PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Education Debates
     Intelligent Design
       Should it be taught in public schools?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do you think the Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools, either alongside the Evolution theory or replacing it (In a science classroom)?

Intelligent Design is the idea that we were "designed" by an intelligent being (AKA some people claim God, other do not), and that evolution could not have created an organism so complex as a human. Intelligent Design proponents do not cite the Bible for evidence in their claims, and prefer to observe a more objective approach.

---

I do not think a case can be made for mandating the teaching of Intelligent Design in public school science classrooms. Intelligent Design proponents cannot provide scientific evidence for their claims, and of what scientific evidence they do provide, it is used to condemn evolution instead of supporting itself.

If you believe you can provide scientific evidence that supports ID, I would love to see it.
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 1:43 PM on May 22, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think inteligent design by god should be taught in RELIGIOUS studies but not as science. But I think if there is enougth scientific evidence then it should be taught, but I don't belive that there is significant scientific evidence for it to be taught. Why teach students what is wrong?


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 2:39 PM on May 23, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, in the Fifties, a few scientists proved the thoery of growing complexity by creating what would be considered our early earth and from basically gases, etc. organic material began to grow which would have grown into single celled organisms, plants, fish, land creatures (simple reptiles) then onto mammals and such.

Now I know beyond organic matter; it is purely speculation but it is very probable of this happening.

Also, if schools were to teach intelligent design, then there would be a conflict between the religions.


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 9:45 PM on May 23, 2005 | IP
Cpatain Canuck

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lord Iorek at 9:45 PM on May 23, 2005 :
Actually, in the Fifties, a few scientists proved the thoery of growing complexity by creating what would be considered our early earth and from basically gases, etc. organic material began to grow which would have grown into single celled organisms, plants, fish, land creatures (simple reptiles) then onto mammals and such.

Now I know beyond organic matter; it is purely speculation but it is very probable of this happening.

Also, if schools were to teach intelligent design, then there would be a conflict between the religions.



Quote from Lord Iorek at 9:45 PM on May 23, 2005 :
Actually, in the Fifties, a few scientists proved the thoery of growing complexity by creating what would be considered our early earth and from basically gases, etc. organic material began to grow which would have grown into single celled organisms, plants, fish, land creatures (simple reptiles) then onto mammals and such.

Now I know beyond organic matter; it is purely speculation but it is very probable of this happening.


Actually, the Miller Experiment (which provided small amounts of the two simplest amino acids) is now considered to have little value for the origin of life question, as research has now shown that the conditions of early earth could not have replicated the conditionsof Miller's controlled experiment.  This whole field of reseach has become quite bogged down lately, one reason being their lack of success in finding possible chemical pathways to organic compounds, and secondly the discovery that most of the pathways they do find are useless with the reality of early earth's conditions.  

However, really, the whole thing is rather absurd.  It's similar to saying that the discovery of a rational pathway to steel possible on early earth is evidence towards the creation and evolution of mechanical, metalic creatures.  
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 6:56 PM on June 2, 2005 | IP
Raelian1

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, intelligent design should be taught in school as a science not as a religious subject. When people think of intelligent design, they think of God as being the designer. But the true designer or rather designers are scientists from another planet. Intelligent design is apropriately titled because have to be intelligent in order to be a genetic engineer (designer).

Also evolution and intelligent design should be taught side by side and let the students decide which theory would most explain the origins of life.


-------
Proud member of rael.org
 


Posts: 68 | Posted: 11:40 PM on June 21, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No that should be taught as a crack pot theory, unless there is evidence for it.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 05:02 AM on June 22, 2005 | IP
Raelian1

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, there no scientific evidence for evolution either. Perhaps, that's the true crack pot theory.


-------
Proud member of rael.org
 


Posts: 68 | Posted: 10:32 AM on June 22, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No evidence for evolution? lol read the threads, or do some research.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 10:45 AM on June 22, 2005 | IP
Pallim

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Rael you just admitted that your version of ID doesn't have any evidence.

