Intelligent Design should be taught in school
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
this is not objective "should", but rather for a vast majority notion where the benefits outweigh the negatives (not absolute, nor forcing every school to teach it).
This concerns public and private schools overall.
Intelligent Design: the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity. Note that "taught" does not mean this is treated as the truth, merely information given to the students.
- Informing students about competing theories of biological origins as they exist within the scientific community;
- Helping students to better understand neo-Darwinism by understanding a theory with which it competes;
- Enhancing critical thinking skills by exposing students to alternative explanations for the origin of life;
- Helping students to understand the value of dissenting viewpoints in the advancement of scientific knowledge;
- Increasing student interest in science by exposing them to current debates within the scientific community; and
- Advancing cultural literacy by helping students understand a current controversy about science and science education policy.
- Scientific Theory - a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation [1]
- Fact - A point of data that is objectively verifiable [2][3][4]
- Evidence - The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. [5]
- School - 1An institution for educating children. 2Any institution at which instruction is given in a particular discipline [6]
- Evolution - Changes in Genetic Variability and Allele Frequencies in Reproductive populations over time. [14]
- Primary education - Education which provides the rudiments of knowledge; early or elementary schooling [17]
- R1
" there is a purpose for ID in the classroom. ID can be used to illustrate the foundational epistemological structure of science, which requires natural explanations and empirical data as opposed to revelation, tradition, and authority.""
- R2
" Informing students about competing theories of biological origins as they exist within the scientific community;
- Helping students to better understand neo-Darwinism by understanding a theory with which it competes;
- Enhancing critical thinking skills by exposing students to alternative explanations for the origin of life;"
- Helping students to understand the value of dissenting viewpoints in the advancement of scientific knowledge;
- Increasing student interest in science by exposing them to current debates within the scientific community; and
- Advancing cultural literacy by helping students understand a current controversy about science and science education policy.
- R3
" Research has even suggested that the two beliefs stop obsessing over subtle differences-- "Wasserman and Blumberg urge contemporary evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins to move beyond the arcane argument over where to draw the line between things that "really are designed" and "things that only appear to be designed." By doing so, they note, we will better appreciate the actual forces that unite the processes of change across both evolutionary and developmental timescales." "
- CR1
"Con states that merely because the theory has zero evidence and is merely suggestions means that it is a waste of time."
- CR2
"There are countless contradicting moralities and no consensus has been reached on which belief is true or not"
"Does this mean it is a waste of time to discuss morality, because of "lack of evidence"?"
- CR3
"Similarly, evolution has some holes and flaws within its own teachings. It is very close to being perfected, but there are still questions that remain. One ID textbook notes: "“Pandas” makes it clear that when it comes to the nature or identity of the designer, “the intelligent design explanation has unanswered questions.” (pg. 126) Thus design refrains from untestable, unscientific, or unconstitutional claims about God, or the “supernatural.”"
- CR4
" that life bears the informational characteristics we commonly find in objects we know were designed. ""
- CR5
"Isn't True Intelligent Design that we know exists (human designing machines) comparable to the belief of ID itself?"
- FR1
"Con tries to assert that schools must be as productive as possible, but this is a bit absurd. "
"What about high level calculus, for non-engineers or non-mathematicians?"
- FR2
"The more technical and specific ideals are all equally as useless as ID..."
"...and would only improve learning ability, critical thinking and cognition."
- FR3
"It is precisely our job to teach as much knowledge as possible, regardless of use or no use."
- FR4
"Con thinks morality has some objective basis, but has no backing for this"
- FR5
"Religion in general also is problematic based on con's ideals"
- FR6
"If Evolution did not exist as a theory, would you not agree that only ID, the seemingly useless theory, could be relied upon?"
- FR7
" Should we stop teaching kids that people in the past believed in slavery, as the ideas of slavery are contradictory to human rights and a horrible grounding? What about Hitler's problematic racism and his impact on the World War?"
- FR8
"To use ID as a basis to show how strong the theory of evolution is, helps to correct wrong beliefs, and as such, it should be taught in schools, to encourage critical thinking and information gain about what the history of our scientific thought was."
I honestly tried to cut my original RFD down in order to fit it in 5000 characters, but it would have required cutting out pretty important stuff, so you can access the full thing in the link below.[1]
The main things I want anyone reading this to know.
"theory" should have been tabooed almost immediately, though this wasn't too big of a problem.[2]
Pro barely had Sources and Con almost had Conduct, so I adjusted it by giving Con Conduct, which more accurately represents how I would break down points at the loss of precise wins and losses in the RFD.
[1]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wA-vRN7tND0v5w_9p0wp3tibkpL2CU48qY9EAWmHln8/edit?usp=sharing
[2]http://lesswrong.com/lw/nu/taboo_your_words/
I was tired when I wrote that part, so it was basically on autopilot. The point still stands, just needs minor correction.
I mean vote sorry
thank you for your thoughtful response just to clarify I only support trade schools as a replacement for 9 through 12th grade education
Hope this gets a vote soon
Well, It probably won't for much tell us how correct is revolution, but the religious parents within the conservative households will rebel on the streets just after the day creationism is "on the syllabus".
as usual, I'm playing devil's advocate. I don't really personally want to be taught creationism lol. I'm just going down the list of Edeb8's secret topics for fun.
This is the logic of that "National socialism should be taught in schools" to show how an ideology failed. Then again, why are the students taught an unproven theory, especially one less sound than the status quo? Just for criticism? Uniformity exists?! How do you expect the heavily religious students criticize the theory their church taught them?
To be fair, that should've been clear from the context imo.
Ah crap I accepted before I read that technicality in the description about the word taught. I was thinking like in the science classroom