Which do you think should be taught in the classroom Evolution or Intelligent Design?

Lynne Lefler 1950

I think Evolution should be taught in Science class, and Intelligent Design should be taught in Comparative Religion class.

Intelligent Design does not fulfill the criteria of Science, so it does not belong in a Science class.

Amanda Ferguson 1282

Science class should teach the scientific view which is evolution. Religion class should teach intelligent design/creationism. There is nothing scientific about intelligent design it is the idea that there must be someone pulling the strings to design the universe and the way it works because of the complexity of everything. However, there is no evidence of such a being. No experiments have ever yielded proof of a creator, so even though many may subscribe to this belief it should not be put in a science text book. Science is what we know and can prove through proper study, experimentation, and research. Until someone can prove the existence of a God, intelligent design should not be in a science text book.

Riley Wolfe 1294

Evolution and not ID because obvious reasons.

Kathy Ewers New Brain

Both

Brittany Runde 1360

I think a high being put in process the events that would cause the big bang and the evolution of the life that formed.

Robbie Lindauer 1488

First, the current "standard model" as taught in universities worldwide is essentially a religious theory. At the core of it are two main ideas:

The Anthropic Principle - which states that this world must be such that it brought about that we intelligent beings exist. The upshot of this principle is that the answer to the question "why are the laws of physics the way they are?" is that we exist. But that's putting the cart before the horse - obviously the laws of physics existed before we did, how can an anthropic principle be prescient enough to bring it about that we exist? The answer is that if the anthropic principle is true, then the Anthropic Principle is prescient and willful and powerful, qualifying for the standard interpretation of God.

Related to this is the "Fine Tuned Universe" - which notes that this world is uncannily suited for bringing about life. That is, -all other things being equal- if the laws of physics could be anything (if gravity had different rate of acceleration or if the strong nuclear force were slightly weaker, etc.), then the chances that life -at all- could exist are nearly nil. We are a one in Googleplex possibility - there is a statistically insignificant chance that life could come about.

The response of the naturalistic movement is to make up a "Multiverse" - in which every possibility is actual, just in inaccessible universes. This "multiverse" idea has several issues. The most prominent of them being that there simply can not ever be any evidence whatever that it's true. The second being that it fails to explain how we got to be in This Universe and why This Universe continues to be so normal. If every possibility were true, then this Universe could be one of the universes where the laws of physics change gradually over time or quickly in an instant. But such things don't happen. In fact, very few scientists believe in this multiverse, and the mention of it is restricted mostly to abstruse cosmological reasoning known to be fallacious (e.g. Hawking's a brief history of time or Lewis' Counterfactual Conditionals).

Finally in logic there is an axiom by Godel, the "S5" axiom which states that any possibly necessary truth is actually necessary. If God is defined as the necessary being and if it's possible that God exists in that sense, then it's necessary that God exists. That is, in the standard logical model, God exists is a provable theorem.

In short, these three ideas - the tailored universe and the anthropic principle and the logical fact of God's existence - simply are euphemisms for intelligent design and they are currently taught as the standard model in logic, physics and biology, just not in early childhood education.

Should we teach these things in pre-college biology and physics. Yes. Children and young adults should be taught the entire range of scientific theory.

When a teacher introduces the idea that the diversity of life and existence of it and the question comes up "Why are the laws of physics the way they are?" or "Why does evolution happen?" or "Why is there anything at all?" the teacher should explain the standard model to them as well as its religious implications.

Unknown Brain 2031

Why do we ALWAYS think everything must be mutally exclusive? Why is every solution with people always about my way or the highway? Some of our brightest minds can be found right here. We come from all over the world and we still can't see past our own noses. The proposition of evolution vs intelligent design being taught in classrooms. Why not give students a choice? Why is this any different from choosing between taking History or Philosophy? What is the problem with allowing those that wish to take one form or another? Does the fact that you live next door to a person of another faith.. or no faith at all, threaten your way of life? As long as you are not reverting to ancient methods of forcing others to adopt or die... is this so bad... really?

Seperation of church and state never intended that God not be taught (this by the way is an American issue and not everyone here is an American... or has a true desire to be one). The premise of church and state was the fact that no government sponsored organization would espouse any particular religion. That was its original intention. I suppose you think the Congress should do away with their prayer before meetings... as that very definately is a function of state.

I for one get damn tired of those minorities that seek to force others into a particular place by whining the loudest. The simple fact is that the belief of God is a HUGE majority in this world. I hold that mankind and religion is flawed not God. I can also totally understand the turn off that religion has put into western society after having spent centuries killing others to force their point. It is mankind's religion that is flawed not God. Don't blame God for mankinds ignorance...

For a minute think of eternity. What examples do we have that eternity exists? Mathematically we can prove it.. not with our man made concept of time... but with a simple line. Not a line fragment, but a true line. There is no starting point and no ending point. Our home made view of time is based on our own mortality. We are in effect a line fragment... not a true line. We therefore see a beginning and an end. We also measure things using our belief in a starting point. A being that is eternal... I care less what you call him or her, is NOT limited by time, distance or starting and stopping points. He or she could bounce around to be anywhere at all on that true line or even at all points at once. It would be effortless. Our theories are based entirely on our belief that time is true and finite. It is no wonder that we reject Creationism as it is entirely based on our limited western perceptions of religion. We are showing our predjudism. One of the precepts of science.. for all those of you that so strongly debunk this is, to eliminate any preconceived notions of the outcome of that experiment. I wonder how many times I would have arrested the wrong person if I had gone into the case believing one person must be guilty.

Throw out time and biased religion as you understand it and you can then begin the process of conducting true experimentation. You have to be able to think outside the boxes of what you were taught in your schools. Darwin was a free mind... but at least he had the good sense to tell you that you would need to go further. You all act just like people that jumped off the train to watch the world go by without a single question regarding the reliablity of what you were taught. It is my opinion that it is the Creationists that are more liberal in their thinking than you. At least they give an open ear and mind to things yet unknown. Man will never explore space with limited thinking like evolutionists espouse. Sorry but I stand firmly with the Intelligent design people even if it proves not to be correct. I am not so sure the aliens we search for out there ... are not us.

Religion in school... no

Evolution AND Intelligent Design choice... yes.

Unknown Brain 1830

Yikes, lots of answers! Very controversial. Well, Blaise Pascal said, "A little bit of philosophy will bring you away from God, but a lot of it will bring you back to Him." Have we really learned enough about evolution to be able to conclude that there is no God? If evolution happened completely without God's hand in it, does that prove that there is NO God? Where did matter come from in the first place? Actually, it seems to me that the Bible's creation account gives a reasonably similar description of the order of evolution. Evolution of engineered objects, like cars, happen logically, in the presence of intelligent creators, each building on the previous one. If I were to engineer organisms to populate an uninhabitable planet, the order in which evolution says animals came to be seems like a very efficient way to build a diverse ecosystem. And the organisms all use the same materials, but one organism's waste is another organism's building material. Efficient. Perhaps evolution is only PART of the story!

Michael Cooke 1905

"Intelligent Design" isn't science. Evolution is fact however and must be taught in school if the function of school is to educate. Yes, it's true that the evolution of Man has many 'missing links' and is therefore in doubt. But elsewhere in nature evolution is observable fact.

In teaching Evolution, the teaching should be limited to presenting facts as facts and scientific hypothesis as hypothesis.

Marcus Clark 1661

As these two are formally stated, neither.

"Intelligent Design" is just a watered down, politically corrected version of "Creation."
"Evolution" as it is taught today is nothing like what its originator (Darwin) dreamed up. Even he said that if the proof needed to support this idea could not be found in a relatively short time it should be discarded. That proof still has not been found.
"Creation" is the account found in the Christian Bible for the origin of all that exists.

None of the above can be properly labeled as theory. In science in order to advance an idea from hypothesis to theory you have to be able to design some sort of experiment or observation to prove or disprove it. Since this all happened long before we lived and we cannot travel in time, we cannot observe it. We also cannot duplicate these events in any laboratory. So we cannot devise an experiment to test these ideas. Therefore the highest scientific category any of the above qualify for is hypothesis.

There is plenty of evidence stated by many for all the above. A lot of the evidence depends on what you originally believe. All require a great amount of faith to believe that it happened that way. I believe the account in the Bible. It makes the most sense.

As for what should be taught in schools, that depends on a number of factors. First is the general belief system supported by the school and its supporters. If it is a private school and its founders, supporters, members, etc believe in one particular account then that is what should be taught under that belief system. It should be taught as the account that those supporting / teaching it believe. They should then bring out the supporting evidence to back it. Opposing accounts can also be introduced so the students can examine and make an intelligent decision. If it is a public school, then none of the above should be presented as fact. They can be introduced as proposed accounts for where we all came from but since they cannot be proven they should not be taught as fact outside of faith. In either case keep the science class related to science and only introduce origins as it strictly pertains to specific areas of scientific concern (very few and far between.)