Evolution vs. Intelligent Design: Which Should Be Taught In Schools?

[Jack-Hammer]

This is another interesting topic that's also something of a hot button. The Theory of Evolution is among the most controversial subjects in recorded human history. What has made it such a controversial topic is that Charles Darwin's theory suggests that mankind evolved from apes and that contradicts the Christian theology of man being created by God in his own image. And, in the United States, Christianity is the predominant religion. Even most people that don't regularly attent church services often will label themselves as simply being Christian when it comes to asking them their religious beliefs.

I remember watching something on CNN a while back regarding schools in Kansas that wanted Intelligent Design taught in public schools along with the theory of Natural Selection. Those that support the teaching of ID feel that children should be exposed to another "theory" as to how life on Earth began as Evolution hasn't been definitvely proven as factual. Those that are against it feel it's religious dogma disguised as academics and is a violation of seperation between church and State.

Where do you stand?

 

[Ferbian]

Well it's quite obvious that the creation of the universe and life as we know it will always be taught in the image of the fact that God created everything, and I was taught the creation of humanity through the eyes of God throughout my complete school period.

The first time I was properly introduced to Evolution and the explanations put forth by Charles Darwin was in 7th grade (the Danish school system has a consistent on going system from 0th grade to 9th grade, 10th is a possibility if you want to, but you take your exam in 9th grade) and it completely turned my view on everything, I've always found the creation in the eyes of God to be a boring unnatural way of creation, not that I didn't throw my interest into listening to it, because I know I'm fairly well placed in a debate on Evolution over Religion.

Never heard the description of "Intelligent Design" but having read somewhat up on it, the explanation is that life was slowly formed in the ways of Evolution, but was ultimately kicked off by supernatural forces, so I'm believing it's a kind of connection between Religion and Darwinism.

I personally believe that both the creation through religion (or in this case what I believe is gonna be Intelligent Design) and the creation through Evolution, because both provide a viable point that I believe no matter beliefs, both should be taught openly and be allowed to spread in the possibilities of debating.

And I know debates will be very, very back and forth arguing over the fact of which beliefs of creation is the true one, and while I'm a full hearted believer of Evolution, I will admit I have never debated more heartfelt than I have in the debates of Evolution vs Religion.

And therefore I believe both should be allowed to be taught in school, and everybody should be allowed to have the chance to learn of both ways, draw your own conclusions and beliefs, and I really do believe that while Evolution might be a tough subject to grasp for the younger kids, they should be allowed to be taught Evolution hand in hand with Religion in the ways that kids don't have to sit through X amount of years (depending on country) hearing about the creation of the Earth through God as opposed to the creation of Earth through Evolution and The Big Bang, rather than sit down and listen to both explanations at common level and time frames (meaning that they should teach it in same grade level, so that you don't have X amount of years to progress one belief over the other)

 

[Loveless]

Those that are against it feel it's religious dogma disguised as academics and is a violation of seperation between church and State.

Where do you stand?

That's exactly where I stand. Let's be honest now, you can call it ID but it's going to be taught as Christianity and nothing else, certainly not The FSM church which is just as credible as any other religion in my opinion. Religion has no place in state schools, it's divisive, opinionated and certainly in the US could never ever be taught with an unbiased eye. If you want to be taught this nonsense, go to a faith school but don't be forcing it on those who have no need or desire for it. This is as usual, the Christian right trying to force their views on America and if they have to cheat the system to do it, well so be it.

 

[SalvIsWin]

The problem I have with this debate is simple: one is supported by scientific proof and the other is not. Intelligent design is the theory that man was created in God's image, and could very possibly be true, but it is not supported by scientific evidence. Evolution (natural selection, which I will explain in a moment) is supported by scientific evidence to a degree, and that's a important distinction that must be made.

Those who argue that intelligent design should be taught in schools along with (or in place of) evolution, often have a few talking points which they use as reasons for why this should be so. Here are a couple:

• 1. Both theories are possible.
• 2. Neither theory is proven.
• 3. There are flaws with evolution. It doesn't explain everything.

1. Both theories are possible, this is true. It's also possible that nothing else exists except yourself, and that the universe is an elaborate ruse. There is a tenet called falsifiability, which is basically that a theory or concept isn't worth discussing or developing unless it can be proven false. The concept of God or intelligent design can never be proven false, that is why the debate of God's existence still lingers on. Evolution is possible and can be proven, and to some degree is proven by evidence, intelligent design does not have this.

2. This point seems to imply that because neither is proven, both options should be on the table for learning. This is a valid point, but once again, the exaggerated example of only your own evidence is possible, so with this logic, we could argue that this should also be taught (and actually is to a degree in philosophy, but I digress). If there was significant evidence behind intelligent design, I would have no qualms about it being taught in school or showing the evidence behind it, but that simply is not the case.

3. This is true. There are contradictions and flaws with the theory of natural selection and evolution; it's a developing theory. We don't have all the evidence or facts at this time, so we cannot make a complete picture of how exactly evolution worked, and the time line of species that eventually lead to us, but this is inherent of any developing theory. There are gaps in time that we can only guess at and try to fill in the blanks, so it's natural that there will be ideas proven false, or concepts that turn out to not be true.

Teaching intelligent design in schools wouldn't be much more than a lot of theory with no science behind it. Natural selection is theory with evidence to back it up, and until intelligent design has science to back it up, it's simply a theory with no merit.

 

[Slyfox696]

That's exactly where I stand. Let's be honest now, you can call it ID but it's going to be taught as Christianity and nothing else, certainly not The FSM church which is just as credible as any other religion in my opinion. Religion has no place in state schools

Completely false. Why shouldn't religion have a place in state schools? This whole "separation of church and state" has been bastardized to the extreme, and was never meant to take religion out of politics. Hell, the term does not appear anywhere in the Constitution of the United States, to which it is so often attributed.

The only thing the First Amendment does is to say that the state shall not establish an official religion of the state, or "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Prohibiting religious doctrine in schools is every bit in violation of the First Amendment as establishing a religion would be. To say that religion has no place in a state school is just silly. And the whole idea that the inclusion of religion can't be taught in an objective manner is so far beyond ridiculous, it literally makes me laugh. It most certainly can be taught in an objective manner, I've been in classes, and I know teachers who have done so.

With that in mind, why should we prohibit the concept of Intelligent Design? The very argument people wanted to use to establish Evolution, they now want to suppress with Intelligent Design. Why is it people should free their minds when it comes to accepting Evolution over Creationism, but then close them again when we want to argue Intelligent Design over Evolution? That's absurd.

Personally, I believe far more in Evolution than I do in anything else, but why prohibit another theory? Where's the harm in presenting the theory that, perhaps, there was some supernatural force which created our world? Is that so outside the realm of possibility it should never be taught?

The problem I have with this debate is simple: one is supported by scientific proof and the other is not.

What scientific proof do you have to explain how our universe began? Where did time, space and life start? There's ZERO scientific proof of the concept of the infinity of time, so using your logic, how does Evolution explain the beginning of time? Is it so much more difficult to believe Divine Intervention created life, than the possibility of a bunch of rocks colliding together and creating an entire universe?

Really? A bunch of rocks? THAT makes more sense?

Intelligent design is the theory that man was created in God's image

Technically incorrect. In an Intelligent Design theory, life isn't attributed to any specific God, just a supernatural being. Of course, it generally is referred to as the Christian God, but technically, it is not.

Evolution (natural selection, which I will explain in a moment) is supported by scientific evidence to a degree, and that's a important distinction that must be made.

Except, as I said, Evolution only describes how we got here today, not how we got here in the beginning.

If there was significant evidence behind intelligent design, I would have no qualms about it being taught in school or showing the evidence behind it, but that simply is not the case.

And what evidence do you possess to explain the creation of the universe, time and life itself?

3. This is true. There are contradictions and flaws with the theory of natural selection and evolution; it's a developing theory. We don't have all the evidence or facts at this time, so we cannot make a complete picture of how exactly evolution worked, and the time line of species that eventually lead to us, but this is inherent of any developing theory. There are gaps in time that we can only guess at and try to fill in the blanks, so it's natural that there will be ideas proven false, or concepts that turn out to not be true.

So...let me see if I have this correct...

It's okay to accept one theory, despite missing many important facts, just because you believe it to be true, but it's wrong to believe another theory missing facts, just because you believe it not to be true? That's absurd, and terrible logic.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Maybe people can't prove Intelligent Design because "it's a developing theory. We don't have all the evidence or facts at this time, so we cannot make a complete picture of how exactly evolution Intelligent Design worked, and the time line of species that eventually lead to us, but this is inherent of any developing theory". See how easy that was, to take your same argument and apply it to a different theory?

Teaching intelligent design in schools wouldn't be much more than a lot of theory with no science behind it. Natural selection is theory with evidence to back it up, and until intelligent design has science to back it up, it's simply a theory with no merit.

And yet, where's the science to disprove the theory? Do you have any? The human body alone is so deep and complex, to assume it could have been created by a bunch of rocks mashing together is no more believable than the concept of a supernatural maker.

The fact of the matter is, to deny the POSSIBILITY of Intelligent Design is absurd. Intelligent Design does not, on the technical definitions of its description, violate any part of the Constitution, and is every bit as much of a plausible theory for the creation of time, universe and life as anything Evolution has every come up with.



So, to one up you, until you have scientific facts which disproves Intelligent Design, give me one reason it shouldn't be taught as a theory.

 

[SalvIsWin]

With that in mind, why should we prohibit the concept of Intelligent Design?...Personally, I believe far more in Evolution than I do in anything else, but why prohibit another theory? Where's the harm in presenting the theory that, perhaps, there was some supernatural force which created our world? Is that so outside the realm of possibility it should never be taught?

The concept of intelligent design has no evidence behind it. We do not discuss or teach theories that have no evidence to support them, there would be nothing to teach except speculation. It's not outside the realm of possibility, it is possible, but that doesn't mean it should be taught.

What scientific proof do you have to explain how our universe began? Where did time, space and life start? There's ZERO scientific proof of the concept of the infinity of time, so using your logic, how does Evolution explain the beginning of time? Is it so much more difficult to believe Divine Intervention created life, than the possibility of a bunch of rocks colliding together and creating an entire universe?

The beginning of space and time isn't what's being discussed here, we are discussing natural selection. Natural selection isn't a theory to explain how the universe began, it explains how organisms change in to other organisms over vasts periods of time.

I'm not discussing the big bang theory versus God as the creator, and I most likely wouldn't post in a thread of that kind any way, because the big bang theory is a very bare bones theory at this point and has little evidence to support it.

Really? A bunch of rocks? THAT makes more sense?

Technically incorrect. In an Intelligent Design theory, life isn't attributed to any specific God, just a supernatural being. Of course, it generally is referred to as the Christian God, but technically, it is not.

Except, as I said, Evolution only describes how we got here today, not how we got here in the beginning.

And what evidence do you possess to explain the creation of the universe, time and life itself?

You're confusing the issue. Evolution does not go hand in hand with the big bang theory, so to argue against the latter to try to disprove the former is a waste of time. I don't have to prove the creation of the universe in order to argue for natural selection.

It's okay to accept one theory, despite missing many important facts, just because you believe it to be true, but it's wrong to believe another theory missing facts, just because you believe it not to be true? That's absurd, and terrible logic.

No. The situation at hand isn't that we have two theories, both with equal amounts of evidence and I am simply choosing one and shunning the other. We have two theories, one with some supporting evidence, and some without any. Over the years there has been compiling evidence for natural selection, and there has been nothing for intelligent design. To compare both these theories as similar in proof or plausibility at this point is foolish.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Maybe people can't prove Intelligent Design because "it's a developing theory. We don't have all the evidence or facts at this time, so we cannot make a complete picture of how exactly evolution Intelligent Design worked, and the time line of species that eventually lead to us, but this is inherent of any developing theory". See how easy that was, to take your same argument and apply it to a different theory?

Intelligent design hasn't begun to develop past it's theoretical speculation stage, there isn't any significant evidence behind it at all. It's not that we don't have all the evidence or fact, it's that we don't have any evidence or facts. With the evidence for natural selection, we have begun to paint the picture for how life developed, but it's not finished, it's a developing theory, there are flaws and contradictions that we correct as we uncover more information. Intelligent design is a blank canvas, it has nothing going for it, I don't see how you even begin to compare and contrast these two.

And yet, where's the science to disprove the theory? Do you have any? The human body alone is so deep and complex, to assume it could have been created by a bunch of rocks mashing together is no more believable than the concept of a supernatural maker.

The fact of the matter is, to deny the POSSIBILITY of Intelligent Design is absurd. Intelligent Design does not, on the technical definitions of its description, violate any part of the Constitution, and is every bit as much of a plausible theory for the creation of time, universe and life as anything Evolution has every come up with.

I don't have to disprove a theory, that's the basic tenet of falsifiability. If I had to disprove others' theories for them not to be taught in schools, then there would be an abundance of ridiculous claims. You keep bringing up rocks smashing together, but that has nothing to do with natural selection.

I don't deny the possibility of intelligent design, it could very well be possible. However with no evidence to back up the theory of intelligent design, there is no reason to teach it in school, it has no merit. Since evolution doesn't try to prove the origins of the universe, I don't have to defend it against your accusations of what it cannot do.

So, to one up you, until you have scientific facts which disproves Intelligent Design, give me one reason it shouldn't be taught as a theory.

This is a link to pastafarianism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastafarianism

Pastafarianism would dictate that a giant spaghetti monster created all life in the universe, now we can both agree that it's absurd, but the concept was created to show others that arguing because I cannot disprove your theory, I should be forced to keep it on the table as an option. That's absurd, the onus of responsibility is on yourself to prove your theory, not for me to disprove it. Lastly, let's be sure we understand what we have to prove, as natural selection only explains how organisms developed into complex beings, not how the whole universe began.

 

[Slyfox696]

The concept of intelligent design has no evidence behind it. We do not discuss or teach theories that have no evidence to support them, there would be nothing to teach except speculation. It's not outside the realm of possibility, it is possible, but that doesn't mean it should be taught.

Why not? Are we now saying that we shouldn't teach people to think for themselves in school now, that the only thing which should be discussed in schools is simply facts, and never give kids the opportunity to have the ability to think in-depth for themselves? Do you support a society which lacks the ability to contemplate deep thought?

The beginning of space and time isn't what's being discussed here, we are discussing natural selection.

The beginning is most certainly being discussed here, what the fuck do you think Intelligent Design means? It most certainly has everything to do with the creation of space and time.

Just because you don't believe in it, doesn't mean it's not a viable discussion point.

You're confusing the issue. Evolution does not go hand in hand with the big bang theory, so to argue against the latter to try to disprove the former is a waste of time. I don't have to prove the creation of the universe in order to argue for natural selection.

I'm not confusing anything. Intelligent Design is a theory which, among other things, explains the creating of time and life. If you reject the theory of Intelligent Design, then you now have a void to explain how life started. Evolution only takes place AFTER life is created...so what do you have to explain life?

I have Intelligent Design, and you have...nothing?

No. The situation at hand isn't that we have two theories, both with equal amounts of evidence and I am simply choosing one and shunning the other. We have two theories, one with some supporting evidence, and some without any. Over the years there has been compiling evidence for natural selection, and there has been nothing for intelligent design. To compare both these theories as similar in proof or plausibility at this point is foolish.

That's not what I said at all, don't try to ever play word games like this with me, I'll catch you every time.

What I said is that you are more than willing to dismiss the absence of facts in your theory based upon the concept that "we just don't know yet", but at the same time, you completely deny the idea of another theory, which can have the same exact explanation. Hell, is Intelligent Design not a NEWER theory (technically) than Evolution? Using YOUR logic, I'm just going to say we don't have "evidence" (which is very subjective, to begin with) because it's a new theory, and we just don't have that proof yet.

You try to explain away what we don't know about Evolution by saying that there's proof we just don't have, and yet you refuse to admit the possibility of the same with Intelligent Design. It's hypocrisy.

Intelligent design hasn't begun to develop past it's theoretical speculation stage, there isn't any significant evidence behind it at all.

There's plenty of evidence of Intelligent Design, the human body itself is evidence. The intricacies of the inner human body is so deep and complex, many feel it can ONLY be described by a supernatural being.

Even if you want to argue Evolution and all the things which come with it, to assert that the complexities of the human being is simply a result of the evolution of man is every bit as laughable as a concept of Intelligent Design.

According to Evolution, man was a single celled organism, which has evolved to the deeply complex inner workings we have now...you think THAT'S any more likely than the guiding hand of a supernatural being?

I don't have to disprove a theory, that's the basic tenet of falsifiability. If I had to disprove others' theories for them not to be taught in schools, then there would be an abundance of ridiculous claims. You keep bringing up rocks smashing together, but that has nothing to do with natural selection.

No, but it has EVERYTHING to do with the creation of life itself, something which you have YET to address. Organisms can only evolve after they're created...if life was never created, there could be no evolution.

You have NO explanation for creation, and currently the most known theory is a bunch of rocks smashing together. To try and ignore that life can only evolved after creation is just narrow-minded.

I don't deny the possibility of intelligent design, it could very well be possible.

Exactly. And with that in mind, where's the harm in teaching it as a philosophy of the existence of life?

However with no evidence to back up the theory of intelligent design, there is no reason to teach it in school, it has no merit.

Completely false. Aside from the fact it's as good of a theory to the creation of life as any other, it's also a wonderful tool to teach philosophy and provide kids an opportunity to practice critical thinking skills, in a real life (so to speak) scenario.

Since evolution doesn't try to prove the origins of the universe, I don't have to defend it against your accusations of what it cannot do.

You keep saying that, but you're trying to prevent the teaching of Intelligent Design...which IS used to prove the origins of the universe. And since you offer no alternative to the origins of the universe, explain to me why a theory which does shouldn't be allowed?

You're being silly. You keep saying people can't argue Intelligent Design because Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origins of the universe. Well, that's just silly because a major point of Intelligent Design IS to explain the origins of the universe. The best you can do is claim the two theories address different issues...but then you'd have to come up with a different reason to exclude Intelligent Design from schools.

 

[Tim]

At my school, we don't get taught either theory. It's not even discussed here at all in class. So really I've never had to think about it. What I think would be a good idea is to teach everyone the basics of both theories, and people can present and debate their own views on whichever theory they believe to be true. It would start some interesting discussion in the school, and the kids would be learning how to debate their point of view.

Neither theory is more valid than the other, as neither of them have enough evidence to be proven right or wrong. There are flaws in both theories and as such they are both equally valid at this point in time. I think to pick only one to teach is discriminant against the other theory, saying it's false and has no place in our lives. The only practical solution to avoid any arguing about a school being prejudiced towards a thoery is to teach both theories.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Why not? Are we now saying that we shouldn't teach people to think for themselves in school now, that the only thing which should be discussed in schools is simply facts, and never give kids the opportunity to have the ability to think in-depth for themselves? Do you support a society which lacks the ability to contemplate deep thought?

