Kansas School Board Approves Intelligent Design

[Republican_Man]

That is a good point, because in my research I have found that to be so. However, pushing one idea--the idea of Darwinism--only, when there are so many other ideas, is not good, even if it is a science classroom.
You know, Humanism is a declared religion in the US. Arguably, evolution falls under the ideas of humanism, and it could be argued that teaching evolution--and evolution only--is pushing a religious view on the students by itself. I think that's a valid enough argument to be made.
I just think that if you're going to teach an idea when there are so many other ideas out there, you should leave open the possibility for discussion and debate in the classroom--not just being taught one idea and that one idea is right and not able to argue and discuss it. Let all ideas be heard and allow the students to discuss and debate it--even if it's only one day. What's wrong with discussion and debate? It expands the mind and helps students to become more clear, logical, intelligent thinkers. What's wrong with that? Nothing.
Just take one day--even one portion of the day--in which evolution is being taught and discuss other ideas as well. Say "This is the theory with the most evidence" (evolution), and then "these are some other ideaes," and then open up for student discussion. Go into far more depth on evolution, fine, but let the kids debate and discuss it for as long as they have ideas (unless there's a time limit) and leave it at that. Test them on evolution only, fine. But allow for the teaching of other ideas, as well--particularly Intelligent Design.
That's my stance. You do have a valid argument, though, Link, which I respect, but on those grounds I disagree .

[IntrepidIsMe]

Evolution is also supported by most Christian religions, does that mean that they're also pushing a Christian agenda by allowing evolution to be taught? No. I wouldn't say that simply because a religion fully endorses a scientific theory that has plenty of evidence behind it, that it's pushing their "religious view."

If facists were to say that they support evolution, I suppose that by your argument the school systems would be supporting a Neo Nazi agenda?

[Republican_Man]

No, no, no. I said, first of all, that it could be argued that that is so, and that I find that argument logical. It wasn't, however, my argument.
And no, that doesn't follow under that argument, supporting the Neo-Nazi agenda. Technically creationism is the Christian idea. Evolution being taught in schools could not be argued as a Christian idea, but as a humanist idea, in terms of religion. I'm really stating that argument, which one could argue, because of the "ID is Creationsim" argument, that's really the bulk of it. If you want to argue that, then you could, conceivably, argue that.
That's not my argument, though. My argument is the expression of more than one idea--that's all.
I think evolution should be taught in schools. But I also think other ideas should as well, to allow for discussion, debate, and the expansion of the mind. I think that's a good argument, but to be honest, the neg case is, in actuality, is a better one, I will concede to you. But I stand by my belief that the teaching of more than one idea in something like this is the right thing to do--or at least discussing more than one idea and stuff--is important and the right thing to do. I'm only saying a little bit of the class time devoted to discussion over different ideas, validity of them, and things like that. Then turn back to focusing on evolution, because there's more to back that up. I think that's the right thing to do.

[IntrepidIsMe]

Ooooh, k. I see where you came from with that argument.

However, evolution is merely a scientific theory that coincides with current religion's beliefs, be that humanistic or christian.

I don't view creationism as ID, specifically. However, it's merely the evidence (or lack, thereof) which bothers me. Why should something that can't possibly be proved be tought in a class that is based on what can be or can't be proved? ID should be in a philosophy class for that reason alone.

[webtaz99]

I still don't get it. How would one go about "teaching ID". Try it. Assume we are a highschool science class and you are teaching ID.

Ready? Go.

[IntrepidIsMe]

Well, you can explain what it is, and what very little "evidence" there is behind it, if you can even call it. I mean, if something exists, you can teach about it. Right?

[Monster]

The only reason that evolution is being taught in schools is because people are afraid of the unknown. Everyone is, even christians or people who support ID. People want a very real, plausible explanation to why we exist, and evolution gives most people that security. Even though evolution still has some big questions to answer, people will accept it blindly. ID or Creationism or whatever you want to call it cannot be proven through facts, although there is some evidence. It must be accepted by faith.

