Public School Curriculum Content
In this era of progressive thinking and open mindedness, it was only a matter of time before society tried to change our school system for the better. The long-standing theories of Charles Darwin on evolution are finally being contested. Intelligent Design has emerged as the leading opposition to Darwin's blasphemy, but another equally valid theory has recently made some noise in the world of evolution. The Flying Spaghetti Monster's Intelligent Design, also known as FSMism, has recently built up quite a following. These two theories are pushing very hard to one day be in our high school curriculum. Are ID and FSMism both worthy of being taught in our schools or is one more scientifically valid?
Intelligent Design, or ID, states that there are certain aspects in nature that show individual signs of intelligence that can not be accounted for, or that are too complex for our understanding. Therefore, an "Intelligent Designer" must have deliberately created everything in nature that shows this unaccountable sign of intelligence.
Followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, also called Pastafarians, follow the same criteria as ID proponents. On top of those ideals, Brian D Rabern, a Pastafarian and a member of the Department of Philosophy at UC Santa Barbara, adds another perspective. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause for existence. Since no scientific explanation can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be supernatural, i.e. a god. Therefore, a god exists. Gods create humans in their own image. The brains of humans resemble a bowl of spaghetti. Thus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true god." This statement brings up the most blaring difference between ID and FSMism, the fact that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is defined and ID has no particular designer.
The fact that ID has no specified designer has both positive and negative effects on the theory. On the one hand, having no higher power defined brings the separation of Church and State out of the equation. Conversely, since no higher power is mentioned, one would have to come to the conclusion that there is not just one higher power. ID states that an "Intelligent Designer" must have created anything that shows an unexplainable intelligence. This means that the "Intelligent Designer" would have to have unexplainable intelligence of his own which would lead to the conclusion that their must be another designer that designed him.
In the novel Monkey Girl: Evolution, Religion, and The battle for American’s Soul, Humes tells the story of how 11 furious parents in the Dover Area school district decided to sue the school board and the district, because of the new learning objective requirement saying that all of 9th grade biology classes had to be taught Intelligent Design (ID), which is basically a form of creationism as a scientific alternative to evolution. They also believed that it “violated their first amendment right to information and ideas in an academic setting” (Humes, 2007, p. 221). This was the first legal trial to the perception of Intelligent Design. This novel is a narrative that captures nearly everyone’s view point in the Dover Area school District on the issue of Intelligent Design replacing evolution. There were numerous groups and organizations involved the trial including; The American Civil Liberties Union, Americans Unites for Separation of Church and State, Pepper Hamilton LLP, and the National Center for Science Education. This Trial was so major that even that national government was involved. George W. Bush sent a conservative appointee (John Jones) to the bench, which was done because it was “the early handicapping in the trial suggested a
In the uncertainty that the modern world is, there is one law that stays petrified in stone no matter what happens: “Things change with age.” No matter if it is in history, science, or even Pokémon, things change as time passes by and this process is called evolution. The theory formulated by Charles Darwin is the belief that all organisms have come from earliest creatures because of external factors (“NSTA…”). School boards everywhere have accepted the theory of Evolution as fact making it essential to be in the curriculums of science classrooms. However, over the years, controversy has arisen as the fact that is evolution is still only a theory with flaws and setbacks, efficiently making other theories (i.e. intelligent design) a viable alternate in the classroom. The law, on the other hand, had a different idea about these other theories with numerous bans them from schools, claiming them to be against the second amendment. Despite the bitter debate of rather or not it is valid and right for teaching (primarily alone) the theory of evolution lies as being the most reliable and accurate way to teach how the modern world came to be.
Robert Root-Bernstein and Donald L. McEachron, “Teaching Theories: The Evolution-Creation Controversy,” The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 44, No. 7 (Oct…1982). This article, written by Robert Root-Bernstein and Donald L. McEachron sheds light on the controversy of evolution vs creationism in schools and the validity of each being called a scientific theory. The work was created to answer the questions, “Which of these theories is truly scientific and which is a religious belief? Which should be taught in schools?” The article concluded in favor of evolution as a valid scientific theory that should be taught rather than creationism, but also mentioned the worth of understanding the latter.
Jones states that intelligent design is a religious view, based of creationism and not a scientific theory. He adds that the Dover school board’s claim to be examining an alternate form of science is simply, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom. After the judge decision the school board, consisting of newly-elected, pro- science members. The federal courts have ruled that creationism, creation science, and intelligent design are not science, but instead endorse a specific religious belief. Therefore, these topics are not appropriate content for a science classroom. Neither Intelligent design nor any other form of creationism has met any of the standards of science and cannot be tested by the scientific method. On the other hand, evolution, like all other sciences, is founded on a growing body of observable and reproducible evidence in the natural
Evolution and Creationism are both fact and theory but the question is which one should be taught in schools? Only a few school distracts have approved the teaching of evolution because it has more senitific evidence than creationism to prove that it is true. According to a new Gallup poll, just 39% of Americans believe in evolution. The Gallup polls also show that those Americans with higher education believe in the theory of evolution as opposed to those with only high school diplomas. The polls found that 74% Americans with post-graduate degrees believe in evolution theory compared to 21% of Americans with only high school diplomas. The Gallup polls suggest that the belief in the theory of evolution is associated with education. Evolution should be taught in schools because it has more scientific evidence to support it than creationism does. Also, public schools should not teach things that have to do with God, such as creationism, because the Constitution requires the separation of church and state. Finally, if we do not allow schools to teach evolution it would be a form censo...
