The Pros And Cons Of Intelligent Design

The two-hour special documentary, Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, features the Kitzmiller v. Dover School District case in 2004. It captures the turmoil that tore apart the community of Dover, Pennsylvania in one of the latest battles over teaching evolution in public schools. Some members of the community believed that not only Darwinism, but also a so called theory, Intelligent Design, should be taught in their public high school. It was a battle between the two theories. It forced neighbor against neighbor and friend against friend. The community itself was broken half and half on the controversial issue.

In chapter two of the book “Problems from Philosophy”, by James Rachels, the author guided us through the process in which the topic of God and the origin of the universe was discussed and argued. There were many arguments many arguments towards this topic from both a religious belivers view point, and a non-believer. The main points in this chapter were the arguments, like the argument from design, the best-explanation argument, the same-evidence argument, the theory of Natural selection, and the first cause argument.

In the film Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, a small, rural town in Dover, Pennsylvania is being analyzed for its Kitzmiller vs. Dover court case. Dover is a school district in Pennsylvania whose school board argued that their students should be aware of Intelligent Design as an alternative to teaching Darwinism. There are several arguments being discussed throughout this documentary. The most expressed argument is whether not Intelligent Design should be taught in schools. Some other prevailing arguments are the belief that Intelligent Design and creationism are the same thing, the argument that evolution is neutral to religion, and the argument that evolution should not be questioned no matter what. Questions such as these captivate the mind and makes people wonder what the real truth is.

Thesis: It is patently absurd to argue that creationism and / or intelligent design deserve a place in public school textbooks in the "science" chapter or in any way near to the chapter on evolution. The United States Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and freedom of expression, so all faiths and denominations have the absolute right to worship and believe as they

The Court is now confronted with the responsibility of determining if Dover?s proposition, and the implications of its implementation are constitutional, or whether they would violate fundamental personal freedoms. In order to make its decision, the court must contemplate many facets of the issue, including: if the religious origins of intelligent design permeate the theory too strongly, if teaching I.D. in schools would violate statutes regarding state funding for public schools, and even if the theory provides sufficient factual scientific evidence to be taught as a scientific theory in a school?s biology curriculum.

Many critics of macroevolution offer an alternative theory to the origins of life, intelligent design, which states that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause not an undirected process such as natural selection. In order to ensure the students of public high schools are learning credible information effectively, we have examined macroevolution and intelligent design and assessed the validity of each.

The study of science is defined as that which deals with the workings of the physical world we are able to observe and measure. The origin of life, however, is a topic that science has long grappled with, despite the impossibility of observing or proving any origins theory in a strictly scientific manner. Today, the widely accepted theory of life’s beginning is the theory of Evolution by mutation and natural selection, or Neo-Darwinism. Most people in our modern society accept this theory at face value because it is popular with the majority of scientists, but it must always be taken into account that our origins cannot be proven scientifically and that, in fact, the theory of Evolution is not the only or even the most logical theory

The argument has been going on for years and years. Should schools be allowed to teach evolution without teaching creationism? The courts have ruled, the answer is no, the theory of creationism cannot be included in a public school’s academic curriculum. With the court’s decision, it has been made clear there is no place for faith based theories to be taught in our public schools. What if there was a different approach that took God out of the equation? Public high schools should allow a course in intelligent design to be included in the curriculum as a way of teaching both evolution and creationism without violating the separation of church and state. This is certainly easier said than done.

Evolution proves that there is no reason to credit the design of the universe to God, and therefore, atheists have no reason to believe that God does exist. It is much more logical for atheists to base their beliefs on something that exists rather than on possibilities that have no way of being proven. With that said, atheists can reasonably believe that there is no God or designer of the universe because there is no evidence showing that there is. Using the strength of Darwinian theory, it can be hypothesized that the universe came from no intentional designer. Rather, it came from the unplanned and mindless processes of natural selection. A look into nature reveals such processes; slow and gradual changes have been found in the historical

Ever since Darwin published his “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, creationists have been struggling find new ways to justify their stance on the creation of the universe. One of the most recently formed branches of creationism is called Intelligent Design. The proponents of Intelligent Design claim to believe in evolutionary theory but think that evolution is simply a process set in motion by some intelligent force. They do not believe that an undirected force, such as natural selection, could have led to the complex lifeforms we see today. Unfortunately though this theory seems to prima facie use scientific principles to disprove evolution using natural selection, like the argument from improbability or irreducible complexity, it is simply

The Dover Area School Board passed a resolution offering Intelligent Design as an alternative theory to Darwin’s theory of evolution in public school. Tammy Kitzmiller sued the Dover school board in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The federal question brought to the court by the plaintiff was whether Intelligent Design was an offshoot policy of creationism. Moreover, does Intelligent Design constitute an establishment of religion, prohibited by the First Amendment, made applicable by the Fourteenth Amendment? Judge Jones presided over the case and held that Intelligent Design was not science, but religion. The Judge also ruled that the Dover School Board violated the Establishment Clause by implementing religion in public

Intelligent design is not an alternative theory to evolution. Intelligent design is the belief that organisms or other things did not evolve, but were created just as they are now. In the video, the science teachers of Dover High School refuse to read a one minute statement to their classes explaining that intelligent design is an alternative theory to Darwin’s theory of evolution. Their refuting argument were as follows,

Despite great efforts to convince the opposing side, a battle still brews amongst creationists and evolutionists over the beginning of life and the universe, but neither opinions’ palpability can be firmly upheld through scientific manners. Since science can only prove hypotheses that are testable and based on current observations, neither creation nor evolutionary concepts can be proven with irrefutable evidence. However, regardless of the inability to prove either concept, most public school systems promote evolution as a scientific fact. Many students who lack firm beliefs about the origin of life believe what they are taught without giving any personal thought to the matter. Instead of robotically absorbing biased information,

Teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design to our youth can be done in a way that is neither opinion based nor completely fact based, but may hold some risk of personal interpretation. The first thing needed to be considered is how can children of the middle school age range grasp such a deep subject and have the capacity to reach their own conclusion. Information found regarding the development of children in this developmental range was found in the book titled "Characteristics of Middle Grade Students,” Caught in the Middle by the Sacramento Department of Education. It was found that students of this age hold a variety of learning attributes that support the belief that children can handle both sides of this controversial issue. Some

Public schools are a place to learn proven facts and some very well—known and accepted theories. These schools have been led this way for a long time and show no signs of changing. Many states around the country have rejected the teaching of creationism in public schools, since the subject is so controversial among teachers and parents. In Ohio, a bill to develop new science content standards was not successfully passed. Many creationists were upset when they discovered that the first drafts of the standards were filled with evolutionary content, without any allowance for alternative explanations of life’s origins. In the uproar, the state board held a special meeting to investigate the process that the writing team and advisory committee used to draft the science standards (Matthews, Answering Genesis). This is why learning the facts about evolution should be taught at school. By doing this, there would be much less confrontation between teachers, students, and parents. If one has the desire to learn about creationism or any other beliefs of how the world came to be, one should learn it at a place outside of school, such as church or at home.