Intelligent Design Should be Taught in School as a Science

1242 Words3 Pages

Webster’s dictionary defines a science as “The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment” (Webster’s 786). What that basically is stating is that a science is a subject that can be studied through experiments or observations. All of the sciences taught in public high schools do indeed fit this definition; they are studied through experimental labs, teaching students to learn facts through their own observations. However there is a subject that is also taught by observation and experiment, but is not considered a scientific subject. This highly debatable subject is Intelligent Design. Not only does majority of the United States believe that intelligent design fits the category of science, but the parents want it in the classroom, and the students are begging to learn it.

The people who get a final say in whether or not Intelligent Design will be a lab science or not are the NSTA (National Science Teachers Association). The NSTA is a group of the most experienced science teachers in America. The NSTA sounds like a solid group of people, whom would make fair decisions. However the only down fall is for the most part they are all extreme evolutionist. This means that the idea of Intelligent Design in the classroom is their worst nightmare, and like anybody with a worst nightmare, they will do anything to make sure it does not come true. The NSTA had the opportunity to finally name Intelligent Design a science; it all came down to a vote. “Out of 50 NSTA members including the 10 chairmen, 39 members voted no to Intelligent Design becoming a science in the world of education”(Maskovich2). This vote occurred ...

... middle of paper ...

...hat science courses are evolving, who knows maybe in the next few generations intelligent design will be the mandatory science course for all students, while evolution is only taught in history class.

Works Cited

Dembiski,William. “Pandas and People” Theory of ID. Areginton,NC. Tom Mayer united.

2006. 3 www.intelligentdesign.org/

Green, Kim. “Evolution on the Clock”. EVO vs. ID. Georgebrook, IN. Gang Green Co.

2005. 3 www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

Greggory, Thomas. “ID Laws”. Gods Laws. Jackson, IL. Law Protector.

2004. 4 www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html‎

Maskovich, Rien. “Out with ID”. Students on Right Track. New York,NY. Think quest.

2000. 4 http://www.thinkquest.org

Miranda, Joanna. “Judgement Day” ID on trial. Boise,ID. Boise State University.

2010, 15 http://www.BSU.edu/science/tech/intelligents

Open Document