I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't allow people to think for themselves, or decide on their own what they believe, but the other theory in question here has no basis at this point. If there was evidence for intelligent design, and both theories were therefore equally possible at this point, I would suggest that children learn both and make up their mind, however that isn't the case.

In retrospect, I suppose if a school wanted to allow a class that students could specifically register for and would teach the theory behind intelligent design I wouldn't have a problem with that. However seeing as how evolution is taught in science class, and others are arguing that intelligent design should be taught to students alongside with it, that wouldn't be appropriate.

I'm not confusing anything. Intelligent Design is a theory which, among other things, explains the creating of time and life. If you reject the theory of Intelligent Design, then you now have a void to explain how life started. Evolution only takes place AFTER life is created...so what do you have to explain life?

I have Intelligent Design, and you have...nothing?

I don't have a theory to explain the origins of all time and space, I would be more inclined to believe in the big bang theory over the concept of God if I had to choose, but considering the evidence for both theories, I don't bother with that discussion.

You're right, evolution took place after live was created, and I don't have a theory to explain how life originated. What I have is a theory of how that life evolved in to more complex beings. Considering what 'you have' is nothing in terms of evidence for the origin of life, and mere speculation, I would say we are even on that front.

That's not what I said at all, don't try to ever play word games like this with me, I'll catch you every time.

What I said is that you are more than willing to dismiss the absence of facts in your theory based upon the concept that "we just don't know yet", but at the same time, you completely deny the idea of another theory, which can have the same exact explanation. Hell, is Intelligent Design not a NEWER theory (technically) than Evolution? Using YOUR logic, I'm just going to say we don't have "evidence" (which is very subjective, to begin with) because it's a new theory, and we just don't have that proof yet.

There is a difference between having an incomplete picture and using speculation to fill in the blanks for now until we have more evidence, and having nothing at all, using speculation to form the entire picture. Natural selection has compiled enough evidence to give a fairly complex understanding of how we think evolution transpired, based on the facts. Intelligent design has no evidence to suggest anything.

If you want to consider modern evolution to have begun with Darwin, Darwin did not just speculate a theory and then look for evidence that would support it, he came across evidence that would suggest evolution, and further evidence supported it as well.

You try to explain away what we don't know about Evolution by saying that there's proof we just don't have, and yet you refuse to admit the possibility of the same with Intelligent Design. It's hypocrisy.

It's not hypocrisy, it's a completely different situation. Like I stated above, evidence was discovered that led to the inception of a theory, further evidence supported that theory and it's been snowballing ever since. Intelligent design has no evidence to begin with. If I have a outline of a theory that evidence supports, it is completely appropriate to connect the dots we have and use those lines as a guide for further evidence we need. It's not appropriate to come up with a theory without any evidence and say you're just missing information.

There's plenty of evidence of Intelligent Design, the human body itself is evidence. The intricacies of the inner human body is so deep and complex, many feel it can ONLY be described by a supernatural being.

Even if you want to argue Evolution and all the things which come with it, to assert that the complexities of the human being is simply a result of the evolution of man is every bit as laughable as a concept of Intelligent Design.

According to Evolution, man was a single celled organism, which has evolved to the deeply complex inner workings we have now...you think THAT'S any more likely than the guiding hand of a supernatural being?

Yes, many feel that the complexities of a human can only be described by a supernatural being. That's a feeling and a belief, that isn't science. When science shows you that there is good reason to believe that these complex beings are the result of years and years of mutations, you should pursue that. To call natural selection the same intelligent design is inappropriate because there is reason to believe one, and not the other.

To your last point, yes. Science has shown that is most likely to be the case, whereas there is no reason to believe in a supernatural being.

No, but it has EVERYTHING to do with the creation of life itself, something which you have YET to address. Organisms can only evolve after they're created...if life was never created, there could be no evolution.

I'm not arguing that life was never created. At this point in this point I feel I have adequately addressed your point of creation of life. I don't have to put forth a theory explaining how original life came to be, that's not my intention. I have a theory that explains how that original life evolved in to complex beings.

It seems like you're trying to show that there is a void in my theory, and then shoehorn God in as the only possible explanation for that void, which by default would make intelligent design true. I've stated that if you are insistent with me addressing this void (which I don't even have to for the sake of this argument), I would point to the big bang theory, which even in it's most primitive developmental state I find more plausible than God.

Exactly. And with that in mind, where's the harm in teaching it as a philosophy of the existence of life?

This is your only point that I have contemplated on. At the very beginning of my post, I conceded that on further thought, I wouldn't have a problem with intelligent design being taught on it's own as an elective, but I do have issue with it being taught in science or in any compulsory course.

Completely false. Aside from the fact it's as good of a theory to the creation of life as any other, it's also a wonderful tool to teach philosophy and provide kids an opportunity to practice critical thinking skills, in a real life (so to speak) scenario.

It's not as good as any other theory, it has no evidence, that makes it inferior to a theory that was derived because of evidence. Also using religion and God as a means to think critically seems contradictory. However, like I said, if schools wanted to provide intelligent design as an elective or general interest course I wouldn't have a problem. We have similar offerings at my own University now and I have no problem with that.

You keep saying that, but you're trying to prevent the teaching of Intelligent Design...which IS used to prove the origins of the universe. And since you offer no alternative to the origins of the universe, explain to me why a theory which does shouldn't be allowed?

You're being silly. You keep saying people can't argue Intelligent Design because Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origins of the universe. Well, that's just silly because a major point of Intelligent Design IS to explain the origins of the universe. The best you can do is claim the two theories address different issues...but then you'd have to come up with a different reason to exclude Intelligent Design from schools.

I could answer with this question with a question of my own: Should we teach pastafarianism in school? That fills the void that you claim evolution has. Neither should be taught in school because neither has any evidence to support it, it's complete speculation and I am against that. If you want to allow the discussion of intelligent design in schools, you must take pastafarianism with it, as both theories have no evidence, yet fill a void.

 

[Slyfox696]

I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't allow people to think for themselves, or decide on their own what they believe, but the other theory in question here has no basis at this point. If there was evidence for intelligent design, and both theories were therefore equally possible at this point, I would suggest that children learn both and make up their mind, however that isn't the case.

In retrospect, I suppose if a school wanted to allow a class that students could specifically register for and would teach the theory behind intelligent design I wouldn't have a problem with that. However seeing as how evolution is taught in science class, and others are arguing that intelligent design should be taught to students alongside with it, that wouldn't be appropriate.



I don't have a theory to explain the origins of all time and space, I would be more inclined to believe in the big bang theory over the concept of God if I had to choose, but considering the evidence for both theories, I don't bother with that discussion.

You're right, evolution took place after live was created, and I don't have a theory to explain how life originated. What I have is a theory of how that life evolved in to more complex beings. Considering what 'you have' is nothing in terms of evidence for the origin of life, and mere speculation, I would say we are even on that front.



There is a difference between having an incomplete picture and using speculation to fill in the blanks for now until we have more evidence, and having nothing at all, using speculation to form the entire picture. Natural selection has compiled enough evidence to give a fairly complex understanding of how we think evolution transpired, based on the facts. Intelligent design has no evidence to suggest anything.

If you want to consider modern evolution to have begun with Darwin, Darwin did not just speculate a theory and then look for evidence that would support it, he came across evidence that would suggest evolution, and further evidence supported it as well.



It's not hypocrisy, it's a completely different situation. Like I stated above, evidence was discovered that led to the inception of a theory, further evidence supported that theory and it's been snowballing ever since. Intelligent design has no evidence to begin with. If I have a outline of a theory that evidence supports, it is completely appropriate to connect the dots we have and use those lines as a guide for further evidence we need. It's not appropriate to come up with a theory without any evidence and say you're just missing information.




Yes, many feel that the complexities of a human can only be described by a supernatural being. That's a feeling and a belief, that isn't science. When science shows you that there is good reason to believe that these complex beings are the result of years and years of mutations, you should pursue that. To call natural selection the same intelligent design is inappropriate because there is reason to believe one, and not the other.

To your last point, yes. Science has shown that is most likely to be the case, whereas there is no reason to believe in a supernatural being.




I'm not arguing that life was never created. At this point in this point I feel I have adequately addressed your point of creation of life. I don't have to put forth a theory explaining how original life came to be, that's not my intention. I have a theory that explains how that original life evolved in to complex beings.

It seems like you're trying to show that there is a void in my theory, and then shoehorn God in as the only possible explanation for that void, which by default would make intelligent design true. I've stated that if you are insistent with me addressing this void (which I don't even have to for the sake of this argument), I would point to the big bang theory, which even in it's most primitive developmental state I find more plausible than God.



This is your only point that I have contemplated on. At the very beginning of my post, I conceded that on further thought, I wouldn't have a problem with intelligent design being taught on it's own as an elective, but I do have issue with it being taught in science or in any compulsory course.



It's not as good as any other theory, it has no evidence, that makes it inferior to a theory that was derived because of evidence. Also using religion and God as a means to think critically seems contradictory. However, like I said, if schools wanted to provide intelligent design as an elective or general interest course I wouldn't have a problem. We have similar offerings at my own University now and I have no problem with that.



I could answer with this question with a question of my own: Should we teach pastafarianism in school? That fills the void that you claim evolution has. Neither should be taught in school because neither has any evidence to support it, it's complete speculation and I am against that. If you want to allow the discussion of intelligent design in schools, you must take pastafarianism with it, as both theories have no evidence, yet fill a void.

It's late, and I'm too tired to go line by line right now. From where I sit, your position is one of the following:

A) You believe I'm a proponent of the removal of Evolution, replacing it with Intelligent Design, and not allowing any other theory.

or (and more likely)

B) You think Evolution is the only theory which should be taught, and Intelligent Design should never be presented as an alternative theory.


If your thinking is A, then just stop now, because I never once argued from removal of Evolution, in fact, I said I believe most strongly in it. However, I don't believe that to be your position, so let's go with B.

Here's what you don't seem to understand. Intelligent Design is a theory in which the major part is about the way the world was created. You keep wanting to focus on how humans (or whomever) got to be how they currently are, but wish to ignore how they start. As I said before, Evolution does not account for the creation. However, Intelligent Design does.

They are (or should be, at least) two theories which address different points of life. There's nothing that says the correct answer cannot be both, that an Intelligent Being (we'll just call God for sake of ease) created the world, and Evolution shaped it. There's nothing to say that didn't happen. The problem is you keep wanting to shove Evolution down my throat, when this really has NOTHING to do with Evolution, because I agree with you that Evolution should be taught, and haven't once denied Evolution has occurred.

No, what this is about is whether Intelligent Design should be presented as a theory or not. The problem you're having, is that you have NO way of providing ANY evidence to support ANY theory on the creation of life. Indeed, Intelligent Design seems to be arguably the BEST theory on how life was created. You believe rocks crashing together created complex life (or created basic life which morphed itself to complex), but that seems silly to me.

The point I'm making, and have made all along, is that there is ZERO reason for Intelligent Design to NOT be included as a theory, as there is nothing to suggest it doesn't exist, nor is there any evidence to support any other theory on the creation of life. When it comes to the subject of creation, Intelligent Design is every bit as reasonable of an explanation, at this point, as any other theory which can be created, and thus, to exclude it simply because there is no "scientific evidence" is silly.



Oh, and as for your ridiculous "pastafarianism" example, that would technically be classified under the umbrella of Intelligent Design, so it would already be included.

 

[Razor]

Evolution has tons of scientific evidence backing it up. We have the bones of whales, complete with a vestigial hip bone (that has legs on it) and earlier species of animal that can be shown to clearly evolve into whales. Humans are shown in the fossil record to have evolved through time from a species that gave forth both humans, chimps, and monkeys.

Intelligent Design has....nothing.

This isn't a debate of God, religion, or whether or not we should be preaching God in schools. Don't let it get clouded like that. Evolution can stand perfectly in line with God, either Abrahamaic, Hindu, or whatever. This is a issue of evidence. Theories in Science have large amounts of evidence backing them up. They have enough evidence to set up an idea of how things will occur in the future, I.E. a testable hypothesis or a testable rule of the Universe.

Evolution has that evidence, Intelligent Design does not have that at all. Therefore, it should be stricken from the rolls of public school education. If you can give up evidence that is actually supported by the scientists of our age (and not a bunch of random doctors of literature), then I'll fully support the idea of teaching either one side by side. But until then, Evolution is the only stable scientific theory for the development of mankind. And so it is the only one suitable for teaching to our children.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Here's what you don't seem to understand. Intelligent Design is a theory in which the major part is about the way the world was created. You keep wanting to focus on how humans (or whomever) got to be how they currently are, but wish to ignore how they start. As I said before, Evolution does not account for the creation. However, Intelligent Design does.

They are (or should be, at least) two theories which address different points of life. There's nothing that says the correct answer cannot be both, that an Intelligent Being (we'll just call God for sake of ease) created the world, and Evolution shaped it. There's nothing to say that didn't happen. The problem is you keep wanting to shove Evolution down my throat, when this really has NOTHING to do with Evolution, because I agree with you that Evolution should be taught, and haven't once denied Evolution has occurred.

Firstly, intelligent design states that certain aspects (human life for this discussion) are best explained by an intelligent cause, and not other indirect processes, such as natural selection. You state that there is no reason both cannot be true, but that is incorrect. The exact definition of intelligent states that we were not created by mutation or chance, but purposefully designed this way.

We agree that evolution should be taught, but we differ on whether intelligent design should be taught. Considering that both are contradictory, the acceptance of one theory excludes the other from being possible. You argued before that people should have a choice in being able to choose which to believe then, and I will explain why I disagree next.

What this is about is whether Intelligent Design should be presented as a theory or not. The problem you're having, is that you have NO way of providing ANY evidence to support ANY theory on the creation of life. Indeed, Intelligent Design seems to be arguably the BEST theory on how life was created. You believe rocks crashing together created complex life (or created basic life which morphed itself to complex), but that seems silly to me.

What you state is true, I don't have any evidence to support a theory on how life was originally created. If you want to argue that God created the universe and original life by whatever means, and then evolution took care of the rest, be my guest, but that isn't intelligent design. Intelligent design specifically states that life was create purposefully, that you and I were designed this way. While understanding that an intelligent being created the universe is important knowledge to understand intelligent design, that isn't what intelligent design is.

If you wanted to explain intelligent design, you would explain how you believe an intelligent being designed life to be the way it is, and this would exclude the possibility of evolution. The next logical questions any one would have is: how did this intelligent being create us? who is this intelligent being? Thus you would have to explain the creation of the universe etc. You have confused a theory on the creation of the universe (which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with designing all life, as life could have been created and then mutated via evolution), with intelligent design, which specifically states that an intelligent being designed us.

The point I'm making, and have made all along, is that there is ZERO reason for Intelligent Design to NOT be included as a theory, as there is nothing to suggest it doesn't exist, nor is there any evidence to support any other theory on the creation of life. When it comes to the subject of creation, Intelligent Design is every bit as reasonable of an explanation, at this point, as any other theory which can be created, and thus, to exclude it simply because there is no "scientific evidence" is silly.

Like I said before, intelligent design is not the same as a theory saying that an intelligent being created the universe. The latter is necessary for understanding the former, but they are not the same thing, case in point: I can state that an intelligent being created the universe and original life, and that evolution led us to this point, but that isn't intelligent design, even though an intelligent being is responsible for us being here in that example.

The debate you're arguing would be: Big Bang Theory vs. Creation by Intelligent Being: Which Should Be Taught In Schools? If that were the case, I wouldn't even post because I don't think either should be taught in schools until there is evidence and something of value to teach.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Intelligent Design theory is people saying this: Well, we know science is making it more difficult to believe in God, so what we're going to do is allow scientists to make discoveries and/or theories, then pass it off as God without specifically saying it's God. The fact people believe this is science amuses me to no end.

The thing with this is, it depends on who teaches you it and how they teach. When I was taught about Darwin, it was by a very strict Christian, who taught it with contempt, who put her spin on things to make it seem like this was a stupid, impossible concept. IF, and I mean IF this was taught in schools, it would need to be clear this is only a THEORY and there is absolutely no scientific evidence in favour of it. Which makes me wonder whether it should be taught in SCIENCE at all. It should be part of a religion class, because that's what this is.

The main problem is no one DOES know how the world started. And, while some theories have more worth than others, and some have more evidence in their favour, until we have definitive proof of ONE theory being correct, it's difficult to argue against them being taught. However, I do believe this shouldn't be part of a science lesson, but of a Religious Education-type, as it's explaining how some people look at life.

 

[Ferbian]

Evolution has that evidence, Intelligent Design does not have that at all. Therefore, it should be stricken from the rolls of public school education. If you can give up evidence that is actually supported by the scientists of our age (and not a bunch of random doctors of literature), then I'll fully support the idea of teaching either one side by side. But until then, Evolution is the only stable scientific theory for the development of mankind. And so it is the only one suitable for teaching to our children.

Not necessarily Razor.

As you said yourself, yes the creation in form of Evolution does have some well proving founds that could lead to a perfect conclusion that "Oh well, Evolution must be the right way of the creation of life".

And no I'm not saying Evolution is wrong, remember in my original post, I'm a damn atheist and I fully believe in the creation in form of Evolution, but I will not deny the fact that not everybody should or would choose one over the other, because just because we have our own beliefs and our own wantings of what we want to sit through a school class and listen to, it doesn't necessarily apply to every kid.

I've seen classmates introduced to Evolution alongside me, where as I choose to believe in Evolution from that day on, mostly because I was strongly convinced already that something about God could be a fluke story (don't hate on me for my beliefs please, I'm not saying you should think God is a fluke story, that's my opinion) and therefore were easily convinced to the creation from Darwin's conclusions.
But, I wasn't followed 100% by all my classmates, believe it or not, some still to this day will argue the fact that God created everything as opposed to Evolution, and I believe that should be respected, especially if kids want to learn about this in school, rather than spending a weekend day at church listening to the exact same things you could "waste" a school hour with.

Therefore I wouldn't necessarily say that just because Intelligent Design doesn't have "anything" to back up their beliefs except for some books and scripts written by people hundreds or more years ago, that just because they only have that, it automatically turns into the one subject that would be ridiculous to teach, even if the kids want to learn about it rather than sit back and learn about Evolution.

Especially to the fact that kids are pretty damn early taught the creation through God's powers, at ages where the creation through Evolution and it's concepts could be pretty harsh to grasp for the young kids minds, therefore teaching Evolution from the first day they step a foot inside school, would most likely rob the kids of the proper understanding of this theory, as opposed to the, well to say it boldly (in my opinion) less complex explanation of life through God.

 

[Slyfox696]

But until then, Evolution is the only stable scientific theory for the development of mankind. And so it is the only one suitable for teaching to our children.

