View Poll Results: Should intelligent design be taught in public schools?

5. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, all students should be exposed to it

    3 60.00%
  • Yes, but only if a majority of parents demand it

    2 40.00%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: Should schools teach "Intelligent Design" or Evolu

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2005

    Default Should schools teach "Intelligent Design" or Evolu

    A PA school district requires that students be taught "Intelligent Design," a pseudo-scientific idea that asserts that an all-knowing creator was responsible for life on Earth and then evolution took over. Hardcore christians favor the teaching of this "theory" because they feel that Darwinian evolution contradicts their beliefs.

    Personally, while I understand the concerns of parents worried about science conflicting with religion, I think that the way to address this would be to maybe have parents individually sign if they don't want their kids to be taught about evolution... kind of how some districts do with sex education. Teaching "Intelligent Design" in science class is nothing more than imposing religion, and the Constitution is very clear on that point.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    >- nosgoth -<


    i think children shouldnt be taught what hasent been proven in a science class. a big NO to "intelligent Design".


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2005


    I think that whatever the taxpayers want to be taught in their school should be taught, weather ID, evolution, creationism, or something else. The people paying the taxes are the ones who are paying the teachers who are teaching on this subject matter, so they should have a say in what their kids are being taught with their money.

    Many people against ID say it teaches that there is supreme being who created everything, with is somewhat religious and shouldn't be taught in schools. Well, doesn't evolution teach atheism? I personally believe that ID is much more accurate and that it is nearly impossible that everything was created randomly.

    Now I must make myself clear. I do not believe in the theory of evolution, where all things were created from nothing, and where humans came from apes, but I certainly believe in the process of evolution. 200 years ago, a the average height of a man was probably 5'2 or 5'3. Today, if you are this height, you are among the minority of men, only 1 or 2 inches away from being an official midget.

    I personally believe in creationism. But I believe in progressive creationism and day-age creationism (see creationism page below). Progressive creationism states that God made everything, and those things evolved, but God guided the evolution. (By the way I'm Catholic so if you have any other debates over religious matters I'll be happy to give the Church's opinion) Day-age creationism says that God did not create the earth in six 24 hour periods, but rather 6 ages or groups of time.

    For anyone interested in these subjects, I suggest that you visit

    Intelligent Design:

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Grand Rapids, MI


    Haha you didn't give room for a no vote.

    The theory of evolution is just that... a theory. Intelligent design is yet another theory. You can't prove either and the debate would rage that intelligent design gives room for evolution.

    Darwin's theory can be shown moreso than intelligent design so people are faster to accept that. Even if our universe was birth from a single string of energy that string had to some from somewhere correct?

    I think both should be addressed as POSSIBILITES, but it neither should be required. If you want your children to learn more about intelligent design send them to religious services and have them read their respective religious book. If you want your children to learn more about Darwin's theory of evolution, send them to science camp in the summer and head to Barnes and Noble.

    I would prefer they were exposed to both so they are firmly capable of making their own decisions about it when they are ready.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    New Zealand


    Well I like to think beliefs and sciences are really just an analogy of reality, to assist our comprehension of the world around us.

    So if you ask me, it is irrelevant just which is right, because they could both be wrong. And it doesn't matter if it is wrong, because the bottom line is that we will choose elements from either or both and combine them with other knowledge to decide the most probable solution to a problem.

    By deciding to discard one concept on whatever grounds, you only limit the capacity to conceive. This is what happens when we believe. We are deciding to invest an enormous personal pride in a particular concept and then refuse to accept other concepts, even when elements of them make more sense.

    As humans, we have a capacity to reason and this gives us a unique ability to philosophise. Of course by nature there is always a goal of deciding black or white, but that does not mean to say that our options are either black or white. By nature, nothing is ever pure, and so we will find the truth is a combination of elements from various philosophies. The main thing is to encourage the freedom to philosophise and accept that new concepts may bring with them the missing pieces of your philoshopical endeavour for truth.

    You dont need to accept the new concept entirely, because that would be as naive as holding steadfast to any given belief.

    There are some things we simply cannot percieve entirely, and the very fact that there are different beliefs demonstrates that any belief is subject to doubt.

