No, teaching intelligent design is not “open minded”


Why isn’t it open-minded to teach intelligent design in science classes?  Here, maybe one more explanation might help people understand.

From some film project that goes by the name Qualia Soup, via Pharyngula and Phil Plait at JREF:

This entry was posted on Sunday, April 5th, 2009 at 8:51 am and is filed under Creationism, Education, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Reason, Science, Texas, Woo. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

8 Responses to No, teaching intelligent design is not “open minded”

  1. will kershaw says:
    April 19, 2009 at 4:03 pm

    I am a believer. That is, I believe in a religous philosophy. I also have no problem believing that darwinian evolution is not outlawed by my faith and that it very well may have been the Creators plan all along. John tells us that all the books ever written by man couldn’t say what was done in the creation.
    I have to believe that I certainly could not fathom the scientific principles involved. However, ID is only a thinly digused attempt at religious indoctrination and has no place in public education.

    Like

  2. graemebird says:
    April 16, 2009 at 6:32 pm

    The idea of supernatural intelligent design is probably outside the scope of science. The main thrust of the theory of evolution is proven. But not any one version of that theory. And certainly not the “Whig Theory” that is there in the popular mind.

    Evolution looks like Hard Yakka. It looks as though you need a sort of pseudo-intelligent design, set of circumstances to make it work.

    Also because the bring bang is crap and panspermia appears to have been verified at least on the microscopic level, that leaves a lot more opportunities for intelligent design of the type we see with the wolf and the dog. The modern wolf is probably not too different then he was two glacial periods ago. But after the invention of fire one branch of his family teamed up with man. And with a bit of INTENTION you see the massive variation within the species of dog. I see this as a legitimate example of intelligent design.

    Like

  3. Ediacaran says:
    April 12, 2009 at 1:50 pm

    HannahJ, can you please cite specific examples of those who desire to teach ID or creationism in schools alongside of evolutionary theory who you believe are not closed-minded?

    Were you referring to those who are advocates of ID/creationism, or those who debunk ID/creationism as an example of faith-based pseudoscience?

    Like

  4. Nick Kelsier says:
    April 7, 2009 at 7:19 pm

    It may not be a good idea to assume that all who desire to teach ID or creationism in schools are closed-minded….but it for bloody sure is not a good idea to assume that they’re actually interested in being open-minded.

    Like

  5. Ed Darrell says:
    April 6, 2009 at 11:02 am

    As Damon Runyon is reputed to have said, the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle always to the strong — but that’s the way to bet.

    Like

  6. HannahJ says:
    April 6, 2009 at 8:03 am

    The video makes very good points, and I agree with it. However, it’s not a good idea to assume that all who desire to teach ID or creationism in schools alongside of evolutionary theory are closed-minded.

    Like

  7. James says:
    April 5, 2009 at 3:42 pm

    This video has been popping up everywhere. I’ll probably end up using it at some point, myself.

    Like

  8. Darwiniana » Openmindedness says:
    April 5, 2009 at 1:56 pm

    […] No, teaching intelligent design is not “open minded” (actually teacing Darwinism isn’t either) […]

    Like

Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.