Intelligent Design is a LOGICAL conclusion
just a little explanation... the Batt ran a pro con article on teaching Intelligent Design.
Intelligent Design is a LOGICAL conclusion
That is why it should be taught in public schools. Intelligent design merely implys that a greater being exists. Many great minds, including Benjamin Franklin, while not following a specific religion recognized this fact. Perhaps it would be easier to stomach if people realized the Intelligent Design does not mean that humans did not simply evolve from apes, monkeys, whatever you want say. It simply means that there exists a greater being that influences this world. Science finds its knowledge by taking a known fact, asking why, and finding out why. There is always a subsequent reason for that new found why and such the cycle continues. That cycle always ends at the big bang or something with the same problem as the big bang. I think Mr Aylsworth called it falsifiability. That there is no way to test the theory and such is not science. If you follow his logic, then accepting the big bang as this beginning of the universe requires just as much faith as accepting that a greater being exists. True there is evidence supporting the big bang, but there is absolutely no evidence as to what caused the big bang. Saying that it just happened is as unscientific as Intelligent design.
Intelligent design has the same grounds to be taught as science as the big bang does. Thus it is closed minded and irresponsible to teach one and not the other.
Intelligent Design is a LOGICAL conclusion
That is why it should be taught in public schools. Intelligent design merely implys that a greater being exists. Many great minds, including Benjamin Franklin, while not following a specific religion recognized this fact. Perhaps it would be easier to stomach if people realized the Intelligent Design does not mean that humans did not simply evolve from apes, monkeys, whatever you want say. It simply means that there exists a greater being that influences this world. Science finds its knowledge by taking a known fact, asking why, and finding out why. There is always a subsequent reason for that new found why and such the cycle continues. That cycle always ends at the big bang or something with the same problem as the big bang. I think Mr Aylsworth called it falsifiability. That there is no way to test the theory and such is not science. If you follow his logic, then accepting the big bang as this beginning of the universe requires just as much faith as accepting that a greater being exists. True there is evidence supporting the big bang, but there is absolutely no evidence as to what caused the big bang. Saying that it just happened is as unscientific as Intelligent design.
Intelligent design has the same grounds to be taught as science as the big bang does. Thus it is closed minded and irresponsible to teach one and not the other.