Should Intelligent Design Be Taught In Public Schools Essay

Essay on Should Intelligent Design be Taught in Public Schools?

1665 Words7 Pages

In 1859, Charles Darwin published his groundbreaking Origin of Species, which would introduce the seminal theory of evolution to the scientific community. Over 150 years later, the majority of scientists have come to a consensus in agreement with this theory, citing evidence in newer scientific research. In an average high school biology classroom, one may imagine an instructor that has devoted much of his life to science and a predominantly Christian class of about twenty-five students. On the topic of evolution, one of the students might ask, “Why would God have taken the long route by creating us through billion years of evolution?” while another student may claim “The Book of Genesis clearly says that the earth along with all living…show more content…

The theory is made in assumption that pure creationism, for obvious reasons, can never pass as unaffiliated with religion, and thus can never be taught in government-funded public schools. As of now, its proponents’ claims for the earth’s age vary between 6000 and 4.5 billion years ago, as long as God did it (Branch). Rather than relying on scientific evidence, intelligent design thrives on the most miniscule of holes in evolutionary fossil records and the unfathomability of a living cell being created from inorganic matter. These holes are then complemented with ignorance of viable proof of evolution; proponents of the field have managed to turn these two elements in a supposed science. However, the yet infantile theory has still made its way to public schools in five states, with as many as twenty states currently debating the validity of evolution education.
Given that certain polls estimate that almost half to as many as sixty-six percent of Americans do not believe in pure evolution(Branch; Morris), it is hard to argue with a plurality or majority of the population whether or not to believe in evolution. To many, it is not a matter of

Show More

Victor Bjerrum(PRO)
Arguments and flaws

1. Reliable source?

2. Quote from Argument 1 that talks against your second argument

3. Could Intelligent design open up new possibilities 

1. Reliable source? 

I can see that you have copy pasted a lot of your information from Wikipedia and even put a link to it as your source. Wikipedia is not a reliable source since anyone could have wrote it and we dont know said persons motives or if the person is for or against Intelligent Design to be taught in school.

2. Quote from Argument 1 that talks against your second argument

"The theory does not explain who the designer is, how the designer designed, or what the designer designed, just that there was a intelligent designer that did something in the far past" here you say that this theory don't evolve around a specific god and it can therefore be anyone. "Like I said in the last argument, Intelligent Design is really only about a designer, and every Intelligent Design Theorist believes it is God, so it is really a way to push God on others in schools. This would promote Christianity/biblical creationism which would violate the separation of church and state, creating bias towards other religions" why would it create bias against other religions if the theory dont imply that there is a specific creator but rather that we are created by some kind of intelligent being the theory is more of an answer to how rather than who and it therefore dont revolve around certain specific religions[1].

3. Could Intelligent design open up new possibilities 

I believe that the best education is an education were you don't just see one side of a debate, the youth need to know why people think like they do and they also need to know why that might not be plausible because of scientific reasons. The youth needs to form their own opinion and i don't think intelligent design have so many flaws it should be considered unteachable, even if it has a lot of flaws the youth need to learn about those and then make their decision on whether it is plausible or not. 


[1] "" by Alastair Noble 

Return To Top | Posted:

2016-06-24 13:59:47

| Speak Round

In this round, I will respond to my opponents rebuttals.


1. Wikipedia is an unreliable source.

2. Intelligent Design doesn't revolve around God.

3. Intelligent Design can open up new possibilities.

Wikipedia is an unreliable source

Here is what my opponent said, "I can see that you have copy pasted a lot of your information from Wikipedia and even put a link to it as your source. Wikipedia is not a reliable source since anyone could have wrote it and we dont know said persons motives or if the person is for or against Intelligent Design to be taught in school." 

First of all, I didn't copy and paste a lot of information from wikipedia, just a quote in one of my arguments, the rest was not from wikipedia. 

So, my opponent believes wikipedia is unreliable because it may be a biased source, however, there is a source in his arguments that says that ID should not be excluded from the study of origins(sounds biased to me), the point is, I don't see anything wrong with using a source that counts for you in a debate. Instead of focusing on reliability, I will focus on the truth of the statement. The quote from wikipedia I offered said that ID offers no testable or tenable hypothesis. This is true since it explains life came from a designer which can not be proven. The ID movement is really mostly about critiquing Darwinism and placing a designer as the explanation. My opponent never responded to that argument I made, so I won't go on it anymore. 

 Intelligent Design doesn't revolve around God

It is true the theory of ID doesn't explain God as the designer, just that there was one, but if you look at it closely, ID is an argument for God. 

If there was a designer in the past, then that designer must have come from somewhere, ID advocates argue that intelligent life could never have originated from natural processes, so intelligent life must have came from another intelligence. At some point, there has to be an uncaused cause(or undesigned designer), in other words, "God". This would have to be an eternal being, God is the only reasonable explanation. If ID is in school, it would be used as an argument for God, which would bring religion with it. This would violate the separation of church and state by bringing a religious argument into the schools teaching our children. Like I said in the last round, a better way to be neutral would to teach the flaws of evolution along with the evidence in schools. Since ID is mostly just a critique of Darwinism(which places a designer as the explanation), we would be teaching more than half what ID theorists already propose by teaching kids to criticize evolution. The rest of ID is just that there was a designer and the only reasonable explanation for it would be God, which could bring religious beliefs into the classroom. 

Intelligent Design can open up new possibilities

My opponent says students shouldn't just be taught one side of a debate, but both sides. The problem is, one side is religious in nature, and the other is based on scientific evidence. Religious arguments are not supportable by science, so they should stay out of the classroom. Evolution is supportable by evidence and is testable, so it should be taught and criticized. Intelligent Design is not scientific, so it should remain out of schools. Religious beliefs should be practiced out of school, and schools should give more of a choice in deciding whether evolution is a fact. Teaching something that is too undeveloped and religious in nature does not belong in school, especially in a secular state. Since ID is only about a untestable designer, it can't be taught about scientifically and criticized. This is not the best education.   

Thanks for Reading

I am looking forward to my opponents response. 

Return To Top | Posted:

2016-06-24 19:38:46

| Speak Round

0 thoughts on “Should Intelligent Design Be Taught In Public Schools Essay

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *