The debate on the inclusion of scientific creationism has been subject to debate from different quarters in the US and other parts of the world. While different individuals hold different views regarding the inclusion of intelligent design, it is clear that there is raging dispute on the subject between the proponents and critics who hold unrepentant positions regarding the same. It is undisputable that the debate been given a rather unclear decision by the Supreme Court that still tries to allow the continuity of the debate by providing an encouraging analogy and decision on the matter (Behe et al. 23-25). In the view of the judges, it is important that different theories regarding the origin of humanity are taught to students so that they can have a broader perspective of the human nature. Therefore, intelligent design should be included in science classes.
As the debate on the subject continues to draw divergent views, certain factors are universally accepted in both factions. According to Darwinians, who consider themselves the revolutionary biologists, organisms are somewhat designed. There is no debate as to whether this is true as both parties in the dispute agree to it as an undisputable fact (Behe et al. 23-25). However, few skeptics still surface in the debate with assertions that organisms were rather evolved as opposed to the design narrative. Scientific evidence validates the diversity of biological organisms that appear to have taken certain shapes and designs. The projections make it easy to draw deductions from the same that organisms were designed as opposed to the argument only evolution can explain the nature and origin of biological organisms. It is thus imperative that a line of compromise is offered regarding the subject to allow flexibility as well as the diversity of knowledge acquisition. In the view of the experts, it is important to draw the deductions on the matter as any reasoning still offers the benefit of the doubt that there are elements of design in organic features. It is thus clear that every argument should be given consideration and students should be allowed to benefit from such diversity of thoughts (Behe & Miller 277-78). While the Darwinian biologists hold that organisms were not designed, they still agree that there are these elements of intelligent design.
According to the scientific theories, there is always room for improvement as scientific theories do not offer ultimate truth. It is this fact that enables the debate about the inclusion to continue. It is imperative to understand that such debate might not be drawn to a conclusion shortly. However, for the knowledge purposes, it becomes important to allow students to have divergent views of how biological organisms originated rather than subjecting them to the single view of the subject. One of the benefits of including the study into the science classes is to enable offer more insight to organisms beyond what is projected by the natural selection theory. It remains critical to evaluate the various aspects of origin to enable offer diversity and accommodate different opinions (Behe & Miller 277-78). According to Behe and Miller, a theory is often not a fact and is subject to any scientific challenge. Therefore, it is important to include intelligent design into public school curriculum since Darwin’s assertions do not offer ultimate authority. In this regard, the two authors argue that the existence of God does not offer any scientific connectivity but agrees that there are evident elements of design that justify the intelligent design assertion.
My central argument is that intelligent design should be included in public school science classes. This is syllogistic deductive argument. Here are the premises
There is no ultimate authority of truth in theories.
There is need for diversity in theoretical analogy.
The system should offer student diverse information.
Deductions
Intelligent design should be included in the public school science classes.
Work Cited
Behe, Michael J., William A. Dembski, Bruce L. Gordon, and John C. Sanford. "Front Matter." Biological Information (2013): 23-25. Web.
Behe, Michael J. "Miller. Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution." The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 1.2 (2001): 277-78. Web.