[Republican_Man]

Alright, guys. Last night and today I was at a speech and debate tournament. I gave a speech and didn't debate this (although I may yet in a future tournament), but there were to PF (Public Forum) debate teams on my team that debated this. We discussed, yesterday in particular, this topic in detail, and I watched a team that got to Quarters debate (they lost, but I think they did better--and they had the CON side, and yet they lost; you'd be amazed at how good some of the arguments actually are).
Anyways, there are some good arguments for the pro (as there are for the con). First of all, an argument that was brought up in the debate I watched as the flagellum. A professor at the University of Pennsylvania released something discussing it, and how evolution does not explain for its complex structure, and how it just couldn't be cited towards the flagellum; and so he decided that there had to be some sort of designer. They said that that shows that evolution is inherently flawed or something like that, and that ID is a viable alternative, considering that even evolution is not entirely correct, or cannot be.
Ah, I found the article about it (a speech of his): http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idfrombiochemistry.htm It includes some good stuff
See, one of the reasons why it could be seen as valid is because many things are just to complex for evolution to explain, and one idea is that some superior being designed things on Earth (that's basically what I gathered as ID over this--actually explaining Earth, not just the universe).
Another one is that it can teach students about the scientific process and how it works. I mean, Newton developed the Theory of Relativity but had no evidence to prove it, and so it was simply denied by the public. And yet when Einstein came, he did things that made it a viable theory. Now, if you think about it, that means that theories don't necessarily have much scientific evidence in the beginning.
Next, students are more than likely going to ask about it anyways, because of the level of news coverage it's getting. So that's one arguable reason to allow it in schools.
Another involves my argument, that academic freedom and discussion and debate is critical to the scientific process. Adding on to that, there is actually debate over ID and evolution in the scientific community, giving even more reason to allow its teaching in school.
It also teaches kids about how the world is remarkably complex, on top of how there are other ideas out there.
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf, I just found, makes quite a good case for ID--INCLUDING science behind it. So, perhaps it is more scientific than once thought? I'm a bit skeptical about it, but I think it could be valid.



Now, I could be mistaken in the exact details of these arguments (that's more than likely the case), but that's basically them.

Now, the neg side. It's something that can't really be proven or disproven--something that a theory needs to be able to have. It's something that can both be proven and disproven. That can be so with evolution. Therefore, it's a valid question to ask whether or not ID can be considered a viable theory.
The argument that's pretty much failed every time is that it's a religious idea, because they're unable to portray it that way. My team's team, in that debate, tried to spin the Pennsylvania case to seem as though its common for ID. However, the other team wisely countered that, saying what it really was. Given, however, that I could have argued the overall points and contentions of the neg case far better than the proponents in that debate.
But to be honest, the neg arguments against "public high school science curriculum [including] the study of the Theory of Intelligent Design" were better than the simplistic arguments here I just can't remember them all right now, but I'll remember more of both arguments as time progresses, and post them here.

And only 45% of Americans, according to a recent Newsweek poll (presented by the pro side in that debate) actually believe in Evolution. So according to it, 55% of Americans don't believe in evolution. So, then, why is it taught so much in schools, with no other ideas when less than 50% of America believes in it?


Most of this, keep in mind, are not my arguments per se, but arguments gathered during this process. I will more than likely remember more, or a better way to word/improve/correct arguments above, arguments later, so bare with me.

[webtaz99]

[Republican_Man]

ID, I've learned, involves both.

[webtaz99]

I'm still waiting for an example of how ID would be taught.

Also, I remember evolution being discussed for maybe 10 minutes in class, and only 1 test question out of hundreds, so I don't see what the fuss is about anyway. Concerned parents can counter the school's impact in whatever way and to whatever degree they choose.

[CJ Cregg]

When i was was taught evolution the teacher said that there are other posibilities but he isnt going to go into them and then went straight into Biology

I think that was enough. If anyone wanted to look they can. I dont think anythink else should be needed

[Seven of Nine]

That's pretty much all my teacher said, and it wasn't on any of my science papers

[Theresa]

Pffft, I got sent to the principals office for mentioning creationism.

[Leo Wyatt]

I got sent to also to the principals office not by saying creationism though. I was carrying my bible with me in the hall way and a teacher sent me to the principal's office. He didn't do anything, he just told teacher leave me alone. He sent me back to class. The following year I ended up in the teacher's class that sent me to the principal's office. She didn't like me just because I am a christian.

But, we ended up getting along.

[Puck]

In my class we were taught both, and then we wrote an essay on which we thought was true. My essay was that both were true, and probably looks alot like what we are now calling intelligent design.