1. Joined
    03 Mar '05
    Moves
    21495
    11 Oct '05 17:351 edit
    lately in America there has been a big push by Christian Fundamentalists to get "Intelligent Design" taught in schools as an alternative theory to evolution. It's basically "creationism" in a new suit. it's part of a surge in evangelical christianity that is growing rabidly here.

    my question is- is this happening in Europe? the UK? anywhere else?

    [Edit]for reference: http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051011/tc_usatoday/thewholeworldfromwhosehands
  2. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    12 Oct '05 15:321 edit
    Originally posted by Darth Sponge
    lately in America there has been a big push by Christian Fundamentalists to get "Intelligent Design" taught in schools as an alternative theory to evolution. It's basically "creationism" in a new suit. it's part of a surge in evangelical christianity that is growing rabidly here.

    my question is- is this happening in Europe? the UK? anywhere ...[text shortened]... for reference: http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051011/tc_usatoday/thewholeworldfromwhosehands
    Not in the uK to my knowledge, if it were, I woul dhave to quit my job, using RHP, learning philosophy and guitar playing to go and kick some serious *ss! Full time!
  3. Et in Arcadia ego...
    Joined
    02 Feb '05
    Moves
    1666
    12 Oct '05 15:39
    Originally posted by Darth Sponge
    lately in America there has been a big push by Christian Fundamentalists to get "Intelligent Design" taught in schools as an alternative theory to evolution. It's basically "creationism" in a new suit. it's part of a surge in evangelical christianity that is growing rabidly here.

    my question is- is this happening in Europe? the UK? anywhere ...[text shortened]... for reference: http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051011/tc_usatoday/thewholeworldfromwhosehands
    That's not very fair, Darth- you are making the theory less plausible by misspelling it in the title of this thread. For shame.
  4. Calgary
    Joined
    02 May '05
    Moves
    228
    12 Oct '05 16:04
    Originally posted by Starrman
    Not in the uK to my knowledge, if it were, I woul dhave to quit my job, using RHP, learning philosophy and guitar playing to go and kick some serious *ss! Full time!
    Likewise here in Canada. Don't hear much about it, though the Calgary herald did a special on it.

    The fact that I don't hear to much about it is odd, since I live in the so-called "bible belt" of Canada.
  5. Gangster Land
    Joined
    26 Mar '04
    Moves
    20732
    12 Oct '05 16:12
    Originally posted by Canadaguy
    Likewise here in Canada. Don't hear much about it, though the Calgary herald did a special on it.

    The fact that I don't hear to much about it is odd, since I live in the so-called "bible belt" of Canada.
    It does my heart good to hear that the US is not the only country that must suffer through such a 'belt'.

    TheSkipper
  6. Joined
    03 Mar '05
    Moves
    21495
    12 Oct '05 19:01
    Originally posted by sjeg
    That's not very fair, Darth- you are making the theory less plausible by misspelling it in the title of this thread. For shame.
    um, yeah... whoops. well, biology class taught me that nature is full of mistakes that will never survive. just trying to throw out as many spore as possible before expiring personally... and like nature, i type fast and i was kinda pissed off after reading this article.

    and really i should've titled the thread something else- like Fundamentalist Christianity in the UK? Canada? Europe? because i'm curious primarily to determine if this is an American toxicity or if this poison is being bred elsewhere.

    i'm about to post another question about Bush's latest appointment to the supreme court. She is not a judge and has never been a judge. SHe's his personal lawyer and he says today that he appointed her Because she's a born again Christian. sounds qualified to me
  7. Standard memberOmnislash
    Digital Blasphemy
    Omnipresent
    Joined
    16 Feb '03
    Moves
    21533
    13 Oct '05 06:15
    As I have stated before in other threads of this topic, the teaching of ID is relative. I think it is fine and well to teach it in proper context. It is asinine to consider teaching it in a science class, as ID by its very nature is devoid of empirical evidence. I think it is good to teach the ID theory, but in the context of a class which relates to theology (such as world culture, etc.). I think it is important to expose our youths to both of the concepts, as both will influence them in their adult lives (directly or indirectly).

    It is laughable for ID proponents to push for it to be taught in the science class, and likewise rediculous for evolution proponents to attempt to remove it from the schools entirely. Both theories have merit and we should let these young minds come to their own conclusions without the interference of special interests attempting to filter their education.

    Best Regards,
    Omnislash
  8. Joined
    03 Mar '05
    Moves
    21495
    13 Oct '05 06:51
    Originally posted by Omnislash
    As I have stated before in other threads of this topic, the teaching of ID is relative. I think it is fine and well to teach it in proper context. It is asinine to consider teaching it in a science class, as ID by its very nature is devoid of empirical evidence. I think it is good to teach the ID theory, but in the context of a class which relates to theol ...[text shortened]... rference of special interests attempting to filter their education.

