This caused me to notice that there are threads on Plime discussing various topics, but I have never seen one discussing this one. There's only one ground rule: No argumentum ad hominem. That kind of argument never goes anywhere.

I'll go ahead and pose the question:

Does Intelligent Design have a place in schools?

Personally, I don't think so. There's no specific evidence to support any kind of "designer", let alone an intelligent one.

It has no place in public schools. Private schools can do whatever I guess.

I don't think it has a place in schools but then I don't agree with RE been taught either. Religion is personal so I think keep it in individuals homes.

If a parents wishes to teach their children about their personal beliefs, fine, but do it on your own time.

I think different religions should be taught in school as long as every religion gets treated the same. If the teacher decides to call the Norse religion "mythology", they must call the Christian or Muslim religion the same.

Teach the kids about religious culture, but don't give your personal input on whether or not one is more "true" than any other.

No. It has no basis in science. There is neither evidence for or against it, meaning it has no place in a scientific classroom.

In a philosophy class, sure. But since so few public school offer philosophy courses, then there's not really a place for it.

All well and good but I had to have a sit down conversation about Hell as one of my kids came home from school worried because it sounded "scary". I just don't think that at an impressionable age things like that should be taught. Kids take what they learn at school as fact and I try to keep them guilt/worry free and things like that rile me.

At what level? How is it being taught?

Definitely not science, has no place in science classes prior to high school. There are some levels of education that I don't feel have adequate background and critical thinking training to adequately address this issue. In high school, again, it should not be taught AS science, but within the context of philosophy courses, it may have a place. It's not 'religious', per their own admission, because it specifically avoids identifying 'God' as creator.

In college/university level courses I think there are many ways to tackle the issue. Philosophy, psychology, media management, and certainly science students should all review the tactics being used by this campaign.

Intelligent Design might have a place in schools, but definitely NOT in a science class. If it needs to be taught, it can be done in religion, or perhaps in philosophy as SEG mentioned, but not science.

I attended a Catholic school. We were supposed to be taught ID in addition to evolution, but our wonderful, fantastic science teacher spent maybe 10 minutes on the discussion, because he didn't think it was science enough for him to teach. There was so much science to worry about learning that we didn't want to take the time to learn about something that wasn't really science!

I think the term "Intelligent Design" should be modified. Not having to do with religion or beliefs of any kind - just look around. As a species, we just aren't particularly intelligent.

We should just call it, "Design."

Or "Once-intelligent Design."

Or "Attempted Intelligent Design that Actually Didn't Stand the Test of Time..."

The way I look at it is this:

Say there was a "designer" that made all of this, everything so complex with its ecosystems, symbiotic relationships, physical reactions, chemical compositions, mathematical calculations, psychological issues...

AND doesn't show "Itself" to take credit for all of it and DEMANDS that the general population believe through faith?

Well, that is just insulting...

Uhhhh...The phrase has nothing to do with us...It postulates a vastly greater intelligence that created all life, presuming that life could not occur naturally, and that once designed, the direction of change was by guidance or plan from that greater intelligence. The stalwart 'proofs' trotted out are that some biological components are too complex to have occurred naturally, with specious comparisons being made to a hurricane going through a scrap yard and assembling a fully functional jet, or stating trite aphorisms such as 'half an eye is not good for anything.'

It avoids publically identifying God as that intelligent maker, but internal documents from several of the organizations that push this agenda clearly state as much, as well as their goal to discredit real science.

Creationism and Intelligent Design should be kept out of all schools in my opinion. There's no evidence to support those theories, and it's all just pseudo-science.

Maybe it should be taught as we do anything that doesn't have an "absolute" answer... you pose the question (how did we get here) and then you present ALL of the "popular" theories, allowing people to make their own minds up.

Given how little we actually know of the universe and our place in it, I don't think the idea of intelligent design is any more far fetched than evolution.

We tend to place things in a context that we can understand and intelligent design may be (in reality) something a lot more complicated than some bearded guy with a creative itch sitting atop the clouds.

Who's to say that the human race hasn't been just stewing in some cosmic petrie dish for a thousand years?

No, that's not what the ID movement is pushing. Their own agenda is to discredit science. Science teaches what can be supported via evidence gained from studying, modeling and experimenting, and can change to accomodate new evidence. They want science redefined to include ID, because ID fails to meet the criteria for being science. The theory of evolution already admits that there's a lot of unknowns, why put in some fabricated 'happy' non-science that specifically designates some occurances to the realm of magic and myth?

I've read up a lot of this lately because the direction of public education scares the crap out of me and I don't understand how something that is clearly not science can be shoe horned into the class room. The agenda and means of the people behing this movement are disturbing, and if they get their way, the US will fall even further behind in innovation and scientific advancement. This is akin to having Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny entered into the curriculum to explain filled stockings and painted eggs.

I didn't mean that it should be taught to younger children. I meant "kids" as in 15-16 year olds. It definitely shouldn't be taught to those in middle or elementary school.

Intelligent Design is only popular in religious circles. It is FAR from popular in scientific circles. It is infamous.

What makes you say that?

ID raises loads of other questions while unscientifically answering one.

Who is/are the creator/s? Where did they come from? How did they arise? etc.

Intelligent Design doesn't have a place in public schools, unless every ID theory is going to be taught. I'm perfectly fine with a teacher telling his/her pupils that god created us in his image, so long as they also learn that the earth was made on a turtle's back and that trickster was here before people. This won't happen, so I think that all theories of ID don't belong in public schools.

Private schools - they can do whatever they want.

I'm neither pro/anti intelligent design folks...

I'm not suggesting that you teach anyone that ID is how we arrived here. I'm saying that you should present it as what it is - a popular belief among many of the world's people ...then leave it at that.

As for what makes me say that we know very little of our place in the universe - it's true.

We don't know (for certain) how the Earth was formed... how our moon got where it is... if there are other Earth like planets (my guess is that there are but we have no absolute proof)... and we don't know if other life exists and if so - how do we compare?

We don't even know that much about how our own bodies work (there are more "unknowns" than "knowns" when it comes to human biology).

I'd say my assessment is pretty accurate.

Note: I'm also not suggesting that the place for this discussion is in a science class in public schools. I'm saying that it is important for kids to understand some of the things that make the world what it is.

I saw a bumper sticker once that pretty much sums up how I feel on this subject:

If you're going to teach Intelligent Design in our schools, does that mean we can teach evolution in your church?

Has anyone here actually been taught ID? I'm curious to know what it would entail.

Would the advocates say that it was something that was made up in 1987 as a way of exploiting a legal loophole that prohibits creation myths being taught in American schools if they involve a deity (that separation of church/state thing)?

And would there also be demonstrations of things that point to design having taken place? I'm not trying to be frivolous* but would that be things like the banana fitting in your hand quite neatly?

Never having heard any rational pro-ID arguments, I must confess to being in the dark a little.


*Well OK, maybe a little.

I've read the ID pro books as well. They mostly consist of repackaging facts and excluding critical pieces to present an idea that makes sense, if you don't know enough science/critical thinking to poke and prod. It's fluffy reading, because they don't want to provoke you into thinking, they want to convince you that there aren't answers now, so clearly there can't ever be an answer, so that means there must be a higher power. (No, I'm not kidding, this really is their line of logic. Minus the sarcasm.)