See We're not religious nuts!.....

[Dark Moth]

simple logic

Science needs to be science.

Intelligent design is not science.

Thus intelligent design should not be taught in science.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think you're missing my point completely. What about those who staunchly believe in creationism, aka intelligent design, who would be forced to hear that their beliefs are wrong. Key word: offending. I think it's fine to teach intelligent design in schools ONLY if it's presented as a theory and not delved into. In other words, present the theory of ID in the classroom as an alternate theory and leave it at that, then go into evolution.

 

And you don't need to "present all sides" as long as you keep the intelligent design theory generic. In other words, make it applicable to any religion/belief.

[Commissar]

I think some people misinterpret why ID is being taught in schools in the first place.  While you could say that the right-wing is trying to impose religion on us through schools, I think a big reason is simply to avoid offending those who do believe in creationism (and that does not include just Christians).  If you teach evolution in schools as solid fact, someone with very strong religious ties might take offense to that (laugh at it if you want, but it would happen).  Basically, you'd be telling the person that his/her religion is wrong.  I think a big purpose here is to try to avoid controversy by simply presenting both sides of the issue. 

 

EDIT:  I believe Darkside is saying that she believes God created man through the process of evolution.  We did not evolve, in other words, through mere chance.  Some higher being jumpstarted evolution for us.  Am I right fellas?  I mean, am I right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It isn't science. It will never be science.

 

How many times do I have to explain this? It has nothing to do with fair. You can't teach Tolstoy in math class because Tolstoy's not math. You can't teach creationism in science class because, you guessed it, creationism isn't science.

[Commissar]

simple logic

Science needs to be science.

Intelligent design is not science.

Thus intelligent design should not be taught in science.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think you're missing my point completely. What about those who staunchly believe in creationism, aka intelligent design, who would be forced to hear that their beliefs are wrong. Key word: offending. I think it's fine to teach intelligent design in schools ONLY if it's presented as a theory and not delved into. In other words, present the theory of ID in the classroom as an alternate theory and leave it at that, then go into evolution.

 

And you don't need to "present all sides" as long as you keep the intelligent design theory generic. In other words, make it applicable to any religion/belief.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you're missing our point. It is not science. I'm sorry if people are offended by the current best scientific theory to explain human development, but maybe science just isn't for them.

[Dark Moth]

I'm getting your point just fine. You want to any shred of religion to be erased from the science classroom. Which is okay, but it's a lot easier for you to say, being an atheist. What about those who do hold religious values?

 

I think it's unfair and pretty dismissive of you to say science isn't for them. A lot of religious people have no problems with science. As I said earlier though, I think we should just present the thoery of ID and leave it at that. Don't actually delve into it (in other words, don't teach the theory in depth), just present the theory and leave it at that. Teach evolution, but try to keep it fair for all.

 

I think it has a lot to do with fair, thank you very much.

Edited November 11, 2005 by Mothman

[Commissar]

I think it has a lot to do with fair, thank you very much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Know what?

 

You're right. We should throw out the definition of a discipline simply because we don't like its conclusions.

 

I think our first step should be to go after Galileo.

[WITHTEETH]

simple logic

Science needs to be science.

Intelligent design is not science.

Thus intelligent design should not be taught in science.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think you're missing my point completely. What about those who staunchly believe in creationism, aka intelligent design, who would be forced to hear that their beliefs are wrong. Key word: offending. I think it's fine to teach intelligent design in schools ONLY if it's presented as a theory and not delved into. In other words, present the theory of ID in the classroom as an alternate theory and leave it at that, then go into evolution.

 

And you don't need to "present all sides" as long as you keep the intelligent design theory generic. In other words, make it applicable to any religion/belief.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Its not compatible to all religions. What about hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Humanism, scientiology. This is christianity imposing its will on a practice. Whats next, algebra?

ID is not a theory either. When in science, Scientific Theories are the closest things to facts as possible. We just don't call them facts because, humbly thats the best we have so far( that is my view anyway).

Christians that are for ID taught in science rooms are imposing there will on science when they have no ground. besides "The world is just to complex, so lets stop thinking" That is called a dark age.

[Dark Moth]

I think it has a lot to do with fair, thank you very much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Know what?

 

You're right. We should throw out the definition of a discipline simply because we don't like its conclusions.

 

I think our first step should be to go after Galileo.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Now you're just being silly. Have you even read my posts? I said nothing about throwing out a discipline.

 

@WITHTEETH: The theory of evolution works just fine with all the religions you mentioned. I'm talking about the other religions that do teach creationism like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. I think it's pretty disrespectful to just simply dismiss all those who might hold religous views on the subject. It may not be science, but almost all religions require a leap of faith.

 

I'll say it again: I believe both theories should be presented. However, of the two, I think evolution should be the one taught (keyword). For ID, my view is they should just present it as a theory, just to keep the field level. If people want ID taught in the classroom, they can take a religous study for that.

Edited November 11, 2005 by Mothman

[Commissar]

I think it has a lot to do with fair, thank you very much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Know what?

