Teaching Intelligent Design

according to its supporters, answers what evolution does not, as it does not make it correct, let alone even worthy of being taught.
Despite intelligent design consisting of faulty claims, such as it answering the origin of life, most supporters contend it should still be taught at schools as an alternative to evolution, which it should not. However, teaching intelligent design as a secondary option would still be detrimental. Teaching it would validate it as correct information, when as already established intelligent design is blatantly false misinformation. On top of not only validating intelligent design, the goal of a science education is to educate about science, not controversy and falsehoods (Monczunski). The teaching of intelligent …show more content…
Intelligent design itself is rooted in the supernatural, even if one accepts their arguments of legitimacy. The designer, the namesake of intelligent design is supernatural in nature and is a way around calling the designer what it is, a form of god. Until now almost every point and piece of evidence intelligent design supporters have spewed have been largely debunked. Essentially leaving the designer as nothing more than another origin myth, and again making it nothing more than false science, and at worst religious as it is supported with the same frivolous zeal. Even if those who support intelligent design claim it has no connection to a specific religion, does not instantly rid it of religious ties. It itself is inherently religious. The main advocate for intelligent design, and essentially it's lobbyist at the political level, is the Discovery Institute (Forrest 79-81). This organization and others who support intelligent design quietly recognize that intelligent design crosses the line of separation of church and state. The organization and its supporters do not typically advocate explicitly for the teaching of intelligent design in schools, but instead the critical teaching of science and offer intelligent design as an “alternative” theory (Forrest 80). Labeling intelligent design as an alternative theory still does not rid it of its religious connotations, which still means if it is agreed to and is taught, religion is being brought into the classroom as verifiable fact. Clearly overstepping the boundary of church and state. Making it not only an overreach of religion but illegal! The smoking gun that definitively proves intelligent design as being religious and therefore illegal to teach in schools is the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. The final