with the recent debate over whether there is a place for religion in the
classroom, what do you think? should "intelligent design" be taught in
schools?
(intelligent design states that the origin of life, the diverstiy of species,
and even the structures of organs (ie: the eye) are so complex that they can
only be the work of some higher intelligence (left unnamed))
personally, i'm a believer in science and evolution. i DO acknowledge that there
are some holes in Darwin's theory, but for me at least, evolution seems to make
more sense. i still think that evolution should be taught in schools, BUT that
some of the pitfalls should also be addressed and other theories at least
mentioned.
Yeah, and it's just a theory; it's fields away from being a law with all those
holes. And it's good to present to different views about the origin of life.
Gives people something to think about and MTers a debate topic
using Avida, Dr. Lenski was able to evolve programs that carried out one of the
most complex mathematical simulations... and they did it with two less lines of
code than the most efficient version of that program written by humans. I don't
think complexity stands in the way of evolution, my friends.
As to the question of teaching... i'm not going to say that other views should
be banned (cesorship is bad, people, no matter how you look at it), but i for
one am not going to teach "intelligent design" any more than i would
consider teaching students about the bogeyman.
Put it this way, science are there so that they could be challenged. It is an
attempt of continuing to put together the best answers possible to every
question men could ask about this universe. Think about it, how many
modifications have we made to the original Darwinism.
If you have some knowledge of mathematics or science in general, you would
know there are only 4 facts in the physical world. Even these would be debatable
in a higher dimensional world.
So back to my point, we have made a lot of modifications to the Darwinism or
evolution theory, and yet our modifications have simply made it a more feasible
concept. But we should also realize that there will be future challenges to this
and maybe one day someone would show us enough evidence for us to consider
dropping the current evolution theory. Remember classical physics? Many people
thought at that time we have reached everything we could in terms of physics
concepts, but yet there are a whole lot more humans have yet to
discover
With the religious system, I am sorry to say but there will not be much you
can do to disprove it, thus, it is not technically a science.
Intelligent design should not be taught in classrooms. Period.
Quote by RevueYeah, and it's just a theory;
it's fields away from being a law with
all those holes. And it's good to present to different views about the
origin of life. Gives people something to think about and MTers a
debate topic
I think there's a great deal of misconception
about the word 'theory'. Stephen Gould puts it well: 'Well evolution is a
theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not
rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data.
Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't
go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory
of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend
themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like
ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other
yet to be discovered.' (" Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May
1981).
Evolution is about as well established scientifically as you can get.
Evolution, defined as 'change in the gene pool of a population over time' is a
fact. What is still up for debate is the mechanism by which these changes
happen.
No reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal has ever printed a paper that
supports intelligent design. Saying that intelligent design is a viable
scientific alternative to evolution is like saying that the earth could be flat,
or that the sun revolves around the earth.
i think evolution should be taught. if u want your kids to learn about
intelligent deisgn or creatasionism then ppl should send there kids to a private
school. Public schools are there to teach kids science, english, math and
things like that not religion or religion based theories. If you look at how
vast the universe is and our own galaxy there has to be more life out there and
even life more intellegent then ours. it depends on how you look at intellegents
and wat u precieve as a greater being to interupt different theories. The bible
was written by people and is loosely based on factual history, there is no
science involved. Intellegent design to me is sumthing the catholic church or
sum other religion came up with to try to merge science and religion.
Quote by JoCool87i think evolution
should be taught. if u want your kids to learn about
intelligent deisgn or creatasionism then ppl should send there kids to
a private school. Public schools are there to teach kids science,
english, math and things like that not religion or religion based
theories. If you look at how vast the universe is and our own galaxy
there has to be more life out there and even life more intellegent then
ours. it depends on how you look at intellegents and wat u precieve as
a greater being to interupt different theories. The bible was written
by people and is loosely based on factual history, there is no science
involved. Intellegent design to me is sumthing the catholic church or
sum other religion came up with to try to merge science and
religion.
i agree with that! i think religion should stay in
the private schools.
i was reading this interview with "sidewalk astronomer" John Dobson
(who also used to be a monk) in response to the anti-darwinians "If God
made all this in 4004 b.c., why did he take the trouble to make it look so much
older?" XP
Well, there are a lot more questions than answers to the Darwin's evolution
theory. However, it is currently the best attempt at explaining the human
history by the scienfitic world. Again, science is a process, not a universal
fact.
