Intelligent Design in Schools

[anonshadow]

Should intelligent design be taught in school? Should it be taught alongside evolution in a science class? Should evolution be presented as more theoretical than it is in most classrooms today?

[mr_thebrain]

there are certain places for certain things. you go to church, or sunday school, you learn about the beliefs. the intelligent design bulljive.

you go to school, you should learn facts and figures. science. math. language. i know the big bang is a theory. and much of science is theories. but it's something that has to be taught. and if they are religious, they should already be getting more than enough of a belief structure brain washing to cover the intelligent design thing.

[Hegemon]

Intelligent design should not be taught at all in science courses. It should not even be mentioned, because it is not in any way a scientific theory. That does not make it incorrect, but it does make it totally different subject matter. However, evolution should be taught as a theory with a fair bit of supporting evidence, as opposed to concrete fact.

School is generally separate from religion (assuming you are not going to a public schoo), and it should remain that way. Even if religion is allowed into the school, then I am still not sure if ID should be taught because it does not encompass all religions.

[anonshadow]

School is generally separate from religion (assuming you are not going to a public schoo), and it should remain that way. Even if religion is allowed into the school, then I am still not sure if ID should be taught because it does not encompass all religions.

That's one of my issues, too--if we're teaching intelligent design as a theory when the evidence for it is deeply religiously influenced, why aren't we also teaching other religious theories that explain how the Earth (and we) came to be? I also tend to think that ID, if taught in schools, would go more toward Christian ID, or even Christian/Jewish/Muslim ID, instead of a more generalized concept that all religions that preach ID fall into.

Honestly? Whether or not ID is taught in schools (and I tend to think it shouldn't be), there are very few places it belongs in less than a science classroom. There is no scientific basis for the theory of ID. There is speculation, and even some element of logic, but when you come right down to it, a lot of it hinges on belief--and I think to justify a place in the science curriculum, you need more to go on than that, especially on a scientific level.

[lyons24000]

In the biology textbook that I was taught out of, it said, "There are two main theories as to human beings got here. One is that an intelligent, all-powerful being created us and the other is that we evolved. Since the Intelligent Design theory is not based on science we will not delve into it. We will stick to the more scientific subject of evolution. We are not trying to convince anyone that evolution is correct we are just teaching the theory."

Or something to that effect. And that's how I think it should be kept.

[Hegemon]

Then the bible should have a statement that points out that people think the world started with evolution.

[anonshadow]

I'm actually somewhat conflicted about whether it belongs in a biology textbook, period, but I suppose that's rather unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

[Hegemon]

Evolution is a biological theory, so it belongs in a science book. However, it should be given the proper disclaimer.

[anonshadow]

... yes, I'm aware that evolution is a biological theory. I was referring to the mention of intelligent design.

[Hegemon]

Oh..... I didn't get that... I just figured that it was so obviously out of place that you couldn't have been referring to it.

[anonshadow]

So you assume that I'm an idiot before assuming that I'm stating the obvious?

[Rei]

I tend to think that Intelligent Design, from the little I know if it, ought not to be taught in science classes. However, I think that evolution should be taught with a bit more emphasis upon the fact that it is a theory and that there are certain things that make life more difficult to originate and evolution to occur (for example, chirality). It is a valid theory, but it seems like too often it is treated, or at least taken by lay-people, as absolute fact and it would be good to do what we can to prevent a theory from being assumed to be fact.

[hive_king]

Should the same discretion be applied to EVERYTHING (including gravity) which is a theory?

[Rei]

I don't see why not. Different theories have different levels of support and arguments both for and against any given theory should be shown.

[hive_king]

How much evidence is needed, would you say, for something to be validated to be worthy of being presented in a class room. Should Intelligent Falling be taught? What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Where is the line?

[anonshadow]

I don't think that Rei is saying that Intelligent Design should be taught--in fact, I'm sure that he's saying that it shouldn't. I also don't think he's saying that things that have little or no evidence behind them should be put into the curriculum, only that both sides of a well-tested and well-trusted theory should be taught.

