Should Intelligent Design Be Taught in Public Schools

Ever since Charles Darwins The Origin of Species was published in 1859, the theory of evolution by natural selection has been the dominant explanation for biodiversity. It fits the evidence better than any other theory and is overwhelmingly accepted by biologists. It is impossible to understand genetics, microbiology, zoology, or any number of other biology subspecialties without a solid background in evolutionary theory. The Problem of the Bible and Evolution But evolution also challenges religious beliefs. The Bible, which teaches that the visible universe was created by Gods command over a period of six days, contradicts evolutionary theory. This account, if interpreted literally, makes scientific literacy difficult. Plants, for example, are created before sunlight is created (Genesis 1:11-12; 1:16-18), which means that a literalistic biblical approach to science must challenge the idea of photosynthesis. Stars are created prior to the sun and moon (1:14-15, 1:16-18), which means that a literalistic biblical approach to science must challenge our working cosmological model. And of course, if God created all creatures by command (Genesis 1:20-27), land animals before sea animals, then evolution by natural selection and the story it tells becomes a controversial idea. While many people of faith have been able to reconcile the ideas of literal creation and evolution by natural selection, thinkers on both sides of the debate press the idea that this reconciliation is impossible. Secular philosopher Daniel Dennett, author of Darwins Dangerous Idea, has argued that evolution by natural selection renders God superfluous. He told Der Spiegel  in 2005: The argument for design, I think, has always been the best argument for the existence of God, and when Darwin comes along, he pulls the rug out from under that. Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins often described (lovingly or derisively) as the atheist pope for his objection to religion, once remarked that  around the age of 16, I first understood that Darwinism provides an explanation big enough and elegant enough to replace gods. I have been an atheist ever since. Religious fundamentalists, who also have their objections to metaphorical interpretations of the Book of Genesis, tend to agree that evolutionary theory is a direct threat to the idea of God. Evolution and Intelligent Design Controversy So its little surprise that controversy has long existed over the teaching of evolution by natural selection in public schools. Fundamentalists initially attempted to ban it, allowing only the biblical account of creation to be taught, but the Scopes monkey trial of 1925 made such bans appear ridiculous. Then in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), the U.S. Supreme Court held that creationism is a religious doctrine and cant be taught in public school biology classes at all. Within two years, supporters of creationism coined the term intelligent design as a means of asserting the creationist doctrine outside of the context of religion—asserting that everything was created, but not asserting who it was that did the creating. It could have been God, or it could have been another immensely ancient and powerful creator. More than twenty years later, were still more or less there. A smattering of state laws and school board initiatives during the late 1990s and early 2000s attempted to replace the theory of evolution by natural selection with the doctrine of intelligent design in public school biology curricula, or at least to mandate that the two theories be taught side-by-side as equal, but most have lost favor either through public response or local court rulings. Proponents of intelligent design argue that the theory of evolution by natural selection is itself a religious assertion that denies the doctrine of God as creator. Its hard to say the theory doesnt at least challenge the biblical doctrine of God as creator, in much the same way that astronomical theories of star formation and so forth do, and this does pose a legitimate First Amendment problem: How should public schools teach scientific topics that challenge core religious beliefs? And are they under an obligation to accommodate these beliefs by teaching more religiously inclusive alternative theories? The answer to this question depends on how you interpret the First Amendments establishment clause. If you believe that it mandates a wall of separation between church and state, then the government cannot base its public school biology curriculum on religious considerations. If you believe that it does not and that some general non-preferential accommodation of religious doctrine is consistent with the establishment clause, then teaching intelligent design as an alternate approach to biology would be legitimate, as long as evolutionary theory is also taught.As a practical consideration, intelligent design should not be taught in public school biology classes. It could, however, be taught in churches. Pastors, particularly youth pastors, have an obligation to become scientifically literate and be prepared, in the words of 1 Peter 3:15, to provide reason for the hope within. Intelligent design is an evangelism imperative because a pastor who is not scientifically literate cannot adequ ately address contemporary challenges to religious faith. That job should not be outsourced to the public school system; as a theological accommodation, intelligent design has no place in a non-sectarian biology curriculum.

How Psychology Has Changed Human Behavior - 1724 Words

Drawing on examples from across the module, evaluate the extent to which psychology has explained how people understand each other. People understand each other using cognitive skills, an example of this is mindreading. Mindreading abilities also referred to as the theory of mind (ToM) is the aptitude to comprehend that other people have mental states, such as understanding that other people have feelings, desires, motives, beliefs and intentions (Hewson, 2015a). This is generally an essential, undemanding skill for social interaction. Thereby, this essay will evaluate how psychology has helped to explain how people understand each other by firstly, explaining how an aspect of mindreading such as false belief has been studied using the†¦show more content†¦An aspect of Theory of mind (ToM) is false belief. False belief is the understanding that other people will have different beliefs to one’s own. Studies have shown that false belief develops throughout childhood. One of the most influential studies into discovering how false belief progresses is the Sally-Anne task. Briefly, the experimenter sho ws a child two puppets, Sally and Anne. Sally places a marble into a basket and leaves the room. Anne takes the marble and places it into a box. The child would be asked ‘Where will Sally look for her marble?’ If the child understands false belief they will answer, ‘where she left it in the basket’ showing understanding of another’s (Sally) false belief. This simple but effective task allows the researcher to get an appreciation of how individual’s false belief develops. Children tend to give the correct answer at approximately four to five years of age (Hewson, 2015b). This has led psychologist to examine further to find out why children under the age of four or five fails. Further research has compared the results of the false belief task with executive functioning skills. Executive functioning is the capability to allow people to manage their thoughts and actions. One such test that psychologists have used to measure executive functioning i s the bear-dragon task (Carlson and Moses, 2001, cited in Hewson, 2015). Using two puppets the child has to ignore one and copy the instructions (for example, pat your head) of the

Biochemical Techniques for the Extraction of Escherichia...

