Question by squirrelman9014: Intelligent design in class…?
this isnt a question of whether it should be in science or not…because it shouldn’t. all the same im curious as to what “science” they could scrounge up to fill an entire text book to teach to a class…

10 points for the best website that explains/demonstrates what materials are in the “Intelligent Design” textbook.

or hell…you could explain it yourself.

(theres gotta be more than ‘god did it’ though that is no doubt what it all comes down to…)
tyler…you’re an idiot.

Best answer:

Answer by lockedbeauty
Welp. Guess they shouldn’t teach about your brain in class either.

I’ve never seen it. You’ve never seen it. There’s no evidence it exists. Therefore it must not.

Add your own answer in the comments!

12 thoughts on “Q&A: Intelligent design in class…?”

  1. I’m afraid “god did it” is all it really amounts to. Here’s how it works:

    1) The universe, and earth with all its lifeforms, is amazing.
    2) No honestly, it’s REALLY amazing.
    3) It is very difficult to understand how amazing it is. Not impossible, but very difficult. And I don’t do difficult. So…
    4) God did it. He must have. It’s obvious.

  2. I know many unbelievers pride themselves on the religion of the mind, intelligence, reason and logic are your God, scientific empirical truths are your faith. You think believers run around contemplating the depths of weather or not to wear a suit or business casual to church on Sunday. But many of us are well educated thinkers who have searched for the truth of God as deeply as you search to prove it is a lie. the following is what a class curriculum on creationism looks like.

    Field Research. Example: measurements of selected isotopic ratios for 67 elements in Grand Canyon basalts (see Isotope and Trace Element Analysis of Hypersthene-Normative Basalts From the Quaternary of Uinkaret Plateau, Western Grand Canyon, Arizona, by Steven A. Austin)
    Lab Research. Example: genetic analysis of inheritance of mammalian hair. (See Orthogenesis and Coat Color, and Pattern Inheritance in the Laboratory Rat by Suzanne Buren.)
    Educational Research. Example: analysis of textbooks and other teaching materials, development of creationist-based tests, development of instruments for understanding attitudes about creationist tenets. (See Methodology for Analysis of Science Teaching Materials from a Creationist Worldview, by Steve Deckard, Richard L. Overman, Bryan A. Schneck, Candace B. Dixon, and Robert E. Brook, CRSQ June, 1995.)
    Exploration. Example: search for Noah’s Ark and other archaeological sites and artifacts. (See Adventure on Ararat, by John D. Morris.)
    Analytical Research. Example: analytical review of helium concentrations in the atmosphere as an indicator of a young earth. (See The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere; a study of the Helium Flux through the Atmosphere, by Larry Vardiman.)
    Literature Research. Example: review and critical analysis of the Kettlewell studies of the English peppered moth. (See A Re-Evaluation of the English Peppered Moth’s Use as an Example of Evolution in Progress, by Chris D. Osborne.)

  3. I tend to lean towards Science and reason
    Scientificlly tested theories.
    Religion is not a science becausre it can not be falsified.

  4. god did NOT just zap everything on earth. earth formed becuase of an event known as the big bang which i wont go into detail about, and everything on it formed becuase of chemical reactions and the elements. life eventually formed and evolved. which led to evolution over millions of millions of years, thats how everything is diverse. why dont you actually try educating yourself about evolution instead of conforming to the crazy ideas your mommy and daddy drilled into your head.

  5. Unfortunately,there’s little more than a denial of nature,followed by so god must have done it.I was almost excited when intelligent design first came out.I thought since some of the people were a little more educated they might actually try to approach it honestly and scientifically.To date,they still refuse to follow the proper channels.They still haven’t published any scientific material.The few attempts like dembskis filter have failed to actually filter out “noise”.Nothing has been shown to be irriducibly complex.Evolution creates seemingly irriducibly complex structures by scaffolding.The only thing they do is take scientific literature and tweak it dishonestly.>>>>>..notice millie’s post is actually full of creationist literature.That’s part of the problem.Intelligent design is nothing more than a creationist pig with some lipstick and a wig.Their so called research is a joke. EDIT: There are rebuttals to “questions”copy and paste job here;_ylt=Ah01jVtJ8R3RhuAcoU3omqzsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071127162020AAEH91F&show=7#profile-info-AnHvUOpNaa

  6. The Bible does make scientific statements. Long before anyone could go to space to see for sure, Isaiah spoke of the “circle of the earth”. Job spoke of the earth “hanging on nothing”.