Intelligent Design IS a theory of Evolution. What you're doing is trying to use natural selection interchangeably with evolution, and the two are not the same thing. Natural selection is a theory of evolution, as is Intelligent Design. As for which is "suitable" for teaching our children, they both are. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with Intelligent Design, and there are no flaws in the theory. As for the evidence you keep saying does not exist, you ignore the evidence that is evident all around you.

Somewhere, somehow, life was created...using your theory, all life evolved from single celled organisms (which, by the way, there is still no explanation for their origin either). So, from the single celled organisms, we now have the intricate and deep complexities of the human body, all of which work together perfectly to make up life? That right there is observational evidence to support the theory of Intelligent Design.

No matter how you slice it, there is most certainly support for Intelligent Design. Just because you can't replicate that evidence in a scientific lab makes it no less important.

Firstly, intelligent design states that certain aspects (human life for this discussion) are best explained by an intelligent cause, and not other indirect processes, such as natural selection. You state that there is no reason both cannot be true, but that is incorrect. The exact definition of intelligent states that we were not created by mutation or chance, but purposefully designed this way.

Exactly, however Intelligent Design ALSO establishes that after we were purposefully designed, Evolution can still occur.

Q:Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?

A: It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/faq.php

We agree that evolution should be taught, but we differ on whether intelligent design should be taught. Considering that both are contradictory, the acceptance of one theory excludes the other from being possible. You argued before that people should have a choice in being able to choose which to believe then, and I will explain why I disagree next.

They're not contradictory at all, except to explain how life was created, which is what I said in the beginning. Intelligent Design most certainly allows for the evolution of life, it just states that life has been guided by an intelligent being.

If you wanted to explain intelligent design, you would explain how you believe an intelligent being designed life to be the way it is, and this would exclude the possibility of evolution.

No, it does not, that's what you don't seem to be understanding. You can most certainly have both, Intelligent Design just holds that we were fundamentally created in a certain way; but it never discounts that Evolution has made us exactly what we are now. The difference simply becomes how we became what we are now.

Like I said before, intelligent design is not the same as a theory saying that an intelligent being created the universe

But it is, because, to explain how life has ended up the way it is, one has to assume the same intelligent being which guided life also created that life. It's a natural extension of that theory.

Intelligent Design theory is people saying this: Well, we know science is making it more difficult to believe in God, so what we're going to do is allow scientists to make discoveries and/or theories, then pass it off as God without specifically saying it's God. The fact people believe this is science amuses me to no end.

And the people who believe that Intelligent Design has anything to do with religion amuses me to no end.

Intelligent Design is not a religious theory, it's a scientific theory, satisfying all the necessary criteria to be considered a scientific theory. Do many people attribute that Intelligent Design to a God? Sure, but that's a religious interpretation of the scientific theory, not a scientific theory based upon religion. There's a major difference.

IF, and I mean IF this was taught in schools, it would need to be clear this is only a THEORY and there is absolutely no scientific evidence in favour of it.

Of course it should only be taught as a theory, just as natural selection should only be taught as a theory. As far as the evidence goes, I've already explained the evidence.

Which makes me wonder whether it should be taught in SCIENCE at all. It should be part of a religion class, because that's what this is.

Completely false.

Intelligent Design...well, here:

Q: Is intelligent design a scientific theory?

A: Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

Intelligent Design is NOT a religious theory, it is a scientific theory, and thus, to be taught in a religion class would be absurd.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Natural selection is a theory that organisms select in their breeding certain aspects of of a potential mate that make the offspring more likely to succeed in that environment. Well, to have those the attributes to be selected for, they need to already exist. All organisms have certain aspects that make them thrive in the environment in which they live. It's not like one ape with blue eyes selected another with big muscles and suddenly they walk upright.

The aspects to be selected for exist already. Intelligent design is apparent in the fact that fish have gills, humans have pinkie toes, and birds have wings. Sure, the effectiveness of those traits has evolved over time, but to assume that creatures aren't already suited for a specific environment before they start living and mating in it seems a bit absurd.

Now, the "designer" is where the religious arguments come in. I believe in God, and it seems that there needs to be a starting point for everything. Even if you believe, as I do, that the universe started with The Big Bang, the so-called God Particle, or the origin particle had to have existed. In that same vein, if you believe that life evolved from single celled organisms, those organisms had to have certain attributes that enabled them to thrive in that environment. If you don't believe in intelligent design, then you have to believe in roughly 435,456,647,434,456,097 lucky breaks happening to get us to this point. I don't know how one seems more far fatched than the other.

 

[SalvIsWin]

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/faq.php

They're not contradictory at all, except to explain how life was created, which is what I said in the beginning. Intelligent Design most certainly allows for the evolution of life, it just states that life has been guided by an intelligent being.

However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges.

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection

They are contradictory, the link you provided also states this to be so multiple times, as shown above. Intelligent design states that we are purposefully designed this way, natural selection states that we have mutated to this form.

They're not contradictory at all, except to explain how life was created, which is what I said in the beginning. Intelligent Design most certainly allows for the evolution of life, it just states that life has been guided by an intelligent being.

No, it does not, that's what you don't seem to be understanding. You can most certainly have both, Intelligent Design just holds that we were fundamentally created in a certain way; but it never discounts that Evolution has made us exactly what we are now. The difference simply becomes how we became what we are now.

Question:Is Intelligent Design the same as creationism?
Answer: No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations...the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism.

Creationism states that the universe was created by some supernatural agent. Intelligent design, as clearly stated by the link you provided, is not the same as creationism, and the website even states that they are agnostic regarding the source of design.

No, it does not, that's what you don't seem to be understanding. You can most certainly have both, Intelligent Design just holds that we were fundamentally created in a certain way; but it never discounts that Evolution has made us exactly what we are now. The difference simply becomes how we became what we are now.

But it is, because, to explain how life has ended up the way it is, one has to assume the same intelligent being which guided life also created that life. It's a natural extension of that theory.

And the people who believe that Intelligent Design has anything to do with religion amuses me to no end.

Your link directly states that intelligent design does not state what the source of design is, nor does it defend any religious claim. Intelligent design directly contradicts, as stated in your link, natural selection, the two cannot coexist.

The explain intelligent design you would naturally be asked to explain who the designer is, yes, I have said this in previous posts. Considering that intelligent design is not creationism, and is agnostic to how the universe began, any theory you choose to delve in to next is not intelligent design, and becomes something different. This is clearly stated.

Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement."

It doesn't have anything to do with religion, it is a natural extension, but it isn't the same thing, thus stating that intelligent design should be taught because it fills a void about how the universe began is illogical.

To summarize up to this point. Intelligent design states that we are not a product of mutation or natural selection, we were purposefully designed this way by a designer. The nature and origin of the designer and of the universe are not explained nor defended by intelligent design, these points are clearly stated in the link you provided.

Intelligent design is a theory that doesn't have any evidence to it's claim, and it directly challenges a theory (natural selection) which does have evidence. To argue that both should be taught to children is absurd because one offers proof for it's claims, and was created because of evidence that was found, and another theory was created in spite of having no evidence.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

While Intelligent Design isn't a concept that is solely linked to the Christian God, ID is generally identified with Christianity in the Unites States as Christianity in general is the dominant religion here. A little while back, I overheard a couple of college kids in a resteraunt talking about this and one happened to be Christian while the other was Hindu. Both of them seemed to be devout in their beliefs and the problem with ID being linked with religion is that it can potentially lead to religious and, potentially, even racial tensions.

Say, for the sake of argument, that the Hindu kid's belief in how all of existence and life was created is actually the way it happened. That could mean that not only is the Christian kid's belief wrong, but it brings into question the entire validity of his religions beliefs. Both these guys believed in their view, it got pretty heated at one point, but it didn't come down to violence. However, I very much doubt the same could be said for many others out there of differing beliefs regarding this debate. Whether it was actually meant to or not, many major religions, particularly Christianity, have "unofficially" I guess you'd say merged the concept of Intelligent Design as part of their dogma.

As far as ID goes, how can one prove the existence of a supreme being or force beyond their own personal beliefs and faith? I don't think it can be done. Faith is belief despite the absence of physical proof. Sometimes, faith is belief in something even when all logical sense seems to indicate that it's not right.

Evolution is still a theory, it hasn't been proven though there have been some profound discoveries in the 150+ years since Charles Darwin developed his theories. Could it be proven one day as scientific technologies and discoveries improve? Possibly, but then again, it's also possible that Evolution could be proven to be an inaccurate theory.

I believe in God, though I don't know entirely what God is or what God could possibly be. I don't pretend to know the will of God as I think that's arrogance. Because of the close relationship that's developed between religion and Intelligent Design, I'm uncomfortable with it being taught in schools. As ID has become strongly linked with Christianity in the United States, it doesn't seem proper to me as there are many students that don't subscribe to Christian beliefs. Intelligent Design does feel more like religious teachings to me and, therefore, I think the proper place for such things to be taught are during religious services in the various houses of worship many religions have.

I can't claim to know which one of these is ultimately correct. Maybe they're both correct for all I know. We can only hope to get along through life as best we can, particularly when it comes to something that questions the very aspects of life and creation. I do think that each theory does have its own place, however. After all, I've never heard of anyone saying that Evolution ought to be taught in Sunday School or during church services, so why should a subject with such strong religious connotations and connections be expected to be taught to kids in school.

 

[The Roid Rage]

Ya know, I don't really have a lot of stock in this one myself. I'm not going to go over all the aspects of the two theories debating their meanings and such, you have all done that so far and come to no real conclusions that anyone can agree on. I think that in trying to give deep insight to the topic, the grand scheme, the main argument is being overlooked in a lot of ways.

