Question From High School Student

Hello,

I am a high school senior currently working on a project for my current issues class. I am trying to gather a diverse group of perspectives on the highly debated issue of evolution by collecting the opinions of a random group of people. Your help of answering the following questions would be extremely beneficial in my research endeavors.

My questions are:

Do you think the theory of Evolution should be covered in high school science classes? Why or why not?
Do you think the concept of Intelligent Design should be covered in high
school science classes?Why or why not?

When responding please leave your name and occupation/title/affiliation.

Thank you for your time,
all responses, opinions, and perspectives, are greatly appreciated.

*This is simply a high school essay assignment. It requires students to interview various people on the issues of Intelligent Design and Evolution
and use quotes from their interviews to develop a strong essay on the issue. Quotes will only be used in my paper that I will turn in for a grade and will only be read by my teacher and classmates.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The answer is easy:

Yes, because it's science.

No, because it's not science.

Why not try the question the other way round aswell? Like this:

1) Do you think evolution should be taught in religious education classes? Why or why not?

2) Do you think intelligent design should be taught in religious education classes? Why or why not?

It would be interesting to see if anyone could come up with an even semi-worthwhile debate to that.

Steve, (pm me for full name and details if you need them)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Welcome to SciForums. Nice to meet ya, and I'll be glad to help out.

I think it should be covered in high-school science classes, because it is a theory which is recognized to have scientific value. In fact, I've heard it is now the Law of Evolution.

No, because the concept of intelligent design — as far as I know — isn't supported by science. It's just mythology to me. The concept can still be taught in a mythology or a theology class, but not in a science class.

Rick Vroman, High School Junior.

Ye'r very welcome.

Very well. Let me know if ya need to ask me any more questions to flesh out the essay. And may we please read the essay when ye'r done?

Good luck on that essay.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Evolution applied to the origins of humans should not be covered. A signficant number of americans hold creationism as a tenet of their religion. Even more see Evolution--as taught by the school--one sided and atheistic. The entire premise of the separation between state and religion is undermined.

Intelligence design should not be taught for the same reasons as Evolution.

 

I answer NO for both.

I am a Muslim, so I do agree with the idea of a creator (God, ID) but I think that the Science classes should only have things which are proven. Evolution is taught in classes as though that it has been proven but that is really not the case.

Fahad Sheikh, High School Student

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

you cant be serious? read these

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
www.visual-evolution.com/
www.darwin.ws/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

and if you still have questions, Evo/Creo forum at
www.infidels.org has quite a number of knowledgeable scientists to explain anything more regarding evolution.

 

Yes. Science is systematic knowledge obtained from scientific methods - hypothesis, data collecting, analysis, etc...Theory of Evolution is obtained with scientific methods. Don't confuse science with truth. Science is just a model.

The concept can be taught in high school, but not in science classes. It can be taught in philosophy or religious studies but not in science because they are not science.

I am a secret agent working for the CIA. whoops!

 

All the very best mate. and come join us and discuss

 

Yes its very much a part of science, whether or not people personally consider it fact or fiction it has a strong scientific theory to support it and should be taught.

No, it has its place in a theology class or religious studies class, but it is not science.

 

Do you think the concept of Intelligent Design should be covered in high
school science classes?Why or why not?
It is OK to treach anything but a good teacher would not teacy Evlution as a science because it is not. If you look at Darwin's book he has an introductory section "Historical Perspectives" Hee he rolls out a dozen or so names of the leading naturlists of the time and qutes each iof them stating their preference tor evolution as outlined by Darwin. Thee are only opinions given, The kast one mentioned i Huxley who makes the same kind of aprooving statementm but he also says that to the effect :"Of course evolution cannot be prooved", which it can't. Get the book read the "perspective"

Teaching evolution exclusively as the definitive story of human and other animal and life itself,development woid be stupid, What would be excluded is possibilities that life originated on earth as a result of alien farming and ranching concerns. I am not saying this is true, I am saying it is a rational speculation with some historical supportl

If E is taught the religious alternmative or parallel view ought also to be taught as acomparison showing similarities and diffeences. Likewise the histroicfakl accounting of the debate iteself should be inckuded. TYhis would be an ideal wmanner to teach students how menatla cdevelopment can create such hardvitten emotional crao, most if not all, originating from adults

Neither of these subjects should be taught by claiming one or the other or both are factually true. For instance when we review the history of the cuontry at least ,we see a continual an repeating cycles where the subject matter comes up for depbate in or more forms. If for no other reaon that showing the debate as an endless process between two highly polarized social classes that they will never span the gap of disagreemen, but here are the rest of us being forced to listen to the idlel chatter. Design is an old story with references other than Genesis, the aloen thing. If a scientist ansd theologion were to intelligently and honestly look at the book by reading all the chapters instead of just those that one believes in the matter could be solved. Neither side would appreciate the outcome as the worst for both sides exist.
The religious get a creator even though it turns out to be an alien, while the evolutionists get to discard God, yet they must surrender some of their most cherished theories of slow methodical step by step progress, and or humans from a magic wand I think that given a choice both sides would rather keep on arguing rather than accept the story as I have sugested here. Hell, forget accepot, just consider it, he history of it i mean.
Good luck
Mike
unemployed

unafiliated

 

Thanks for all of your opinions! You all have very interesting outlooks on the issue that I will definitely take into consideration when writing my essay.