    Best Regards,
    Omnislash
    yeah, you're right. they should both be taught. kids should have all the info, all the data and make their own conclusions.

    you clued me into how i was taking a close minded approach to this. thanks Omnislash.
  9. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    13 Oct '05 07:03
    Originally posted by Omnislash
    It is laughable for ID proponents to push for it to be taught in the science class, and likewise rediculous for evolution proponents to attempt to remove it from the schools entirely. Both theories have merit and we should let these young minds come to their own conclusions without the interference of special interests attempting to filter their education.

    Best Regards,
    Omnislash
    What are the chances of your balanced, rational approach to this issue being taken up by the proponents of ID? Isn't the science class exactly where they want to put their subject?
  10. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    13 Oct '05 07:092 edits
    Originally posted by Omnislash
    As I have stated before in other threads of this topic, the teaching of ID is relative. I think it is fine and well to teach it in proper context. It is asinine to consider teaching it in a science class, as ID by its very nature is devoid of empirical evidence. I think it is good to teach the ID theory, but in the context of a class which relates to theol ...[text shortened]... rference of special interests attempting to filter their education.

    Best Regards,
    Omnislash
    ...and likewise rediculous for evolution proponents to attempt to remove it from the schools entirely. Both theories have merit...

    ID has "merit"? then so does flying spaghetti monsterism. i can only conclude that it must likewise be ridiculous for evolution proponents to attempt to deprive these young minds of the chance to be touched in special ways by His Noodly Appendage.

    what gives ID more "merit" than flying spaghetti monsterism? why is it ridiculous to attempt to remove one entirely from schools and not the other?

    why not also have a class or two on Intelligent Falling? better add it to the curriculum early on in the schooling process too, lest these young minds actually get fooled into assigning too much merit to the normal concept of gravity.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Falling
  11. Standard memberOmnislash
    Digital Blasphemy
    Omnipresent
    Joined
    16 Feb '03
    Moves
    21533
    13 Oct '05 07:10
    Originally posted by Darth Sponge
    yeah, you're right. they should both be taught. kids should have all the info, all the data and make their own conclusions.

    you clued me into how i was taking a close minded approach to this. thanks Omnislash.
    I was not aware that you had a closed mind on the matter, but if you found my post to be of value then I am honored and happy to have helped. 🙂
  12. Standard memberOmnislash
    Digital Blasphemy
    Omnipresent
    Joined
    16 Feb '03
    Moves
    21533
    13 Oct '05 07:17
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    What are the chances of your balanced, rational approach to this issue being taken up by the proponents of ID? Isn't the science class exactly where they want to put their subject?
    The chances? In my opinion: slim to none.

    We live in a world full of "extremists". Much of what you hear in the news today of "IDers" pushing for it to be taught in public schools comes from the extremists. A great many IDers (most?) are simply happy to have their ideas given serious consideration. As an IDer myself, let me tell you that I would be quicker to complain about ID being taught in science class than I would be to complain about its absence in the cirriculum. Neither scenario is good, but I think it would be better to simply ignore a theory than to have it taugh incorrectly (i.e. theology theory as a scientific theory).

    Just my two cents.
  13. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    13 Oct '05 07:21
    Originally posted by Omnislash
    I think it would be better to simply ignore a theory than to have it taugh incorrectly (i.e. theology theory as a scientific theory).
    Does ID draw on older traditions such as sacred geometry?
  14. Standard memberOmnislash
    Digital Blasphemy
    Omnipresent
    Joined
    16 Feb '03
    Moves
    21533
    13 Oct '05 07:37
    Originally posted by LemonJello
    [b]...and likewise rediculous for evolution proponents to attempt to remove it from the schools entirely. Both theories have merit...

    ID has "merit"? then so does flying spaghetti monsterism. i can only conclude that it must likewise be ridiculous for evolution proponents to attempt to deprive these young minds of the chance to be touched in sp ...[text shortened]... much merit to the normal concept of gravity.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Falling[/b]
    .........speaking of extremists.

    If I am unaware of the influence of "flying spaghetti monsterism" in history, theology, world culture and sociology (to name a few) it must be because a proponent of some conflicting theorum had it removed from my cirriculum.

    This is terrible! This mandates that I am handicapped in my social skills and comprehension of the world around me. I will never understand why much of history occured as it did, nor what people belive in, nor how cultures around the world function. If you would be so kind as to educate me in how this "flying spaghetti monsterism" has influenced these subjects, I would greatly appreciate it. This is exactly the kind of knowledge filtering I am against, and I shall write a letter to my education officials as soon as you educate me in the subject.

    Best Regards,
    Omnislash

    p.s. 😛
  15. Standard memberOmnislash
    Digital Blasphemy
    Omnipresent
    Joined
    16 Feb '03
    Moves
    21533
    13 Oct '05 07:42
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    Does ID draw on older traditions such as sacred geometry?
    My understanding of the history and/or concept of sacred geometry is insufficient for me to answer your question definitively. I suppose one could correlate them (if it is not historically apparent). I would certainly be interested in learning about such a correlation (and just plain more about sacred geometry for that matter 😀 ). Again, my knowledge on the subject is small. Perhaps it would make an interesting thread....😉
Back to Top