits that'd be passed down could be created instead of only being inherited. Besides that, evolution is not the only way to view things, both sides should be taught to kids and they should be allowed to decide for themselves, anything else is dishonest.
 

|RK|

Smash Marketer
Moderator
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
4,033
Location
Maryland
Quite correct. Whereas you CAN get the religion side for free in a church, how many people are going to go to church? I thought so. In school, they learn about the evolution side and never experience the religion side. Which is indeed dishonest. However, I must note that the Bible DOES allow a lot of freedom to mix with science. According to my youth pastor, the Bible starts with the recreation of Earth. Remember, he tossed Satan from Heaven. This leaves room for a bunch of scientific theories. So the Bible CAN contain some science Zero.
 

Eor

Banned via Warnings
BRoomer
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Messages
9,963
Location
Bed
Quite correct. Whereas you CAN get the religion side for free in a church, how many people are going to go to church? I thought so.
If people don't go to church we shouldn't force it on them.

In school, they learn about the evolution side and never experience the religion side. Which is indeed dishonest.
No it's not. Religion is a personal matter, while evolution is nothing but science. It's no more dishonest then not presenting the "flat earth" theory when talking about how the earth is round.

However, I must note that the Bible DOES allow a lot of freedom to mix with science. According to my youth pastor, the Bible starts with the recreation of Earth. Remember, he tossed Satan from Heaven. This leaves room for a bunch of scientific theories. So the Bible CAN contain some science Zero.
Wait, what? How does that contain science?
 

Judge Judy

Smash Lord
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
1,638
Do you mean teaching Intelligent Design as an academic subject in public schools?
 

Eor

Banned via Warnings
BRoomer
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Messages
9,963
Location
Bed
???

If this not a blatant contradiction, please explain.
I'm trying to start the debate, I don't argue what I believe here, that's for the debate hall. I'm just here to try and help/improve people
 

INSANE CARZY GUY

Banned via Warnings
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,915
Location
Indianapolis
I think leting them see both sides is alright, but chances are they ,the person learning it, will try to mix both together. that's i tryed and i thought about it and to me they could work together
 

Faithkeeper

Smash Lord
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
1,653
Location
Indiana
I'm trying to start the debate, I don't argue what I believe here, that's for the debate hall. I'm just here to try and help/improve people
My apologies.


As stated by others, evolution is science, intelligent design is religion. Intelligent design includes the existence of some sort of god, which cannot be proven with the scientific method. As long as there is a separation of church and state, evolution (or the current leading scientific explanation, [which could potentially end up being intelligent design some day, who knows]) should be taught in public schools.
 

|RK|

Smash Marketer
Moderator
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
4,033
Location
Maryland
Ok, wait, nvm. Not teaching the other side isn't dishonest. There's so much other religions that could argue that as well. But what I said was it leaves ROOM for science. It isn't necessarily scientific, but it leaves room for it.
 

Palpi

Smash Hero
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
5,714
Location
Yardley, Pennsylvania
Darwin beleived in natural selection. Traits are not created, but because of random genetic changes. (If the seals with more blubber survived they would create offspring and over millions of years their traits will be passed down and eventually most/all seals would that blubber for warmth to survive and reprodude once more) Not only the strongest but the ones who live to create offspring survive. This process takes millions of years for significant change. Saying that evolution isn't as concrete as it has used to be is pretty bold in my opinion. Many people think that because the previous form that evolved shouldn't exist proves that evolution is a myth because gorillas exist. This is also wrong because we aren't directly evolved from gorillas. It is more like a tree of life because we came from hominids, which don't exist anymore, which branched off into primates.

Anways. I think church should teach design and school should teach evolution because of separation of church state the government willingly accepts evolution to be taugh in school, not intelligent design. This obviously is not applicable to religious private schools.
 

RDK

Smash Hero
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
6,390
I don't believe in gravity. I find this to be dishonest and want "both sides of the debate" to be presented, meaning Intelligent Falling.

Teach the controversy.
 

SkylerOcon

Tiny Dancer
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
5,216
Location
ATX
Intelligent Falling? What is this heresy?! Do you dare deny my belief that invisible hands hold us to the ground, despite my lack of actual proof?

For shame, RDK!
 

KrazyGlue

Smash Champion
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
2,302
Location
Northern Virginia
First of all, I don't think intelligent design should be taught ins public schools due to the need for separation of church and state (since it usually applies to teaching about the christian God).

Second of all, the evolution theory is no less accurate than some things that are in science classes, so I don't see any issue with the current system.
 