    Always Question What You Will Believe.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2005


    the id theory already has a room in schools, its called bible lessons and that is all it has the right to claim for.
    the id thoery is not a bit sciantific, it is without bases, proof or ligic.
    to claim that a supiriour being created the world, altough is has its many flaws, to each is own.
    but to claim that is is a sientific theory is porpostress, there are no reaserches, no proofs, no facts, only hipophetical idias.
    on the other hand, u got the theory of evolution, wich is by far the most reasnable explanation to life on earth, and not because it sownds good, not because it finds flaws in other thoeries, its becuse its based on tests, reaserches and countlerr proffs from any field of siance.
    the only this the id has is to say, the evolution theory go many holes (lie, it got some, after all, we cant record evry step of our evolution, thow we are trying) so our theory must be true.
    what kind of copetition is this?, one side has to work his way, providing fact after fact while he other side waits to see when his oponent will have some dificulty and then be delered as the winner.
    with the stagaring amount of facts to support the theory of evolution anainst the hole based reasons of the id, among the sientific aommunity it is not a battle, its a slauter, but thats not how it is on the outside.
    the id people doesnt have time to deal with logic, of the critisisem of the sientific community wich evry sientific theory must go through, they go right to the mass of people, not highly educated and not sientificly knolegable.
    it can explain why were here, its got god in it, lets make our government teach it.
    and teaching this unsientific theory in siance class will be just like teaching about the stock is sexual education lesson, wrong.

  7. #7
    Preacher Guest


    Sure, your logic wouldn't be incorrect. Only the information you consider.

    Just imagine it in a court of law:
    "Errr . . . Why did you not consider the information from this party? . . .

    Ladies and Gentlemen . . . Does this sound like an unbiased decision to you???"
    Here, why do you question the validity of ID? Is it because you want to find the truth in Evolution?

    In terms of science, the bottom line is the necessity to establish a reliable theory for making reliable predictions.

    Have you thought about what will happen to society's beliefs over the next millennium? Dont you think there will be a new move to question the validity of the theories of evoulution?

    The earth was once flat, because that was the most logical explanation for the scientists who had at the time, the latest in scientific evidence and facts (as well as their share of problems and doubters).

    How can you think that we have sufficiently complete knowledge to believe a theory is right? The fact that there is capacity to doubt is an indication of a justifiable doubt. Logic is a common process, it is information that varies.

    Just bear in mind that if you believe a scientist's conclusions without question, you are just believing a preacher. They are committed to what they believe, as anyone is.

    I like to look at biblical teachings from the perspective of political propaganda. To be fair, I try to shine the same torch on any alternative theory I would believe.

    Of course, the retrospective perspective always shows a more complete picture.

    Shouldn't we try to free the next generation from such childish "I'M right and YOUR wrong" attitudes? I suspect both theories are probably wrong.

    Want another concept? See the MATRIX. Imagine if our finest scientists spent the last century gathering evidence to prove that concept, and we were presenting it as truth in education. Logic would have you arguing for it, because all the information you have would stack up.

    So ask the question: "Why dont we believe the theory of the MATRIX?"


    Who would get the power then?


    Think for yourselves and teach your children to think for themselves. Lest you surrender your power to the politicians as all societies do.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2005


    a two dimentional universe is like a pice of paper, endless in wide and length and close to zero in thikness.
    if you were to put your finger through it, the two dimentional people that live inside it will only see a circle, that is becuase their perseption is limited to only two dimentions, no matter how many dimentions your finger has.
    we define siance by what is in the range of our perseption, waether there is or ther is not a fourth dimention, it is not possible for us to say.
    and weather there is a kind of matrix or there isnt is also canot be determined by our defenition at this present time.

    but what u said can also make a good point.
    if you were ever in a astrology lesson you would have notices that who ever passed this lesson based the information that he had given you apon the so called fact the that earthy is round.
    but is it realy a fact?, can u determine that it is round?, can it be determined by anyone?, did you ceck it yourself?
    yes, not so long ago it was belived that the earth is flat, but we know have sientific evidances that support that it is roud, thus we have concluded that is round, made other reaserches and projects based on that fact and have acheaved real (unless your not in the matrix) results that work from predicting the weather to orbitting sattelites around the earth.

    so again, teaching the id in a siance class is like teaching the theory that the world is flat in astronomy class.
    the only difference is that today most people have no problem detaching themselfs from the idia that the world is flat and accepting fact and as for religion, they have a bit more troble disconecting from it.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2005

    Default ironic...

    It is ironic that they think we should teach ID because of a lack of "science" for evolution, but i ask them where is ANY science for intellignet design? Intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory because it lacks ANY science. At most, it is a philisophical theroy. Also, as for the schools teaching whatever that taxpayers wanted is just unconstitutional and subjectitaes us to the will of the majority no matter how wrong. after al, the majority LIKED slavery, and LIKED the oppression of women. So i give a big NO vote in ID being taught in science class.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2005


    ID is pseudo-science, it is the last try for the evangelical christians to keep their followers.

    Until someone can test the claims of ID, provide evidence, and the experimentation can pass peer review, it is not even a real theory.

    Because ID has failed every possible test that has been applied to it, and there are only a few portions of the idea that actually are testable in the first place, it is not scientific.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts