There's already a topic about intelligent design which was recently raised from the dead after about three to five months of inactivity, but that's really more about whether or not intelligent design is scientific. I thought about replying there, but there's really something else that I want to bring up which I think is going to naturally open up its own thread of conversation anyway, so I'm putting it here.

When people ask the question "should intelligent design be taught in schools," the question they want to ask is "should my religion be taught in schools?" To answer that question, I'd like to invite Christian creationists to attend school in the middle east, where Islam is the dominant force, and see how it feels to be taught that your religion is wrong and you're going to Hell for believing in it.

The Christian platform in this debate is that all theories should be given equal standing, which is kind of like arguing that we should still be teaching spontaneous generation in spite of the fact that it has been demonstrated to be false. What they're really saying is that they feel threatened by atheism and think that the theory of evolution is a gateway for atheists to take over the world, which is simply not true. The theory of evolution is taught in science classes because it's the best scientific theory we have on the origin of life, and the overwhelming amount of evidence in support of the theory makes it essentially a fact, a fact worthy of being taught in school.

Let's explore the idea that all religions should be given an open forum, including atheism even though atheism really isn't a religion. So now we have the Christian creation myth being taught in schools, but it also includes Judaism, Islam, Taoism, Shinto, and Jediism getting to say their piece too, and I guarantee you that none of them are going to agree with anything that you say. If the Christian theory for the origin of life should be taught in science schools, then you have to concede that all of those creation myths should also be included.

Do you see what the problem is? We can't teach religious material in school unless we give a platform to all religious material. Given that there are thousands of religions and millions of denominations in the world right now, including the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Last Thursday, teaching religion in school will accomplish nothing. It will confuse everything, completely halt the progress of education, and create yet another bottleneck generation.

But no, the intelligent design movement isn't interested in arguing for the creation myths of any of those other religions. Conveniently, the theory of intelligent design corresponds exactly to the Christian creation myth. "No, we can't teach those other religions in schools, because they're wrong and we're right." That's the face of hypocrisy. You can't fight for special treatment for your religion and claim that it's to prevent another religion, one which does not exist mind you, from getting special treatment. That is the rationalization of an authoritarian dictatorship.

Beyond that, we already have a platform for teaching children your religion: Your church. We already teach people religious doctrine in church, so why do you need to push it into the school system? Please, tell me, because I genuinely don't know.

Crawldragon :

Not bad. =)

The only part I have a problem with is where you criticize the "they're wrong and we're right" aspect. The fact is that many people are wrong. Where there is a disagreement, one or more is wrong. Either Christianity is true or it is not. Either Islam is true or its not. And certainly, they are not both simultaneously true. There are multiple theories on how the Moon formed. However, generally only one way is taught: collision. Why is that one taught? Because it is most likely to be true. The purpose of schools is not to teach majority opinion or teach every single opinion in existence. School is to teach basic truths.

So, with that in mind, insofar as my religion is true, it should be taught to the masses. Truth is the end all be all of education.

However, you're 100% correct that regular school is not the place for religion to be taught. The government has a totally different role to play in human life than religious education. Public schools should teach the truth of this world. Physics, chemistry, history, language, mathematics, etc. (I really wish they would teach rhetoric...). Church is the place for religious education. Missionaries are to teach the truth to the masses. The government should only act when something dangerous to their citizens, such as a religion is making work camps or the like.

There is only one truth, but the government should not overtake a church's responsibilities and a church should not overtake a government's responsibilities.

Txgangsta : ``The fact is that many people are wrong. Where there is a disagreement, one or more is wrong. Either Christianity is true or it is not. Either Islam is true or its not. And certainly, they are not both simultaneously true.''

The way that I generally say it when talking to people who disagree with me is to say "it is equally probably that any religion is true." Scientifically speaking, that's the best that you can do. But yes, I do agree with you.

There are a couple of things that I would want to correct. 

1. Creation Science does not equal Intelligent Design. They may seem similar, but you want to be careful in grouping these two as the same thing, because there are clear distinctions between the two.

2. "The Christian platform in this debate is that all theories should be given equal standing" You misunderstand this by saying that they want to invite even the wrong theories to come back and be discussed as a possibility of being true. They are definitely not arguing that. They are arguing that since Creation scientists also use those same types of evidence that modern day evolutionists use, but are seeing it in a different light. You notice that creationist from the Christian circle have been more active in using science to also show that creation story to be consistent with science as well. This is the reason why no one considered the other religious options of creation, because there haven't really been any groups that try to use scientific evidence to demonstrate their creation story either. So really, the reason they argue for this is because they believe that have just as much of a standing as the theory of evolution and they think it should be considered to be discussed as well: To let everyone look at the evidence and the interpretation behind those evidence.