    The planets in our solar system, also the stars in the entire universe, move at a rate that is more precise than most clocks designed and manufactured by man. The earth is at just the right distance from the sun for human life, and it moves at just the right speed to be held in orbit. The atmosphere, of a kind found only around the earth, is made up of just the right proportion of gases to sustain life. Light from the sun, carbon dioxide from the air, and water and minerals from fertile soil combine to produce food for humans.

    Living cell: A single living cell is sometimes referred to as being a “simple” form of life. But a one-celled animal can catch food, digest it, get rid of wastes, build a house for itself and engage in sexual activity. Each cell of the human body has been likened to a walled city, with a central government to maintain order, a power plant to generate energy, factories to produce proteins, a complex transportation system, and guards to regulate what is permitted to enter. And a single human body is made up of as many as 100 trillion cells.

    In recent years, engineers and product designers have increasingly realized something that bees apparently have always known: configuring even a very thin material into a six-sided honeycomb pattern makes it much stronger than it would be in some other shape.”—The New York Times, October 6, 1991.

    These are but the tip of the iceberg as far as how science and creation work together.

  7. You will be amazed at how many words can be written and printed to fill a book whose sole premise is ‘Goddidit’.’


    Thumbs down asshats unite! Stupidity is more contagious than Ebola and just as deadly.

  8. Intelligent design is just a manipulative way to try to get the concept of creationism into science. It only fills a couple pages of the Bible, so I dont see how it can possibly fill an entire textbook.

    I think the people that came up with the concept of ID were being intellectually dishonest on purpose to try to get their beliefs into science.

    There just isnt much to the creation doctrine. It wouldnt take more than a few minutes to teach, but it isnt a scientific theory and should stay out of science class.

    and, btw, I do believe in God and the creation story, but I don’t see how it pertains to science in any way or why it needs to be taught in science class

  9. It still needs to be written…..

    I can just see it now – “The Cartoon Guide to Intelligent Design” by Larry Gonick and Mark Wheelis, a best seller on Bible belting college campuses (campi?).

    Or, “Intelligent Design for Total Idiots.” You might think about writing this book. It could be a hot item.

  10. So many people these days are confusing biblical creationism with intelligent design. “Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence” (Dr. William Dembski). That’s it; it says nothing of who the creator is and how he/she/it/they did it. Intelligent Design encompasses every “creation” story, even aliens seeding life on this planet.

    Although it has been around, in one form or another, since the time of ancient Greece, William Paley is probably the most famous for using the design argument. In 1802, he came out with a treatise called Natural Theology. He began by arguing that if one were to discover a watch lying in the middle of nowhere and they were to examine that watch closely, the person would logically conclude that it was not an accident, but had purpose; it had a designer. He went on to argue that the overwhelming design in the universe is evidence of a Grand Designer.

    Now, is this a valid argument? Well, we detect design all the time. If you find an arrowhead on a deserted island, you assume it was made by someone, even if you can’t see the designer. We can tell the difference between a message written in the sand and the results of the wind and waves on the sand. The carved heads of the presidents on Mt. Rushmore are clearly different from erosional features.

    The thing is, reliable methods for detecting design exist and are employed in forensics, archeology, and data fraud analysis. These methods can easily be employed to detect design in biological systems.

    When being interviewed by Tavis Smiley, Dr. Stephen Meyer said, “There are developments in some technical fields, complexity and information sciences, that actually enable us to distinguish the results of intelligence as a cause from natural processes. When we run those modes of analysis on the information in DNA, they kick out the answer, ‘Yeah, this was intelligently designed’ . . . There is actually a science of design detection and when you analyze life through the filters of that science, it shows that life was intelligently designed.”

    And for those who put so much faith in peer-review, check this out:

    The four main areas the ID movement focuses on: Information Theory, Irreducible Complexity, The Anthropic Principle, and The Design Inference.

    What about teaching it in school? I’m sorry, but I have to agree with George Bush: “Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about . . . Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought . . . You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”

    Good science teaching should include controversies. But, whenever you mention this kind of stuff, evolutionists jump from their trees and start behaving as if someone had stolen their bananas. Apparently, academic freedom is for other subjects.

    As Cal Thomas has said, “Why are believers in one model—evolution—seeking to impose their faith on those who hold that there is scientific evidence which supports the other model? It’s because they fear they will lose their influence and academic power base after a free and open debate. They are like political dictators who oppose democracy, fearing it will rob them of power.”

    Most Christians I know don’t want biblical creationism taught in science classes. What we want is for molecules-to-man evolution to be taught with all its warts (they are not even allowed to present evidence that would put evolution in a poor light). And we want intelligent design to at least to be presented. Unlike leprechauns and unicorns, etc., a significant percentage of the population believes in ID.

    Take a look at:

Leave a Reply

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