In America there is currently a debate being run past our oh-so-intelligent president and all it's citizens on the topic of whether or not the theory of evolution should be taught alongside with another theory, the theory of intelligent design, which from my point of view is just a very thinley-veiled excuse to allow creationism to be taught alongside a solid scientific theory. Intelligent design states that living creatures in the world are so perfectly made for what it is that they do that there is no way that some intelligent being did not have some hand in the creation process, that an unamed force had the intention of creation and basically built everything that was made on this planet. For example, the cheetah is perfectly built for speed, the orchid perfectly built for attracting a specific type of insect...The idea would be that this belief would be taught alongside the theory of evolution, which states that all living creatures alive today have evolved from some previous form of creature, and so on and so fourth going all the way back to the begining of life on earth.

Now, while I have no problems whatsoever with people beleiving whatever they beleive, this bothers me to no end. First of all, intelligent design is a belief, not a theory. Unlike a scientific theory, it cannot be tested. With beleifs you can only have the faith to beleive that some particular idea is true, while with a theory you can test for it's vailidity and use known facts to support it. While I'm not saying that this idea should not be taught, it definintley should not be taught in the science classroom. Social studies, or perhaps specifically a philosophy or comparative religion class would be far more apropriate, a class where children learn about other cultures and beleifs, where speculation and the supernatural have a place. While intelligent design is an interesting idea, no other concepts in science can build upon it. With evolution, you use it as a springboard from which you can understand the origin of life, the reason we classify living creatures the way we do, genetics and the like. Intelligent design leaves no such room for building theories, and furthermore does not support the theories taught in the classroom...reason enough for me to say it should not be treated as a concept of equal weight in this particular situation.

Yes...so what do you think?

Damn straight. My thought is that their (pro intelegent designers) their reason that it should be taught, which is that Evolution is a theory and therby not concrete and therfore other "theories" should be taught. The problem with this thought is that there are very few laws in science and tons of theories. I think the last law was gravity, and that was from an Alchimist. (yes, I beleve that the end of FMA will be Ed vs. Issac Newton) So that thought ain't worth it's weight in lead or gold.

I think it's fine too teach both, but probably not in the way this is intended.

The theory of Evolution should be taught in Biology, as it's part of science. Intelligent design should be taught as part of Religious Studies (I don't know if they have that or an equivalent in the states) alonside all the other theories that the various religions have.

First, I want to say that I think you worded your argument and question very well, Kirjavaa, and I completely agree with you. The problem I have with intelligent design is that is belongs to either 1) Religious studies, or 2) Philosophy. It is not a scientific theory as you say. Furthermore, the trend that I've been noticing since Bush has been in office is the trend of smashing the boundaries between church and state and allowing religious idioms and beliefs to control our politics. This is against the founding principles of our nation. Our nation is too diverse now with too many DIFFERENT religious beliefs to let the country be overrun by neo-christian biggots.

If parents want their children to learn about intelligent design, then they should teach it to their kids THEMSELVES. That's right...I went there...the parents DO have a responsibility to teach their kids as well. Intelligent design, like all religious beliefs, are better left in the home or religious education classes rather than a public school.

Finally, what irritates me to no end, is that there IS a compromise between the two theories and if people were actually educated with some basic philosophy as well as the two theories, they would see the they are two extremes, both have problems, but both offer solutions to fundamental questions.

Evolution has too much flaws. Do you really accept that it is a fact that you came from a monkey? Evolution has no solid evidence. Intelligent design has some solid evidence but is still to 'fantastic' to believe. I say, let them debate on it as much as they want and I'll be enjoying anime, games, and music. :)

Evolution has too much flaws. Do you really accept that it is a fact that you came from a monkey? Evolution has no solid evidence. Intelligent design has some solid evidence but is still to 'fantastic' to believe. I say, let them debate on it as much as they want and I'll be enjoying anime, games, and music. :)

See my last post to counter your point.

And to jebelbryan, If the ID was allowed, the should also develop it for every relgion, liek we all evolved from the giant turtle that holds the world on it's back. (that is a creation theory form some relgion or another, I remember it fom my history class.

Also, if the parents can't teach it, that is what Sunday School is for.

I think that if they do allow it, Mr. Gitterman and Mrs. Prujiv don't have to teach it since it doesn't follow their beliefs. We'll get alot of teachers declaring themselves Atheists.

To trismugistus, there tends not to be a relgion class in American public schools because of the whole seperation of church and state thing.

If this passes, I know they are going to try to put required essay writing in geometery.

I do get the whole separation of church and state thing because "Intelligent design" has a religious connotation. That was the whole point of the Scopes trial in which it was decided that the Evolutionary Theory was to be taught in public schools as the authoritative idea as to how the world began. The country did not want schools indoctrinating their children. We, as a country, were begining to steadily pull away from our religious foundations.

With this said, however, it bugs me when my teachers talk about evolution as if it were fact. It's still a theory and not a law (as was stated earlier). Can we please treat it as such?!

Well, it is called the "theory" of evolution after all. If it is in a science class, it must have some amount of testability, such as looking at the 30+ finches on the Galopagos(sp?) Islands or the fact that humans and monkeys share 98.% of their genes. When you can get a "Yo" out of God, then Intelegent Design can be taught in science.

I'm waiting for the day that ailens land and look at ou knowege and say, "E=MC^2?" what were you smoking?

Wow solwy, evolution has no solid evidence while intelligent design does? Wow... just... die... please.