Outside of all the arguments of each theories legitimacy the real question we are trying to answer is whether or not to teach one of these theories in schools or the other. I think that the details of them as far as what one or the other says aren't even the real point here. It's "Are we going to represent both sides of this discussion, or are we going to promote a bias?" I don't see why both ideas can't be equally represented, explored, and discussed. The relation between the two, the possibilities of one somehow complementing the other, are all things to discuss. Keep in mind we're talking about schools and education, not doctrine. Since those are the most widely shared ideas on that subject, the only fair thing is to represent both of them.

 

[Shocky]

I think the main thing with Evolution, people simply don't have a concept of what time really is. The earth has been around for what, 5.5 billion years or so. In that time, life has only exited (so far) for 3.7 billion years. Do people really understand how long 3.7 billion years are? I don't think so. The amount of breeding cycles that single cell organism and what not could make in that amount of time is an astonishing number. With that much time, it is completely plausible that life could exist from a single cell organism to the complex life we have today. The inability of the human mind to comprehend geologic and universal time is an obvious one, through no fault of are own.

I grew up in the church, and I went to school for Anthropology, so I've been on both sides of the argument. I don't believe in Intelligent Design, but see why people do. It simply comes down to a simple escape in, the people that tend to believe in creationism only need faith. That's all well and good, I respect it, but it doesn't work for me.

In all fairness to Creationist that try to discount Darwinism, how many years has science been able to do what they need to do to prove their theory. 150 years approximately. The amount of progress Science has made in the last century and a half is amazing, if not flat out astonishing. Is evolution perfect, far from it. However, any rational follower of Science and Darwin would never argue for it being a perfect theory.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Natural selection is a theory that organisms select in their breeding certain aspects of of a potential mate that make the offspring more likely to succeed in that environment. Well, to have those the attributes to be selected for, they need to already exist. All organisms have certain aspects that make them thrive in the environment in which they live. It's not like one ape with blue eyes selected another with big muscles and suddenly they walk upright.

This is untrue. Organisms do not intentionally select attributes that will succeed in their environment, I don't know if that is what you meant exactly, but that is how I understand what you're saying based on what you wrote.

Organisms multiply and in their offspring they are largely genetic copies, except there is always mutations. Some chance mutations will benefit that organism in it's environment, because it's stronger, faster, has more endurance, and so forth. In terms of survival, that organism has a better chance than all others without that genetic mutation, thus it is probable that it will survive and reproduce. The next generation will be largely a genetic copy and will have that same mutation, thus they will enjoy the same benefit and are more probable to survive longer and produce more, and thus the cycle continues and continues with that stronger gene becoming more prominent in the gene pool of that species. As organisms spread to different areas, certain mutations that served well before, will serve well now, and vice versa.

Now, the "designer" is where the religious arguments come in. I believe in God, and it seems that there needs to be a starting point for everything. Even if you believe, as I do, that the universe started with The Big Bang, the so-called God Particle, or the origin particle had to have existed. In that same vein, if you believe that life evolved from single celled organisms, those organisms had to have certain attributes that enabled them to thrive in that environment. If you don't believe in intelligent design, then you have to believe in roughly 435,456,647,434,456,097 lucky breaks happening to get us to this point. I don't know how one seems more far fatched than the other.

That's the point being discussed, one seems more probable because there is evidence to support it.

Outside of all the arguments of each theories legitimacy the real question we are trying to answer is whether or not to teach one of these theories in schools or the other. I think that the details of them as far as what one or the other says aren't even the real point here. It's "Are we going to represent both sides of this discussion, or are we going to promote a bias?" I don't see why both ideas can't be equally represented, explored, and discussed. The relation between the two, the possibilities of one somehow complementing the other, are all things to discuss. Keep in mind we're talking about schools and education, not doctrine. Since those are the most widely shared ideas on that subject, the only fair thing is to represent both of them.

Evolution and natural selection are taught in science class, because it is a scientific theory, it has evidence behind it. Intelligent design is widely considered to not be a scientific theory, as it doesn't mean the criteria for being testable or falsifiable. The only way to prove intelligent design to be false would be to show how a contradictory theory must be true, and therefore it would make intelligent design false by default.

Because there is no evidence behind intelligent design, it is nothing more than a collection of weak assumptions with no supporting evidence. Your argument of showing both sides equally in order to avoid bias would be forced to accept any theory based on mere assumption and thought. The criteria for teaching theories to children should be more than, "It could be true." I myself could think of some possible theories that could be true, but with out any supporting evidence, why bother?

However, any rational follower of Science and Darwin would never argue for it being a perfect theory.

Fully agree with your post, especially this line.

 

[Remix]

Personally, I believe far more in Evolution than I do in anything else, but why prohibit another theory?

If aforementioned theory is unscientific in the extreme (which ID is), it has no place being taught as a science and being given equal weight to evolution.

Where's the harm in presenting the theory that, perhaps, there was some supernatural force which created our world?

Because such a theory is unscientific, there is no evidence for an outside force having 'designed' any part of life on earth and because of those two things, should not be taught as a science.

Is that so outside the realm of possibility it should never be taught?

as a science, yes.

What scientific proof do you have to explain how our universe began?

well, aside from background radiation from the big bang, the fact that the universe if clearly expending (galaxies can be observed to be moving away from us), and the age of the universe can be calculated from that.

and that the Where did time, space and life start?

No clue. The former from when the laws of the universe were written in the big bang, on the latter there are various theories.

There's ZERO scientific proof of the concept of the infinity of time

Question, isn't time thought not to be a fixed construct (i.e. time is relative), and one that has only existed for as long as the universe?

so using your logic, how does Evolution explain the beginning of time?

It doesn't. they are two separate things. The universe, and therefore time has existed for longer than our solar system, which has existed for longer than live on earth.

Is it so much more difficult to believe Divine Intervention created life, than the possibility of a bunch of rocks colliding together and creating an entire universe?

Yes. And the big bang predates rocks. and the only element that was created by the big bang was hydrogen. All other elements were created by the stars that came afterwards.

Really? A bunch of rocks? THAT makes more sense?

No it doesn't. Because that's a fallacy.

Technically incorrect.

technicallly irrelevent. There's no designer anyway.

In an Intelligent Design theory, life isn't attributed to any specific God, just a supernatural being. Of course, it generally is referred to as the Christian God, but technically, it is not.

God is God. It doesn't matter what denomination that god/supernatural being is, it's still a god. Which makes ID creationsim. Which is as far from science as you can get.

Except, as I said, Evolution only describes how we got here today, not how we got here in the beginning.

Yes. Abiogenesis (the study of the origin of life) has nothing to do with evolution. They are separate processes. You cannot dismiss one theory because it does not explain another.

And what evidence do you possess to explain the creation of the universe

I can prove the age of the universe, and based on existing evidence; it would not be unreasonable to guess that the universe begain from a single point in time and space.

time

I don't even begin to understand how time works. I'm sure that some scientists have studied it in great depth. But I personally do not.

and life itself?

[YOUTUBE]U6QYDdgP9eg[/YOUTUBE]

That video explains it far better than I can. The great thing is that everything in it has been confirmed to happen in a laboratory.

So...let me see if I have this correct...

It's okay to accept one theory, despite missing many important facts, just because you believe it to be true

if those facts are irrelevent to the theory, then yes. The theory of gravity shouldnt be rejected because it doesn't explain the origin of life. THe theory of evolution shouldnt be rejected because it doesn't explain it either. Because for evolution to take place, life must already exist

but it's wrong to believe another theory missing facts, just because you believe it not to be true?

Given that the theory is sometihng that explains a collection of facts. If aforementioned theory doesn't explain the facts, or facts get discovered that contradict it, then by all means that theory should be rejected.

And yet, where's the science to disprove the theory?

Evolution, which needs no designer tends to be the start of the evidence of ID.

QUOTE=Slyfox696;1981770]Do you have any? The human body alone is so deep and complex, to assume it could have been created by a bunch of rocks mashing together is no more believable than the concept of a supernatural maker.[/quote]

However that the human body didn't spontaneously arise from 'rochs bashing together'. No evidence exists of life spontaneously arising from 'rocks bashing together'. Life is theorised to have begun (slowly) from non living matter. However, there's evidence supporting that existant. In any case it didn't spontaneously happen.

The fact of the matter is, to deny the POSSIBILITY of Intelligent Design is absurd.

Not really. Evolution has far more evidence going for it. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to reject it as a theory. Just like it is perfectly reasonable to reject the theory of people getting ill because they're possessed by evil spirits, rather than being infected with a pathogen.

Intelligent Design does not, on the technical definitions of its description, violate any part of the Constitution, and is every bit as much of a plausible theory for the creation of time, universe and life as anything Evolution has every come up with.

Yes it is. Because evolution on its own doesn't explain any of those things. However, evolution has more supporting evidence than ID, and therefore is the theory that should be taught in science lessons. Not all ideas are equally true, and they shouldn't be given equal weight in science lessons.

So, to one up you, until you have scientific facts which disproves Intelligent Design, give me one reason it shouldn't be taught as a theory.

You can't disprove a theory. Theories (within a scientific context) are ideas which explain facts. No theory can be proven or disproven. Every aspect of evolution has been observed. No convincing evidence for ID has been found. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable for the theory of intelligent design to be passed over in the classroom.

