Intelligent Design vs Evolution

Intelligent Design argues that life and the universe are guided by a designer as opposed to a natural selection as illustrated by the theory of Evolution.

To begin with, those who advocate this motion may claim that teaching both theories broadens the horizons of our students. Students have a right to be shown “both sides of the story”, therefore both theories should be taught. By enabling them to explore different theories, we expose them to being open –minded. The benefit of this is that in later life they are able to challenge existing ideas and concepts, bringing more to the table and consequently benefiting society as a whole. This is because they are able to understand and be tolerant of different concepts. The challenging of ideas is the key to progress in today’s society.

Conversely, one may also dispute on the categorisation of ID. Is it science or part of the religious education curriculum? Those who oppose this motion will argue that ID is basically an extension of creationism. It is a belief. Beliefs and dogmas are part of the religious education curriculum. Religious dogma’s are based on beliefs which we never question but just believe in. Science is based on facts and figures and evidence. ID is a belief and not science. Why? Purely because there is no substantial evidence, thus it should not be classified as science. We cannot teach this in science lessons without proof. The devastating result of this is that we will create generations of students who will not have a critical scientific outlook. As a result, they will not be able to distinguish facts from beliefs.

On the contrary, some scientific studies have shown that Intelligent Design is a plausible alternative theory. A Tory peer, Lord Piercon stated that advances in DNA science reveal that DNA molecules are so complicated that it could not have happened by accident. Hence, this leaves the door open to Intelligent Design because the complexity of this world shows that it is too much of a coincidence to just have evolved. For instance, if gravity wasn’t 9.8 we wouldn’t be able to exist – thus a coincidence isn’t likely and an intelligent force may have been involved.

In contrast, some may also claim quite the opposite – that ID isn’t scientifically proven. ID is one big fantasy. It is not accepted on the same scale as Evolution as it is based on a large amount of evidence, which is testable. ID on the other hand, is based on circumstantial evidence which is basically just an assumption and full of idle speculation.

In conclusion, this debate has examined the scientific outlook to ID, the categorisation of it and also how it broadens students horizons. After this discussion I am in opposition to ID as I believe it is just a shot in dark not based on any substantial and worthy evidence to be studied in science.