No intelligent design in science classes

There is no scientific evidence to support creationism or intelligent design, so it should not be taught in science classes. It may be taught in a philosophy class as an idea (not as truth), or a private religious school. Tax payer money should not go to teaching children myths rather than science.

Vote
82%
18%
Rating
Votes
51
Views
3501
Mark as inappropriate

28 Comments

  • I object because your view is based on a religious base, religion should be kept out of school taught at home and in the temple. With so many religions and fundamentalism a basic low percentage but well heard voices. The world is in a worst state its caused much problems and has a sad history. Governments should respect religions but not be involved especially within their education systems of which should not have any form of indoctrination in the curriculum. I personal respect all religions and beliefs that are not fundamental but as a writer of articles concerning religion and its history could get in a good argument with this opinion of yours. But no and i would suggest no one does. There are many other places on the internet for that. its in my mind a bit of a red herring here I would consider that the POW would not wish this to be something that could be put towards a multi belief world. Global democracy is not about pushing religious views but an acceptable form of governance . religion makes things problematic. The getting people together would by foiled if personal religious views came into the argument. It would be like offering a prize pig as food at a Jewish wedding. lol.

    0 0

  • Elsie

    United States United States | 7 years ago
    Science is the opposite of Religion.

    0 0

  • Elsie when we talk about global democracy we have to look at the factor of a thousand plus believes. The POW our voice to the world should not be involved in promoting one form of religion or non belief in religion. But possibly ideas on how religions can get on with each other? Freedom of belief should in my mind be promoted that politics should however be separate from religion. That would mean promoting keeping religion out of Schools and promoting the proper place for religion at home and in the temples. Trying to mesh the world together in political union would be hampered by selling to the world one religion. that would cause a massive rejection of everyone listening to our spokesman the POW.

    0 0

  • Should read beliefs not believes sorry about any confusion caused by my mistake.

    0 0

  • Please read the paper work on the left hand column especially "About this site" and "How it works"

    0 0

  • While i'm not sure going after creationism is such a good idea, i agree with you because you're on the right track. Schools have always been about hard evidence, research and development, religion has it's place for sure, but that place is not in a public school system.

    0 0

  • You go to schools or colleges to learn about your country & others. You go to churches or temples to learn about god. What is so hard about that? Science is taught in most high schools around america. But I agree, creationism, intelligent design, & religious topics should be left out of the schools. If you want to learn about it they should open up curriculum courses in a community college. For the lesser fortunate countries maybe try looking at your allies or neighboring countries for educational avenues.

    0 0

  • I accept that thousands of beliefs exist, but only sciences should be taught in science class. I've been religious, but the notions I entertain in that regard can't be scientifically verified.

    0 0

  • @Babelfish, if you want everyone to read what you tell them to, it might be an idea to read the post before commenting

    0 0

  • I object because in order to be truely educated, we should be aware of each theory, not just the most popular one. How are we supposed to determine for ourselves if something is wrong if we don't know anything about it?

    0 0

  • Science excludes hypotheses which have no way of being tested. We cannot today test the theory of super symmetry but one day we will be able to. But we will NEVER be able to test whether God lied to us and made the universe look billions of years older than it actually is for shits and giggles.

    I'm sure you're all aware of the idea, despite it not being taught in science. We haz internetz, we don't need school to teach us every little thing! Besides, science is not a democracy, it is not determined by popularity!

    0 0

  • I go to a private religious school and I know that I must learn this. However, I do think that creationism should be taught as an option of either that or PSHCE&E.

    0 0

  • I agree with you to a point!

    Creationism has a place in the worlds educational system, whether it is the Roman Catholic view, or the ancient Greek Mythological approach to the worlds creation.
    As you mention, these ideas should be taught and discussed in Philosophy classes, as we can learn a lot about the different opinions these ideas suggest.

    As for Science classes... They should be just that! - Science! Based on scientifically proven (or disproven) fact!

    0 0

  • May I just comment on the absurdity of having to even discuss something like this?

    Topics like this can become outmoded out of the public eye by establishing a rigorous curriculum devoted to scientific literacy, critical thinking and structured debates on topics regarding the universe we live in.

    0 0

  • I object because I think it is important for children to learn all ideas about how man came to be. Laying out the ideas for them gives them a solid base on which to base their opinions. If a kid doesn't learn about it in school, they will probably turn to their parents and instead of gauging one opinion that their family holds, they should be presented with all possibilities.

    0 0

  • I object because there are significant inconsistencies between the theory of evolution, as currently proposed and the scientific data obtained from the fossil record.

    0 0

  • I object because knowing why others think differently is paramount in respecting and tolerating those differences. It doesn't have to mean you believe it. I mean we teach students about why the world isn't flat, how Lamarck got it wrong, and how we came to believe in heliocentrism instead of geocentrism.

    0 0

  • Anonymous

    7 years ago
    There is no scientific evidence to support evolution or big ban, so it should not be taught in science classes. It may be taught in a philosophy class as an idea (not as truth), or a evolution club or sthl. Tax payer money should not go to teaching children myths rather than science.

    0 0

  • Anonymous

    7 years ago
    YOU, IN ORDER TO BUILD YOUR ANTI-CHRIST SYSTEM, "GLOBAL DEMOCRACY" WILL HAVE TO KILL CHRISTIAN BY CHRISTIAN...got it?
    come here at home at knock my door to begin !! I would be glady in not deny the Truth. By the way, the Holy Scriptures, NOT the quram from hell, not budhism, not anything else but the Bible, written by God, already said these days would come. One world government, one system and the persecution of Christians.
    are you waiting for then? CMON

    0 0

  • 314

    Australia Australia | 6 years ago
    I object because the idea is based on a false premise (there is no scientific evidence to support creationism), furthermore believe it or not but creationism has more evidence than you think. Of a young earth and creationism.

    In fact they have over 101 pieces of reasoning or evidence to suggest that we have a young earth and a young universe. Hence disproving claims that an Adam and Eve stories are untrue.

    Firstly evolution is not true since scientists have failed to find any animals transitioning from it's previous animal to its current form. For example there's no fossil evidence of a monkey turning into a human, if there is any it is highly questionable, or they've found a fossilized body part (e.g. finger) and assumed that it is a part of an animal transitioning to the next. Secondly what's happening in natural selection is that a segment of the population is being wiped out, then as a result there's more interbreeding and hence there is a devolving species, not evolving.

    As well as this sometimes scientists point out that it would've taken millions of years for rocks to form as they are today. Yet they forget one simple event that happened to substantiate a young earth, there was a worldwide flood!

    There are heaps of other claims refuted and heaps of other evidence suggesting creationism.

    Therefore considering that creationism does have some scientific proof I object to 000001170's idea.

    0 0

  • I object because There may be no evidence but it is a theory non the less

    0 0

  • I object because both sides of any issue should be taugh

    0 0

  • I object because nothing can be proved without having intelligence in the first place. Intelligent design is (ironically) the only intelligent way to teach science.

    0 0

  • Anonymous

    5 years ago
    stop pretending evolution dose not take faith.

    0 0

  • The only time religion should be taught in school is in history or current affairs. As in how religion has shaped the world. Then maybe less folk will be inclined to repeat the same mistakes

    It certainly should not be in science class or taught to children as factual.

    0 0

  • Wow! Just gone through all the comments on here. Either people are so brain washed that they have lost all sense of what is right or wrong or they have something invested in the religious agenda

    0 0

Similar Ideas:

Instantly search any time by typing

Sorry, we couldn't find
"".