Why Can't ID be Taught in the Classroom? - (Mar/16/2006 )
I don't understand why intelligent design can't be taught in American schools. My opinion is that if the school board wants ID to be taught, the teachers under them must teach it. The school board it the elected voice of the people of the US. This is a democracy, the majority rules, no matter what. No one is asking for them to stop teaching evolution anyway, they just want ID to be given some attention. It is rediculous that some judge with his/her own ajenda can override the people. Judges don't make the laws here, the elected members of the legislative branch do. The only thing a judge has the right to do with this issue is to evaluate whether or not is is constitutional to teach ID (and it is). What does everyone else have to say on this issue?
The issue is not with ID being taught in schools, it's with it being presented as science when it clearly isn't. The creationists want ID taught alongside, or even in place of, evolution. IMO it should be presented as theological theory
The fundamental difference between science and religion is that science is theory based on (constantly) peer reviewed evidence, while religion is based upon making stuff up and insisting it is true despite peer review
that is all
This has never been true, nor will it ever be. What if the majority agreed that minorities should pay twice as much in property taxes?
The judge didn't say ID couldn't be taught in schools -- he said it's a religious subject, not a science, and therefore can not be presented to students as a scientific alternative to evolution. If the schools want to teach ID in philosophy class, they are free to do so.
The majority does rule. If the whole country really, really wanted to tax minorites double, then it would be that way. If the majority was really serious about it, they could depose the leadership in opposition to them and replace it with new leadership who share their views. Think about it, what is a minority going to do against the majority? They're out numbered in every way. I'm not saying anything like that is ever going to happen, but if the majority is really set on getting something done, they can do it. One of the definitions for democracy in Oxford American dictionary is: "control of an organization or group by the majority of its members"
Why is ID a religious theory? ID does not say for example, the God of Christianity, or Allah, or Budah created the universe. It just says that we were designed by some intelligent entity. It would be religious if it said Allah created you, therefore you must worship him. Suggesting that we were designed by an intelligent enity is pretty darn vague, and I see no way that it could be considered religous.
If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you?
Everyone said the world was flat, except for the minority. Guess who was right.
Everyone said that the universe revolved around the earth, except for the minority. Guess who was right.
You want your kids to learn ID... teach it to them at home.
If there was an intelligent designer that made all life as we know it.... surely that must be some "being".... so complex and intricate that it could not have sprung into existance on it's own. There must have been and even more intelligent and more creative designer that made this intelligent designer. But who created this super intelligent designer, who created the intelligent designer that created all life as we know it.... i'm going to stop now.
Touched by his noodly appendage (y'argghhh).
PS... considering that most of the people pushing ID are rightwing christians, and all the books that the teachers are supposed to teach from are written and published by rightwing christian organisations... it's fair to say that ID will have a rightwing christian slant to it. Even though it won't be said outright.
if ID is not a deity based idea then from where did the designer come. if it is not a deity then a deity would have had to create it. otherwise it would have had to evolve. which brings us back to evolution.
now if you want to talk about intelligence directed evolution, that's what some scientists and animal and plant breeders are doing.
Until it got to the Supreme Court, or any court for that matter, which would throw the law out based on the Constitution.
Except that the United States is not a Democracy, never has been, and was never meant to be one (see Federalist Papers #10 & 14 [James Madison]). We are a democratic Republic, meaning that we elect people to represent us -- it's never a public majority rules.
Which is a distinction without a difference.
The elected officials do what the people want them to do. Try getting re-elected when you tick off all the people.
Want to quote James Madison?
James Madison, on June 20, 1785 wrote in regard to the relationship between religion and civil government.
"Religion [is] the basis and foundation of government."
James Madison, on the future of America wrote: "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political insitutions upon the capacity of mankind of self government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to Ten Commandments of God."
Yes, that's true. Except I was quoting Madison on the difference between a Democracy and a Republic. But, since you brought those quotes in, we're back to the "one deity" problem you said ID wasn't trying to advocate. If we were to follow Madison's quotes, only Christian religons (God, Ten Commandments) have validity.
The point is that ID is not a science, it is a belief. It is not a testable scientific theory, it's an article of faith. Since it can not be tested using scientic methodolgy, it is not a scientific theory, and does not belong in science classes. That is not to say it has no place in the schools, just no place in science.
If it explains how we got to earth better that evolution does then what's wrong with teaching it? Would you rather have a seriously flawed theory taught rather than one that may have some religious implications, but makes more sense? How do you explain how the bacterial flagellum evolved? A new theory is needed to do so.
Up until the early to mid sixties they were still teaching creationism in public school classrooms. That is a lot more religious than intelligent design. Apparently no one found that in conflict with the constitution up until the time they got rid of it*, so why is there a confilict with ID and the constitution today?
*Note: They have been teaching creation since the founding of this country. If there was really a conflict with the constitution the people who wrote the constitution would have spoken up.