There is plenty of scientific evidence for evolution. You are so grossly enveloped in the Rael ID that you refuse to accept any evidence that doesn't agree with your theory. Intelligent design shouldn't be taught in a classroom because #1-- it doesn't teach anything worth knowing, even if it actually true #2 It isn't scientific. Scientific theories must follow a code of scientific inquiry before they can be assumed to have evidence supporting it. Intelligent design is a nice idea, but there is no scientific evidence to support it. If you think there is, then you should be taught the definition of scientific inquiry.
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 11:34 PM on June 22, 2005 | IP
Raelian1

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, scientific evidence is starting to emerge. Gentic engineers are already in the process of creating life forms. Also, organisms are too complex to change (evolve) into other organisms. Even one-celled organisms. As an example, the flagella of some of these one celled organisms acts as a propellor and this propellor is attached to a "motor". This motor couldn't have evolved from primordial soup cause of it's complexity. Siomeone had to design this motor and only a genetic engineer can do that (it was the Elohim). And this is one of the finer points that should be taught in school when teaching intelligent design.

(Edited by Raelian1 6/23/2005 at 11:52 AM).


-------
Proud member of rael.org
 


Posts: 68 | Posted: 11:52 AM on June 23, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just becuase we can make life doesn't prove that we were made by inteligent design. Its like saying I can plant a tree, therefore someone must have planted everytree. Whereas they have been seen to develope naturaly in the wild.
Ok complex organisms, did just go from random crap to complex forms, they went to simple forms and then complexity developed over thousands of years.
There is no evidence for inteligent design.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 2:53 PM on June 23, 2005 | IP
Pallim

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

See, there is none. I asked for proof of the scientists, not evidence of why evolution didn't do it.

That the problem with you Raelian-- the evidence you just provided showed seems to show the evolution is not true, not that ID is true.

There is no intelligent design evidence. All you guys do is attempt to disprove evolution, and the moment you make yourself believe it isn't true, you asusme that we must have been created by another intelligent being. That is a conceded and weak way of thinking.
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 2:57 PM on June 23, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do i need to point out that the belief in God and a creator has been around a lot longer than the THOERY of evolution.  

Theres a book that an atheist scientist wrote.  He was going to prove that God didnt exsit but while conducting his reasearch he found this one thing out.  That there is a creator and there is a God.  I cant recall for sure but im pretty he's not a christain he just believes in God.  Its called God and the Astronomers Its by Robert Jastrow.


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 9:29 PM on June 23, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeah you give one person as an example. You wouldn't belive how many people think, I know I'll check the evidence and realise they can iether deneie the evidence or acept it and belive evolution.
The horse has been around longer than the car, it doen't mean it is a better method of transport.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 6:44 PM on June 24, 2005 | IP
Army_of_Juan

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ID is based on an Argument from Ignorance and pretty much says "some things looks too complex to me to have been created by evolution". It doesn't say what did create it or even give an idea on what's considered "too complex". It tells us nothing and it's sole purpose to place doubt on evolution which it fails at. If ID was software, it would be considered vaporware .

(Edited by Army_of_Juan 9/24/2005 at 12:21 PM).


-------
"I am Sofa-King we Todd Ed." - I. B. Creationist
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 6:41 PM on September 23, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You could have summarized your argument just by explaining that ID is nothing more than:

"Sometime, somewhere, something, somehow, created something."


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:38 PM on September 23, 2005 | IP
Hespero

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Raelian1 at 11:52 AM on June 23, 2005 :
Actually, scientific evidence is starting to emerge. Gentic engineers are already in the process of creating life forms. Also, organisms are too complex to change (evolve) into other organisms. Even one-celled organisms. As an example, the flagella of some of these one celled organisms acts as a propellor and this propellor is attached to a "motor". This motor couldn't have evolved from primordial soup cause of it's complexity. Siomeone had to design this motor and only a genetic engineer can do that (it was the Elohim).

Saying "evidence is emerging" doesnt make it true.  WHAT evidence?

You can say that organisms are to complex to evolve and you can say the moon is made of blue cheese, but saying its so doesnt make it so.

They dont "change into other organisms" anyway.  It is a series of small steps.  The poodle is not a single generation away from the wild dog.  Or was the poodle a special creation?  The wild dog is probably too complex to change into a toy poodle.

Regarding the flagellum, what you are leaving out is that organisms can and do merge with eachother.
The flagellum is what was once a separate organism.

The mitochonria that inhabit every cell of your body have their own dna!  That was another successful merger.  Self and non-self are not actually all that clear cut.

Every time you get sick it is a result of some virus or bacteria applying for membership and your body doing everything it can to reject the application.








 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 10:51 AM on December 11, 2008 | IP
JSF16

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I believe intelligent design, aka, creationism, should be taught alongside evolution, and let the kids pick for themselves.