Collins claims that Fine-Tuning is likely under Theism because a deity (such as the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) would be very interested in creating and very likely to create a fine-tuned, life permitting universe. Although the Intelligent Design Hypothesis relies upon the existence of God, Collins does not claim to have any direct evidence of the nature or existenc...
"AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory." AAAS. N.p., 2002. Web. 7 Nov 2010. .
To infer God’s existence by ‘Argument from Design’, Rachel has taken the example of amazing things that are present in nature around us such as eye, the most complicated part of body system, the way eye is attached to the human body and the phenomenon by which it performs it function is astounding and such types of creations cannot be occurred randomly by chance. Although, it is only the creation of some intelligent designer. Whereas, in the case of evolution and intelligent design, the author put forward the “Theory of Natural Selection” given by Darwin. In this theory, Darwin stated that evolution occurred among the species due to the changes in their environmental conditions and to adopt these changes, certain changes take place among the specific characteristics of the species in response to such environmental conditions. Therefore, through the process of natural selection, organisms passed their newly adapted characteristics to their off springs and then new generations born with such characteristics which help them to survive and reproduce in altered environmental conditions.
If you were told to believe a side of an argument that did not have majority of evidence points on its side, would you? The theories of evolution, creation and intelligent design have been a debated controversy for years and years. These three theories have three different ideas. The theory that creationists have is to believe that concept and design require a Creator. Creationists usually tend to believe that each organism is created as a single and distinct organism. Evolutionists tend to believe that all life started from single celled organisms. They believe that these single celled organisms are part of a continuing evolution over a very long period of time and that this evolution results in the development of new varieties and different species. People who believe in intelligent design believe in the theory that the universe cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity. Evolution is the theory that is most probable because of the fossil record, similarities in all organisms and genetic changes in a population over time.
The existence of such finely tuned universal parameters within the universe makes for a strong case of an intelligent design of the universe. Indeed, Collins does support this, by stating that there is a more solidified basis to believe in theism over the atheistic single-universe hypothesis. This suggests that it is near improbable for the existence of fine-tuning under the atheistic single-universe hypothesis that does not support the existence of a higher intelligent being, but is not wholly improbably under theism which supports the existence of a higher intelligent being. It is backed by the prime principal of confirmation, which states that if we are weighing the validity of two hypotheses vying to prove a singular theory or idea, that “an observation counts as evidence in favor of the hypothesis under which the observation has the highest probability [of happening].” Under the prime principal of confirmation, the evidence provided lends more credence to theism over the atheistic single-universe hypothesis because it would be more reasonable and simpler to rationalize fine-tuning to a creator like God who would have the parameters figured out beforehand in the creation of the universe. In addition, a theistic view would help see through the random forces of the universe and give a better understanding of seeing how the improbability of life in the universe is greatly increased with the help of a God not bound to time or the laws of physics.
There are several forms of the design argument. The general form of the design argument starts with the basic idea that certain parts of the universe are such that they indicate that they have been designed and have a purpose. The argument uses this fact to prove the existence of an ultimate designer, in particular, God.
The Intelligent Design argument is the most recent formulation of the teleological argument. “Proponents point out that although we cannot know that something has not been designed, we can detect design in systems whose functions are irreducibly complex” (Peterson 108). These systems are single systems where each has parts that contribute to the basic function. Therefore, the removal of any of these parts would cause the system to stop functioning. Overtime these systems produce a result better than what each part would have produced separately. This theory also disputes that the process of natural selection is enough to explain the complexity of living organisms. The theory states that the complexity must come from the work of an intelligent designer.
In a scientific aspect, the existence of an intelligent designer cannot be denied, due to the lack of evidence that contradicts otherwise. On the other hand, creationists cannot prove the existence of an intelligent designer but indefinitely believe through a concept called faith. In addition, both concepts agree that microevolution occurs. For example, since the arrival of sparrows to North America, mutations have occurred from different locations.
Intelligent Design is the idea that living creatures on Earth are so complex that, they could not possibly have been created through the natural selection. It is the belief that there must be an ?intelligent designer? that created us all. This creator is usually referenced as God. However, it may also be referenced to as an alien. Intelligent design leaves that possibility open as well. Many professionals feel that intelligent design is not a scientific theory that can be tested. They feel it is more of an opinion, preference, or belief.
Fist we must understand what the design argument is based on? It is based on intelligent order simply the theory claiming the universe is designed in order to prove that it is the work of a designer in this case God. Scriptures try to tie itself with the design argument for example “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse” (Romans 1:19-21). This in essence is saying God exist through his creations even if man doesn’t see it. Hume’s however does not agree with the scripture, his argument is simple, how can someone argue God exist if he or she were not present to witness the creation. He uses the distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge for example; "George Bush Jr. reigned from 2001 to 2009." This is something (if true) that one must come to know a posterior, because it expresses an empirical fact unknowable without prior knowledge. By contrast, consider the proposition, "If George Bush reigned at all, then he reigned for at least a day." This is something th...