Modern biochemical study and analysis of nucleic acids have been heavily dominated by electrophoresis and polymerase chain reaction techniques, as the former allows for relatively inexpensive and accessible resolution and visualization of nucleic acids according to basic chemical properties such as molecular charge and weight, and the latter quickly increases the concentration of nucleic acids, normally found in cells in minute amounts, to a level easily analyzed by modern biochemical techniques. These two techniques are therefore currently indispensable in dealing with nucleic acids on a practical level, and are tools which should be present in every biologist’s kit. This study therefore attempts to elucidate the theoretical and†¦show more content†¦While ample plant and animal samples can be easily obtained, for bacterial samples such as E. coli, they must be propagated first in culture in order to obtain the necessary amount of cells needed for the DNA extraction p rocess. The extraction and purification of genomic DNA is essential as purified DNA serves as the starting point for the amplification of a gene within the DNA via the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). First and foremost, cell lysis or cell disruption must be done to release the cell contents to expose the DNA within the organism, detergents, basic or high salt solutions will then be used for DNA purification by dissociating other biomolecules such as proteins and lipids. DNA will finally be isolated through the use of organic reagents and centrifugation to facilitate collection of the precipitated DNA. Prior to the experiment, materials to be used were sterilized to prevent contamination, which may later on affect the results as contaminants may react with the solutions to be used for the later procedures or even damage the DNA samples. Autoclaving or the use of pressurized steam was utilized to sterilize the materials as exposure to high temperatures normally causes damage to cytoplasmic membranes, breakdown of ribosomes, irreversible enzyme denaturation and DNA strand breakage of bacterial contaminants. Due to the ability of nucleic acids to store genetic information which will later on encode for necessary proteins, it is important to extractShow MoreRelatedA summary analysis of the article â€Å"Microarray detection of food-borne pathogens using specific probes prepared by comparative genomics.†1531 Words   |  7 Pagesthe most common food-borne pathogens that maybe seen in the United States are Norvovirus (58%), Clostridium perfringens (10%), Salmonella (11%), Campylobacter spp. (9%), and Staphylococcus aureus (3%). Among the other 9% (not published) include Escherichia coli O157:H7, Shigella spp., Bacillus spp., and other opportunistic pathogens (Prasad Vidyarthi, 2009). Therefore, accurate and timely detection and identification of food-borne pathogens is crucial for the prevention of food-borne epidemics and

Payne v. Tennessee free essay sample

Facts: After spending a morning and afternoon drinking beer and injecting cocaine, Pervis Tyrone Payne entered the apartment of 28-year-old Charisse Christopher and her two children, Lacie, age two and Nicholas, age three at approximately 3:00 p.m. on June 27th, 1987. Payne made sexual advances toward Charisse Christopher. She resisted, which lead Payne to kill both Charisse and Lacie. Nicholas was found with several severe stab wounds that completely penetrated him front to back, but he managed to survive. Payne was apprehended later that day hiding in the attic of a former girlfriend’s house. Payne was convicted by a jury of two counts of murder. At sentencing, Payne presented the testimony of his mother, father, Bobbie Thomas and a clinical psychologist. These testimonies’ showed Payne was of good character, he attended church and he was of low intelligence and mentally handicapped. The State presented the testimony of Ms. Christopher’s mother, who spoke of the negative impact of the murders on Nicholas. We will write a custom essay sample on Payne v. Tennessee or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Furthermore, the prosecutor presented argument regarding Nicholas’ experience. The jury sentenced the Payne to death on each count of murder. History: Pervis Tyrone Payne was arrested and charged with two counts of first-degree murder, the jury sentenced Payne to death on each count of murder. Issue: Does the Eighth Amendment prohibit a capital sentencing jury from considering â€Å"victim impact† evidence relating to the personal characteristics of the victim and the emotional impact of the crimes on the victim’s family? Finding: No. Victim impact evidence shall not be considered according to the United States Supreme Court. This rule was because victim impact evidence presents factors about which the defendant may have been unaware of and therefore, the evidence has nothing to do with the â€Å"blameworthiness† of a particular defendant. So basically, no evidence outside the case and not relating directly to the circumstances of the crime was admitted. In the present case, however, the Supreme Court expressed the view that â€Å"a State may properly conclude that for the jury to assess meaningfully the defendant’s moral culpability and blameworthiness, it should have before it at the sentencing phase evidence of the specific harm caused by the defendant.† So, a State may permit the admission of victim  impact evidence, as the Eighth Amendment presents no per se bar. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the conviction and sentence. The court rejected Payne’s contention that the admission of the grandmother’s testimony and the State’s closing argument constituted prejudicial violations of his rights under the Eighth Amendment as applied in Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987), and South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 805 (1989). Rational: The court stated â€Å"Stare decisis is not an inexorable command; rather, ‘it is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision.’† So basically, not all laws are set completely in stone and it can change over time from case to case. The court states that neither the law nor the facts supporting the prior cases have changed, merely the personnel of the Supreme Court have changed. My Notes: A few things I noticed was I unclear how Payne could argue that introducing such evidence as the grandmother testimony encourages jurors to decide for the death penalty based on emotions rather than reason. But, having his parents testify that he was of good character as plays on emotion, rather than reason. To me, only after introducing victim impact evidence can the juries meaningfully determine the proper punishment. After all the whole reason for this is to protect the victim right?