-------
Everyone says expect the unexpected, but since now everyone expects the unexpected, the unexpected is now the expected and the expected is the unexpected. So if you are expecting the unexpected, you are actually expecting the expected, so if you start expecting the expected, you will be expecting the unexpected. So everyone should start expecting the expected again and the expected will be expected and the unexpected will be unexpected again, then we can start expecting the unexpected again.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 10:10 PM on January 29, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JSF16 at 11:10 PM on January 29, 2009 :
I believe intelligent design, aka, creationism, should be taught alongside evolution, and let the kids pick for themselves.


Are you serious ?.. So you want college level kids to figure out which idea or theory is right.. Because of course their college mindset is enough to figure out a scientific field that requires most scientists to study for years and years on one subject.

You want these "uninformed" kids too choose what is right.

Thats like asking your local gardner to formulate a logical opinion on planet allignment in cosmology and gravitational forces.

The gardner has no knowledge of those things and the kids in school definitely don't have knowledge of the science they would need to know to make a valid decision.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 11:13 AM on January 31, 2009 | IP
JSF16

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I mean they are both taught everything in ID, everything in evolution or whatever else, and they pick if they want believe evolution, or believe in ID.


-------
Everyone says expect the unexpected, but since now everyone expects the unexpected, the unexpected is now the expected and the expected is the unexpected. So if you are expecting the unexpected, you are actually expecting the expected, so if you start expecting the expected, you will be expecting the unexpected. So everyone should start expecting the expected again and the expected will be expected and the unexpected will be unexpected again, then we can start expecting the unexpected again.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 5:13 PM on February 2, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I mean they are both taught everything in ID, everything in evolution or whatever else, and they pick if they want believe evolution, or believe in ID.

I guess you want that to hold for other scientific theories also, teach a flat earth and a spherical earth and let the kids decide what's valid....teach the sun and planets orbit the earth and also the earth and planets orbit the sun, then let the kids decide...What an absurd idea.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 07:14 AM on February 21, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What should be taught as science in schools is scientific method.
Darwins theory is a brilliant example of observation and inductive reasoning generating a scientific theory which could then be tested. The theory was objective and refutable.

The Theory of Creation is not objective, testable or refutable. It does not serve as a good example of scientific method. It could, however, rate a small mention in science class as an excellent example of how NOT to do science.

ID comes under the study of literature in the genre of fantasy.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 6:06 PM on February 21, 2009 | IP
JSF16

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 07:14 AM on February 21, 2009 :
I mean they are both taught everything in ID, everything in evolution or whatever else, and they pick if they want believe evolution, or believe in ID.

I guess you want that to hold for other scientific theories also, teach a flat earth and a spherical earth and let the kids decide what's valid....teach the sun and planets orbit the earth and also the earth and planets orbit the sun, then let the kids decide...What an absurd idea.


Um, it is easier to prove the earth is round than We are descended from single cell organisms.


-------
Everyone says expect the unexpected, but since now everyone expects the unexpected, the unexpected is now the expected and the expected is the unexpected. So if you are expecting the unexpected, you are actually expecting the expected, so if you start expecting the expected, you will be expecting the unexpected. So everyone should start expecting the expected again and the expected will be expected and the unexpected will be unexpected again, then we can start expecting the unexpected again.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 7:26 PM on April 11, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JSF16 at 8:26 PM on April 11, 2009 :
Quote from Demon38 at 07:14 AM on February 21, 2009 :
I mean they are both taught everything in ID, everything in evolution or whatever else, and they pick if they want believe evolution, or believe in ID.

I guess you want that to hold for other scientific theories also, teach a flat earth and a spherical earth and let the kids decide what's valid....teach the sun and planets orbit the earth and also the earth and planets orbit the sun, then let the kids decide...What an absurd idea.


Um, it is easier to prove the earth is round than We are descended from single cell organisms.



You'd be suprised..

In the same sense, it is easier to provide evidence (science doesn't prove anything) for evolution then for intelligent design.. So in your own logic, intelligent design should be kept out of science class?
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 09:18 AM on April 23, 2009 | IP
Galileo

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JSF16 at 5:13 PM on February 2, 2009 :
I mean they are both taught everything in ID, everything in evolution or whatever else, and they pick if they want believe evolution, or believe in ID.


So JSF, you would have no problem with kids being taught creationsim/ID of other religions?



-------
Hallowed are the Invisible Pink Unicorns
 


Posts: 160 | Posted: 10:47 AM on May 21, 2009 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.