Lixivium

Smash Champion
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
2,689
There is no case to be made for teaching ID in schools. It has always been a thinly-veiled trojan horse to slip creationism in the the classroom. The Discovery Institute, the most well-known group supporting ID, even issued a memorandum that explained their mission to use ID as a "wedge" to undermine the teaching of evolution and eventually open the door for teaching outright creationism:

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

If anyone were to sit down and actually try to design a curriculum on ID, they'd quickly find that there is really nothing to teach other than often-debunked claims against evolution and outright lies. ID as a concept itself cannot be tested in any way, therefore it is precluded from being a scientific theory.

I used to follow this subject quite diligently. The ID proponents were making a lot more noise a couple of years ago in Kansas, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Now they're pretty much passe. But for anyone who is still interested in it, I recommend this blog:

www.pandasthumb.org
 

Palpi

Smash Hero
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
5,714
Location
Yardley, Pennsylvania
You are correct on nothing to teach. I also just think it is absurd to say that evolution is wrong (not directed to anyone*)it is almost 100% right. Look at anti-bacterial medicines and that is pretty much proof of evolution via natural seletion.
 
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,166
Location
I cant help it if I think your funny when your mad
Evolution is the physical changes through generations of organisms, I know this from A research paper I did a while back. After the book in 1859 by the name if "On the Origin of Species" people made evolution a big topic. Charles Darwin wrote the book, it stated "On the preservation of favoured (that is how he spelled it) races in the struggle for life." What this means to me is that life had no other choice but to adapt and evolve. This is a good topic for debate but I have little to say about it.

-KOTH
 

|RK|

Smash Marketer
Moderator
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
4,033
Location
Maryland
According to my youth pastor, the Bible starts with the recreation of Earth. Remember, he tossed Satan from Heaven. This leaves room for a bunch of scientific theories. So the Bible CAN contain some science Zero.
Wait, what? How does that contain science?
Oh, I'm sorry. I also noticed that the PG thought it was stupid as well. Not I said REcreation. That means that Earth wasn't created the first time that the Bible showed. This leaves room for the Big Bang Theory, Dinosaurs, etc. Simply because everything did not start as it said it did. While the Bible says "In the Beginning", according to many, there is a lot missing from the Bible's beginning. See? That also leaves the millions of years the Earth existed for, and remember, water was already just there in the beginning.
 

w!zard

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
153
ID cannot be taught in science classes because it isn't science. it's really that simple.
 

|RK|

Smash Marketer
Moderator
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
4,033
Location
Maryland
^Yeah, that. Really, it's simple enough now. When you're teaching science, you're teaching also teaching scientific theories. So, no, ID shouldn't be taught in schools. Okay, then.
 

Zero Beat

Cognitive Scientist
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
3,924
Location
MIT Observatory
NNID
BLUE
3DS FC
4141-3279-8878
Scientific theories contain FACTS. The word is best defined as a body of laws and facts. Scientific theories are FAR from being just guesses.

Here's a thorough explanation on the word theory when it is used by science. Don't discredit things you don't know about.

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Evolution_is_just_a_Theory

In case you don't actually click on it, here are a couple of the many definitions of the word theory when science uses it:
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. --- US National Academy of Sciences
"Theory" means a logical, tested, well-supported explanation for a great variety of facts. --- National Center for Science Education, USA
Scientific theories, like evolution and relativity and plate tectonics, are hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification. Scientific theories are therefore the best-substantiated statements that scientists can make to explain the organization and operation of the natural world. Thus, a scientific theory is not equal to a belief, a hunch, or an untested hypothesis. Our understanding of Earth's development over its 4.5 billion-year history and of life's gradual evolution has achieved the status of scientific theory. --- American Geophysical Union
Hopefully you're not much of an agnostic on scientific theories now.:)
 

|RK|

Smash Marketer
Moderator
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
4,033
Location
Maryland
This I already know. They don't become theories without testing and a lot of proof. It becomes a law when it is proven that it is something that always happens and is proven to be fact in itself.
 

Lixivium

Smash Champion
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
2,689
This I already know. They don't become theories without testing and a lot of proof. It becomes a law when it is proven that it is something that always happens and is proven to be fact in itself.
Not exactly, theories don't "become laws", they are separate things.

Laws are (a collection of ) descriptions of WHAT happens.

Theories are meant to explain HOW something happens, i.e., deeper underlying mechanisms.
 

|RK|

Smash Marketer
Moderator
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
4,033
Location
Maryland
Theories are:
"hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification." --- American Geophysical Union

I figure that laws are theories that have been proven to occur ALL THE TIME.

But this isn't a debate about that.
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
Evolution is the physical changes through generations of organisms, I know this from A research paper I did a while back. After the book in 1859 by the name if "On the Origin of Species" people made evolution a big topic. Charles Darwin wrote the book, it stated "On the preservation of favoured (that is how he spelled it) races in the struggle for life." What this means to me is that life had no other choice but to adapt and evolve. This is a good topic for debate but I have little to say about it.