For example, instead of only teaching things that support evolution, we should also teach about scientific facts that raise questions. Or, instead of only teaching facts that support the dinosaurs being wiped out by an asteroid, we should also teach about issues that take some creditability away from the theory, as with the forming of the moon, the shifting of the continents, global warming, etc.

In other words--to offer a reasonably clear, scientific view of both sides of the equation.

Teaching about things that undermine our current theory of evolution does not necessitate teaching about ID or a creator.

(Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you, Rei.)

As far as how much evidence something needs before it becomes fact... scientifically, as far as I understand, at any rate, nothing is ever absolute fact, and nothing ever moves past being a theory. It can be a well-substantiated theory, and a well-researched one, but it can never be absolute fact. (If I am wrong, someone with a better scientific backing, please correct me.)

[vendor]

I agree with anon-.

I was frustrated in my human biology class when the instructor declared that evolution was 100% fact and truth and no other options could be possible. When the curriculum is so absolute, the students won't consider other options. They will be programmed to be close-minded.

[Slim]

I think it would be fine if they only taught evolution, I don't care if they don't want to mention other theories. But they should teach evolution as a theory -- the way some people teach it, evolution is a divine truth that to go against it is heresy.

That's what they always do with the Law of Thermodynamics. They say, "It may be a law, but if in the future, scientists learn something new, we may have to change it."

[lyons24000]

I think that ID should be mentioned as another belief (I will not allow myself to say "theory" so if anyone has a problem with that then substitute "belief" with "theory") but that it should not be expounded upon.

[anonshadow]

But what do beliefs have to do with science?

[Eaquae Legit]

I don't know where people get the impression that a high school science class is only about science. It's about teamwork, manners, punctuality, grammar, math... No high school class exists in a vaccuum.

I find it entirely appropriate to mention that there are alternate views on how life came about on Earth. It's not appropriate to include them in the curriculum, if they don't meet the observable evidence. But to silence them completely is out of line.

I'm talking here about the kind of mentioning like in lyons' textbook. Nothing more, save perhaps a redirect to the comparative religions class.

Evaluting and assessing alternative views is what science is all about. You can't do that if you don't at least mention the opposition. We dont know everything about macroevolution. When we present material to students, we have to be honest about it. Sure, evolution's the strongest contender, and I myself trust the evidence of it.

But if you're going to dismiss something as unscientific, like young-earth creationism, at least have the courtesy to name it.

***

Having said all that, why the heck is evolution in high school science class anyway? It's not like the students have the theoretical background to understand it. My high school science classes involved the structure of cells and how electricity works, and stuff of that sort. Chem involved learning about the mole, and physics about wave formation. Micro-topics, if you will, that are necessary for understanding something like evolution, a macro-topic that requires a solid foundation of the micro-topics before you can understand.

Stick evolution into an anthropology course or a history course (the only place I encountered it). Give a general overview, make a nod to other views, and go home at the end of the day to study why F = m*a.

[neo-dragon]

Well, as far as the current Ontario science curriculum goes, evolution is one of the units in the grade 12 bio university prep course, and I think it fits fine there. Browsing through the curriculum, I don't see the words "intelligent design" anywhere, nor did I expect to. Sure, we all know that school should be about learning more than just the course material, but guess what, according to the government of Ontario, it's not anymore! Did you know that teachers here can't (or at least aren't supposed to) even deduct marks for handing in an assignment late anymore? The rationale: we grade them on the knowledge and skills that the course content requires, not on other skills like being able meet deadlines. I'm going off on a tangent, but my point is that a non scientific concept really can't be included in the science curriculum, which means that the teacher can't really do more than give it a brief mention. Sure ID can be discussed if the teacher feels that it's appropriate (like if students raise the question) and keeps it in the proper context, but there's barely enough time in a semester to get through the material that needs to be taught.

That's the practical standpoint. As for my personal opinion, I think that ID may be worth discussing (as opposed to "teaching") in order to explain why it isn't a scientific theory and evolution is. The purpose of this is NOT to undermine the validity of ID, but to teach the kids something about the nature of science, which is relevant to learning science itself.

