<p>Evolution is fake.</p>
<p>I do not come from monkeys, monkeys do not come from fish (my science teacher said that all animals come from a walking fish SMHHHHH), fish do not come from germs, germs did not come from the Big Bang, there was NO Big Bang.</p>
<p>/end rant.</p>
<p>And only smart people become waitresses. Blackrose101, joke or not? poe’s law and all that.</p>
<p>Take your pick.</p>
<p>a. Humans are superior in every form and way, because I said so. I just appeared on the earth because I’m just that awesome. I don’t need evidence to be right, I just am.</p>
<p>b. I’m rather insignificant in the world. I evolved from other animals to adapt to a different environment through natural selection. I know I am right because of the evidence from fossils, homology, etc. </p>
<p>Darwin wasn’t mentally ill, and neither were the thousands of other scientists that contributed to the theory. Intelligent design is an ego in itself, refusing to believe what has been proven by many different people in many different ways. There is no religion in science; if there were, we would see priests conducting lab experiments.</p>
<p>I’d like to see a valid scientific point for ID, but I’ve yet to find one. There is no way to prove creationism with any form of science that I’m aware of.</p>
<p>My 2 cents, take it or leave it.</p>
<p>It would be helpful to know more from the OP as to what what specifically you are thinking when you say “Intelligent Design” and “Evolution”? These are both terms that can cover areas as narrow as the origin of a particular species given a certain starting point and as broad as the origin of the universe. </p>
<p>It is interesting that there are a lot of posts with definitive statments about “Intelligent Design” however based on most of the responses it appears very few have actually been taught Intelligent Design. You should use caution when expressing an opinion about something you do not know much about. This is the reason for education. You are taught about something and then you are better able to form an opinion that is worthy of expression.</p>
<p>It is comfortable to categorize things into “science class” and “religion class”. However as you become more educated you will realize the world is more complicated and things are not so easily packaged. You need to talk about the philosophy and the origin of thought around the topics you are learning about in all classes.</p>
<p>I am not an advocate of “Creationism” or “Intelligent design”. I understand the “Evolution” as originally put for by Darwin explains “how” species have expanded, adapted, formed, etc. into the biological system that we see today. Over time Darwinism has given way to Evolution as his theory has been expanded and refined. However, Evoltion says nothing about the origin of the Universe. That is a different set of scientific fields of study that may be called Cosmology. </p>
<p>My point is that you should not be afraid of different ideas that may be called “Intelligent Design”. All would be better served by saying, “Yes, please teach me” about what people say about “Intelligent Design” along side relevant topics (such as “Evolution”) so that I may better understand the world and the people I share it with.</p>
<p>^ Are you saying intelligent design should be taught in science class? If so, no. Science is science. Science class isn’t to show all the different types of belief sand whatnot, it’s to show the relevant details. Evolution is the only scientific theory on the matter.</p>
<p>^ Is the concept of evolution covered just once in one science class? As a section in biology class then yes stick to natural selection in the context of evolution. But what other science classes might evolution be explored? Maybe in a history class when talking about the influence of the British empire and how scientific thought was expanded. Or in a Sociology class? Anthropology? Astronomy? Philosophy? etc. I think it would be appropriate in different forms of science classes. </p>
<p>“Evolution is the only scientific theory on the matter” seems very closed minded and not in the spirit of scientific discovery. Sounds a lot like “We know everthing there is to know, don’t upset the apple cart”/</p>
<p>Intelligent Design doesn’t have the same kind of scientific evidence as evolution. You may just as well teach the idea of luminiferous aether or any other obsolete concepts that have been left behind for more developed and better substantiated theories.</p>
<p>If anything, Intelligent Design could be taught in a course on culture or religion with the explicit statement that it is not accepted by the scientific community due to a lack of proper evidence. It may describe how the idea of Intelligent Design was formed and the main arguments for and against it, but it would need to emphasize the point that it is by no means an accepted scientific theory.</p>
<p>Intelligent Design doesn’t belong in a science classroom because it does not hold up to the standards that all other scientific thoughts and hypotheses go through. The theory of gravity has been undergoing continual change, and each “update” so to speak has had to stand up to the rigors set forth by the scientific method. Evolution, contrary to some people’s beliefs, also must stand up to those same standards.</p>
<p>Intelligent Design as an isolated idea isn’t a threat to anything. Accepting ID, however, poses several issues. Firstly, it invalidates the very core of scientific principles as explained previously, as it suggests that one does not need proper evidence to accept a model, and that merely cherry picking the ideas that conform to your beliefs is okay. Secondly, it validates the idea of ID. There is no controversy because ID is not scientifically substantiated. It doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. We have a far better model for explaining life on Earth. </p>
<p>The theory of evolution is accepted by the vast majority of scientists (over 90%) and an even higher percentage of those in biology. The US National Academy of Science has stated that ID and other claims of supernatural origins of life are not science, a belief shared by a tremendous number of other scientists and science organizations, including 38 Nobel laureates who issued a statement reiterating that ID is fundamentally unscientific. </p>
<p>Evolution is the current accepted model because it is the best scientifically substantiated model we have. Since it’s inception it’s been subject to scrutiny. The person who can scientifically prove evolution wrong will change biology, science, and history forever, and that alone is enough to motivate many scientists to find holes in the model. Given that there have been no drastic changes to our ideas on how life originated, we stick with the best working model we have.</p>
<p>If you want to teach the components of ID, do it somewhere else. The science classroom is a place to discuss scientifically grounded theories and models, not for preaching fanciful personal beliefs.</p>
<p>^ Evolution and Intelligent Design are not mutually exclusive. They can both be true.</p>
<p>No. Intelligent design and creationism is not science. Why would subjects not pertaining to science be taught in a science class? I go to a Catholic school, we don’t even tie those two subjects in. We learn a little bit about the Intelligent Design theory in Religion. That’s it. This question shouldn’t be asked because the answer is so simple. </p>
<p>Anybody who answers yes to this question, I want your reasons why.</p>
<p>One of ID’s arguments that I am particularly fond of is the fine-tuning argument. There are certain details that are made just right; any tweaking can change the outcome drastically (temperature of the Earth, various things like that).</p>
<p>"Evolution is fake.</p>
<p>I do not come from monkeys, monkeys do not come from fish (my science teacher said that all animals come from a walking fish SMHHHHH), fish do not come from germs, germs did not come from the Big Bang, there was NO Big Bang."</p>
<p>I am pretty sure that is sarcasm. But in case anybody here believes the false premise that evolution says “we come from monkeys”, that’s wrong. We have common ancestors.</p>
<p>i didn’t read everything since some of the posts are becoming long</p>
<p>i hate the word “ignorant” especially when people start throwing it around on CC so i won’t use it.</p>
<p>but some people on here doesn’t seem like they understand evolution very well.</p>
<p>So if a student in a science class asks “why does natural selection work this way?” or “what are the driving factors behind this?”. How should they be answered:</p>
<p>“Just cuz”
“We don’t ask why in this class”
“I don’t know”
“Go ask your priest, minister, spiritual leader, rabbi, imam, etc. I’m not allowed to explore that concept in this class”
“You must be ignorant if you can’t just accept this on its face”</p>
<p>OR </p>
<p>“Excellent question, lets talk about different ideas as to why things work this way. Some people think …, others think …, still others think … You clearly are beginning to understand science if you contunually ask questions. Some people like to shut off discussion but a true scientist would never say that all things are known and there is only the one ‘accepted’ explanation”</p>
<p>GS, my statement “Evolution is the only scientific theory on the matter” is a FACT. I’m NOT saying it is true or another theory won’t pop up just that it hasn’t at the moment. Also, it’s in the name NATURAL selection. God COULD HAVE guided it but why on earth should a science class entertain that probability? Belongs in R.E. Science isn’t about being PC, it’s about keepin’ it real!</p>
<p>no one actually supports intelligent design. it’s just a wedge issue to put full on 6 day creationism back in the schools a la 1820.</p>
<p>No one addresses the questions I ask in post #46 and #52. People just keep saying "We are only allowed 2 boxes, Science and Religion. These things go in box 1 and these go in box 2, no discussing ideas across courses.</p>
<p>Are we allowed to talk about about mathematics in science class? What about science in history class or the other way around? Which science classes?</p>
<p>Is Psychology a science? Are there hard sciences and soft sciences? Is every scientific discpline the same.</p>
<p>Using broad labels with very specific boundaries is not a very scientific approach.</p>
<p>What I am saying is true education does not limit itself so much.</p>
<p>And I’ll ask again, what are the boundaries of “Evolution”? Does it include the big bang? In a biology class? Are you sure? Does every scientist agree with those boundaries? If you expand the boundaries in some ways, why not in others?</p>
<p>Saying, X is science, Y is not, is just narrow minded thinking. I prefer a more open minded education. I am not threatened by exploring ideas that I may not consider appropriate for box X. Learning requires context to foster true understanding. The why provides some of the context, as does history and mathematics.</p>
<p>I think we should do away with science. Math is clearly superior.</p>
<p>It’s firmly established that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. It’s sometimes worthwhile to discuss things that aren’t true in a science class if they give insight into the development of the field (e.g. Lamarckianism or the Luminferous Ether). But Intelligent Design doesn’t do that. So what does it do that’s beneficial? The simple fact that some people think it’s true is not sufficient reason for including it in a curriculum.</p>
<p>Gravity is caused by magical fairies that pull conglomerations of matter towards each other. Why isn’t that taught in science?</p>
<p>“A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.”
-Alan Perlis</p>
<p>That statement itself encapsulates the fundamental flaw with the solution evolution has to offer. If intelligent beings can’t emulate intelligence, what are the odds that intelligence was achieved through time spontaneously? Okay, spontaneous is not really the right word. However, even if an iterative process took place through natural selection, it is still highly unlikely. I mean look, the brightest of the computer scientists are tackling this problem to emulate intelligence, but we are not even remotely close to an intelligent computer. I mean this has been going on for decades, yet we are not even able to match an insect’s intelligence.</p>
<p>“Decades.”</p>
<p>davidthefat, you realize the Earth has existed for 4.5 billion years, right? “Decades” isn’t even in the same country code in terms of timescale. If we consider your “Decades” to be 30 years, there have been 151.3 million 30-year periods in the history of the Earth.</p>
<p>Modern humans have existed for approximately 500,000 years. It is the height of anthropocentrism to presume that because we haven’t been able to accomplish something in 30 years of study, that nature couldn’t do it given 151,333,333 times more time.</p>