Verified answer

> "You have to tell both sides of the story"

Not when one side is accepted science (by scientists), and the other side is *at best* a half-baked theory that almost *NO* scientist accepts.

You have debates about accepted theories of science in the universities and scientific journals .. NOT in 10th-grade classrooms! Not when the aim of the "debate" is to leave students confused about what is and is not accepted science by the world's scientific community.

* Evolution is considered (by scientists) to be accepted science ... and has been since the late 1800's! Pretty much *ALL* scientists today accept evolution as one of the two central theories that unify all of biology (the other one being cell theory).

* Intelligent design is NOT considered (by scientists) to be accepted science. Almost NO scientist takes it seriously, and even the handful who do are finding it *very* hard to even describe what the "theory" of Intelligent Design *is*, much less find any evidence for it.

Now, in defense of Intelligent Design, I will say that it asks some really good questions that evolution has to answer ... questions about the nature of complexity, how structures emerge from simpler structures, the nature of information, what defines "intelligence", etc.

However:

1. A set of questions is not a theory.

2. All of these questions (so far) have very good answers that are perfectly consistent with evolution.

3. To understand these questions and their answers, you need some background in complexity theory, information theory, chaos theory, emergence, chaotics, intelligence theory, biochemistry, organic chemistry, genetics, etc. etc. All pretty advanced topics.

So given all 3 of these, this explains exactly why Intelligent Design is just NOT appropriate for a grade school, or even a High School science class.

Advocates of Intelligent Design have found almost *NO* support among scientists ... because scientists *do* have some grounding in complexity theory, information theory, chaotics, etc.

So instead the ID advocates have turned their attention to 10th-graders! It is so much easier to make bogus statements like "mutations cannot produce new information" to a bunch of kids who are just learning what a mutation *is* and have no mathematical concept of how to define "information." Even if they don't convince the kids that ID is valid, at least they can leave kids so hoplessly confused about the issues that they will *think* that biologists aren't really sure about it (which is a lie ... biologists are unsure about a lot of things ... but they are QUITE sure about evolution).

In short, unable to convince scientists, the ID advocates will settle for confusing children.

>"it's like atheism 101"

No, no, no. It's NOT. One of the tactics used by anti-evolution people is to state (without evidence) the LIE that evolution=atheism. This is *easily* shown to be a lie.

There is *NO* evidence that evolution leads to, or follows from, atheism.

Please consider these three facts (which are easy to verify):

1. The Catholic Church (home to about half of the world's Christians) has officially declared that there is no conflict between Christian faith and evolution. John Paul issued a specific declaration to that effect ... and Benedict has openly called the conflict between faith and science "absurd". Say what you will about Catholics (and some Protestant Christians say some pretty mean things) ... the Pope is not exactly an "atheist."

2. About 40% of *scientists* believe in God. That's 40% of the overwhelming majority of scientists who also accept evolution. So clearly, you can have a firm understanding of the details of evolution, and still believe in God.

3. The Clergy Letter Project is a letter in support of evolution and a viewpoint the Christian faith and science (including evolution) can co-exist. It is only the narrow-minded *literal* view of the Old Testament that leads to conflict ... but most Christians are NOT so narrow minded. The Letter has been signed by over 11,000 Christian *clergy members*. (See Source.) Again, say what you will about these clergy members ... but they are NOT "atheists."

Evolution is NOT atheism! You can believe BOTH in evolution and in God!

The most recent ID push is to "Teach the Controversy," and part of that program is a teachers guide full of the usual ID BS. It doesn't present any theory, just those same tired arguments. I have to add after reading some posts: Creationism taught as part of a religion class I'm fine with, but when I hear Intelligent Design, I know the motives of ID proponents are trying to get Creationism taught specifically as science. Well, actually they're just trying to make evolution sound controversial, as a precursor to introducing the Christian god, along the "If there is a creation, there must be a creator, and that creator is God, now let's open our Bibles," line. But, of course, they are targeting young people, not college students, because somewhere around 15 we aren't nearly as susceptible to just accepting what authority figures tell us, and are pretty good critical thinkers. The very idea that ID is promoted as a theory, yet has no theoretical treatment (the written document which states the theory), nor any proof or acceptance in the scientific field, and is even considered for teaching is mind-blowing.

