Until contemporary times, limited attention has been paid to the relevance of intelligent design and creationism in classrooms. The significance of creationism and intelligent design has increased in the modern world. Nonetheless, the debate on whether intelligent design should be taught in science classrooms remains contentious. The song Intelligent Design by Kilo Kish, an American singer and rapper, explores issues of evolution and creationism and their intersection with science and religion. Kish’s song highlights the significance of intelligent design in the modern world. Similarly, in Reiss’s article, the author explores the relevance of intelligent design in classrooms and the importance of attending to student diversity in a science classroom. With the rise of debates about the relevance of intelligent design in schools, Plutynski investigates various arguments for/against teaching intelligent design. With the increased debates about intelligent design, educators must evaluate various arguments about whether or not intelligent design should be taught in schools. While intelligent design is relevant in the non-science context, such as philosophy and religion classes, it should not be taught in science classrooms.
Intelligent design should not be taught in science classrooms because it does meet the critical criteria that define a scientific theory. Just as Plutynski suggests in her article, a valid scientific theory must be falsifiable, testable and subject to scientific evidence (784). However, in the case of intelligent design, its concept needs to be more accurate and testable, with its major arguments being based on religious beliefs instead of scientific evidence. In the song, Intelligent Design, Kish states, “God came down from herald of clouds/ To shake us around/ With the life to defend”. This Kish lyric tends to explain how creationism and intelligent design does not encompass any form of scientific explanation, as it does not embed the concept of course, action and results. Additionally, Kish states, “Nature made us into prophets/ Nature made, have we forgotten?”. This argument resonates with Plutynski’s arguments, where the author reflects on the general concept of intelligent design, which points to how life is complex to arise from natural selection, and there must have existed an “intelligent designer” (784). Critical arguments for intelligent design tend to rely upon the “God-of-the-gaps” logic that posits that if science cannot explain a phenomenon, then the phenomena must be attributed to a supreme being. In essence, these arguments regarding Intelligent Design do not provide a falsifiable and testable hypothesis that can be empirically investigated. It further explains why intelligent design should not be taught in science classes.
The teachings of intelligent design tend to have a high likelihood of violating the separation between the state and church within schooling institutions in the United States. In the article, Creationism and Intelligent Design, Reiss argue that teaching intelligent design and creationism in public schools is highly likely to promote particular religious views over others (15). The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States prohibits the government’s promotion of a particular religion. Teaching intelligent design in science classrooms violates the First Amendment (Reiss 2). There exist several religious beliefs and affiliations in the United States. Just as Reiss (2) states, there exists a critical need to respect the religious beliefs of other students. Although it is important to discuss the intersection between religion and science, it needs to be conducted in ways that do not promote particular religious views or undermine empirical evidence. In the song, Intelligent Designer, Kish questions the “intelligent designer” who created the universe, terming intelligent design flawed and beautiful. However, the song’s version of creationism tends to be based on biblical teachings about creation. Several religions have their version of creationism, and focusing on a particular theory of creation showcases religious biases. Reiss argues that this violates the separation between the state and church. Indeed, this is compelling evidence of why educators should refrain from teaching intelligent design in classrooms.
While Plutynski and Reiss have varying perspectives regarding teaching intelligent design in science classrooms, their arguments point out that the scientific theory does only violate the separation between the state and church but also does not meet the criteria that define a scientific theory. The author tends to explain how teaching intelligent design in public schools can be significantly challenging. Teaching intelligent design in science classrooms can potentially undermine the student’s critical thinking capacities, as the concept is based upon non-scientific perception. Besides, teaching intelligent design in classrooms promotes a particular religion, violating the first amendment stipulated in the United States constitution. As a knowing source, I agree with both Plutynski and Reiss’s arguments that teaching intelligent design in science classrooms is inappropriate. Scientific methods are based on hypothesis testing and the presentation of empirical evidence (Plutynski, 780). There does not exist any pieces of evidence that promote the theory of intelligent design. Just like Reiss puts across, “Those who promote intelligent design typically, but not always, come from a conservative faith-based position” (2). In essence, presenting non-scientific views in a science classroom can significantly affect students’ critical thinking as its arguments are faith-based rather than scientifically based. Although intelligent design can be discussed in non-science disciplines like religion or philosophy, it should not be taught in science classrooms.
In conclusion, critical arguments point out that intelligent design should not be taught in science classes. Intelligent design does not belong in a science class but can be taught in other disciplines, such as history, religion or philosophy. Reiss and Plutynski provide concrete arguments on why intelligent design should never be taught in a science class. Using credible sources and references to explain their arguments, the author explained how intelligent design does not meet the criteria of a scientific concept. Plutynski regards Intelligent design as not being testable nor subject to empirical evidence. Reiss also argues how intelligent design in a science classroom would violate the separation of the church from the state. On the other hand, Kilo Kish’s song, Intelligent Design, presents a thought-provoking idea about the nature of intelligent design. Educators need to be aware that intelligent design in a scientific classroom will be inappropriate besides promoting religious biases that would violate principles as dictated in the First Amendment of the United States constitution. Besides, they must also be aware that factions promoting intelligence emanate from a conservative faith-based position instead of a scientific one. Although it can be taught in other disciplines, intelligent design should not be taught in a science classroom.
Works Cited
Plutynski, Anya. “Should intelligent design be taught in public school science classrooms?.” Science & Education 19 (2010): 779–795.
Reiss, Michael J. “Creationism and intelligent design.” International handbook of philosophy of education (2018): 1247–1259.
write