<p>this topic popped up in my ap us class....well what do you guys think? should intelligent design (creationism) be taught along side evolution? why or why not?</p>
<p>intelligent design != science</p>
<p>so no.</p>
<p>Well, since creationist have no science to back up claims, I am not sure what subject this would come up in. Of course in a religion class, but physics I am not sure (based mostly of testable data). Well, if it is taught, the lesson will be short because there isn’t much support. I believe since creationism is purely religious it should stay in philosophy and religion. Things like the big bang should stay in science. Leave out to philosophy to talk about these subjects, not physics.</p>
<p>Sent from my DROIDX using CC App</p>
<p>The big bang is ridiculous. Years ago, spontaneous generation was proven false. That’s all the big bang is-something out of nowhere. It can’t be tested; based all on assumption and observing processes of TODAY, not something that happened “billions” of years ago. </p>
<p>If they were to teach evolution, they should teach the things that are wrong with evolution also. If they were to teach intelligent design, they should teach the things that are wrong with it too. Goes both ways.</p>
<p>This thread is a really bad idea.</p>
<p>haha, then don’t read it?..</p>
<p>why should either be taught?</p>
<p>no</p>
<p>10char</p>
<p>No. Not every viewpoint deserves equal consideration. There is a huge amount of evidence supporting evolution. It is a theory in the same sense that gravity is a theory(i.e. “theory” in this context refers to a scientific explanation, not to an unproven hypothesis).</p>
<p>Gravity isn’t a theory.</p>
<p>No. Evolution is a scientific theory, and it belongs in the classroom. Creationism, however, is faith-based, so unless you are taking some sort of religious class, or attending a religious school, then it makes no sense to teach it in school. That would be like asking the church to take time to include evolution in its sermons.</p>
<p>@tofugirl: Yes, we have evidence in favor of the Big Bang Theory. It’s called the Cosmic Background Radiation, a nearly uniform distribution of radiation throughout the cosmos at a temperature of about 2.73K. In addition, the expansion of the universe can be seen as proof that at one point it had to be super-small, hence a Big Bang.</p>
<p>Evolution has been thoroughly tested and proven. We have oodles of evidence supporting evolutionary theory, while no credible proof has been put towards creationism. Why should we teach the Judeo-Christian view of creation and not any other religions? Teaching creationism alongside evolution would not only be scientifically inept, but violate the First Amendment, as shown by the landmark case Engel v. Vitale.</p>
<p>Sure, let’s teach intelligent design. However, to be fair and to give fair attention to other widespread practices and beliefs that have no scientific or factual backing, let’s also teach astrology, alchemy, witchcraft, and appeasement of the gods alongside astronomy, chemistry, biology, and physics, respectively.</p>
<p>tofugirl101, wrong. Common misconception, the big bang DOES NOT state something came out of nothing. It just doesn’t. And look up LHC. Also, as a Christian it’s not contradictory to accept the big bang and evolution. </p>
<p>enfieldacademy, evolution should be taught because it’s a science class. Unless, you want to say why should a science class exist? And all the way back to make the point that life is pointless thus teaching science is pointless. </p>
<p>MSD, gravity is both a fact and theory.</p>
<p>intelligent design is not science and therefore should not be taught alongside evolution in a science classroom. however, if it is taught in a philosophy or religion course, that’s fine.</p>
<p>^this, completely</p>
<p>Gravity is as much a theory as phosphorescence is.</p>
<p>“The most obvious fact of gravity is that objects in our everyday experience tend to fall downwards when not otherwise prevented from doing so. People throughout history have wondered what causes this effect. Many explanations have been proposed over the centuries. Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein have all developed useful models of gravity, each of which constitutes a theory of gravity. (Newton, for example, realized that the fact of gravity can be extended to the tendency of any two masses to attract one another.) The word “gravity”, therefore, can be used to refer to the observed facts (i.e., that masses attract one another) and the theory used to explain the facts (the reason why masses attract one another). In this way, gravity is both a theory and a fact.”</p>
<p>[Evolution</a> as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia”>Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Trainwrecks are a bad idea, but that doesn’t mean it’s easy not to watch.</p>
<p>Intelligent Design and Creationism are NOT the same thing; Creationism says that god is the creator while in intelligent design, there is a 3rd party creator who is neither god nor human.</p>
<p>Intelligent Design is NOT science. This has been decided in the courts of law. Therefore, it should obviously not be taught in a science class. </p>
<p>Secondly, Intelligent Design, as it is taught, has heavy tie-ins with Catholism. Therefore, it should not be taught in public schools.</p>
<p>If a private school wants to teach it, and makes it clear that it will be taught to prospective students, I see no problem with it.</p>