Verified answer

Should we force the big bang theory and the theory of evolution in Sunday school classes?

Nobody should force anyone to do anything; however, I would deeply encourage young students at church to learn more about what the big bang says and its implications for theism. As astrophysicist C. J. Isham said, "Perhaps the best argument... that the big bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists." Agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow admitted that, although details may differ, "the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy." I would also strongly encourage students to learn to critically investigate the claims of Darwinism and its apparent flaws, for it is nothing more than pseudoscience masquerading as a scientific theory.

Does the intelligent design theory come from religious people who hold religious rather than scientific motives, and does that therefore invalidate it?

Just as the implications of particular theories do not determine their merit or truth, the motivations of the theorists who advance these theories do not invalidate them either. Indeed, there is an obvious distinction between what advocates of the theory of intelligent design think about the identity the designing intelligence responsible for life and what the theory of intelligent design itself affirms. Just because some advocates of intelligent design think that God exists and acted as the designer does not mean that the theory of intelligent design affirms that belief.

Notwithstanding, there is no question that many advocates of the theory of intelligent design do have religious interests and beliefs and that some are motivated by their beliefs. I personally think the evidence of design in biology, considered in the context of other evidence, strengthens the case for theism and, thus, my personal belief in God. Subjectively, as a Christian theist, I find this implication of intelligent design ‘intellectually satisfying.’ Does that negate the case for intelligent design that has been provided over the past few decades? Some have argued as much. For example, in the Dover trail, Barbra Forrest and Robert Pennock argued that the religious beliefs of the advocates of intelligent design delegitimized the theory. But this doesn’t follow.

First, it’s not what motivates a scientist’s theory that determined its merit, status, or standing; it’s the quality of the arguments and the relevance of the evidence marshaled in support of a theory. Even if all the scientists who have advocated the theory of intelligent design were motivated by religious belief, and they are not, motives don’t matter to science. Evidence does. To say otherwise commits an elementary logical fallacy known as the genetic fallacy, in which an alleged defect in the source or origin is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim.

Here’s an example. Suppose someone argues that because Richard was raised by evil atheists, his arguments against the existence of God are wrong. The reasoning is obviously fallacious. The facts of Richard’s upbringing are irrelevant to the soundness of the arguments he makes. The arguments must be considered separately and on their own merits. Similarly, that many intelligent design advocates have religious beliefs that may increase their openness to considering intelligent design says nothing about the truth or falsity of the theory. Instead, the theory must be assessed by its ability to explain the evidence.

In any case, scientists on both side of the origins controversy have ideological or metaphysical or religious, or antireligious, motivations. Barbra Forrest, a leading critic of intelligent design, is a board member of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association. Other prominent critics of intelligent design such as Eugenie Scott and Michael Shermer have signed the American Humanist Manifesto III. Richard Dawkins’ sympathies are well-known. Aleksandr Oparin was a committed Marxist. Kenneth Miller takes a different, though no less disinterested tack. He claims that Darwinism illuminates his religious beliefs as a Catholic.

Do religious or antireligious motives of leading advocates of evolutionary theory disqualify Darwinian evolution or chemical evolutionary theory from consideration as scientific theories or diminish the merit of the theories? Obviously they do not. The motivations of the proponents of a theory don’t negate the scientific status, merit, or validity of that theory. But if that general principle applies to the evaluation of materialistic evolutionary theories, then it should apply when considering the merits of intelligent design. In short, the motives of the advocates of intelligent design so not negate the claims of the theory.

This is one of those questions asked on Y!A about once a month. The difference is, the public schools are supported by our taxes.

Most Christians I know don't want biblical creationism taught in science classes (they would butcher it, and then there’s the argument about all the other creation stories being taught). What we want is for microbes-to-man evolution to be taught with all its warts—in most states, they are not even allowed to present evidence that would put evolution in a poor light. And we want Intelligent Design to at least be mentioned (with teachers free to discuss it without fear of being sacked). Unlike alchemy, storks bringing babies, a flat earth, etc., a significant percentage of the (tax paying) population believes in ID (which is agnostic regarding the source of design and encompasses every "creation" story).

What are the Darwinists afraid of? A little critical analysis never hurt anyone who had the evidence on their side. The Darwinists worship their idol but don’t listen to him. He said, “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question...” (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species).

Evolutionists typically claim that the evidence for modern Darwinism is “overwhelming.” But they act as if they know the evidence is so shaky that the slightest whiff of open discussion will topple the theory. If high school students are capable of understanding the arguments and evidence for modern evolutionary theory, then they should be able to understand (and rationally discuss) scientific criticisms of modern evolutionary theory.

Whenever you mention this kind of stuff, Darwinists jump from their trees and start behaving as if someone had stolen their bananas. Apparently, academic freedom is for other subjects. At the moment, educators are in the interesting position of not teaching students, but instead conditioning them to recite the “correct” answers without a second thought to other possible explanations. Today’s science education does not sufficiently emphasize inquiry-based learning.

One of the best arguments against the teaching of intelligent design in school, is the fact that the same people who think ID has merit also think that evolution "basically says that an ant can turn into a person", and are trying to advise us on what we should be teaching in schools. Brilliant! More posts like this please!

Once again you are assuming, wrongly, that all Christians are creationists. Evolution has been taught in Catholic and many protestant Christian schools for years! As for the Big Bang, it was postulated by a Catholic monk. It's really time for atheists to drop the prejudices, and assumptions and view the real world.

I don't recall being taught intelligent design, but I do recall being taught evolution and the big bang.

I see what you mean, however school science in America is a public utility and therefore is able for reproof to fit the lives of all affected by it. A church is a choosen activity only used by those who believe in it.

Not all religious people deny evolution. Most teachers at my Hebrew School didn't, except for one teacher that said said 9/11 was good...

Indoctrination of evolution is not teaching.... "this is the only thing you are allowed to know and you can not learn of anything else".

Only if we can force Richard Dawkins to give hs lectures from the Bible.

The people in Sunday school are already in science class.