Why not? Are we now saying that we shouldn't teach people to think for themselves in school now, that the only thing which should be discussed in schools is simply facts, and never give kids the opportunity to have the ability to think in-depth for themselves? Do you support a society which lacks the ability to contemplate deep thought?

Scientific meaning of theory =/= every day meaning of theory. The every day usage of theory is synonymous with 'guess'. The scientific meaning is something that explains facts. Evolution explains the facts we have better than the theory of there being an intelligent designer (which there is no evidence).

The beginning is most certainly being discussed here, what the fuck do you think Intelligent Design means?

That an intelligent designer created thatever it is that people are arguing had to be designed.

It most certainly has everything to do with the creation of space and time.

Evolution, however has nothing to do with these things. Therefore within the confines of this debate, we should leave them out.

Just because you don't believe in it, doesn't mean it's not a viable discussion point.

If you're arguing against something using irrelevent evidence, that evidence should be refered to as irrelevent. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of time, space and life. Therefore using those aspects of ID against evolution is silly.

I'm not confusing anything. Intelligent Design is a theory which, among other things, explains the creating of time and life. If you reject the theory of Intelligent Design, then you now have a void to explain how life started. Evolution only takes place AFTER life is created...so what do you have to explain life?

Within the confines of this debate, the part of ID theory refering to creation of the universe should be left out. As it refers to life (after its origin), evolution is the superior theory, supported by more evidence and is the one that should be taught in schools. For an ID free version of the origin of life, see: abiogenesis.

There's plenty of evidence of Intelligent Design, the human body itself is evidence. The intricacies of the inner human body is so deep and complex, many feel it can ONLY be described by a supernatural being.

Yeah, the 'supernatural designer' theory works on the assumption of the all of the intricate things happening at once. They didn't. things like the eye evolved gradually. On several occasions, as it turns out. See this video:

[YOUTUBE]LZdCxk0CnN4[/YOUTUBE]

Even if you want to argue Evolution and all the things which come with it, to assert that the complexities of the human being is simply a result of the evolution of man is every bit as laughable as a concept of Intelligent Design.

How is it laughable to assert that things in out body arose because of our evolution? I don't understand what you're trying to say here Sly.

According to Evolution, man was a single celled organism, which has evolved to the deeply complex inner workings we have now...you think THAT'S any more likely than the guiding hand of a supernatural being?

Yes it is. Given that the evolution of multicellular life has been observed under laboratory conditions, and fossil records, genetic fingerprinting shows the rest of the development of mankind. This makes evolution of humans, with all of its erreductibly complex mechanisms much more plausible than us being designed.

No, but it has EVERYTHING to do with the creation of life itself, something which you have YET to address. Organisms can only evolve after they're created...if life was never created, there could be no evolution.

Evolution has notihng to do with creation of life. Therefore he has not addressed it. Life came to be from a process entirely separate from evolution. As you've both asserted.

You have NO explanation for creation, and currently the most known theory is a bunch of rocks smashing together.

For creation of the universe, the big bang. For the origin of life, abiogenesis. Niether of these are 'a bunch of rocks smashing together'.

To try and ignore that life can only evolved after creation is just narrow-minded.

To try and use evolution not explaining the orogin of life as evidence against it is just as narrow minded.

Exactly. And with that in mind, where's the harm in teaching it as a philosophy of the existence of life?

No harm at all. It should however be taught as that. A philosophy, not a science.

Completely false. Aside from the fact it's as good of a theory to the creation of life as any other, it's also a wonderful tool to teach philosophy and provide kids an opportunity to practice critical thinking skills, in a real life (so to speak) scenario.

putting aside that ID isn't as good of a theory as evolution (in combination with the big bang and abiogenesis). There's a big flaw in the theory of intelligent design. There's no evidence for the designer's existance. Irreductible complexity is in fact predicted by evolution (see the second video). That's a pretty big hole in the theory.

Life has been made in the lab, by the way.

You keep saying that, but you're trying to prevent the teaching of Intelligent Design...which IS used to prove the origins of the universe. And since you offer no alternative to the origins of the universe, explain to me why a theory which does shouldn't be allowed?

The big bang explains the origin of the universe with no need for a designer. Abiogenesis explains the origin of life without the need for a designer. Evolution explains how we got from life to humans with no need for a designer. Why should we teach a theory that requires there to be an intelligent designer for which there is no evidence? If we're teaching it as a philosohy, sure there it has its place. Not as a science though.

You're being silly. You keep saying people can't argue Intelligent Design because Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origins of the universe. Well, that's just silly because a major point of Intelligent Design IS to explain the origins of the universe. The best you can do is claim the two theories address different issues...but then you'd have to come up with a different reason to exclude Intelligent Design from schools.

Would other theories explaining the origins of life and the universe without the need of a 'god', coupled with the lack of evidence for the existance of this 'god' be sufficient to merit its non inclusion within the science classroom?

Intelligent Design IS a theory of Evolution.

Explain please. ID tends to go against evolution. As the 'point' of evolution is that there is no designing force, ID would go against that.

What you're doing is trying to use natural selection interchangeably with evolution, and the two are not the same thing. Natural selection is a theory of evolution, as is Intelligent Design.

Natural selection is somethng that drives evolution. it is not a theory of evolution. You can actually observe natural selection. S. aureus is a good example. Its form resistant to penecillin has rapidly become the dominant form.

As for which is "suitable" for teaching our children, they both are. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with Intelligent Design, and there are no flaws in the theory. As for the evidence you keep saying does not exist, you ignore the evidence that is evident all around you.

would this be the evidence of god all around us (debatable), the irreducible complexity all around us (which requires no designer), or assorted holy books?

Somewhere, somehow, life was created...using your theory, all life evolved from single celled organisms

which is what the evidence points to.

(which, by the way, there is still no explanation for their origin either).

Yes there is.

So, from the single celled organisms, we now have the intricate and deep complexities of the human body, all of which work together perfectly to make up life?

Pretty much. Give or take a few hundred million years. WHich the fossil record points towards.

That right there is observational evidence to support the theory of Intelligent Design.

No there isnt. Otherwise there'd be more peer articles about intelligent design. (There are 100 articles found with a search for intelligent design evolution. Many of which reject it as a scientific theory). For reference there are 263647 articles about evolution.

No matter how you slice it, there is most certainly support for Intelligent Design.

Obviously not within the scientific community.

Just because you can't replicate that evidence in a scientific lab makes it no less important.

Not if you're teaching intelligent design as a science. Where things like proof, and verifiable results are important.

Exactly, however Intelligent Design ALSO establishes that after we were purposefully designed, Evolution can still occur.

...the FAQ outright states that it goes against one of the key points of dominant evolutionary theory. And given that natural selection happens a lot in nature (MRSA, and antiretroviral resistant HIV say hello).

They're not contradictory at all, except to explain how life was created

Which evolution is not about, and has never been about. Evolution is about how things change over time. It's not about how those same things started.

which is what I said in the beginning. Intelligent Design most certainly allows for the evolution of life, it just states that life has been guided by an intelligent being.

Question, where did the intelligent being come from?

No, it does not, that's what you don't seem to be understanding. You can most certainly have both, Intelligent Design just holds that we were fundamentally created in a certain way

In what way were we created? Where did the designing stop? No matter what level you start at, you end up getting to the point where the 'illogical' things about evolution have to happen anyway. Making a 'phylogenetic tree' based on genetic similarities means that in order for an intelligent design to make sence you eventually end up back at a single genetic predecessor for all life on earth. meaning that designer pretty much designed one cell and let evolution take place. So he wasn't much of a designer, was he?

but it never discounts that Evolution has made us exactly what we are now. The difference simply becomes how we became what we are now.

No, I suppose not.

But it is, because, to explain how life has ended up the way it is, one has to assume the same intelligent being which guided life also created that life. It's a natural extension of that theory.

Making it pretty much creationism.

And the people who believe that Intelligent Design has anything to do with religion amuses me to no end.

It's creationsim for people who dont believe in god. It's not religion, but it's close.

Intelligent Design is not a religious theory, it's a scientific theory, satisfying all the necessary criteria to be considered a scientific theory.

All it's missing is evidence to support it (evidence like where's the proof of the existance of the intelligent designer? Or what caused the intelligent designer to come into being?). Which it is sadly lacking. To be a scientific theory it has to explain facts. And a combination of the big bang, abiogenesis, and evolution explains the origin of the universe, live and its change over time without the need for external forces guiding its development.

Do many people attribute that Intelligent Design to a God? Sure, but that's a religious interpretation of the scientific theory, not a scientific theory based upon religion. There's a major difference.

Very true. The intelligent designer does not have to be god. It's just implied.

Of course it should only be taught as a theory, just as natural selection should only be taught as a theory.

Natural selection, which has been observed many times in nature as fueling adaptation and evolution has far more credence than Intelligent Design. They should not be taught on the same level because they aren't. Truth is that they aren't even close to being on the same level of credability.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Intelligent Design theory is people saying this: Well, we know science is making it more difficult to believe in God

How so? I would love for you to prove how science makes it difficult to believe in God. This is nothing more than a snide comment from a militant atheist.

so what we're going to do is allow scientists to make discoveries and/or theories, then pass it off as God without specifically saying it's God. The fact people believe this is science amuses me to no end.

In what way does intelligent design require there to be God? It is a theory that states that certain aspects of creatures allows them to thrive in the area in which they exist. The designer could be that animal itself. The designer could be natural selection and instinct. God is just one of the 10 bazillion different designers that you could make an argument for. Intelligent design is a different theory of evolution, not a Sunday school class. It just seems like another weak lefty argument to pigeonhole design theory as a religious instead of actually arguing the merits of it.

