I see no reason why students can't be taught different theories and options with no particular leaning on whether one is the "correct" one or not. Intelligent design does not endorse a particular religion. Intelligent design can be consistent with science and several religions, or no particular religion. Intelligent design, at best, favors deism, as opposed to any specific religion. Therefore it does not violate separation of church and state - a term which is very often misrepresented.
We should not exclude intelligent design from the schools. Right now, not only teachers but ESTEEMED collage professors are being FIRED because they teach creation! This is not okay! The only reason that evolution has actually survived all these years is because, as children, students have no where else to turn! The world HATES christianity, but for no apparent reason!
V v v v v v v v v vv v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v vv vvvv v vv vv vv vv v vv v v vv v vv v v v vv v v
The intelligent design theory states that the universe and life in it could not have developed by random natural processes such as natural selection or evolution, only an intelligent power can explain the complexity of life that we see today. Believing in the separation of church and state, I think intelligent design should not be taught in public schools because it would be endorsing a specific religion.
There would be no problem with it if it was the wishes of the student, because this entire debate is about the student consenting to it. But teaching it to kids from day one is no different from indoctrination.
If the student takes a personal interest in the subject then there's no reason to stop them.
Intelligent design can be left to Churches, Mosques, etc. School is to teach concepts that apply to every day life and career fields. Teaching intelligent design to influence religious beliefs is the job of religious facilities. School is based on evidence, and where that evidence is leading towards, etc.
School is supposed to teach facts, concepts and theories that can be applied to the real world and their career choices and not religious beliefs. Go to a church or a private school if you want to hear this garbage that has no evidence. We have separation of church and state for a reason. Religious people should not have to have their subjects taught on the taxpayers dollar.
Leave religious beliefs out of the school system with exception to cultural studies. It is the place of parents and church/synagogue/mosques to teach intelligent design. Children’s education needs to be secular rooted in science and facts. There need to be a line between belief systems and evidence based education. ... ...
As much as people are trying to make it scientific, they are reversing the scientific process. They are presupposing a creator, and trying to make the science fit. And it doesn't.
Science gathers information and tries to draw logical conclusions about how and why the world operates the way it does. ID says 'it is so complex, there must be design, I see design as this, even though my definition is contradictory, but it just must be so, so I will start with that unfounded premise, and make the rest fit'.
In addition, schools don't teach unfounded ideas. They teach well founded, stable ideas, that science isn't only starting to look at. They teach the things that have been tried, tested, and true. Things they are sure of. This applies across the board, though the context may shift.
In a class on religious ideology, they would not allow someone to come in with a new age idea that a small group of people ascribe to, and preach the ways of that faith. They would not have a course in English dedicated to poor writers without any kind of merit. Would you teach how to write a blog, where there is no real format or purpose at this point? No real foundation to assess the validity or best practice of the field?
No. You wouldn't. You would teach people the base skill building things they need to know at that level, that we are pretty sure of, so that they can grow in their learning.
Realistically, you have to look at the level of content as well as the level of student. Students aren't really supposed to engage with delving into new territory until they have mastered the basics. So baseless territory with little actual data in the field, and no real consistency or confidence is not where you would bring novice learners.
The problem that I feel with teaching intelligent design in school is that t is not scientific. Having children learn about something that does not follow the scientific process is wrong. The problem with I.D. Is that it is note falsifiable, it cannot be disproved and thus is not a valid theory.