i dont think public school teachers should be teaching about intelligent design but they should explain what it is…kids need to know what the arguments are about…
Sure. As long as they aren’t teaching ID in science class. It is NOT science.
Teach it in social studies, or religion , or history or one the humanities, but it’s not science. (More precisely, that portion which might purport to be science is very bad science).
what if some kid brings up intelligent design in science class???
Explain to him or her that the subject is better taken up in a different class. Tell them that, although certain individuals interpret certain evidence in a radically different manner to justify their particular world view, the science is incorrect (as far as can be determined).
in science class what if the kid challenges the theory that genetic variation is entirely random?/
You teach him the science. It is not entirely random. Genetic mutation is primarily random. Variation is subject to natural selection. Natural selection is non-random, intelligent and unguided.
where is genetic mutation non-random??
It is primarily random. Certain mutations have a tendency to occur at specific locations, but this tendency is not necessarily significant. For the purposes of evolutionary process, you can consider mutation to be random.
so the kid says back…ok how about the possibility of non-random genetic change…is there any possibility that this could be in operation???
Yes. It is the basic process behind evolution. It is called natural selection.
the kid knows about natural selection…he wants to know about changes in dna…is it possible to have
non-random changes to the dna???and is everything already known about evolution???is there anything yet that we are having a problem with…
Teachers I think should teach about evolution instead of saying that this existence was created by a fart in the wind by saying “god” did it.
Answer me this question: can human scientists create organisms?
If your answer is yes, which it should be if you are at all honest, then intelligent design accounts for the existence of at least SOME of the life on earth, indisputably so. Hence, intelligence design, by humans, is perfectly scientific.
Answer me this question: how does evolution explain the transition from inanimate matter (e.g. on Venus) into animate organisms (e.g. on earth)?
If your answer is that it can’t, which it should be if you are at all honest, then evolution can at best only explain the development and adaptation of life to environmental limits and pressures. Plenty of scientists would argue how well it does that, since it makes no long-term predictions yet claims to be a long-term explanation of life’s development and adaptation.
Hence, to brand something unscientific simply because the majority of the scientific community don’t believe it, when their explanation is inadequate, is… unscientific.
Please note, I am not a creationists, nor do I believe in intelligent design. I just don’t believe that evolution is the be all and end all theory it is claimed to be by atheists, secular politicians and people pissed off at dickhead American Christians. Not to mention evolution quickly became eugenics, which might explain why evolution has been so obviously pushed into public education as the absolute theory explaining life’s existence.
Certainly it is possible to have non-random changes to DNA (as mentioned). We will never know “everything” about evolution. But it is an extremely well-documented factual observation. The processes that have resulted in evolution are subject to a lot of interesting discussion, but there is little doubt about the importance of natural selection as a general driving force in evolution.
the kid believes in natural selection…
this kid wants to go into research of the unknown…
the kid is turned on by the beauty and symmetry in nature and doesnt think natural selection can account for everything we see…what is the biggest question right now about evolution???
Certainly life can be subject to intelligent design. Man has been doing this for thousands of years . Think of all domesticated animals as the product of intelligent design. The question, however, is if the evolution that we observe was necessarily guided by an “intelligent designer”. The answer to that is, no, there is no need of an intelligent designer.
Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life. It addresses changes in the diversity and complexity of life over the history of the earth as observed in the fossil record.
Any rationalization of eugenics using evolution has exactly zero bearing on the truth value of evolution. And said rationalization hardly seems to be a sound justification for the teaching of anything in public education.
Methinks you have revealed an “agenda” that has little to do with science and more to do with religion and politics (and this you would hold in common with the proponents of ID).
Jeez, turt, I dunno. But I have a feeling you’d like to tell us.
buff–i dont know…i was thinking you would tell me…
There is perhaps no need of one, but that in itself is no argument for the absence of one. There might be one, whether one is necessary to explain our observations or not.
Hence, it is unscientific to claim that ID is necessarily unscientific.
If it cannot account for the most basic question of all, the origin of life then it is unscientific to exclude the Creationist/ID/similar arguments from a discussion about the existence of life on earth. One does not have to endorse the whole institutional dogma of any given religion in order to present the possibility of a Creator, or at least some Creative force.
Whether it is a sound justification or not is irrelevant. The question is whether people who believe in eugenics have forced evolution into the public schooling as part of their agenda. The answer would appear to be yes, if only one looks at it.
One of the most common examples is how evolutionary theory is used to go beyond explaining simple physical adaptations to trying to explain things like why girls like pink and boys like blue. The answer to such questions has bugger all to do with evolution, yet it is part of an overarching philosophy where we are all just meant to fight each other while the cream rises to the top.
It has a lot to do with science, but science is largely indistinguishable from politics. Who do think funds the science? Whose requirements are served by the science?
Your conclusion appears to be unrelated to your premises.
Irrelevant.
No. There are essentially no people left “who believe in eugenics”.
Again, simply incorrect. Even if it were true, the fact that evolution has not explained “everything” hardly plays against that which it has explained.
I am not the least bit interested in debating conspiracy theories.