A fair way of teaching "Intelligent Design"?

Recently, those who propose the teaching of "Intelligent Design" in schools have recently and sharply high criticized those of us who oppose this. Perhaps they would be open to exploring other options. How about the teaching of "intelligent design" from a more global perspective representing a variety of beliefs. Seems only fair. I'm sure they'd all be open to this idea, right?

Top Ten Intelligent Designs

edit:
No, none of this is science, nor do I believe it should be taught as such. It's attempting to utilize humor to point out the ridiculousness of the belief system itself. Sigh...

Um, :sarcasm: smiley.

There is NO science to support it.

It cannot be taught in science classes.

sorry

To teach the scientific method and help define what science is and what science isn't.

That'll help open peoples' eyes to all the junk science that's peddled to the public on a daily basis.

Unless they teach it as the unpopular and sectarian belief that it is, they are fooling themselves. It is not accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. It is fundamentalist Christian doctrine, pure and simple.

It does not belong in public schools.

because it's not science. Unfortunately, though, you are not correct when you say it's a "unpopular" belief. I certainly wish you were correct, but polls show that the majority of people in the country do not believe in evolution. We're the only rich country like that.

It really belongs in cultural anthropology.

could be fine, with the right curriculum.

But "intelligent design" has absolutely nothing to do with science.

the problem is not in teaching intelligent design - it is in trying to position it with the other sciences.

Teach it in the context of religions. I do not disagree with that. Keep it out of science classes.

The problem is - the many of the same people who want it in lieu of evolution are not as open to the discussion of other religions. Not all - but certainly a significant number.

If knowledge is the presumed goal, why would anyone teach people's kids stupid lies that have no basis in fact.

It has no place in a science class room.

ID is not science no matter how many cultures you interpret it through. It is religion and/or mythic history.

to HS seniors, I would have them debate an issue. I would love to have a debate in a classroom of seniors in HS about intelligent design.
In debates generally, reason is supposed to prevail. I'm sure ID would look like the usual bullshit repackaged if my students had dealt with it.

Not as a science course.

Without any reference to any one religion. I have read some good articles on Intelligent Design that make no reference to any religion. In fact the articles I have read pretty much sound like just another theory of evolution but that the process was started by a intelligent creator.

Evolution is nor more what you think of as theory than gravity. Theory is NOT an unproven hypothesis, as the liars pushing bible as science (creationists) would like you to believe.

Any religious book or religious. It should be taught as just another theory of how the universe was created but not associated with any religion or religious book.

1) ID is not a theory.
2) ID = Creationism with a new name.

Is science so WEAK that it can not stand up to the theories of creationism or ID that are NOT associated to any religion of religious book? I think not.

definition of scientific theory. Science classes should teach scientific methods of thinking, positing a theory and ways of testing that theory. The only place that creationism, ID or the flat earth theory have in science classes is in the teaching of the history of science and how silly ideas like those have hampered the advancement of science.

Back in the 60s shortly after prayer was banned from the public schools in my area we studied various cultures creation myths in Humanities - oddly enough, the Judaeo-Christian myths were not included in that class and the teacher discouraged direct comparison of the other cultural myths to our own. Also unfortunately, the class only covered Norse, Egyptian, Greek and Roman myths. Nothing from India, most of Asia, North America or even Celtic mythologies.

Obviously this is a difficult concept for you to understand.

not theories - They are pure fiction. Mythology. They don't meet the criteria to be considered scientific theories. It would be like saying that it would be okay to teach that a scarab pushes the sun across the sky like a beetle pushes a pile of dung across the ground as a scientific theory. There is no basis in reality for such a wild claim. A theory must have logical, fundamental roots within a specific set of circumstances to be considered a viable option. Intelligent design has zero credibility unless you think that belief or really "faith" is a bankable commodity. Those people who believed that the sun was pushed across the sky by a heavenly dung beetle? Did their faith make it so? OR - did astronomers discover that the sun is the center of our solar system and we simply revolve around it because of a strong gravitational force?

... In public schools and colleges it should be pointed out at every opportunity that there are separate and distinct branches of study, or "-ologies." One does not teach piano playing in a history class, nor does one teach theology in a chemistry class.

The quest for scientific knowledge is distinct from the quest to explain the ultimate origin and meaning of life. The Big Bang is a theory, not a faith, and is subject to open questioning and will change as more knowledge is accumulated. It does not address "the First Cause, Itself Uncaused" nor does it address the meaning of existence. That is for theology.

This is the Science Department. Over there is the Humanities Department. In this building, Chemistry and Geology. In that building, Religious Studies.

Our schools and school boards have lost their way and have neglected their duty to educate future citizens by failing to address the differences in branches of study. We all need to take a stand that it's fine if people want to talk about Intelligent Design, but they need to put it in its proper context. Science is a method of inquiry, not a faith.

Hekate

The judge in the Dover case thought that and we all know it. So they are not interested in teaching comparative creation stories, just their particular creation story.

There are places people can send their kids if they want to spend money teaching them religious doctrine.

They are called private schools and churches.

Someone ought to remember the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment. People are free to practice their religion on their own. The state is forbidden to establish a religion.

It's simple and it works for everybody.

the little kids learn the Bible stories and when they are older and have more scientific knowledge, they can CHOOSE to believe the Bible storiies or what they can SEE with their own eyes and replicate in experiment after experiment..

the reply section is thoroughly overrun by self-righteous creationists spouting bullshit and non sequitur apologetics in the name of forcing creationism into the classroom. I can only hope that is not a fair cross-section of the general population.

Nor are the atheist retorts thereto particularly clever. Far too many of them engage in exactly the kind of ad hominem attacks upon which fundamentalist Christians thrive. One as much as notes that the Christians only came there to argue, and yet follows up with insults and rebukes that lead them to exactly the martyrdom that attracts such imbeciles in the first place.

"As Louis Armstrong said of rock’n’roll: ‘It’s the same soup warmed over.’ Using the term ‘Intelligent Design’ is just a fashionable way of trying to avoid some of the worn-out clichés of theology. But if you have intelligent designs you have to have an intelligent designer and, whoops, here we go again, it’s that nice old man with a long white beard who gave us leprosy, malaria, gangrene, parasitic worms and cancerous tumours."

That creationism crap can be taught at sunday school and paid for with their tax free cash, along with the rest of that fantasy bullshit.

as an idea that is JUST as relevant.


...The theory states that some forms of existence are simply too stupid to have come about by random chance. Ergo, they must have been designed to be stupid by someone at least equally as stupid as the stupidity that has been created, a Stupid Designer like God or Calvin Klein or whomever coaches the New York Mets, and not just any old mediocre designer.

The stupid people who believe this theory are considered to be highly stupid indeed, though most of them do not consider themselves as stupid as the stupid people who believe this theory.

The existence and validity of Stupid Design has been proved by the fact that, like everything else we know to exist, it causes cancer in lab mice.

One of the 68,983 laws of the theory states that if you hear, say or type the word stupid too many times, it starts to sound stupid.

Some argue that the designer is not stupid, but merely joking around. This the Prankster Design theory. ... http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Stupid_Design