Question

Intelligent design theory is an argument used by some people to challenge the teaching of evolution in public schools. One of the supporters of this idea claims that certain biological structures, such as the bacterial flagellum, require so many complex parts working together in perfect synchronization that it is not possible that they could have evolved from simpler structures. This argument states that a simpler structure could not perform the same function, which is evidence of “irreducible complexity.” This is cited as evidence for an intelligent designer. Do you consider this theory scientific? Why or why not? Would you support the inclusion of this theory in the science classroom? If so, would you also support contrasting this theory to the theory of evolution? You are an aspiring gardener trying to live off the land. After asking for advice, a fellow gardener tells you to spray water on your plants before the night of a freeze. How do hydrogen bonds and water properties protect your plants from a night freeze? Explain in detail.

Answer 1

My answer to the first question is no. being a biologist, being a science lover i could only consider this theory( inteligent design thoery) as pseudoscientific. For the science to explain things its need to validate the hypothetical problem. This validation requires analysis of data collected over many trails/years. Here lives the major difference. The intelegent design theory only explains things hypothetically whereas the evolutionary theories explain things scientifically

i would support the inclusion of this thoery in the science class room. So that the student should clearly know the difference between scientific and pseudoscientific theories. I think it is good to explain pseudoscientific thoeries like inteligent design before explaining the scientifically validated theories. Also contrasting this pseudoscientific theory with evolution in inevitable during the class. So that the students could understand the scientific strength of evolution like theories compared to inteligent design theory