Should Intelligent Design be taught in public schools?

[Bartender]

Ive debated Intelligent Design (hereafter referred to as ID) in several different forums and would like to see who people on this site feel about it. I will attempt to make my point known; I do not feel that ID has any validity and therefore should not be included in the science classes of publicly funded high schools.

My first point is that ID has no scientific validity. Supporters consider it to be a valid scientific theory because of supposed irreducible complexity and examples given such as the bacterium flagellum. Irreducible complexity is thought by ID supporters to be evident in the propulsion mechanism displayed in the bacterium flagellum. This has been rebutted by members of the scientific community. Wikipedia has this to say about irreducible complexity:

"Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument made by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring chance mutations. It is one of two main arguments intended to support intelligent design, the other being specified complexity.[1]
Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the argument of irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".[2] These examples are said to demonstrate that modern biological forms could not have evolved naturally."

The entire article can be read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
This is the prime evidence supplied by supporters of ID and is not considered by most in the scientific to be valid because there are no scientific testing backing up the claim.

The second point of ID is that, because of irreducible complexity and other claims, there must be a "prime mover" to cause what we observe today. Who or what that prime mover is open to conjecture. ID supporters are quick to point out that the word God does not show up in the theory. It is up to the person learning ID to decide for themselves what that prime mover is. I feel it is simply undefined in an attempt to move creationism into the public schools, but that is just my opinion.
Supporters of ID have attempted to force ID into the classroom and have lost several cases in court. A prime example is Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District which can be read about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller ... l_District

As it stands today, ID is not being taught in any public school district that I know of. If I am mistaken, please direct me to information showing this to be the case. If parents are against their child being taught evolution in school then they can either enroll the child in a religion based school or simply tell them to disregard the theory of evolution as being a valid theory.

I will close by saying again that I feel ID has no place in our public school science classrooms. If parents feel that it should be taught there they can file a lawsuit. World Religions class would be an acceptable location for ID to be discussed as long as it was not given any more credence then the other religious teachings.
Please let me know how you feel about ID in the classroom.

Allen

[Furrowed Brow]

The problem if we allow ID in the class room is who is delivering the lesson? It seems there are still around 50% of people that do not believe in evolution. I am certain that the non science teachers at my sons comprehensive were pretty much illiterate regarding evolution, whilst many of them would have some vague affinity for the designer argument.

The nightmare scenario is ID V Evolution being presented as an either/or with both sides equally valid, and the lesson being delivered by a supply teacher near literate as to where the evidence firmly rests.

A side note: a friend of mine teaches at a school in the midlands that is part of a collection of school being funded by an evangelical multi millionaire. Though the schools have to deliver the national curriculum, it seems the guy has filled his science classes with like minded anti evolutionists. If these schools got the green light to teach ID, then the results are easy to predict.

So I say....yeah let them teach ID. It'll mean we get a ready supply of wide eye Id'ers to chew up in debate.

[byofrcs]

......
Please let me know how you feel about ID in the classroom.

Allen

It isn't a religion (it doesn't even want to be religion), it isn't science (it can never be science).

It is pseudoscience. Don't know what class that could be taught in - maybe Law and Political studies ?

[C-Nub]

I have to say that, while ID isn't A religion unto itself, (capital A for emphasis, not simply poor grammar) it is definitely a religious movement, and it is in no way science.

Intelligent Design is pretty much a decendant of the previously outlawed 'Creationism' argument, and the fact that it is being taught beside or instead Evolution is absolutely criminal in my mind. ID does not have any of the evidence to support it that Evolution does, nor have any experiments been concieved that lend it any credit.

Evolution has mountains of observational evidence as its foundation and has since been validated by genome mapping, in which we discover things like our 98% genetic match to chimpanzees and the common genetic ancestory between whales and horses.

Irreduceable compexity is, in and of itself, an interesting concept to give evidence to a creator, but the bacterial flaggellum (spelling?) theory has been debunked by several experts and schools.

[Assent]

The nightmare scenario is ID V Evolution being presented as an either/or with both sides equally valid, and the lesson being delivered by a supply teacher near literate as to where the evidence firmly rests.

That's still better than the Helvetica Scenario.

The big problem with ID is that (its avoidance of the word God aside) it is inherently a Christian thought. Therefore, teaching ID in schools is discriminatory to non-Christians, and the only reasonable solution at that point would be to teach all creation myths currently held by any living religion, all in the Science class. ID is an attempt at a compromise between Creationism and evolution that has for most people involved failed for both.

[Bartender]

The big problem with ID is that (its avoidance of the word God aside) it is inherently a Christian thought. Therefore, teaching ID in schools is discriminatory to non-Christians, and the only reasonable solution at that point would be to teach all creation myths currently held by any living religion, all in the Science class. ID is an attempt at a compromise between Creationism and evolution that has for most people involved failed for both.

That's why ID supports are quick to point out that the word "God" isn't part of ID, Therefore it isn't discriminatory. They simply want to get it into the classroom but that's not going to happen without some scientific evidence.