Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?
1,452 bytes added
01:30, 31 December 2012
Science is valuable and precious. Scientists work hard and diligently to search for the answers to the universe's great mysteries. Intelligent design is <b>not</b> science, but rather, pseudo-science. Intelligent design is a hypothesis, and if it is to be taught, then it should be taught merely as a hypothesis. With no evidence to support it, and no work done in the way of attempting to falsify it, it is merely a hypothesis which makes no testable predictions. Without testable predictions, a hypothesis contributes nothing to science. How can the information of intelligent design be used to better understand the nature of life? Evolution has done so by giving us genetic insight and advanced vaccination techniques. The theory of evolution is a complex framework of ideas, nomenclature, and verified facts. Intelligent design is just a simple statement: an intelligent designer created all life.
Naturalistic views on the origin of life and the universe as we know it do have spiritual and religious implications. Evolution compromises many people's religious faith, which is very understandable. This is a concern that I think needs to be addressed honestly, and putting intelligent design into science classes is not an honest way to do that. I think that it should be addressed in religious contexts. But let science be science. Undermining science is not a way to address the cultural and religious concerns of people.
Retrieved from "