Originally posted by OmnislashMost of the organizations that I know of that are currently fighting ID have no problems with it being presented in a philosophy or humanities class. They just don't think it should be in the science class.
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
ID Creationists wouldn't stand for it being taught in humanities because then their religion would be given the same standing as all the others. Instead they insist on it being taught in science class because that's been the whole plan for over 10 years now. Undermine evolution today; get genesis back in tomorrow. Next they can push mandatory prayer and bible reading back into school too. Maybe next ban color TV, and then golly wouldn't things be just like the good ole days?
Originally posted by telerionyes, this is the problem. i realized earlier that i was being closed minded about it in so far that i want to stamp out ID in the same way IDers want to stamp out evolution. and aquiesed to the suggestion that they both be taught. and not just ID, but other creation myths as well, but now i realize that most IDers are not going to stand for their myth to be called a "myth" and then to be put on par with other "myths".... and then to have another creation story told with facts and evidence...no, this is not something that most IDers want.
[
ID Creationists wouldn't stand for it being taught in humanities because then their religion would be given the same standing as all the others. Instead they insist on it being taught in science class because that's been the whole plan for over 10 years now. Undermine evolution today; get genesis back in tomorrow. Next they can push mandatory prayer an ...[text shortened]... l too. Maybe next ban color TV, and then golly wouldn't things be just like the good ole days?[/b]
but i think one of the problems is a belief in totalizing world-views. many people want to believe that ONE thing is correct, to the incorrectness of everything else, which simply isn't true. science's narrative explains quite a bit and is based on rational observation of phenomena, but there are questions that can't be answered through science. we need mythology to provide us with a answer to the question "why"- why are we here? science can't answer that one. science can tell us "how" it all works, but not provide a reason and purpose to life, which is what religion and mythology have done for all cultures since we touched the big black monolith with our calloused monkeypaws.
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Intelligent Design - A religious belief based upon an intelligent designer.
Theory of Evolution - A scientific theory that fits all evidence discovered to this point.
They are not the same!
Actually, the theory of evolution does not fit all scientific discoveries to date. In fact, geological evolutionists are continually arguing with socio-ev ...[text shortened]... cide. Anyone who thinks evolution is a 'slam dunk' because of 'science' is deluding themselves.
Originally posted by The FoxPlease actually make a post instead of adding to quotes.
Anyway, Evolution fits the evidence remarkably well, why don't you post the scientific problems with it instead of just always asserting they exist. Evolution works better than any other theory or idea, and one of its important features is that it can explain things without resorting to magic or all powerful beings to explain everything. Even when there is some disagreement about evolution, most people agree that it is possible, they argue about whether it actually happened or not. By definition it takes faith even to believe that creation is possible. And there is much more evidence contrary to creatation than to evolution. I'm curious what parts of evolution you think rely on faith?
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowCreation is a impossibility. Where've you been? 😞
Please actually make a post instead of adding to quotes.
Anyway, Evolution fits the evidence remarkably well, why don't you post the scientific problems with it instead of just always asserting they exist. Evolution works better than any other theory or idea, and one of its important features is that it can explain things without resorting to ma ...[text shortened]... to creatation than to evolution. I'm curious what parts of evolution you think rely on faith?
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowRE: "If you aren't aware, ID is passed off as a new idea, it isn't specifically about the christian god."
That is because the one true religion of Spaghetti and Pulsar Activating Meatballs (SPAM) has kept the flying spaghetti monster sect out of schools. The holy trinity of spaghetti, meatballs, and the omnipresent sauce will prevail. If you aren't aware, ID is passed off as a new idea, it isn't specifically about the christian god. It has had no mor ...[text shortened]... roved it should be taught as the long standing and widely accepted scientific theory that it is.
Formost, I am well aware that their exist concepts of ID that are not tied to the Christian god. I have never claimed otherwise. I am well aware of how SOME proponents of ID are presenting the theory these days. Why would you think otherwise?
RE: "It has had no more influence on history than the FSM."
I gather from your statement here that no culture based around a theology of ID has made any influence on history. I feel no need to debate this, as it is as absurd a notion as I have heard in quite some time. Perhaps this is not what you meant by your statement. Feel free to expound for my clarification.
RE: "Religion should not ever be taught in public schools."
Why? Not PC?
RE: "I have no problem with taking your kids to church or whatever, but lets not try to discredit science in general in the science classroom."
Going to church, not going to church, believing in anything lacking in empirical evidence (FSM not withstanding) has nothing to do with the matter. Belief in such a thing does not necessitate any sort of descredit to science. Teaching subjects which are not scientific does not necessitate the discredit of science. What next, no art class?
What's this about the "science classroom"!? As to where I think ID should be taught, please refer to the last 30 post I've made on the subject this month, as I refuse to repeat myself again on this matter.
RE: "Science should always be looked at and theories discarded if they no longer fit the evidence suffciently, but this is not yet the case with evolution, and until it is disproved it should be taught as the long standing and widely accepted scientific theory that it is."
Well, we do agree on something. 😀
Seriously, we are some so afraid of ID being taught in schools in an appropriate context? Why must ID and evolution be considered conflicting theories? Evolution is the culmination of our science, ID the greater part of our historical beliefs. I want my kids to know about BOTH!
Best Regards,
Omnislash
Originally posted by telerionMy friend, I again turn my mind to extremists. I think it is apparent that there are extremists on both the ID and evolution side of things, both intent on subverting the other. Whatever happend to live and let live, eh? (sigh) 😞
Most of the organizations that I know of that are currently fighting ID have no problems with it being presented in a philosophy or humanities class. They just don't think it should be in the science class.
ID Creationists wouldn't stand for it being taught in humanities because then their religion would be given the same standing as all the others. ...[text shortened]... l too. Maybe next ban color TV, and then golly wouldn't things be just like the good ole days?
Oh, and if you could PM me or post in the forum some of the organizations that are fighting the teaching of ID in science class I would appreciate it. I would like to lend them support if I can.
Best Regards,
Omnislash
Originally posted by OmnislashA couple of the top of my head, the ACLU and American United for the Seperation of Church and State (both counsel in the Dover, Pennsylvania case). I think the Council for Secular Humanism supports this view as well though I'll have to check on that. Also I believe most for the (Insert State) Citizens for Science do as well.
My friend, I again turn my mind to extremists. I think it is apparent that there are extremists on both the ID and evolution side of things, both intent on subverting the other. Whatever happend to live and let live, eh? (sigh) 😞
Oh, and if you could PM me or post in the forum some of the organizations that are fighting the teaching of ID in science cl ...[text shortened]... I would appreciate it. I would like to lend them support if I can.
Best Regards,
Omnislash
I really haven't met that many people concerned about the issue that want ID kept out of the science classroom as well as any philosophy, history, or humanities class.
I think it is difficult to argue that it doesn't at least belong in a current events class. 🙂
Originally posted by Omnislashexcuse me, but didn't you hear of the concept supposedly held
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
in high regard in SOME branches of the US government, called
'separation of church and state'? By allowing ANY mention of
ID, creationism or any of that you are clearly crossing the line into
foisting a state religion on people. ID never will have a place in a
truly open minded science class where the emphasis is on science.
There is no science of ID. It is merely the latest of a series of
attempts to foist religion on malleable people in high school.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOf course, just like Jehovah witness dudes used to cram their foot
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?
in the door when you opened it a crack when they came calling.
They learned that trick from door to door salesmen.
So it goes with ID'ers. Get their foot stuck in the door, maybe they
can strike down the whole establishment of science and get back to
the true belief, fundamentalists forever.....