Many people are not able to distinguish between what is science and what is not. As the result they easily conform to something without any solid evidence. The intelligent design movement is just an example of that. Intelligent design is defined as a frame of reference that locates the origin of organisms in an immaterial cause: in a blue print, a plan, a pattern, devised by an intelligent agent. It claims that life is too complex to have happened at random, that there had to be a designer, something that shaped how things were and went. It also argues that all organisms are composed of little mechanical parts that are purposefully arranged to fulfill a purpose. However, intelligent design cannot be considered as science. It is just politics and religion. More importantly, it should not be taught in our science class rooms. To sum it up, intelligent design is not science, it is a religious movement and it should not be taught under the heading of science in schools.
One of the most important reasons against intelligent design is that it is not science. It is not considered science because it is not testable. Intelligent design claims that organisms appear abruptly, or unrelated and linked to only their designer. No evidence has been observed in nature, where organisms appeared from nowhere. It is impossible to proof it. In fact, fossil transitions have been found that confirm that organisms have evolved through a long period of time, rather than appear suddenly. Intelligent design also uses irreducible complexity to explain that organisms have not evolved because they are too complex. In fact a simple organism is made out of hundreds of millions of DNA codes. Furthermore, it states that if any part of an organisms is missing it cannot function. The bacterial flagellum is used to support irreducible complexity. This is so, because it could not have evolved since all parts have to be resembled for natural selection to act on. The bacterial flagellum is composed of fifty parts. It has a tail that acts like a motor, which the bacterium uses to swim through liquids. With reference to irreducible complexity, if any of those parts are missing it cannot function. However, a bacteria syringe which has only ten out of the fifty parts, still functions. It may not serve the function of swimming through liquids, but it still serves a function. In fact the bacteria syringe is used to transmit diseases. With reference to the definition of irreducible complexity, we can conclude that the theory of irreducible complexity fails! Another law; the Law of Conservation of Information is also used to proof intelligent design. According to this law, the number of bits of information cannot alter in natural processes such as chance or the operation of some physical law. The problem with this theory is that it only focuses on complex specified information; meaning that it is only focused on closed systems. In closed systems-operation of physical laws- the information is constant. However, for chance to act there must be no limitation. As intelligent design claims that organisms appear at random-new information-in a closed system, it violates the Law of Conservation of Information. Therefore, we can say that intelligent design fails again in terms of science. In addition, intelligent design claims that everything was design by a designer. A counter argument for this would be; who designed the designer? Again, the intelligent design theory is based on theoretical explanations, rather than theoretical tests. Moreover a theory that is considered as scientific has very large bodies of information, backed up with well supported experiments. It is tested over and over and over again! Therefore, intelligent design is absolutely not considered science since it cannot be tested. In short, intelligent design is not considered scientific because it cannot be tested, irreducible complexity fails and it is only based on theoretical explanations.
Intelligent design is considered as a religious and political movement, which tries to re-christianize the society. It is a modern variation of the arguments from the basis of creationism; intelligent design. These arguments tell nothing really new and are just restatements in a more sophisticated language. Moreover it is considered a religious movement because it has a lot of similarities with creationism. First of all, the most obvious difference is that in the book Genesis they call the creator "God" and in intelligent design they call it an "Intelligent Agent". Moreover, both have the same goal in mind; to overthrow Evolution and to reduce the amount of secularism and philosophical materialism in our societies. For instance, both claim that there are gaps in fossil records which the scientist cannot explain and therefore evolution does not work. Also intelligent design is seen as a political movement. Furthermore, since creationism is rejected by most universities and educated members of the society, it has been reintroduced in a modern type; intelligent design. Moreover, the name itself "intelligent design" appeals to the young and educated members of the society. Therefore, it would have a greater success of attracting the young generations. Basically, it is a new strategy to attract the academic community. In addition, intelligent design is not only supported by scientist but by political leaders as well. For example, George Bush is a strong supporter of the intelligent design movement. In fact, he has been proposing to introduce intelligent design into the class rooms in the United States of America. All in all, intelligent design is considered a religious movement because it has many similarities with creationism. Also it is regarded as a political movement because of the strategy which tries to attract the young and find itself a spot in the academic world.
Although, intelligent design wants to be part of the academic world, we should not allow it. We must be particularly careful of keeping intelligent design out of our public school science classes. It may be taught in private and parochial schools, since they are not funded by the government. Hence, they can teach whatever they want to. As the result, we find creationism taught in many science classes in private and parochial schools. However, when we consider the public school system, it is totally different. For instance, most of the students attend public school because they cannot finically afford private schools. They do not have another source of education available to them than the public system. Thus, everyone must have the same right of education. More importantly, since intelligent design is creationism restated in a different way it is unconstitutional to teach a specific religion in public schools. Nonetheless, it improperly promotes one religious view. One might argue that it is not fair to teach a single religion in public schools. This could result in having multiple religions in public schools. It is not right to expose children to many religious and scientific views because they are not yet mature enough to distinguish of what is right for them. They will become psychologically ill, and as the result get confused of what is right and what is wrong. It may lead to a catastrophe. However, when we come across a higher schooling, such as universities, it is a different story. The students are at a different age and maturity. It may be appropriate to discuss intelligent design because the students can come up on their own to see what is wrong with it. All in all, why would you teach your children something that is known to be false is true? Intelligent design does not have anything positive to offer to the students. It is a negative argument and one cannot use it explain the world around us. Intelligent design claims that evolution has gaps, therefore the designer did it. Evolution does not work, therefore it wins by default. It does not tell us anything about the nature. It does not tell us who the designer is or what it did. Therefore, it would not benefit the students. To teach science is to teach the methods of scientific reasoning and to deeply examine it. Additionally, the basic of education is to provide students a true picture of the natural world around us. Again intelligent design does not correspond to the goal of the educational institution. The intelligent design movement has been mostly observed in the United States of America. In the same way, intelligent design should not be allowed in the schools in the states. Clearly, it has been observed that Canada has been influenced a lot by the United States of America. Pursuing this further, if intelligent design were allowed in public schools in the states, it may be catastrophic for the citizens of Canada. Intelligent design may soon find itself a spot in our science classes. Furthermore, the intelligent design movement should be stopped as soon as possible before it argues its way toward the academic world. To sum it up, intelligent design should not be allowed in science classes because it improperly promotes one religion. Moreover, we must keep in mind that the greater majority of the society attends public schools. Therefore, we must offer everyone the same right to education. Most importantly, the children in public schools are not mature enough to see for themselves what is wrong with intelligent design.
In final consideration, we can conclude without any hesitation that the intelligent design theory is not science. Many reasons are given against it. Moreover, it improperly uses scientific laws. It is just based on arguments, rather than experiments and tests. Equally important, the intelligent design movement is considered a political and religious movement. It is basically, a different version of creationism. From a political point of view, creationism wants to find itself a place in the academic world. Consequently, intelligent design should not be allowed in public school science classes. This is so, because it is not right to base education on a specific religion. Evidently, it is a negative argument that does not have anything positive to offer to the society. Therefore, why let something that is unintelligent into our education system. At this level, we can conclude that we must be very careful when considering something as science and whether it should be allowed into our public educational system.