I do not believe that Creationism should be taught in schools. I also do not believe that the Theory of Evolution should be taught in schools. Why? Both for the same reason. Neither of them have been proven. Sure there is evidence for both of them. There is also evidence against both of them. Neither one has been proven correct, so neither one should be taught. Same thing with the Big Bang. There is some evidence that suggests it is true. But it cannot be proven, and I do not believe it should be taught unless it is definitely true.

tgags123 : This is kind of a big misconception for those in the public about science: In the field of science, you don't prove things correct. Nothing in science is proven to be correct or guaranteed to last. You do, however, prove things wrong. Science is always improving upon itself and theories will always either be dropped, corrected, or added when new information or new experiments come in. So, by that understanding, EVERYTHING that you learn in the science class are not proven. They just have been withstanding the test of time and haven't been proven wrong, but science only use the evidence to support their validity, not proving them right. So I would say that is not enough of a reason to say that none of those things that you mentioned should be taught in schools. 

For more info, read this article I made about those terms: https://www.vizzed.com/boards/thread.php?id=70888

play4fun : Well then Creationism should be taught as well, by that logic. Because it is has not been proven wrong. Right? Or am misunderstanding what you are saying?

tgags123 :
Gravity is in fact also a theory, in equal standing with evolution. Most things that are assumed to be constant are in fact known as theories because you cant test them in every single possible scenario. What we know about gravity, is infact confined to a very small scope. Our earth and to a lesser extent our solar system.
That doesn't mean there hasn't been overwhelming scientific tests pointing to those theories being true. But it doesn't mean to say that it couldn't potentially be wrong.
Things that were previously taught in science classes have now been found to be incorrect.
What is taught is the best knowledge science can deliver at the time.
At this moment in time, evolution is the best proven/tested explanation the scientific community has.
And the vast majority of scientists supporting it, don't do so because they have no other answer, but because all the research they have done points to it being correct.
To that end, evolution should be taught as such other generally accepted 'theories' are.
From wikipedia:
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation"

thenumberone : The common misconception in science classes is that theories, because they have the potential to be proved wrong, are inherently uncertain, which isn't the case. A theory only gets to be a theory if there isn't a single solitary shred of credible evidence that might demonstrate it to be wrong. In this, theories are held in higher esteem than scientific laws, which is really just a term used to describe an axiom, or something taken as true for the purposes of discussion.

Crawldragon :
I am aware, you're post would be better directed to tg

I can agree with you in some ways.

It is hypocritical to say Intelligent design should be taught in public schools, but evolution should not. The solution? teach neither. What's the point in teaching a bunch of theories and ideas in school anyway? This is a place we send our children to, in order to teach them facts, NOT ideas or beliefs. Ideas, philosophies, and beliefs should be taught at home by the parents, so let's quit being so lazy and actually teach our kids something instead of relying on everyone else to do it for us.


I would like to clarify however, that it is equally wrong to teach evolution in school, as --and any self respecting scientist will tell you-- it's the theory of evolution, meaning it too is merely a belief that cannot possibly be proven.

Indeed, science itself teaches us that creation, evolution, or any other idea of how life came into existence can never be proven, as science dictates that we must be able to reproduce an event in order to label it a fact, and we cannot create a new form of life or make a new planet, therefore we will always have to theorize and believe something one way or the other.


So no, intelligent design should not be taught in school, nor should evolution, or anything else that cannot be proven by science. Theories and beliefs have no place in school, they are things we choose to believe, not things that should be forced on us at all. Leave atheism or faith teachings up to the parents of the child.



I would like to say one last thing: I'm sure you want people to reply to you with respect --and you deserve that. However, you're being a little harsh and disrespectful to the Christians as well. You properly identified Evolution as a theory, and I can respect that entirely. However, you consistently referred to creationism as a myth. It's not a myth unless it can be 100% proven to be false, and it cannot, much like evolution cannot be proven to be false. Please bear in mind that respect should be a two-way street, and we all deserve respect until we prove otherwise.


So you're an atheist? That's fine, and I can respect you. I'm a Christian, and I hope you can respect me as I respect you. In the end, humanity is a blind bunch of beings who spend their entire existence groping around in the dark, hoping to find some ray of light (enlightenment many would call it). We cannot make sense of life nor of how we came to be, and that unnerves us, so much so that our entire existence in one way or another is spent trying to figure it out. And whether my fellow Christians care to admit it or not, we cannot prove what we believe is true, we just believe it, hence the term "faith". And likewise, Atheists cannot prove what they believe, otherwise they wouldn't be a religious belief, but subscribers to scientific fact, and the theory of evolution would no longer be a theory.

Basically what I'm saying is, in the end, whether we believe in creation or evolution, at some point we all have to take a blind leap of faith and hope that the idea we settle on personally is the truth. As I said, we're all blindly buying into one belief or another, so we should all show equal respect to one another as we all handle this situation of human ignorance in our own way.



With deepest respects.

Eirinn : First of all, no I'm not an atheist.

Second of all, you have no idea what a theory is. A theory is a hypothesis that has been backed up by overwhelming evidence and for which there is not doubt that it is true. In effect, a theory is a fact until otherwise proven to be. Creationism is a hypothesis with no scientific basis.

We teach evolution in schools because it's important for people to understand how the basic functions of life works so that high school students will learn and make good scientists when they get out of college. Failing to do so is like creating a generation of mathematicians that didn't learn algebra, and has significantly slowed scientific progress in the past.

