The case for teaching intelligent design in public schools: part one

TheCypressTimes.com ^ | 03/29/2010 | John Mark Burleigh

[Patriot1259]

One of the most controversial questions facing American educators today is “Should Intelligent Design be taught as an alternative to the theory of evolution?” The principal argument employed by many educators is that the teaching of Intelligent Design is religion, not science. The purpose of this article is to present scientific evidence that the case for Intelligent Design is at least as plausible as the case for Evolution. Consequently, we will suggest that Intelligent Design and Evolution should be given equal consideration by educators and students in their search for the origin of life in the universe.

Although some advocates make a distinction between an “Intelligent Designer or Creator” and the popular concept of “God”, this writer does not. In this article, the terms “God” and “Intelligent Designer” will be used interchangeably. No attempt will be made to define who God is. We will simply present evidence that He is, and that the universe is a product of His Intelligent Design. Surely the best way to answer the question “Does God exist?” is to seek out and examine the evidence...

[Brad from Tennessee]

It is far easier for me to see the universe as an art form than an absurd series of random accidents, coincidences and perfect storms.

[Secret Agent Man]

Self-organization is pointless, our existence is pointless, if this is all meaningless results of random, arbirtrary events.

[Notary Sojac]

I don't have any problem with considering the act of a creator, rather than chance, as the "root cause" of the universe.

As long as we stipulate that the best current evidence should be used to date that causative event. Currently, that date is between 13 and 14 billion years ago.

In addition, any theory positing the role of a creator in the development of life on Earth should use the best available dating methods (currently helioseismic and radiocentric dating correspond at about 4.6 billion years) and should account for the many false starts and dead ends found in the fossil record.

[mlo]

"The principal argument employed by many educators is that the teaching of Intelligent Design is religion, not science. The purpose of this article is to present scientific evidence that the case for Intelligent Design is at least as plausible as the case for Evolution."

As I expected, upon reading the article no scientific evidence for ID was presented. There was only a "philosophic" claim that the universe could not have created itself. That's not science. Nor is critisizing an alternative view evidence for your own. ID'ers continue to prove the point that ID is not science.

[Sopater]

As long as we stipulate that the best current evidence should be used to date that causative event. Currently, that date is between 13 and 14 billion years ago.

The primary reason for using these dates is to allow "chance" to work it's "magic".

[wintertime]

While he outlines his argument defending Intelligent Design, he utterly fails to make the connection to the teaching of ID in the government schools.

Fundamentally, it is impossible to offer a religiously, culturally, and politically neutral education. Darwinism and ID are merely two examples out of thousands illustrating why the government must get completely out of the education business.

[goodusername]

Strange, there was nothing in the article actually about evolution.

“First there was the theory that came to be known as the “Inflationary Universe Model.” Ultimately it was proved to be incorrect.”

—I somehow missed that news. When did THAT happen?