And Lord-Burn, you're like, the next raksum. I must add you. O_O
(dont worry you're still cool raksum lol)

Science teachers will teach Evolution as if it is fact because in the scientific community, it is pretty much a well accepted theory. If you say that you have to teach theories as "theories" where you basically undermine what you're teaching by saying this may not be true, then you need to undermine 95% of what you learn in science class. Oh, not to mention that the cars you drive, the electricity you use, the planes we fly, the spaceships we build, and nearly every tiny piece of manufactured material and product in the world is based upon SCIENTIFIC THEORIES...not laws. The only reason they are NOT law, are 1) laws are reserved to what scientists deem fundamental properties of the universe, and 2) they need to be completely compatible with all related observations. Basically, there can be no examples of a counter-example.

Now you might say, "if there's a counter-example, it must be false"...WRONG. If this were true, then forget space flight, satelites, and cell-phones because all those use theories in pysics related to gravity and general relativity that are THEORIES and have very well known counter-examples and blatent contradictions with other equally valid theories.

If you want to say a theory isn't true, that's fine. But in science, this statement requires scientific evidence to be valid.

Wow, I'm gone for the weekend and come back and have discovered a meeting of intelligent minds on AP YAY!

Lord Burn and jebelbryan, I think you both shall be added because you added some very awesome and relevent points to this argument.

Solwy, not only does evolution have a great deal of evidence to support it, a staggering amount of scientific theories and facts in biology, geology and even astronomy support and build on this theory. It has been tested time and time again, and can even be reproduced on a very small scale through breeding and genetic manipulation. Intelligent design, on the other hand, can never be tested. How can you TEST the fact that there was an intelligent sentient being that decided to build all the animals and plants alive on this planet today? While it is true that evolution is in fact a THEORY, and according to the scientific method, you can actually never prove that anything is TRUE, you can prove that something is not UNTRUE, leaving you with facts which support your theory.

Example? We all know that vitamin C taken daily helps prevent you from getting sick. However, we cannot determine a cause and effect relationship even in this example because there are too many variables that can determine whether or not you do or don't get sick, including weather, your diet, your daily activities and how often you are exposed to other people. However, what you CAN prove that it is FALSE that vitamin C does not prevent you from getting sick because if you run an experiment you will see that people who take it more often get less sick. Could it be because of another variable we did not think of? Absolutley. However, the evidence from this experiment SUPPORTS our claim that vitamin C will keep you from getting sick.

So it goes with the theory of evolution. You can run experiments testing the theory that evolution and genetics were in fact not the reason that animals and plants evolved to the ways they did today [and yes, there are ways you can test this, from studying the fossil record to carbon dating to studying the magnetic structure and pole reversals in the earth] you will see that they disprove the statement that evolution is not the cause, thereby SUPPORTING although not PROVING that evolution is the cause.

Shank yuu.

Umm, evolution is not the cause. Natural selection is the cause, otherwise known as survival of the fittest. Evolution is the result of this driving force.

And if you actually read Darwins original theory it does not entirely preclude the possibilities of things like outside influence and design. The classical example that's often given is the camel's knee. You can google for more info, but basically camels develop callouses on their knees whilst in the womb. As grasing animals these are really only beneficial from a comfort point of view (when kneeling for water, etc) and it's a bit of a stretch to say that natural selection lead to some sort of camel callous gene.

I do want to add one thing. For all of those who favor intelligent design beliefs and dis-belive evolution because of them, they do NOT have to conflict with one another. One of the major reasons that religious groups disagree with evolution is through a lack of proper education and a over-reliance on the EXACT wording in religious texts such as the bible. In other words, texts that have been TRANSLATED multiple times (and each time losing some of it's original meaning) and written by human beings (who are known to put in their own biases) are taken way too literally. If you deviate from exact wordings, there is no reason why an Adam and Eve couldn't have been more like Neanderthals or other "missing links" between apes and modern Homo sapiens. Furthermore, there is no reason why "7 Days" couldn't have been 7 stages in earth's history with the lifeforms being tweaked by this "supreme intelligent force".

Actually, though I'm a scientist, I find it kind of ridiculous that life itself spawned by a random clustering of organic molecules combining with choatic atmospheric and terrestrial conditions to form RNA, then simple one-cell organisms, then DNA and multicelluar organisms, to complex animals. While this stays completely consistent with the theory of evolution, logically, given the probability of these occurances, something seems a little "off". At least to me. Therefore, I believe that the origin of life needs a little more than simply a scientific explanation, which is derived solely on evidence, and for which the origin of life has little definate evidence. We can only infere on what is actually PRESERVED, which is quite a tiny percentage of what has ever lived on this planet.

So, all you intelligent design lovers, don't be evolution haters :D Rather, think critically both about scientific theories and your religious beliefs to come to an answer that makes sense to you. There are plenty of problems with inconsistencies and falsehoods in religious texts that have been acknowledged publicly (such as in the Bible, the nailing of stakes through Jesus' hands for the crucifixion. It had to have been the wrists because the hands can't hold the weight of a human body. And yes, this is now the accepted belief by Christians despite what the bible LITERALLY says).

Wow, this turned into a rant. Sorry.

I think it's better if both were taught in classes. It promotes better individual thinking and reasoning. Just because one does't not believe in something does not necessarily mean he/she cannot learn about. It is up to the individual if he or she wants to believe in what they have learned.

... it's a bit of a stretch to say that natural selection lead to some sort of camel callous gene.

Very true. I often think of the Cambrian Explosion, when life went from single-celled animals to having every body type that we see today (wings, beaks, fins, claws, etc.) in an incredibly short span of time. Less than half a million years. A veritable eyeblink; certainly not enough time to be caused by slow, incremental change.

Why did all the phyla come into being at that one point, and never another in all the time -- 500 million years -- since? More importantly, where did all the genetic information for wings and claws and eyeballs come from? Why did it even exist in those single-celled organisms? Mathematical probability rules out the idea that billions of favorable genetic mutations could have occured simultaneously in such a short time period.