The thing with this is, it depends on who teaches you it and how they teach. When I was taught about Darwin, it was by a very strict Christian, who taught it with contempt, who put her spin on things to make it seem like this was a stupid, impossible concept. IF, and I mean IF this was taught in schools, it would need to be clear this is only a THEORY and there is absolutely no scientific evidence in favour of it. Which makes me wonder whether it should be taught in SCIENCE at all. It should be part of a religion class, because that's what this is.

This shows how badly you misunderstand the theory and instead of arguing theory and facts, you just want to reject anything that remotely mentions God instead of trying to understand it. I don't understand why you want to do that. Use science to explain how we got here. Well, what happened was that a particle magically appeared out of nowhere, blew up with no provocation, placed this mass of rock the perfect distance from the perfectly sized star with the perfect bacteria placed in the perfect conditions to begin to divide, and once the perfect number of comets left the perfect amount of water on the planet, that bacteria found the perfect conditions to evolve into us. So, instead of believing in a creator, you believe in a hundred billion coincidences working out perfectly. I'm sorry, but the second one seems far more far fetched than the first.

The main problem is no one DOES know how the world started. And, while some theories have more worth than others, and some have more evidence in their favour, until we have definitive proof of ONE theory being correct, it's difficult to argue against them being taught. However, I do believe this shouldn't be part of a science lesson, but of a Religious Education-type, as it's explaining how some people look at life.

Well, now that seems perfectly rational and makes me feel like I wasted time up above.

 

[HBK-aholic]

How so? I would love for you to prove how science makes it difficult to believe in God. This is nothing more than a snide comment from a militant atheist.

I'm not a militant athiest, I spend most of my Sundays at Church . I am, however, against ID theory. Hon do you really need me to explain why the growth in science has led to a decrease in belief of God? We both know it's true.

In what way does intelligent design require there to be God? It is a theory that states that certain aspects of creatures allows them to thrive in the area in which they exist. The designer could be that animal itself. The designer could be natural selection and instinct. God is just one of the 10 bazillion different designers that you could make an argument for. Intelligent design is a different theory of evolution, not a Sunday school class. It just seems like another weak lefty argument to pigeonhole design theory as a religious instead of actually arguing the merits of it.

It COULD be any of those things. However, most people are of the opinion this 'theory' was created as a way to allow 'God' to enter into science classes without being banned - something I agree with. I understand the works of ID theory in that everything is irreducibly complex - I do not, however, understand how they make that jump to there being a 'designer' and how everyone else, especially in America, then makes the jump to their being a 'God'. It's implied, very strongly, but just refraining from using the word God doesn't make it any less religious.

This shows how badly you misunderstand the theory and instead of arguing theory and facts, you just want to reject anything that remotely mentions God instead of trying to understand it. I don't understand why you want to do that.

Surprisingly, I love the idea of a God. It helps so many individuals, giving hope, and guidance, whether he's real or not. Just because I'm anti-ID theory, doesn't make me anti-God.

Use science to explain how we got here. Well, what happened was that a particle magically appeared out of nowhere, blew up with no provocation, placed this mass of rock the perfect distance from the perfectly sized star with the perfect bacteria placed in the perfect conditions to begin to divide, and once the perfect number of comets left the perfect amount of water on the planet, that bacteria found the perfect conditions to evolve into us. So, instead of believing in a creator, you believe in a hundred billion coincidences working out perfectly. I'm sorry, but the second one seems far more far fetched than the first.

Did you just call the first theory far-fetched, while talking about a 'creator'. Tell me, where did this 'creator' come from? He just appeared out of thin air too, right? That's not far-fetched, or exactly the same as the first, at all

I'm of the opinion that as of yet, the 'right' theory isn't known. People get too caught up in the idea that we know everything, and we don't. We know nothing when it comes to this, not really. I'm not a firm believer in Evolution, I think someone better will come along and explain things correctly. As of now, I just don't want my children's minds to be filled with ID when there is no proof for it at all.

 

[Razor]

Not necessarily Razor.

As you said yourself, yes the creation in form of Evolution does have some well proving founds that could lead to a perfect conclusion that "Oh well, Evolution must be the right way of the creation of life".

Yes. Evidence.

And no I'm not saying Evolution is wrong, remember in my original post, I'm a damn atheist and I fully believe in the creation in form of Evolution, but I will not deny the fact that not everybody should or would choose one over the other, because just because we have our own beliefs and our own wantings of what we want to sit through a school class and listen to, it doesn't necessarily apply to every kid.

So we use schools to teach an idea that has no basis in evidence? That's why parents shouldn't be choosing what students learn. Teachers should be.

I've seen classmates introduced to Evolution alongside me, where as I choose to believe in Evolution from that day on, mostly because I was strongly convinced already that something about God could be a fluke story (don't hate on me for my beliefs please, I'm not saying you should think God is a fluke story, that's my opinion) and therefore were easily convinced to the creation from Darwin's conclusions.
But, I wasn't followed 100% by all my classmates, believe it or not, some still to this day will argue the fact that God created everything as opposed to Evolution, and I believe that should be respected, especially if kids want to learn about this in school, rather than spending a weekend day at church listening to the exact same things you could "waste" a school hour with.

School has enough problems on its own. It shouldn't cater to students who want a principle that has no scientific backing whatsoever. If they want that, they can talk to their parents and whomever wants to teach them that. School is there to teach science, math, reading, and writing. Not theories that hold no water in the world at large.

Therefore I wouldn't necessarily say that just because Intelligent Design doesn't have "anything" to back up their beliefs except for some books and scripts written by people hundreds or more years ago, that just because they only have that, it automatically turns into the one subject that would be ridiculous to teach, even if the kids want to learn about it rather than sit back and learn about Evolution.

So I can get schools to teach about some bullshit idea that I came up with myself? Say I believe that the sky is really made of diamonds, and we should harvest the sky for those diamonds. If I get a bunch of people to believe me, but scientists the world round saying "No, you're ridiculous," I should still be able to get teachers to teach my children that? That's ludicrous.

Especially to the fact that kids are pretty damn early taught the creation through God's powers, at ages where the creation through Evolution and it's concepts could be pretty harsh to grasp for the young kids minds, therefore teaching Evolution from the first day they step a foot inside school, would most likely rob the kids of the proper understanding of this theory, as opposed to the, well to say it boldly (in my opinion) less complex explanation of life through God.

Algebra is really hard to understand as well. That doesn't mean I could say "I only believe in adding with single digits. No variables for me!" and get away with it. Let them struggle to reform their opinions or back up their own. The world (well, beyond the American Political System) is not going to let you just run around spouting shit and yelling about how we liberal scientists have it wrong. Give me evidence beyond a bunch of people who still seem to think the world started 6000 years ago, or go home.

Intelligent Design IS a theory of Evolution. What you're doing is trying to use natural selection interchangeably with evolution, and the two are not the same thing. Natural selection is a theory of evolution, as is Intelligent Design. As for which is "suitable" for teaching our children, they both are. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with Intelligent Design, and there are no flaws in the theory. As for the evidence you keep saying does not exist, you ignore the evidence that is evident all around you.

Intelligent Design is not a theory of Evolution. People use it to strike down the idea that animals could have evolved over the billions of years this Earth has been around. Intelligent Design encompasses the idea that the world started 6000 years ago, and the animals present today were created this way. You know, completely ignoring the fossils around them that show species billions of years old that died billions of years ago.

Somewhere, somehow, life was created...using your theory, all life evolved from single celled organisms (which, by the way, there is still no explanation for their origin either). So, from the single celled organisms, we now have the intricate and deep complexities of the human body, all of which work together perfectly to make up life? That right there is observational evidence to support the theory of Intelligent Design.

We have a fossil record that shows single celled organisms that soon form multicell organisms through joining together and participating in compartmentalization (ha, we DO have a theory as to how single celled organisms form into multi-cell organisms), we then have fossil records of organisms that evolved from those and evolved from those. If we want to see the organisms that evolved the species we have today, we can just go to volcanoes and hot springs. They have the very bacteria that existed billions of years ago.

As far as evidence, the fossil record is what shows us. Coincidentally, the fossil record not only shows that Intelligent Design is based on a faulty premise (organisms can't macroevolve), but it also shows that Evolution as a whole is correct. Evolution does not span to the beginning of time, so don't try the Big Bang on me.

No matter how you slice it, there is most certainly support for Intelligent Design. Just because you can't replicate that evidence in a scientific lab makes it no less important.
Exactly, however Intelligent Design ALSO establishes that after we were purposefully designed, Evolution can still occur.

No. No, no, no, no, no. For it to be a scientific theory there has to be scientific evidence that can either be presented and tested in the laboratory or used as a basis for a universal rule of the Universe. Intelligent Design bars the evolution of a species from another (whales evolving from wolves, as we've seen through the fossil record). Intelligent Design may allow for microevolution, but it bars the very basis the evolution of the species, macroevolution. You can't have one without the other. If a beak can be chosen for because it's longer and can fit into pine cones, an entirely new bird can be evolved because enough traits were chosen for to create a new bird.

It seems like we're arguing the beginning of the Universe, not the mechanism of Evolution. If that's the case, then we're fine. Evolution does not span to the Big Bang, so it does not seek to say how life was created, just how it changed as it formed. Intelligent Design seeks to explain how we got here, and that's where the problem arises. We don't know how we got here, and to say that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory on how we were created is not true at all. It's a religious idea. Religion has no place being taught in the schools as scientific fact.