Should the people of Dover, PA be able to teach the theory of intelligent design in public schools?
(67% of the 2302.8006 class thought yes.)
(52% of the 2301.8009 class thought yes.)
(79% of the 2301.8012 class thought yes.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I believe that Intelligent Design should be taught in science classes as an alternative theory. It is true that based on science's definition of theory, which is much different from the normal theory people think of, that creation does not fit because it is not able to be "proven." However, I believe that evolution falls much shorter in being able to prove its theory. First of all, I have grown up in elementary school, (being taught evolution) then have moved to high school (private school) being taught creationism, and am currently taking and seeking to become a microbiology major (now being taught evolution). To me, intelligent design makes much more sense, based not only on my experience, but also the "evidence" I see in nature.
Evolution and intelligent design both cannot "prove" origin. Where did the world begin? How did we get where we are today? In addressing these, Evolution holds to the Big Bang Theory, whereas Creationists believe that God created the earth. The problem I've always had with evolution is that it says, as a biogenetic law, that life cannot come from nonlife. However, we supposedly, through random chance and tremendous spands of time, come from nonlife (called Spontaneous Generation)...from a random explosion, a collision of atoms, that ultimately developed and continued to develop into the extremely complex life (life from non-life) processes, body plans, and animals found today. It makes no sense, especially when looking at the complexity of life, such as the classic example of a blood clot, the physiology of a woodpecker, or the beauty and detail of the human eye! Also Louis Pasteur, the brilliant mind who found the link between cow pox and small pox, which ultimately led to the discovery of the small pox vaccine which led to the eradication of small pox, proved this in his experiments with pathogens. (see reference) Creation, however, makes much more sense in that we were originally "Created!" by an already living Being, one who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent and who loves and cares for its creation, which is reflected by the beauty and good that can be found in nature. However, I'm not here to argue Christianity or any other religion, not in this topic -- I just wish to point out the flaws in evolution and to show the other explanation possible through intelligent design.
References:
1) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/creationist.html
Michael Behe, a scientist in the Intelligent Design movement, made this response to Kenneth Miller's claim that he refuted Behe's theory of irreducible complexity:
"Despite being repeatedly told by me and others that by an “irreducibly complex” system I mean one in which removal of a part destroys the function of the system itself, Miller says, no, to him the phrase will mean that none of the remaining parts can be used for anything else — a straw man which can easily be knocked down. Unconscionably, he passes off his own tendentious view to the public as mine. People who look to Miller for a fair engagement of the arguments of intelligent design are very poorly served."
I personally believe that if you bring forth one thological way of the way we were created, as intelligent design does, then we would have to bring forth other religious perspectives as well, not just Christianity's view of the birth of life. Having just a few possible scientific explainations and then one that came from a religious book would seem a bit odd that other opinions wouldn't be introduced. School is meant to introduce all sides, not just one.
Post a Comment