Introduction
The purpose of this statement is to address the recent changes to the South Carolina Curriculum Standard. Research will be conducted on both Evolutionary theory and Intelligent Design theory to determine if high school biology teachers should teach their students Intelligent Design as a valid alternative to Evolutionary theory.
Intelligent Design
The Intelligent Design theory argues that the world and all the creatures in it were created not by random mutations and evolution, but by an all-powerful, all-knowing God. This theory is sometimes confused with the creationism theory. The creationism theory is based on the book in the Bible Genesis; people that believe this believe that what happened in Genesis is exactly what happened …show more content…
The human eye is an elaborate system of interconnected parts. It has been compared to a digital camera because of all the lenses and connected parts that are involved in vision (Behe, 2000, A Series of Eyes, para. 4). To form a complete picture of the environment, the eye needs to be able to adjust the amount of light that passes through the pupil by expanding and contracting the iris and to be able to focus on different types of objects at different distances. The lens changes shape based on how the muscle surrounding the lens contracts and expands. The ability to for humans to see depends entirely on each of the parts being present and working together properly. According to the Intelligent Design theory, there could not be a gradual evolution of mutations and adaptations to reach this level of complexity that is the human eye. An animal that only has an individual part of the eye would not be able to see (Behe, 2000, A Series of Eyes, para. 6). The gaps in the fossil record, is another argument proposed by Intelligent Design theorists, meaning that there are missing transitional fossils from one species to another. They explain that the gaps in the fossil record are from God creating a new species though out time and that the dispersal of these fossils are from a great flood. The discovery of Toumai, said to be the one of the assessorial links to the modern human, was discovered by archeologists in 2002. Intelligent Design theorist Jonathan Wells states …show more content…
Other scientists must also be able to recreate and observe these experiments and results. Explanations not based on empirical evidence is not part of the nature of science. Intelligent Design does not fit within the definition of the nature of science. There is no observational data to support their claims, and it is not possible for a scientist to create an experiment to test the theories of Intelligent Design. Also the nature of science is not the same as common sense. An observation based on common sense can be changed drastically as new observations arise, and Intelligent Design theory does not allow for changes based on new information. Statements of science are never accepted as the final truth, because overtime they typically form a sequence of increasingly accurate statements. Eventually, as with evolution, the data that is collected is so accurate that it is no longer questioned in science. For people who believe in Intelligent Design, their arguments and beliefs are the “end all be all” and are accepted as truth without any observable data to study to make accurate statements. The progress of science is dependent on the individual, but the individual’s contribution can also come from others. If Darwin had never published his evolutionary theories, the concept would still have emerged as the accepted explanation for the
The purpose of this statement is to address the recent changes to the South Carolina Curriculum Standard. Research will be conducted on both Evolutionary theory and Intelligent Design theory to determine if high school biology teachers should teach their students Intelligent Design as a valid alternative to Evolutionary theory.
Intelligent Design
The Intelligent Design theory argues that the world and all the creatures in it were created not by random mutations and evolution, but by an all-powerful, all-knowing God. This theory is sometimes confused with the creationism theory. The creationism theory is based on the book in the Bible Genesis; people that believe this believe that what happened in Genesis is exactly what happened …show more content…
The human eye is an elaborate system of interconnected parts. It has been compared to a digital camera because of all the lenses and connected parts that are involved in vision (Behe, 2000, A Series of Eyes, para. 4). To form a complete picture of the environment, the eye needs to be able to adjust the amount of light that passes through the pupil by expanding and contracting the iris and to be able to focus on different types of objects at different distances. The lens changes shape based on how the muscle surrounding the lens contracts and expands. The ability to for humans to see depends entirely on each of the parts being present and working together properly. According to the Intelligent Design theory, there could not be a gradual evolution of mutations and adaptations to reach this level of complexity that is the human eye. An animal that only has an individual part of the eye would not be able to see (Behe, 2000, A Series of Eyes, para. 6). The gaps in the fossil record, is another argument proposed by Intelligent Design theorists, meaning that there are missing transitional fossils from one species to another. They explain that the gaps in the fossil record are from God creating a new species though out time and that the dispersal of these fossils are from a great flood. The discovery of Toumai, said to be the one of the assessorial links to the modern human, was discovered by archeologists in 2002. Intelligent Design theorist Jonathan Wells states …show more content…
Other scientists must also be able to recreate and observe these experiments and results. Explanations not based on empirical evidence is not part of the nature of science. Intelligent Design does not fit within the definition of the nature of science. There is no observational data to support their claims, and it is not possible for a scientist to create an experiment to test the theories of Intelligent Design. Also the nature of science is not the same as common sense. An observation based on common sense can be changed drastically as new observations arise, and Intelligent Design theory does not allow for changes based on new information. Statements of science are never accepted as the final truth, because overtime they typically form a sequence of increasingly accurate statements. Eventually, as with evolution, the data that is collected is so accurate that it is no longer questioned in science. For people who believe in Intelligent Design, their arguments and beliefs are the “end all be all” and are accepted as truth without any observable data to study to make accurate statements. The progress of science is dependent on the individual, but the individual’s contribution can also come from others. If Darwin had never published his evolutionary theories, the concept would still have emerged as the accepted explanation for the