Do you believe Intelligent Design should be taught in public school science class? If YES, please watch this vid and comment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ThQQuHtzHM
by 
23Skidoo
ANSWERS: 7
-
I don't mind intelligent design being taught in school, as long as a disclaimer is put on all the world's Bibles explaining that it's contents and teachings might be complete bullshit. That's fair, right?
-
The way I understand it, no. I see no problems it being taught in private schools, but I see no place for it in a public school.
-
The Video in the question.
-
I think that Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools. Why should people that believe in Intelligent Design have to have their children taught about Evolution as it is a fact when in reality it has never been proven? The statistics show that more people believe in Creation rather than Evolution, so why should we be the ones to pay for private school so our children can be taught what we believe. Shouldn't it be the other way around? In reality, it doesn't matter to me anyhow because I home school my children.
-
You know, with your attitude, you are just proving Ben Stein's point about the closed minded nature of many people towards any ideas that may have to do with a divine creator being behind it all. Have you even seen his movie?
-
Even the Discovery Institute admits that it actually has no curriculum - nothing to TEACH about an actual intelligent design theory. Intelligent design makes no predictions, explains no behaviour. It just says "god did it. No! No! I mean, 'some intelligent being did it'. Just don't dare suggest that the intelligent being was anyone other than the judeo-christian god..." It has no place in a science class until it establishes itself as a robust scientific theory. It hasn't done that.
-
Only if the Flying spaghetti monster is taught as well. ID is *not* science. Its a super compromise which provides us all with a basis to co-exist even though we differ on the fundamentals of how man is here. The ID central argument consists that since evolution has yet to explain certain things adequately, there must be an intelligent being behind it all, directing the path of evolution. It uses the absence of proof in the area of evolution as its own proof. Thats bad bad science. So bad in fact, that its not science and therefor has no place in a science class room. And if even one person throws out "but what about the eye?? its too COMPLEX to have evolved!!!" I'm gonna scream. Wiki it up people...fossils have already been found which show at least one step in the evolutionary process of the eye. WWFSMD???
Glenn Blaylock RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC