NationStates Jolt Archive

Resolved: In the United States, public high school science curriculum should include the study of the Theory of Intelligent Design.

I need pro and con arguments here. Why should or shouldn't it be taught to our high schoolers?

Thanks.

It shouldn't be taught for the simple reason that scientific theories need to be testable. They need to make predictions that can be falsified by real world observations. Theories that include a supernatural actor can't be tested because natural laws and observations can be altered by the supernatural. In short, ID isn't science.

Well I've got no problem with it being discussed in a Comparative Religions class or a Philosophy class...

But I'm assuming you're talking about Science class. Simple Con arguement - Intelligent design, by its very tenants, can never live up to its own claim of being a theory. It purports a supernatural explaination for life, and as such is not scientifically testable, and will never, not a million years, reach the level accorded to Scientific Theories(note, a theory in sci is different from the common usage. It's not simply an idea - it implies a good, solid idea backed up by repeatable scientific observation and experimentation. Heck, Gravity is a 'theory.').

There are other, more messy arguements, but the simple(and true) 'It isn't Science' arguement should work quite nicely.

EDIT - Damn, Mr. Commies beat me to it.

It shouldn't be taught for the simple reason that scientific theories need to be testable. They need to make predictions that can be falsified by real world observations. Theories that include a supernatural actor can't be tested because natural laws and observations can be altered by the supernatural. In short, ID isn't science.

But can we test the theory of evolution? We teach that in public schools.

But can we test the theory of evolution? We teach that in public schools.
Sure, in an indirect way. Predictions can be made based on the theory of evolution. For example, in Darwin's time there was no understanding of chromosomes and DNA or of mutations, but they knew that if their theory was right there should be some method of transfering information from one generation to the next and that method should mess up sometimes. Many years later such a method was found. Genetics.

If DNA didn't exist then we could throw out Evolution as false. Or at least we'd have to radically change it into another theory.

Inteligent design has no scientific basis behind it, and cannot be proven by any means known to us. Thus, it has no place in a science class. If they want to teach and discuss theories on Intelligent Design or creationism they can take a theology class or go to Sunday school.

But can we test the theory of evolution?

Yes.

Honestly, I dont see why there is even a debate on this. ID =/= science therefore doesnt get taught in science class. Case Closed.

But can we test the theory of evolution? We teach that in public schools.

Yes, we can 'test' it, in the sense that we are able to observe, hypothesise and experiment, then come back with a conclusion. And the evidence from scientific inquiry overwhelmingly backs Evolution.

Now, we're making a mistake and we don't even notice it. I confined my response to ID, whereas you brought up Evolution. Evolution and ID are not proper beliefs to contrast. You would contrast Abiogenesis and ID, not Evolution and ID.

For all your Evolution/Creationism/ID/Abiogenesis needs, I recommend - http://www.talkorigins.org/

Resolved: In the United States, public high school science curriculum should include the study of the Theory of Intelligent Design.

I need pro and con arguments here. Why should or shouldn't it be taught to our high schoolers?

Thanks.

ID hypothesises a designer, for which there is no scientific proof. Nor is there any way to falsify the hypothesis. ID does not fit any rational definition of science (important note: This does not mean ID is untrue. All it means is that it can't be science.)

Nothing eklse really needs to be said. ID is not science. It can't be science. The idea that it could be science can only be held by those profoundly ignorant as to what science is and the method behind it.

But can we test the theory of evolution? We teach that in public schools.
We've seen it happen.

There were small animals in a lake that were observed to have adapted and evolved when the levels of various chemicals and algae and stuff like that changed.

(don't ask me for links, I can't be bothered with it again)

I still find this argument hilarious...if I was a politician in the UK and I seriously raised the possibility of ID being taught as scientific theory I would be laughed out of a job.

Well I've got no problem with it being discussed in a Comparative Religions class or a Philosophy class...

But I'm assuming you're talking about Science class. Simple Con arguement - Intelligent design, by its very tenants, can never live up to its own claim of being a theory. It purports a supernatural explaination for life, and as such is not scientifically testable, and will never, not a million years, reach the level accorded to Scientific Theories(note, a theory in sci is different from the common usage. It's not simply an idea - it implies a good, solid idea backed up by repeatable scientific observation and experimentation. Heck, Gravity is a 'theory.').

There are other, more messy arguements, but the simple(and true) 'It isn't Science' arguement should work quite nicely.

EDIT - Damn, Mr. Commies beat me to it.