 

Dear Mr. Student,

The people who claim Intelligent Design should not be taught in public schools are foolish morons of legendary status.

Science depends on faith JUST LIKE Intelligent Design.

Therefore to claim one form of faith is superior to another form of faith is FOOLISHLY arbitrary and simply unsubstantiated in the least bit. Therefore people who say Intelligent Design is unscientific are being idiotically circular in reasoning and deserve to be shot.

Thank you for your time.

 

Do you think the theory of Evolution should be covered in high school science classes?
Yes
Why ?
Evolution lies at the heart of biology. I think of high school science as principally addressing three fields: chemistry, physics and biology. Biology cannot be covered properly without constant reference to, and understanding of, the principles of evolution. In addition it can allow the introduction of some basic concepts of geology and astronomy, providing the student with a broader base.

Do you think the concept of Intelligent Design should be covered in high
school science classes?
On balance, and somewhat reluctantly, no.

Why not?
Intelligent Design attempts a deception - using science like arguments and styles it puts forward a view that cannot be falsified. i.e. there is no way of demonstrating that the concept may be false. It cannot be tested in any way. All true scientific concepts must be subject to testing. And this is not a single test, but a continuous process of testing as ideas change, paradigms shift, evidence mounts, or is discounted. Intelligent Design is not subject to these scientific constraints and therefore cannot be entertained under the umbrella of science.
My reluctance to exclude it is because it is an interesting idea. I should heartily approve of its inclusion in a philosophy course that was exploring global myths of the origin of the world and of man, but it is decidedly not a science and therefore has no place in a science course, especially one at high school.

I have pm'd you my details.

Good luck with the assignment.

 

Dude I don't need to read, I've already debated this topic in another thread.

 

I completely agree

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well seemingly most here have no problem with it being taught in school, but taught in a suitable class, (not science class).

Absolute garbage, but for the sake of argument I'll just say you're right and that's true. Funnily enough, believing in leprechauns is also a faith, so would you suggest they teach people about leprechauns in science class?

What you would end up with is different classes that teach different 'faiths'. As a result, you'd have science class teaching the 'faith of science'. Intelligent design still wouldn't belong there, because it's a faith of religion.

So either way you're wrong.

It doesn't have to be superior, just taught in a relevant class: (science in science/religion in religion).

You have no valid position to say this. You have shown above that you lack any proper understanding of what science is.

 

Haha.. you'd be surprised to know ID has come a long way from something that could be knocked down easily. I saw some advanced theories on IIDB the other day - compared to what we are used to seeing on this forum that is. It had nothing to do with religion and was carefully constructed. I wonder what you mean by the 'faith of science' though.

Note: I'm not saying that's what I believed. I was just trying to be Devil's advocate, stir up the fire because very few people are stpuid enough to use the same 'evolution is just a theory' argument and this thread would have gotten boring very quickly... (if you couldn't already tell by the diction)

I'll see if I can show you the links.

 

Do you think the theory of Evolution should be covered in high school science classes?

Definitely. Without fail.

Why?

Because it is painfully obvious that the majority of students are graduating high school with the misguided opinion that evolution is not a fact. Evolution is a fact. It happened. What is theoretical is the mechanisms used by the process of evolution. We have some very solid evidence to support many of theories about evolution, and these are being refined and perfected, but that evolution occurred is fact.

Do you think the concept of Intelligent Design should be covered in high
school science classes?

No.

Why not?

Because Intelligent Design isn't science. It's pseudoscience. It's creationism pretending to be science. This has been demonstrated time and again by actual scientists, and if you are interested in further information, send me a PM and I can give you some bibliography and webpages that cite primary sources.

ID proponents have the intention of muddling the subject and taking advantage of the fact that science simply isn't covered well in public schools. They want to appeal to those that want to find a comprimise between evolution and creation as if creation really has any validity. The allegories used in biblical literature can provide wisdom and information for those interested in philosophy and theology, but as a tool for teaching what really occurred in the creation of life on this planet, they fall short.



When responding please leave your name and occupation/title/affiliation.

Carl Feagans, Student/Writer, University of Texas at Arlington

 

Supporting evidence perhaps? Did they have god's corpse? A time machine?

Sorry for the confusion. You said that "science depends on faith". I mentioned that for the sake of argument I would say you're right that science depends on faith. However, I explained that you'd end up with different classes teaching different faiths. A religious education class would teach religious faith issues, and a science class would teach the scientific issues that you might consider dependant on faith, (i.e evolution)

I know I know, it sounds confusing

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

K

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The very point I was trying to make is that I had seen some ID theories that would not be considered religious in content.

Do you have supporting evidence for the assumptions of science concerning knowledge and reality?