[Rei]

Elena,

That was basically what I was getting at. If something is still named as a theory, there is generally a reason for it and it would be fitting to address why it is still considered as such.

[wigginboy]

Right now, I go to a Catholic school, and have for a few years. I am upgrading my biology right now, and the unit we just started is about evolution. My teacher, who is a devout Catholic, says that he believes in evolution because the evidence is there. While he does believe that something or someone created the world, that something or someone set things in motion and left us alone to adapt to our environments and overcome our challenges. I somewhat agree with my teacher, because it makes sense. What makes sense is that it is quite possible that we could have been set here, and then left alone to our own devices (granted, I'm not just speaking of Humanity, but all life) to interact with the world as we see fit. In the time since life on Earth has existed, there is much evidence to suggest that we have interacted with our environment and we have adapted ourselves to it's changes and overcome the obstacles thrown at us.

[Boothby]

My kids' High School is about the stupidest designed school I've ever seen.

So much for Intelligent Design in Schools!

[the HiveQueen]

Having said all that, why the heck is evolution in high school science class anyway? It's not like the students have the theoretical background to understand it. My high school science classes involved the structure of cells and how electricity works, and stuff of that sort. Chem involved learning about the mole, and physics about wave formation. Micro-topics, if you will, that are necessary for understanding something like evolution, a macro-topic that requires a solid foundation of the micro-topics before you can understand.

Though I agree you must know the "microtopics" before you learn the "macrotopics", I took high school biology in seventh grade and felt completely ready to learn about evolution when I did. If you want an in depth understanding of evolution, as in, you're an actual scientist and you study it for a living, then yes, you're going to need more than a high school biology course to do so, but the general idea is definitely basic enough for high school students if I could understand it as a seventh grader.

Moreover, evolution absolutely should be taught in science classes. Most of us can agree that science is largely about finding our origins. Though studying the structure of atoms and the laws of motion is related to that, the idea of evolution is much easier for high school students to understand in terms of finding our origins than the specifics. One of the main reasons why science is taught in schools is so that children will grow up to become scientists and find cures for cancer or make great discoveries. Learning the structure of atoms might inspire some people to become great scientists, but ideas like evolution are much more effective if you ask me (and this is coming from a major science nerd, who happens to be extremely interested in the "microtopics" of science anyway).

People who think intelligent design ought not to be taught in schools might want to consider the benefits of mentioning the idea and discussing with the students what science really is, and then letting the class determine for itself whether or not the theory is actually science. However, ID shouldn't be found on a test or anything - it's just a great topic to discuss.

[eriador]

I think it would be fine if they only taught evolution, I don't care if they don't want to mention other theories. But they should teach evolution as a theory -- the way some people teach it, evolution is a divine truth that to go against it is heresy.

That's what they always do with the Law of Thermodynamics. They say, "It may be a law, but if in the future, scientists learn something new, we may have to change it."

Come on...

It's not called the theory of evolution for nothing. NOTHING in science is taught as divine truth. If anything, people should make churches mention evolution as a theory, because it's religious people who are presenting ID as divine truth, instead of as a theory. Yes, some science teachers do teach evolution without grounding their students in the idea of a theory, but that is more of a misunderstanding than teaching it as divine truth.

[liquifiedrainbows]

Should intelligent design be taught in school? Should it be taught alongside evolution in a science class? Should evolution be presented as more theoretical than it is in most classrooms today?

I think it would be interesting if a class in religion was offered in public education. This class would offer a purely subjective view to all religion so that children would know what each one was and be more understanding of the different types of people they would encounter. Offering this at a young age would help develop tolerance when it is still easy to reach young people. This class would be taught in middle schools.

[hive_king]

i agree with you mostly, liq, but the only problem I see is that some teachers would use it as a front to teach their religion. "this is true. This is what THEY believe, but it's wrong."

[zeroguy]

I think it would be interesting if a class in religion was offered in public education. This class would offer a purely subjective view to all religion so that children would know what each one was and be more understanding of the different types of people they would encounter. Offering this at a young age would help develop tolerance when it is still easy to reach young people. This class would be taught in middle schools.