Thirdly, your premise is faulty. Given that it's the intelligent design movement trying to overthrow the theory of evolution, and the creationism movement making claims, the burden of proof falls on them to prove that their hypothesis is a theory worthy of discussion, and they haven't done that. The theory of evolution has been demonstrated time and again, and even observed to be accurate. Therefore, it is the one that is taught in schools. QED.

Additionally, you clearly don't understand atheism, as you believe that it is a religious belief. It is not. Atheism is specifically the lack of a religion, and saying that they "have faith" is an inherently flawed statement. Atheists do not believe in anything that can not be seen, observed, and tested. If you compare what they believe to a religious belief, you are making a mistake.

Crawldragon : Thank you for your respect in return for mine? I don't get why when I respect your opinion, all you do is assert how you're undoubtedly right and I am both ignorant and wrong.

I could answer all of your points with scientific fact. I am not stupid, nor ignorant to any degree more than you. We are peers, and I see us as such. A shame you don't see it that way as well. I do understand Atheism perfectly, as two of my best friends are Atheists, and we discuss these matters with a great deal of respect for each other.

Needless to say, I choose not to waste my breath in a discussion with someone who deems me ignorant simply because I disagree. I give you respect still, but I will not continue a discussion when I am shown no respect in return.

Next time, you should consider offering opinions as opinions, and not fact.


Sorry you misread me so. I meant no hate or anything of the sort.

Eirinn : I present opinions as facts when I'm dealing with facts instead of opinions. I've done a significant amount of research and everything I just said can be verified by looking some things up on Wikipedia.

There's nothing disrespectful about correcting someone. It even says so in the Bible.

Eirinn : I respect you, Eirinn, but he is right when he was questioning your understanding about the term "theory", because that's what most of us were trying to explain to tgags earlier. Theory in scientific terms means that it has been tested and hypothesized a number of times and that it as least fits the evidence that is provided to the world, and a theory that is being taught to schools means that it is the currently agreed concept in the scientific community with no theory-killing evidence that immediately discredits or deem the theory to be wrong or needs revision. So when saying that it shouldn't be taught in schools by emphasizing that it's a theory does show that you misunderstood what the word theory means in the scientific community. Like what thenumberone said, we teach the theory of gravity in schools, but it is not the same theory of gravity that was taught before because of new research that deemed the old view to be wrong (Newton to Einstein), but we still teach it, only the more correct concept. That being said...

Crawldragon : The post that I made earlier was directed towards you saying that the reason some Creationists think that it should be taught in classes as well is because of the claims and evidence that has been provided and discovered by current researchers and scientists that support Creation and they that in the same way with the evolutionary theory, there are supporting and refuting evidence for both sides. So I wouldn't say that the majority of the Creationism community is hypocritical about it, but that they actually do have some results and numbers that support their side. The question remains, and I don't know how deep you are in the scientific research community, do you think that the community would not be hypocritical by actually looking at the calculations and discoveries that these groups provide without blindly dismissing them just because they believe in Creationism?

With all due respect, I would appreciate being left out of this discussion as I have opted to bow out gracefully unless you decide you wish to have a true discussion about it respectfully. If so, please do feel free to PM me. But to reply to someone in an attempted debate when they have clearly stated that they will not be replying any more, isn't right. It's a way of making it look as though you are correct because they gave no answer.

All I'm asking for is to be approached respectfully. I offer you my greatest respect, and hope one day you do the same for me. I do not debate any of your accusations of my ignorance in this post, nor do I debate the topic that I presumed was open for discussion with this post. And so I ask that no reply be made to me further in this thread, please sir. I mean no one any harm nor disrespect. It's simply a widely known fact on Vizzed that I do not debate matters. Discussions are fine, but I don't debate. The difference being a debate is entered with both sides trying to prove why they are correct, and a discussion is entered by people seeking knowledge, whether they are right or wrong.

I don't think I could be any clearer tan I have been hitherto, but just in case, I'll end this post by saying these things:
1. I do not wish to be replied to here any further, as I do not wish to debate.
2. I respect you, and your right to believe what you do, whatever it may be. I never meant anything else beside this.
3.I hope you have a good day, and I wish you all the best.

play4fun : Your argument only works if the scientific community hasn't been open to the intelligent design movement and creationism theories, and they have. Plenty of scientists have even attempted to use it to refute the theory of evolution, a long and proud tradition in the scientific community. Ultimately, though, the evidence for creationism theory was refuted and evolution was used instead because it remains the best theory we have. In the significant amount of time I've spent studying both sides of the debate, I see no hypocrisy on the side of evolutionary theory. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me.

Crawldragon : I was actually referring to the people who study the evolutionary theory, not hypocrisy of the theory itself. So you are saying that there is absolutely no showing that there are scientists who would just reject the other side just because the other scientists believe in creationism and not look at their evidences themselves?

Also, "I've done a significant amount of research"  does not have equal validation as "everything I just said can be verified by looking some things up on Wikipedia." Just saying. I think that's something that might have ticked Eirinn off.

magimangr : "I never will understand why so many oppose the true teachings of Christianity."

Because they're only true to you, and it's wrong to impose upon people the laws of a god they don't believe in.