What exactly is the conflict between the teaching of inteligent design and evolution?

[RusskiSoldat]

As far as I'm aware, evolution is the "how" element which applies to both and all intelligent design does is go a step further and attempt to explain the "why" as well. Whenever I bring this question up, everyone usually debates among party lines and can never explain why the two are mutually exclusive.
Seems to me that putting the theory of evolution in textbooks with a disclaimer saying something along the lines of "it's just a theory, there's another one that's basically the same thing but with God involved" would be a fair compromise.

[enoch]

one of them isn't real.....

[Luftwaffels]

enoch, that's the exact thing he was talking about when he said

Whenever I bring this question up, everyone usually debates among party lines and can never explain why the two are mutually exclusive.

[enoch]

one of them is real.......is what I am saying, eh?

[TheKwas]

As far as I'm aware, evolution is the "how" element which applies to both and all intelligent design does is go a step further and attempt to explain the "why" as well.

Intelligent design is the claim 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".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design

Intelligent also tries to explain the 'how'. Infact, the whole reason why ID came about in the first place was so that creationists could promote their nonsense without including the 'why' aspect, which is religious and isn't allowed in science class.

[Francisco Montana]

I'm with you Russki. If 80% of the nation believes in God (and therefore Intelligent Design) who's to tell them their children can't, at least, learn that ID is one theory among many.

It's funny. At most, I'm agnostic. I don't follow a religion but there have been times I've been convinced of something greater than us (ie when my children were born.) But, I just don't see the harm in allowing others to follow their faith as they see fit (as long as it doesn't infringe on others.)

Go figure. Mr. I Have Doubts About God doesn't mind Intelligent Design being taugh.

I was raised (and my children will be raised) to look at as many points of view as you can and make up your own mind. That's not a bad approach, IMHO.

[TheKwas]

I'm with you Russki. If 80% of the nation believes in God (and therefore Intelligent Design) who's to tell them their children can't, at least, learn that ID is one theory among many.

Care to explain how if you believe in God, you must believe in Intelligent Design. It is perfectly acceptable to believe in God and Evolution at the same time

Furthermore, the population does not decide what is or is not science. Scientists do. If 99.9% of Earth and Life sciencists tell us that evolution is real science and Creationism is BS (and that's a real figure taken from Newsweek), then it is only logical to teach evolution in science classes.

[the_mango55]

Care to explain how if you believe in God, you must believe in Intelligent Design. It is perfectly acceptable to believe in God and Evolution at the same time

It's also perfectly acceptable to believe in Intelligent Design and evolution at the same time.

[Juggernaut]

It's also perfectly acceptable to believe in Intelligent Design and evolution at the same time.

How?
Intelligent design denies evolution.

[Francisco Montana]

Care to explain how if you believe in God, you must believe in Intelligent Design. It is perfectly acceptable to believe in God and Evolution at the same time.

Last time I checked the belief in God came with a default belief in the fact that God created the world around us.

Furthermore, the population does not decide what is or is not science.

If the schools are paid for by the population the population absolutely can decide if they want a small paragraph included with a denotation that it's simply an addition to the theory of evolution.

[Tom Paine]

I can read and presume to know some tricks readers learn by reading.

You mean, deduction based on very limited facts?

If the schools are paid for by the population the population absolutely can decide if they want a small paragraph included with a denotation that it's simply an addition to the theory of evolution.

Only when they redefine what science is, since ID is not: Peer reviewed. Falsifiable. Scientific in any way....

[Pirate36]

But, I just don't see the harm in allowing others to follow their faith as they see fit (as long as it doesn't infringe on others.)

You are infringing on my childs education trying to teach utter nonsense in a classroom and wasting his/her time. Have "Intelligent Design" theories go though scientific peer review like all other scientific theories! If it is succesful then it can be taught. It fails miserably so sorry!

You have all these pretty churches and loads of cash and you can teach these "cute" theories in them all you want! Not in Public schools!

[Gwendylyn]

The problem is twofold:

1. Intelligent design does not belong in the science classroom because it is not a scientific theory.
2. Intelligent design as a theory began rather innocently, and has been almost completely usurped by creationists looking for a more acceptable term to use when lobbying for their beliefs.

[Gaidin]

everyone usually debates among party lines and can never explain why the two are mutually exclusive.

There is no observational/experimental data showing that any higher being was involved with the development of anything in this universe. That is why they are mutually exclusive. The biggest piece of blatant evidences is the fact that ID is not even a scientific theory.

[Irishman]

Evolution is a scientific theory.

Intelligent Design is a philisophical argument which was only succesful until the realization of Evolution.

There is the argument that evolution is true, But God caused it, which fails in the test of an inference to the best explanation because the theory of evolution alone (without God) is more simple.

Overall, Evolution is a much better theory (in philisophical terms than ID) It is more simple, and has greater predictive power, however, they are not mutually exclusive. The majority of educated theists accept a position that Evolution happens under the will of God.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

All I can say is that Christian, especially colonial Christian, behaviour has always been something like, "believe what I say or I'll hurt you".

[enoch]

It's also perfectly acceptable to believe in Intelligent Design and evolution at the same time.

yes, it is however incorrect and unacceptable to believe in creationism and evolution at the same time,

hell, the same goes for creationism and intelligent design based on science,

ay, that's the rub

[Blau&Gruen]

Seems to me that putting the theory of evolution in textbooks with a disclaimer saying something along the lines of "it's just a theory, there's another one that's basically the same thing but with God involved" would be a fair compromise.

1. Science is non teleological. It does not have a god perspective. It is methodically open and critical.
2. Young adults, who are supposed to learn the basics of biology in schools, learn a science.
3. Therefore, ´"intelligent design", "creationism" cannot be part of the books, you are supposed to learn the science of biology.

[Tom Paine]

There's no conflict... outside the science lesson. Science is about the what and only teaches that which has evidence to its name, and is falsifiable - that is, in fact, the nature of science. Now, were ID either of these, then it might have a place in a science classroom - it does not, and therefore does not. Fine, teach it in your religious studies lessons or whatever - but it is not and should not be referred to as a scientific theory; its a counterfeit in that regard.

[Ummon]

One small correction, many darwinists and neo-darwinists have teleological views, openly stated. In the field of cognitive psychology, for example, all those advocating New Synthesis models, as Fodor rightly points out, show a markedly teleological view.

The fact is: ID cannot be taught as a scientific theory because it isn't refutable, as it explains evidence with God. It may be considered a religious concept, and taught accordingly in (if any) religion classes.