Is intelligent design science?

Scores of the GOP presidential hopefuls want intelligent design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design) taught alongside evolution in science classrooms. Do some Google'in and decide for yourself if intelligent design is science, or not and defend your position.

 

No. This basically started because fundamentalists didn't like that evolution was being taught as science (They say it's "only" a theory. LOL l2definition of theory in science ignorant fools..).

So this is basically their final attempt to try and force religion down their kids' throats before (god forbid!), reason takes over fantasy.

 

I completely agree with Herman Li...
Intelligent design has no science behind it... it just states that some unknown overseeing thing made everything to work.

Whereas anything in science has a defined explanation on how it starts and ends.

 

This seems to run alongside a religion that I adopted a while ago called Deism, or the watchmaker's religion. Even so, no. A school's responsibilities need to be prioritized. It's not their job to teach children about sexual topics, health topics, or ethical topics. The job of a school was originally to teach occupational skills and finer skills such as advanced math, art, and literature. It's the parent's job to teach their kids what they want about health, religion, and philosophy/theology. That's just my belief; parents rely on the school too heavily to preform their duties.

 

It should be noted that exchanging synonyms with something doesn't really change the meaning.

God, and Intelligent Design are essentially interchangeable synonyms. However, I believe that all schools should teach at least one form of God being the creator. The reason for this is that there are over 4 billion people in the universe who believe in a sect of this. It is important for everyone to know where these people are coming from.

 

Malak: religion should be taught, but not religiously. At my school: all types of religion are taught. However, they are taught in a secular manner: neither as the truth or as a lie. We spend time analyzing why people believe.

 

That would be ideal, hence I said at least 1. Some schools however don't have the funds to allocate resources and segment the curriculum in a way that would cover all religions. There are quite a few.

 

Well under your theory of covering religions because of their broad impact, only judiasm, christianity, islam, and possibly buddhism would have to be covered. My school only has 2 teachers for all religion and ethics courses.

 

As many should be taught as pragmatically possible, however, they should be ordered in societal presence, dominance, and influence.

For example, I would rather Christianity and Islam taught as opposed to Buddhism and Judaism, simply because Christianity and Islam would be more beneficial IMO for a growing child in the western world. Obviously, ideally, all religions including Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, and several folk religions should be taught if as prefaced pragmatically possible.

 

That's how it works at mine, too. Intelligent Design isn't really a science, as science is based on cold hard fact, whilst religion.. is more guesswork, in a way.

 

In New York City, Judiasm is as prevelant as Christianity and more prevelant than Islam. Also, Buddhism is the most common religion in the world, so it depends where you are.

 

Christianity is the most followed (different sects included in the entirety) and Islam the second most popular Buddhism has from memory around 300-500 million followers.

I personally think however Christianity and Islam should be the first taught, unless the prevalency of another religion, like you said with Judaism is overwhelming. For example, Buddhism in China. Though in the tiny geographical area of New York Judaism may be slightly more popular, on a grand scale of all western socities, Christianity remains the most followed, and most well known, and Islam remains the most disliked (in general terms) from a Western perspective.

 

Why should a religion be taught just because 4 billion people on the planet accept it as truth? Sure there may be some moral/life lessons that can be learned from the Bible but you shouldn't preach one or two religions based on numerical value.

 

You shouldn't teach whether or not religion is right or wrong, you should teach the religion itself. What is x, how did it come to be, etc. To lack knowledge as to why the majority of the world is religious would be catastrophic. Regardless of whether or not it is incorrect, the fact is you need to have an understanding on one of the main dominating forces on human society.

 

Why? It's just a cultural thing. It doesn't even have stable historical backgrounds to show where it truly evolved from.

 

They should be taught because they have a large impact on the various cultures of the world, and the study of these cultures is an important part of any social science class.

They should be taught during an appropriate lesson during a social science class. If one is learning about India, basic information about Hinduism and Buddhism should be given to the children; the same can be said about any civilization one is learning about (e.g., Christianity should be taught when learning about the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages; Judaism should be taught prior to this when learning about the Ancient Near East; etc.).

And the study of human culture is unimportant?

To reply to the original question, intelligent design is more of a bad joke than actual science. Nobody in the academic world takes it seriously because nobody who has looked into the matter at all can take it seriously. It is a rebranding of the creationist nonsense that's been debunked time and time again since Darwin first authored On the Origin of Species.

 

Imagine if 4/5 of the people you knew started jumping the nearest bridge to their death. You would not go eh, must be some cultural thing, their crazy, whatever. You would more than likely wonder why.

It is folly to not teach kids about what is so entrenched in society. Why is it folly? The world is dominated by humans. Religion influences humans. If you want to maximize your chances of living successfully in society, you will need to learn what affects humans. You would learn from an early age what is right and wrong. You would learn mathematics. You would learn about government. Why? You can keep asking why to everything, however, if you want to be successful in society you need to know what influences society and religion was the, and is the greatest influence on society.

Which lesson they are introduced in the curriculum isn't the greatest concern. In grade 10, we never had a 'Social science' class or anything similar. We had a class called religion however. We talked about Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism etc. We talked about the effects they've had on society, what drives people to believe in them etc. I think this is acceptable. So long as it is taught in the following form:

Islams believe in Allah, synonymously interchangeable with God.

NOT

Allah Akhbar.

 

Um, so are you saying we should teach THE religion, or ABOUT the religion?

 

Teach about it. Talk about the clerical structure, beliefs and practices of adherents, the books and places considered sacred, etc. The difference between teaching and preaching is that the former relies on evidence, whereas the latter relies on superstition.

Teaching:
-The Ancient Greeks believed that Dionysus was the son of the mortal Semele and the god Zeus.

Preaching:
-Our Lord Jesus Christ, the son of God, was raised from the dead three days after his crucifixion.

 

You rather people remain ignorant on something that effects the lives and thinking of the majority of the people on the planet?

And no one's talking about preaching here, it's simply learning, removing any pre-concieved misconceptions and understanding other people better.

Suprised at how many people don't even know this. Christians just become shocked when they find out that their "Arab brethrin's" call God by the same name.