2 reasons why I think intelligent design should be taught in schools

The first reason I think I.D should be taught in schools is because if kids are exposed to both views fairly, they are more likely to believe in Evolution. Maybe someone here knows about this study, but I heard about it a very long time ago and can't quite seem to find it on the internet. But the study, to my recollection, involved having college students read an excerpt from one of the works of Stephen Meyer, a pro-intelligent design philosopher, and another excerpt from Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker. the students were on the whole much more likely to accept evolution

The second reason is really twofold. I think this is an important issue not only in science but also in the philosophy of science. I think teaching an issue which really hits home for students will cause many more students to develop a larger fascination with science. Of course a large public fascination with science would, on the whole, but greatly beneficial to our country.

There are so many theories of creation, that not all of them can be taught in schools, at least not in the science class rooms anyway.

The only discernable factor should be empirical evidence.

As I've stated before, I'm OK with creation being taught in a religious studies elective that explores the beliefs of many world religions. However, it should never be taught in science classes because creationism simply isn't science.

As the poster above me stated, it should be about empirical evidence, and there's plenty for evolution and next to none for creation.

I.D. is pseudoscience at best. It should not be taught in science classes, but I would think it's quite reasonable to put it as part of a religious class.

The first reason I think I.D should be taught in schools is because if kids are exposed to both views fairly, they are more likely to believe in Evolution. Maybe someone here knows about this study, but I heard about it a very long time ago and can't quite seem to find it on the internet. But the study, to my recollection, involved having college students read an excerpt from one of the works of Stephen Meyer, a pro-intelligent design philosopher, and another excerpt from Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker. the students were on the whole much more likely to accept evolution

The second reason is really twofold. I think this is an important issue not only in science but also in the philosophy of science. I think teaching an issue which really hits home for students will cause many more students to develop a larger fascination with science. Of course a large public fascination with science would, on the whole, but greatly beneficial to our country.

danwallacefan

Ahhhhh so we should also teach kids alchemy so they can truly believe and love chemistry.  We should also teach kids the laying on of hands so they will better appreciate health.  We should teach kids telepathy so they can better appreciate oral communications.

Much like pharmacology, forensic psychology, and ocean engineering, philosophy of science isn't taught at a high school level.  Hell if we can just get these kids to fully understand biology and chemistry we have some chance of them learning these things in the future.  ID is just a tripping stone towards learning more about science. 

The first reason I think I.D should be taught in schools is because if kids are exposed to both views fairly, they are more likely to believe in evolution.

danwallacefan

I think that tells you something right there. ;) 

The first reason I think I.D should be taught in schools is because if kids are exposed to both views fairly, they are more likely to believe in Evolution. Maybe someone here knows about this study, but I heard about it a very long time ago and can't quite seem to find it on the internet. But the study, to my recollection, involved having college students read an excerpt from one of the works of Stephen Meyer, a pro-intelligent design philosopher, and another excerpt from Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker. the students were on the whole much more likely to accept evolution

The second reason is really twofold. I think this is an important issue not only in science but also in the philosophy of science. I think teaching an issue which really hits home for students will cause many more students to develop a larger fascination with science. Of course a large public fascination with science would, on the whole, but greatly beneficial to our country.

danwallacefan

You'd rather we put confidence in man's work, than to trust solely in God's revelation to us? 

"It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." - Psalm 18:8

I think the Truth should be taught. Full stop. My opinion of the Truth, however, differs considerably from most of the other views on here. :)

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

The first reason I think I.D should be taught in schools is because if kids are exposed to both views fairly, they are more likely to believe in Evolution. Maybe someone here knows about this study, but I heard about it a very long time ago and can't quite seem to find it on the internet. But the study, to my recollection, involved having college students read an excerpt from one of the works of Stephen Meyer, a pro-intelligent design philosopher, and another excerpt from Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker. the students were on the whole much more likely to accept evolution

The second reason is really twofold. I think this is an important issue not only in science but also in the philosophy of science. I think teaching an issue which really hits home for students will cause many more students to develop a larger fascination with science. Of course a large public fascination with science would, on the whole, but greatly beneficial to our country.

Lansdowne5

You'd rather we put confidence in man's work, than to trust solely in God's revelation to us? 

"It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." - Psalm 18:8

I think the Truth should be taught. Full stop. My opinion of the Truth, however, differs considerably from most of the other views on here. :)

So true! :)

You'd rather we put confidence in man's work, than to trust solely in God's revelation to us? 

"It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." - Psalm 18:8

I think the Truth should be taught. Full stop. My opinion of the Truth, however, differs considerably from most of the other views on here. :)

 

Lansdowne5

Did you mean:

"You'd rather we put confidence in [evidence], than to trust solely in [the emotional satisfaction of some people]?"

I say teach the truth that is supported by evidence and advances our quality of life, not my opinion of the truth, or your opinion of it, and most certainly not the the oppinion of the truth that needs to be capitalized to appear meaningful.  

You'd rather we put confidence in man's work, than to trust solely in God's revelation to us? 

"It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." - Psalm 18:8

I think the Truth should be taught. Full stop. My opinion of the Truth, however, differs considerably from most of the other views on here. :)

 

Lansdowne5