I like the Dastari's explanation of the difference between theory and fact. I
will give you another analogy. Suppose you are a detective investigating a case,
and there are several leads to point to the real truth behind it. You job as the
detective is to formulate a scenario linking all these leads together. Now If
you can do that, then congratulations, you have developed a viable theory.
However, that is not enough right? You would need evidences. That is what
separates theories from facts
I agree the school should teach kids evolution, however, by no means should
we say that Evolution is the truth out there. religion in this area to me is
more or less like a teacher brush away a student's interesting question in first
grade. Not really interested in solving the problem rather than giving them a
very very generic answer
It should not be taught in public schools. If private schools want too than
they can. The reason is separation of church and state. But for me personally
it's that there is no higher being.
evolution should be taught, why? because if not well have a lot of what we
already have, bunch of students that know only one way of informations, c'mmon,
fanatics want to believe men just came out of nothing, women of of men, and bum!
we have life. scientist believe in darwin, evolution, and there's aldo thata
small group that is willing to believe in both, because it works like that, it
just makes more sense. yes, darwin might've been right. yes, the bible might be
saying the truth, but why not both? open your eyes guys!!! even now, on our
century, polls demonstrate that a huge % of the population has no idea of
darwin's theories!!! no evolution in scholls? what is this? the only place this
could take us is back.
Quote by red-submissionscientist
believe in darwin, evolution,
That is not the case, scientists never believe it, it is just our best
explanation at this moment. scientists work to challenge darwainism, in doing
so, however, they just find more missing pieces that support the darwin's
evolutionary theory
If you say that scientist believe in it, then I do not see the different
between science and religion, they would become just two completely different
belief system, then right? So, what you said is technically not right'
Quote by JoCool87i think evolution
should be taught. if u want your kids to learn about intelligent deisgn or
creatasionism then ppl should send there kids to a private school. Public
schools are there to teach kids science, english, math and things like that not
religion or religion based theories. If you look at how vast the universe is and
our own galaxy there has to be more life out there and even life more
intellegent then ours. it depends on how you look at intellegents and wat u
precieve as a greater being to interupt different theories. The bible was
written by people and is loosely based on factual history, there is no science
involved. Intellegent design to me is sumthing the catholic church or sum other
religion came up with to try to merge science and
religion.
Perhaps evolution and creationism should be omitted from either program and
simply delegated to private schools? Oh wait... ...Right. It's
important.
And perhaps evolution is just something that athiest made up to merge what God
did with science? ...Darwin did renounce the theory after all...
Quote by MystfyreBoth theories should be
allowed in schools, but neither should be a
requirement. If it was up to me, there would be almost no required
courses...
I also think they should be more in a philosophy class than
anything.
The thing about it is the theroy of evolution has stood up to emperical testing,
where are "intellegent design" can not, for it is unlikely that those
who subscribe to that theory could produce evidence to support their claim a
higher being created life.
Me, Ive always 'believed' in evolution, mostly through an evaluation of the
facts collected about the theory. Sure, its a theory; yes, it has holes. most
ANY theory does; hell, the theories about *gravity* still have holes in them..I
dont see anyone trying to teach that magic hands hold everything down
The problem is, as far as I can tell, is that most people simply dont have a
grasp on the time scale involved here; common problem, large things are beyond
most people. 4 *billion* years is a long, LONG time. Long enough for many things
to happen.
When you combine that with the natural self-organizational abilities that seem,
to me, to be built into the very laws of nature, life and all its wonder is an
inevitable result. Hell, look at the prime numbers..that alone is a sign of the
larger principles.
I would only want Evolution presented to my children. I don't want them exposed
to a religious concept in a school "where my tax dollars are at work."
If I want them to understand and accept a religious construction, then I will
expose them too it. If the teachers want to point out the flaws or gaps in
evolutionary theory that is great; however, your religion is not my religion and
I don't want it in my schools. It is that simple to me.
The real problem is that institutions are so constricted in what they actually
teach students. We don't really get the full picture of anything. We take for
granted the things we learn in textbooks. I think it would be great to see
different aspects of a subject touched upon. Instead, people get so defensive
about the theory...and we don't get to see all sides.
why cant those politicians say how about we teach both?
i believe in evolution and i dont find intelligent design to be very
credible.
i am not religious, but if i were shown god, i would believe in him.
science is my religion
but evolution is a theory, and should be said that this is not
necisarily(however you spell that)true. and they should not denounce religion.
adapting is what humans do and that is a way of evolving to suit our
enviroment
hasnt anyone ever heard of pigme elk/antelope/whatever they are? they travel to
a place too small for them and they shrink to inhabit it and reproduce.