> "isn't it wrong to teach Evolutionism in schools and not intelligent design?"

It's perfectly fine to teach ID in school - just not in a science class.

> "and how come they're allowed to teach evolution and not Intelligent Design?"

They *are* allowed to teach ID - they just have to do it in religious or philosophy classes.

> " it's like atheism 101"

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there.

Whoever told you that evolution=atheism is *lying*.

Science of *any* sort cannot (and does not) say anything about whether God (or any other supernatural agency) exists. Such supernatural occurrances are profoundly outside the areas that science can investigate: science looks at the natural universe, and "supernatural" phenomena are, by definition, outside that.

The only thing that evolution (and geology, and physics, and astronomy) can say with respect to religion is whether some of the tales in certain holy books are literally true or not. The earth is over 4.5 billion years old: it was not formed over 6 days around 6000 BC.

Of course, if you regard these tales as *parables*, intended to teach you moral lessons about the best way to live, rather than as concrete, literal truths, then there is no problem.

95% of all scientists in the US, across all disiplines accept evolution, and 40% of them also believe in a divine creator of some description.

And there is an open letter, signed by over 11,000 priests, ministers, pastors, and other religious leaders, stating that they believe deeply in God, and have no problem with the theory of evolution. See the link below for more information.

Now why would they teach a scientific theory in a science class. No, you're right, they really shouldn't teach science in science, becuase science denies god right? Now hold on here, why is it so hard to think that there could be both? Why couldn't God have intelligently designed the world in a manner that would allow for evolution? Is that too hard to accept?

And as far as being atheism 101, where in evolution does it say that god doesn't exist? People have just twisted it that way for a political reasons. And you're not alone on it, sadly there are other people out there who want to make a fuss about teaching science theories in science classes. WEIRD!!

Many states have educational standards they are required to meet (often in terms of what students will be asked on a test). Evolution is sometimes one of these items.

Evolution is a theory, as any scientist will tell you. Science is all about finding evidence for theories and then having to accept they are wrong if other evidence comes along to refute it. As of now, the evidence points to evolution.

If the US were a country where there was an official religion, it would be appropriate to bring religion into the classroom. However, we are a nation of many different faiths. There needs to be a separation of church and state.

As for your idea that the two ideas are mutually exclusive, you are misinformed. Many scientists believe evolution is the best proof that a loving, benevolent God exists.

The basic thing is that ID is not a science and thus cannot be taught in a science curriculum. You can have ID and other theistic models taught in non science classes. One just cannot teach a non-science in a science class. It is that simple and that is why ID has been shot down by the courts time and time again.

One cannot teach a non-science in a science curriculum!

Example: Do you think its correct to teach Chinese in an English Class? Chinese is a Language too! But you don't teach Chinese in an English class because it's not English. There are languages curriculum where Chinese would be appropriate, but in an English class, you learn English and all the fundamentals of English, not some other language.

In a science course you learn about science not religion, because it is not science. You can learn about religion in religous based curriculum.

Evolution is a scientific theory. Let the parents teach the intelligent design. The family may be Muslim, Christian, Jew or any other religion. Which Intelligent design should we go with? There are waaaaaaaaaaay too many. We have enough to do.

Many schools do teach both, evolution in Biology and Intelligent Design in philospopy./.

Whoa there little pardner !!! remember, there is only so much time to "prepare " for the standardized tests your state has and that will make or break the funding, not to mention the complete disbanding of a school in some states, if the minimum scores are not met....priorites are after all, priorities, and unless you go to a private school, the public schools are going to teach the curriculum mandated by the federal and state money....

Evolution is a proven scientific principal that can be tested through observation. Intelligent design is a not scientific, it is philosophical. I learned about intelligent design in philosophy. I learned about evolution in science.