Seminar Response 10/9

  I think that Intelligent Design (ID) should be taught in class because it provides another side to the discussion of Evolution. If we just talked about Evolution in science class and how it is the only reason explaining how things are today, we would be leaving out another side to the discussion, ID. Just like when you are writing an argumentative paper for school, you must include the other view therefore leaving bias out of a paper. So why are we teaching kids that Evolution is the only way explaining how things are today when there is another side? It makes sense to teach both sides and let the students decide what they want to believe in. The point side makes the better argument because it states that "ID presents the hypothesis: an intelligent designer lies at the heart of the highly complex and inter-related system of natural phenomena." ID is not promoting a God or religion, it just gives a possible reason to how things were started or created. ID is different to creationism in that "Creationism is specific to the Book of Genesis in the Bible." The point side also talks about how the "'first causes' cannot be determined." Since we were not there how can we prove it scientifically. We can't make assumptions about the past because we were not there and we can't observe it. We can only observe what is happening now. ID is "an alternative approach to explaining the origins, the first cause, of a phenomenon widely accepted by poorly understood: life." So why should we not teach it?
The counterpoint has a weaker argument because it explains that if something is to be considered science it must be able to prove by "recording observations, undertaking experiments, and drawing conclusions." It also says that science is "the process of disciplined and repeatable observation." So with all of this observation being based on the past, which we can't actually observe, how can we call this evidence. We were not there, we don't know what is was like, and therefore we can only make assumptions about the past. This side also says that ID is religion in disguise but in reality it is not. ID "does not require believing that the earth and everything upon it was 'created' in six days by a deity named God." ID does not promote any God or religion so why is that a good reason not to teach it as an alternative way to how things (life) was created.