Both things should be taught in schools; I am a religious person myself (not
Christian, but still), and I think people should be able to decide for
themselves what they want to believe. I hate it when people get stuff forced
down their throat by religions like I did in Catholic primary school, but of
course it still dioes play a huge part in so many people's lives, so neither
should Darwin's theory completely wipe out all others, either. Its never black
and white for me - its possible to have some faith in both.
with the recent debate over whether there is a place for religion in the classroom, what do you think? should "intelligent design" be taught in schools?
(intelligent design states that the origin of life, the diverstiy of species, and even the structures of organs (ie: the eye) are so complex that they can only be the work of some higher intelligence (left unnamed))
personally, i'm a believer in science and evolution. i DO acknowledge that there are some holes in Darwin's theory, but for me at least, evolution seems to make more sense. i still think that evolution should be taught in schools, BUT that some of the pitfalls should also be addressed and other theories at least mentioned.
Yeah, and it's just a theory; it's fields away from being a law with all those holes. And it's good to present to different views about the origin of life. Gives people something to think about and MTers a debate topic
Yes, if you allow one persons point of view, you should allow another persons as well.
using Avida, Dr. Lenski was able to evolve programs that carried out one of the most complex mathematical simulations... and they did it with two less lines of code than the most efficient version of that program written by humans. I don't think complexity stands in the way of evolution, my friends.
As to the question of teaching... i'm not going to say that other views should be banned (cesorship is bad, people, no matter how you look at it), but i for one am not going to teach "intelligent design" any more than i would consider teaching students about the bogeyman.
Evolution
My view is that your view is wrong. -nuff said
And vice-versa.
But
that shouldn't prohibit free speech. ...Especially in the classroom...
Put it this way, science are there so that they could be challenged. It is an attempt of continuing to put together the best answers possible to every question men could ask about this universe. Think about it, how many modifications have we made to the original Darwinism.
If you have some knowledge of mathematics or science in general, you would know there are only 4 facts in the physical world. Even these would be debatable in a higher dimensional world.
So back to my point, we have made a lot of modifications to the Darwinism or evolution theory, and yet our modifications have simply made it a more feasible concept. But we should also realize that there will be future challenges to this and maybe one day someone would show us enough evidence for us to consider dropping the current evolution theory. Remember classical physics? Many people thought at that time we have reached everything we could in terms of physics concepts, but yet there are a whole lot more humans have yet to discover
With the religious system, I am sorry to say but there will not be much you can do to disprove it, thus, it is not technically a science.
Intelligent design should not be taught in classrooms. Period.
I think there's a great deal of misconception about the word 'theory'. Stephen Gould puts it well: 'Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.' (" Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981).
Evolution is about as well established scientifically as you can get. Evolution, defined as 'change in the gene pool of a population over time' is a fact. What is still up for debate is the mechanism by which these changes happen.
No reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal has ever printed a paper that supports intelligent design. Saying that intelligent design is a viable scientific alternative to evolution is like saying that the earth could be flat, or that the sun revolves around the earth.
i think evolution should be taught. if u want your kids to learn about intelligent deisgn or creatasionism then ppl should send there kids to a private school. Public schools are there to teach kids science, english, math and things like that not religion or religion based theories. If you look at how vast the universe is and our own galaxy there has to be more life out there and even life more intellegent then ours. it depends on how you look at intellegents and wat u precieve as a greater being to interupt different theories. The bible was written by people and is loosely based on factual history, there is no science involved. Intellegent design to me is sumthing the catholic church or sum other religion came up with to try to merge science and religion.
i agree with that! i think religion should stay in the private schools.
i was reading this interview with "sidewalk astronomer" John Dobson (who also used to be a monk) in response to the anti-darwinians "If God made all this in 4004 b.c., why did he take the trouble to make it look so much older?" XP
the article if anyone's interested: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/10/PKGICDHDU71.DTL&hw=astronomer&sn=001&sc=1000
Well, there are a lot more questions than answers to the Darwin's evolution theory. However, it is currently the best attempt at explaining the human history by the scienfitic world. Again, science is a process, not a universal fact.
