thequestionclub: I read recently in a school magazine tha

Twitterpatted Tink (

vidmaker_19) wrote in

thequestionclub,
@ 2005-12-01 23:41:00

I read recently in a school magazine that there is a debate that keeps getting hotter and hotter. It's on the evloution issue. Here's the thing: the debate is whether to teach evolution solely, not at all, or teach both evolution and Intellegent Design. Both the evolution theory and intellegent design have logic, evidence, and many supporters. Neither can be fully proven or disproven. So here's the question:

In your opinion, should they teach evolution solely, evolution and intellegent design, or none of the above?

(Post a new comment)

	shippo 2005-12-02 07:39 am UTC (link)
	ID has no place in the science classroom, since ID is not science. (Reply to this)

sdragon
2005-12-02 07:40 am UTC (link)

Science should be taught in Science class, and Philosophy should be taught in Philosophy class.

Evolution is Science; therefore it should be taught in Science class.

Intelligent Design is not Science (it is normative, not naturalistic), therefore it should not be taught in a Science class. If they want to teach it in some other class, go right ahead, along with all the other creation mythologies and philosophies (like Lamarckism).

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	causticangel 2005-12-02 08:54 am UTC (link)
	applauds I was going to type out what I think, but this is it and much better phrased than I'd manage. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

	really_living 2005-12-02 09:54 pm UTC (link)
	Second-ed! (Reply to this) (Parent)

	testywaters 2005-12-02 07:42 am UTC (link)
	I think evolution is great to teach in science and intelligent design is nice to bring up in philosophy. Course philosophy isn't necessarily an option for study like science. So maybe the solution would be making sure students had an intro to philosophy course in their regular curriculum. (Reply to this)

	pggmilltn 2005-12-02 07:44 am UTC (link)
	The intelligent design issue has logic and evidence in the sense that it's evidence is based on the premise that the definition of science is wrong with it's logic being based on the premise that scientific logic does not provide acceptable explanations for how things came to be. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	kitsu 2005-12-02 07:51 am UTC (link)
	Your comment just broke my brain. I hope you're happy. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

	itskilltime 2005-12-02 07:57 am UTC (link)
	evolution soley. (Reply to this)

	windritual 2005-12-02 08:01 am UTC (link)
	I think they should teach both or nothing and it should be optional to the students. I don't think they should really teach it to anyone below high school either since kids are so impressionable. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	vidmaker_19 2005-12-02 08:09 am UTC (link)
	I like your answer. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

	acatsoclever 2005-12-02 08:20 am UTC (link)
	You may also be interested to read the responses to every other identical post. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	vidmaker_19 2005-12-02 08:45 am UTC (link)
	Sorry, still new here and haven't looked around much. Forgive the repeat question. ;) (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

	phoennyx 2005-12-02 09:10 am UTC (link)
	Religious convictions or lack thereof aside - I would say both, personally. I think it's best to present all sides of an issue, and given the fact that they are both 'theories', it makes sense to me to teach the shortcomings and good points of both. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	vidmaker_19 2005-12-03 08:01 pm UTC (link)
	That's a good idea to teach both. I'd be for that if they present both as possibilities rather than point A (whichever one it may be) is how it happened but some people think point B is how it is. Either that or withdraw both from the curriculum. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	madscience 2005-12-02 10:38 am UTC (link)
	ID does NOT have evidence. (Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)

	onceuponatime13 2005-12-02 01:51 pm UTC (link)
	I agree. And the supporters are, generally, a bunch of old, catholic men saying "Grumble ... what's in the Bible is law. If they say God created the world, then he did. And that's the end." Yeah ... But where's your proof, old man?! (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

	leastlikely 2005-12-02 02:07 pm UTC (link)
	If people want to believe Intelligent Design, that's fine. I don't believe it, but I don't care if other people do. However, it is NOT science and therefore has no business being taught in a science classroom. The point of science class is not to offer different perspectives on matters.. it is to teach science. (Reply to this)

	alongtheway 2005-12-02 08:18 pm UTC (link)
	I would fully support intelligent design being taught in schools if I was also allowed to submit my papers written in tongues. (Reply to this)

	berry_cupcake 2005-12-02 08:32 pm UTC (link)
	I think that teaching Intelligent Design at a high school would be silly. You can't test Intelligent Design to see if it's true, so it's not a science. If they want to teach ID at a high school they should market it as something else, and make it optional. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	isaiah_53_5 2005-12-03 07:47 pm UTC (link)
	You can really test evolution either. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

	fettered_free 2005-12-02 09:35 pm UTC (link)
	Evolution should be taught in science class, and only evolution. ID is not supported by science, or the scientific method, and should be discussed in a philosophy or religious class. (Reply to this)

	fourcorners 2005-12-05 09:16 am UTC (link)
	ID isn't a science, braniac. Nothing logical about it, and its assaults on evolution are misinformed or irrelevant at best (Reply to this) (Thread)

	vidmaker_19 2005-12-13 01:40 am UTC (link)
	ID has more logic than the big bang theory. Tons more. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…