Good stuff. The argument I would use against that is that whereas religion teaches that God or Gods created the universe and life, intelligent design teaches that ANY creator made life. This could be aliens, God, or earlier humans.
It is quite scientific in the sense that people research it scientifically quite often to make it step over the threshold into being a theory. They are researching it to see things that would support a theory, and are currently working on finding undeniable evidence that insists upon intelligent design.
As of yet, they have no more proof than evolution.
Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.

Why ID can't be tested.

Observation that conflicts with ID: Mutations leading to different traits are observed from one generation to the next. It makes sense that accumulating enough of these mutations will lead one population of a given animal unable to reproduce with a previously identical population therefore giving rise to a new species. Just as we see in ring species.

ID should be knocked out at this point, but since it relies on a supernatural explanation it responds:

Microevolution happens, but somehow the accumulated mutations can't add up to create a different species.

See? Despite the evidence they can always say "God won't let it happen" or something similar.

But can we test the theory of evolution? We teach that in public schools.
Such is why we have debates like this - lack of informed people.

You do Ted Turner?

Trying to hold it in....

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...You fool, switch to LD!


Anyway, aside from the random inter-debate sniping, here's a relatively interesting argument that people won't be prepared for: because biology is fast becoming one of the biggest sciences in terms of applications that can change the world, people who don't understand its basic principles will be left in the dark and will not be able to navigate the world of the future. An example that could happen today: someone is not taught evolution/is taught alternatives that they choose to beleive and forgets evolution: said someone gets AIDS, and for about a week in the middle of the treatment decides to just stop taking the meds for a week to see if they can take it. They can't and they decide to get back on the meds. If they don't understand evolution they won't know why they can't just go back to the same meds, and when they try to do so they will be screwed.

You do Ted Turner?

Trying to hold it in....

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...You fool, switch to LD!


Anyway, aside from the random inter-debate sniping, here's a relatively interesting argument that people won't be prepared for: because biology is fast becoming one of the biggest sciences in terms of applications that can change the world, people who don't understand its basic principles will be left in the dark and will not be able to navigate the world of the future. An example that could happen today: someone is not taught evolution/is taught alternatives that they choose to beleive and forgets evolution: said someone gets AIDS, and for about a week in the middle of the treatment decides to just stop taking the meds for a week to see if they can take it. They can't and they decide to get back on the meds. If they don't understand evolution they won't know why they can't just go back to the same meds, and when they try to do so they will be screwed.
And so will anybody they screw. Mmmmm drug-resistant HIV.

You do Ted Turner?

Trying to hold it in....

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...You fool, switch to LD!


Anyway, aside from the random inter-debate sniping, here's a relatively interesting argument that people won't be prepared for: because biology is fast becoming one of the biggest sciences in terms of applications that can change the world, people who don't understand its basic principles will be left in the dark and will not be able to navigate the world of the future. An example that could happen today: someone is not taught evolution/is taught alternatives that they choose to beleive and forgets evolution: said someone gets AIDS, and for about a week in the middle of the treatment decides to just stop taking the meds for a week to see if they can take it. They can't and they decide to get back on the meds. If they don't understand evolution they won't know why they can't just go back to the same meds, and when they try to do so they will be screwed.

Why would they get taught intelligent design alone? if they were taught evolution as well, they may pay attention to both and decide on one. if they decide on intelligent design, they'll hopefully just obey the doctor's orders. if not...well, people choose intelligent design either way, now don't they?

edit: I'll try LD in a year or two, I'm but a freshman.

why wouldn't they understand that they couldn't go back to meds if they didn't know about evolution?

next, why would they get taught intelligent design alone? if they were taught evolution as well, they may pay attention to both and decide on one. if they decide on intelligent design, they'll hopefully just obey the doctor's orders. if not...well, people choose intelligent design either way, now don't they?

They wouldn't understand that while they were busy dosing it the disease was evolving into a drug resistant strain that now after it has been allowed to grow will not respond to the previous regimen.

The problem with simply saying "let's teach both, they'll get the difference" is that ID has enormous emotional appeal to many people. Giving them such an easy way out robs them of the responsibility to actually understand the material. As biological innovation becomes more prominent in day-to-day life, this effectively skipped period of school (even if they spit it out on some test, they most certainly weren't learning it) is going to come back to haunt them. If they think their doctor is wrong they'll probably just ignore them, causing disastrous consequences. ID is gaining some of the same problems that occur in alternate medicine: people disregard doctors who prescribe things they don't understand, are exploited by those with simple explanations, and just get sicker.

Why would they get taught intelligent design alone? if they were taught evolution as well, they may pay attention to both and decide on one. if they decide on intelligent design, they'll hopefully just obey the doctor's orders. if not...well, people choose intelligent design either way, now don't they?

While we're at it, why don't we teach Intelligent Falling in physics class, in addition to the Theory of Gravity.