Well, it does at least exist in high school (or at least in mine). It's an elective, but it still exists.

[anonshadow]

I think it would be interesting if a class in religion was offered in public education. This class would offer a purely subjective view to all religion so that children would know what each one was and be more understanding of the different types of people they would encounter. Offering this at a young age would help develop tolerance when it is still easy to reach young people. This class would be taught in middle schools.

Subjective, or objective?

As far as a religions class goes--I think it's a terrific idea. I don't know how viable it is, especially considering the wide range of religions and the amount of time kids have in school in the first place, but it's definitely something that could help breed tolerance.

I think it's also important to think about whether it would actually work, though--you would need a teacher well-versed in the religions in the first place to teach it, for example.

[Young Val]

i know this isn't saying much, but i have a pretty accute memory, and i don't ever remember being "taught" evolution in school. certainly not in high school or before. the first time i remember the subject being "taught" in any way is when it was mentioned in my college environmental bio class.

evolution was just one of those things i always "knew" about. i don't remember learning about it in class or in a book or anywhere. i just knew the theory the same way i knew about The Curse on the Boston Red Sox or the way i knew my own phone number. i'm sure i must have heard it SOMEWHERE. one isn't simply born knowing these things. but i don't remember being "taught" it in school at any level until, as i said, it was mentioned in college bio. not the way i remember being taught math, or how to read, or the states and capitols, or the difference between igneous and sedimentary rocks. i think it was just a prevalent belief in my commuity. i imagine that i just absorbed it the way we absorb a lot of the information around us.


i could be wrong. i could have learned it in school. but i remember most of my education pretty accurately, and from what i can recall of my personal education, evolution was assumed, but not "taught" in the way that people are saying it was.


i'm not saying that's right or wrong. but i also think it is relevant.

[neo-dragon]

i think it was just a prevelant belief in my commuity. i imagine that i just absorbed it the way we absorb a lot of the information around us.

That kind of "learning" leads to major misconceptions though. I'm not saying that this is true for you personally, but in my experience many people who were never formally taught about the theory of evolution end up believing misinformation, like the theory states that humans evolved from monkeys. I believe that the origin of life on Earth is a topic that every educated person should be able to discuss intelligently, no matter what their views happen to be. It's something that's important to everyone, not just scientists. That's why I think that the basics of evolution should be taught in high schools, so that people don't go out and learn about it on the streets, so to speak, and end up terribly misinformed.

[wigginboy]

i know this isn't saying much, but i have a pretty accute memory, and i don't ever remember being "taught" evolution in school. certainly not in high school or before. the first time i remember the subject being "taught" in any way is when it was mentioned in my college environmental bio class.

evolution was just one of those things i always "knew" about. i don't remember learning about it in class or in a book or anywhere. i just knew the theory the same way i knew about The Curse on the Boston Red Sox or the way i knew my own phone number. i'm sure i must have heard it SOMEWHERE. one isn't simply born knowing these things. but i don't remember being "taught" it in school at any level until, as i said, it was mentioned in college bio. not the way i remember being taught math, or how to read, or the states and capitols, or the difference between igneous and sedimentary rocks. i think it was just a prevalent belief in my commuity. i imagine that i just absorbed it the way we absorb a lot of the information around us.


i could be wrong. i could have learned it in school. but i remember most of my education pretty accurately, and from what i can recall of my personal education, evolution was assumed, but not "taught" in the way that people are saying it was.


i'm not saying that's right or wrong. but i also think it is relevant.

Given your geographic location, it might not be within your state's curriculum. I know we learn about evolution in the high school sophomore year Bio class in Alberta, here in Canada, but I also know that Alberta has one of the premier education systems in the world, so it might just be what your particular state teaches in Biology

[eriador]

I know that every time I've heard about evolution (at my religious high school) its been in the context of "this is what 'theory' means" and sometimes, the teacher also mentions that ID is not a theory. But yes, it is assumed we know the ideas behind evolution.