-KOTH
You should avoid the passive voice when you post. You could also cut this post down a whole lot - not to mention you're not really arguing anything, just mainly saying some facts which aren't all that useful. However, here's a better take on your post:

editedversion said:
Evolution is the physical changes through generations of organisms. People made evolution a big topic after Charles Darwin's book On the Origin of Species (1859) was published. Quotes like: "On the preservation of favoured (sic) races in the struggle for life" mean that life had no other choice but to adapt and evolve.
Use (sic) for words you know have incorrect spelling.
 

Judge Judy

Smash Lord
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
1,638
Theories are:
"hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification." --- American Geophysical Union

I figure that laws are theories that have been proven to occur ALL THE TIME.

But this isn't a debate about that.
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral (sic), and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery
, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity
in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable and they do not follow the scientific method.


Wilson, Jerry. "Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories." Our Science Page. 28 April 2009 <http://www.wilstar.com/theories.htm>.


It is a lot to post, but these misconceptions really need to be cleared up.
 

|RK|

Smash Marketer
Moderator
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
4,033
Location
Maryland
Thank you for those.

But again, there are those Christians that believe in evolution (me and my family). Just not from an ancestoral species to man.

Even though, as I've explained, there is ample room for all of these scientific theories in the Bible, as I've earlier explained.
 

KrazyGlue

Smash Champion
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
2,302
Location
Northern Virginia
But you can't teach the bible in public schools; you have to have separation of church and state. We teach evolution in science classes because it is the current scientific perspective. It's really as simple as that. Whether or not intelligent design has evidence (which I don't believe it has) it can't be taught (at least from a religious perspective) because it's illegal to do so.
 

RDK

Smash Hero
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
6,390
Thank you for those.

But again, there are those Christians that believe in evolution (me and my family). Just not from an ancestoral species to man.
You cannot accept evolution while not accepting the evolutionary ancestry of man. It's impossible.

Either you take the theory as a whole, or you don't. There's no such thing as "microevolution" and "macroevolution".


Even though, as I've explained, there is ample room for all of these scientific theories in the Bible, as I've earlier explained.
Please elaborate.
 

KrazyGlue

Smash Champion
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
2,302
Location
Northern Virginia
Wait... everyone agrees on the topic, so what's the debate about?

Is it about whether evolution or intelligent design are correct? Because in that case this really can't be solved because it is a matter of religion.
 

|RK|

Smash Marketer
Moderator
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
4,033
Location
Maryland
You cannot accept evolution while not accepting the evolutionary ancestry of man. It's impossible.

Either you take the theory as a whole, or you don't. There's no such thing as "microevolution" and "macroevolution".




Please elaborate.
According to my youth pastor, the Bible starts with the recreation of Earth. That means that the Big Bang could've happened, Dinosaurs existed, etc. Remember that there WAS water there. Oh, and though we all know that the devil was tossed from Heaven, note that the Bible doesn't start with that, despite the fact it happened BEFOREHAND. In fact, even stretching it a bit, this also means that evolution could very well have happened. I know that it is HAPPENING, to man and to other animals, but, yeah...

See how much room that leaves when the Bible doesn't really start with the beginning?
 

RDK

Smash Hero
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
6,390
According to my youth pastor, the Bible starts with the recreation of Earth. That means that the Big Bang could've happened, Dinosaurs existed, etc. Remember that there WAS water there. Oh, and though we all know that the devil was tossed from Heaven, note that the Bible doesn't start with that, despite the fact it happened BEFOREHAND. In fact, even stretching it a bit, this also means that evolution could very well have happened. I know that it is HAPPENING, to man and to other animals, but, yeah...

See how much room that leaves when the Bible doesn't really start with the beginning?
...except for the part where it does start at the beginning?

IN THE BEGINNING
 

¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯

Smash Legend
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
12,115
Location
Chicago, IL
If you want to learn creationism, send them to church or a religious school.

If you want them to learn evolution, send them to a public school.

It isn't really that complicated honestly...
 

w!zard

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
153
creationism is not disprovable, so it can NEVER be a part of science. the only place where creationism possibly has a place in public schools is history.
 

BOB SAGET!

Smash Lord
Joined
Mar 26, 2009
Messages
1,125
Location
CANADA
well it depends really if ID should be taught at public schools. most kids who go to public schools arent Christian, so ID should be taught at Catholic schools and not public becuase there are many cultures in public schools and teaching hindu kids about the Christian God would be kind of awkward and unfare.
 

w!zard

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
153
i disagree that ID SHOULD be taught in catholic schools. it COULD be taught in them, but it should not be a required part of the curriculum

there isn't even anything to teach about ID. what most ID supporters do is teach the "invalidity" of evolution through logically flawed means.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom