Intelligent design has no place in science classrooms.

Post Reply New Topic

Intelligent design has no more place in the science classroom than the stork does in sex education class. Why do some people try to get intelligent design in the science classes? It doesn't belong.

who's saying it does? Schools here aren't teaching it.

Some people do try to get in the science class, though of course they always fail.

If intelligent design belongs anywhere, it would be in a philosophy class, not science.

What's wrong with it? And before you insult Christians, bear in mind that not all of them deny science.

Intelligent design isn't a scientific concept. What place does it have in a science class?

It's literally 'science can't explain everything, so a creator is required'.

Imagine if instead of just teaching germ theory they had to teach 'intelligent misfortune' alongside it.

Imagine if instead of just teaching gravity they had to teach 'intelligent falling' alongside it.

There is a difference between real science and science worship.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

The intelligent design theory is about as plausible as the flat Earth theory, while the other well-known explanation of how all this sophisticated stuff we call life came into existence is so highly plausible that it seems fairly safe to accept it as a fact until such time as something is discovered that seriously and demonstrably overturns it. I think a good place for intelligent design theory in schools would be as part of the study of critical thinking, propaganda, and scientific method.

The only people I know of who push for the teaching of intelligent design in schools are fundamentalist Christians in the USA. I guess it's one of those wacky "only in America" things. The Church of England sees no problem with evolution, and reckons that it's not the job of scripture to teach science or history. C of E is much more comfortable with allegory, metaphor, and symbols, and picks no fight with science as such.

American fundamentalists presumably feel threatened by whatever plausible scientific ideas they think run counter to their own rather far-fetched, rigid doctrines. They claim that scripture is completely and literally inerrant, so it's not surprising that they'll often try very hard to refute any discovery that implies a challenge to that claim, because if it's accepted that scripture is wrong about one thing, then it's reasonable to question anything else in that book. Me, I'm much more comfortable with good scientists who welcome sincere, intelligent questioning of their assertions.

As for "science worship," I think science is often worthy of praise, but I never met anybody who worshipped it. I think some religionists quietly twist the definition of worship to fit their argument that everybody worships something, because if they can get that argument to stick, they think it's a step towards persuading people to switch the object of their "worship" to Jesus, and they can make those who argue against worshipping look and feel like hypocrites. But I think their reasoning is faulty. Praise is acknowledging the good in something. Worship involves humbling oneself, giving out extreme flattery, and completely repressing any criticism. I can't imagine any deity worth worshipping who would actually want that from people.

Evolution is actually better understood by scientists than gravity, but not too many people object to gravity like they do evolution.

There are debates about evolution among scientists, but they are about how evolution occurs, not whether.

There were some episodes of Star Trek that touched on intelligent design. I think it's possible that some god like being coulda set life, evolution & other science in motion.

We need to teach the controversy, which is to say teach that Flying Spaghetti Monster using his noodly appendages to hold everything down is just as reasonable as this gravity theory, which is intended to undermine belief in FSM.

There are scientists/science teachers who believe in theistic evolution. The difference between theistic evolution and intelligent design is that theistic evolution does not deny evolution or any other accepted science.

It is neither Biblical nor Scientific.No need to insult Christians; by their behavior, most "Christians" would seem to be insulting themselves.

The fruit of the Holy Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.  Most "Christians" seem to be practicing sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery (e.g., Sexual exploitation by church leaders); idolatry (e.g., "Prosperity Gospel") and witchcraft (e.g., superstitious nonsense like "Angel Worship"); hatred (e.g., racism, sexism, and other prejudices), discord (e.g., sect leaders denouncing each other), jealousy, fits of rage (Seen Trump lately?), selfish ambition (Trump, again), dissensions, factions (thousands of "Christian" sects all over the world), and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.

Again, no need to insult "Christians", they're doing quite well in that department all by themselves.

Last edited by Fnord on 17 Mar 2024, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There's no reason one can't believe their creator god is guiding evolution at all points throughout time as the on-going act of creation.

They just can't assert it scientifically because it's not a testable hypothesis.