I like the Dastari's explanation of the difference between theory and fact. I will give you another analogy. Suppose you are a detective investigating a case, and there are several leads to point to the real truth behind it. You job as the detective is to formulate a scenario linking all these leads together. Now If you can do that, then congratulations, you have developed a viable theory. However, that is not enough right? You would need evidences. That is what separates theories from facts
I agree the school should teach kids evolution, however, by no means should we say that Evolution is the truth out there. religion in this area to me is more or less like a teacher brush away a student's interesting question in first grade. Not really interested in solving the problem rather than giving them a very very generic answer
It should not be taught in public schools. If private schools want too than they can. The reason is separation of church and state. But for me personally it's that there is no higher being.
evolution should be taught, why? because if not well have a lot of what we already have, bunch of students that know only one way of informations, c'mmon, fanatics want to believe men just came out of nothing, women of of men, and bum! we have life. scientist believe in darwin, evolution, and there's aldo thata small group that is willing to believe in both, because it works like that, it just makes more sense. yes, darwin might've been right. yes, the bible might be saying the truth, but why not both? open your eyes guys!!! even now, on our century, polls demonstrate that a huge % of the population has no idea of darwin's theories!!! no evolution in scholls? what is this? the only place this could take us is back.
That is not the case, scientists never believe it, it is just our best explanation at this moment. scientists work to challenge darwainism, in doing so, however, they just find more missing pieces that support the darwin's evolutionary theory
If you say that scientist believe in it, then I do not see the different between science and religion, they would become just two completely different belief system, then right? So, what you said is technically not right'
Intelligent design does not have to be taught in public schools.
However-
All the weaknesses of the theory should be taught alongside its merits. A theory should be treated as a theory.
Sonotori
Both theories should be allowed in schools, but neither should be a requirement. If it was up to me, there would be almost no required courses...
I also think they should be more in a philosophy class than anything.
Perhaps evolution and creationism should be omitted from either program and simply delegated to private schools? Oh wait... ...Right. It's important.
And perhaps evolution is just something that athiest made up to merge what God did with science? ...Darwin did renounce the theory after all...
I agree.
The thing about it is the theroy of evolution has stood up to emperical testing, where are "intellegent design" can not, for it is unlikely that those who subscribe to that theory could produce evidence to support their claim a higher being created life.
Me, Ive always 'believed' in evolution, mostly through an evaluation of the facts collected about the theory. Sure, its a theory; yes, it has holes. most ANY theory does; hell, the theories about *gravity* still have holes in them..I dont see anyone trying to teach that magic hands hold everything down
The problem is, as far as I can tell, is that most people simply dont have a grasp on the time scale involved here; common problem, large things are beyond most people. 4 *billion* years is a long, LONG time. Long enough for many things to happen.
When you combine that with the natural self-organizational abilities that seem, to me, to be built into the very laws of nature, life and all its wonder is an inevitable result. Hell, look at the prime numbers..that alone is a sign of the larger principles.
I would only want Evolution presented to my children. I don't want them exposed to a religious concept in a school "where my tax dollars are at work." If I want them to understand and accept a religious construction, then I will expose them too it. If the teachers want to point out the flaws or gaps in evolutionary theory that is great; however, your religion is not my religion and I don't want it in my schools. It is that simple to me.
The real problem is that institutions are so constricted in what they actually teach students. We don't really get the full picture of anything. We take for granted the things we learn in textbooks. I think it would be great to see different aspects of a subject touched upon. Instead, people get so defensive about the theory...and we don't get to see all sides.
why cant those politicians say how about we teach both?
i believe in evolution and i dont find intelligent design to be very credible.
i am not religious, but if i were shown god, i would believe in him.
science is my religion
but evolution is a theory, and should be said that this is not necisarily(however you spell that)true. and they should not denounce religion.
adapting is what humans do and that is a way of evolving to suit our enviroment
hasnt anyone ever heard of pigme elk/antelope/whatever they are? they travel to a place too small for them and they shrink to inhabit it and reproduce.
Both things should be taught in schools; I am a religious person myself (not Christian, but still), and I think people should be able to decide for themselves what they want to believe. I hate it when people get stuff forced down their throat by religions like I did in Catholic primary school, but of course it still dioes play a huge part in so many people's lives, so neither should Darwin's theory completely wipe out all others, either. Its never black and white for me - its possible to have some faith in both.