 

You're right. We should throw out the definition of a discipline simply because we don't like its conclusions.

 

I think our first step should be to go after Galileo.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Now you're just being silly. Have you even read my posts? I said nothing about throwing out a discipline.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is precisely what you're advocating. You're saying we ought to teach, in a science classroom, a theory that has absolutely no scientific merit.

[Deraldin]

I think it has a lot to do with fair, thank you very much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Know what?

 

You're right. We should throw out the definition of a discipline simply because we don't like its conclusions.

 

I think our first step should be to go after Galileo.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Now you're just being silly. Have you even read my posts? I said nothing about throwing out a discipline.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is precisely what you're advocating. You're saying we ought to teach, in a science classroom, a theory that has absolutely no scientific merit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No he isn't He's saying it should be mentioned, but not taught. There is a difference. You're not reading what he's actually saying.

[Commissar]

I think it has a lot to do with fair, thank you very much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Know what?

 

You're right. We should throw out the definition of a discipline simply because we don't like its conclusions.

 

I think our first step should be to go after Galileo.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Now you're just being silly. Have you even read my posts? I said nothing about throwing out a discipline.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is precisely what you're advocating. You're saying we ought to teach, in a science classroom, a theory that has absolutely no scientific merit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No he isn't He's saying it should be mentioned, but not taught. There is a difference. You're not reading what he's actually saying.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fine. Don't forget to mention the chain of events that led to World War I in math class.

[Dark Moth]

Fine.  Don't forget to mention the chain of events that led to World War I in math class.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Now you really are being silly. That example has no application whatsoever to the discussion.

[Commissar]

Fine.  Don't forget to mention the chain of events that led to World War I in math class.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Now you really are being silly. That example has no application whatsoever to the discussion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's an analogy. World War II is to math class as creationism is to science class.

 

And for the record, if you're even remotely religious, you do not want discussions of creationism happening in public schools.

[Diamond]

It is not the religion that is the issue, but rather a lack of scientific evidence. There is a number of theories out there, which are scientific, but they are not as widely accepted due to lack of scientific evidence.

[Jedi Master Dakari]

I think a big purpose here is to try to avoid controversy by simply presenting both sides of the issue.

 

Well said.

 

I believe in evolution, but not in the way "evolution" is most commonly known today. The term has been misinterpreted to mean "Darwinism", but Darwins theory used evolution, not created it.

 

I believe evolution in the sense that I believe that environments evolve over time. I believe that animals and mankind alike evolve (over time) to better suit their environment and climate. I do not believe that mankind oozed from a mud pool, then turned to some ape-creature, then evolved into its current state.

 

Let me also lay down some common sense to this discussion. To set the record straight, "Intelligent Design" does not advocate Christianity, or any other religion. This assumption comes from athiest (and like minded people) who want to feel a sense of authority in today's society.

 

I, myself, feel that to boycott things such as this (and make up claims of it being religious, when it is not) is closed-mindedly absurd, and shows only that individual's ignorance...and the ignorance of all who follow.

 

And for anyone's information (if anyone cares) I am from the south. I am a Christian, and am not ashamed, nor will I ever be made ashamed, to admit it. And I am sick and tired of the worn-out preassumptions that everyone seems to have of "the South".

 

To enlighten you weak-minded children, not everyone who lives in the southern regions are religious freak "rednecks". Also keep in mind that the fake accents you might hear on movies and television shows are just that...fake. They are performed by those who are not from the south, and who have very much the same views as you. Many - if not all - of it is extremely overdone. Most that have seen sound much like a Brit speaking cajun. It just doesn't work.

 

To educate you furthur...with the mass-media that exist today, cultural differences are becoming more and more diminished with every year.

 

And to conclude my minor fit of rage against stupidity...

For you to continuously berate others for having been born in an area seperate from yours, or for believing something other than what you believe, shows that your parents failed miserably in teaching you to not judge others.

 

P.S. I would also like someone to explain why the Bible has stated scientific fact, on many occasions, before science did.

Edited November 11, 2005 by Jedi Master Dakari

[WITHTEETH]

Schools aren't just for teaching this days? hmm, this is new. Now they have to forcefully mention Intelligent design so that kids won't go home confused, and ask their parents "Mom look, i learned an empirical explination for the origin of mankind, what empirical truth does christianity have?"

[Commissar]

It is not the religion that is the issue, but rather a lack of scientific evidence. There is a number of theories out there, which are scientific, but they are not as widely accepted due to lack of scientific evidence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And the argument being presented here is that it doesn't matter. Enough people believe in creationism, so in order to be fair to everybody, we have to mention it. Heaven forbid kids find out that every single scientist not on the Discovery Institute's payroll thinks their beliefs are dead wrong.

[Jedi Master Dakari]

In other words, present the theory of ID in the classroom as an alternate theory and leave it at that, then go into evolution.

 

Evolution, in the sence of Darwinism, is also theory.

 

And it should be taught as a theory, and nothing more. It is not fact, and it can never be proven as such.

[Commissar]

I think a big purpose here is to try to avoid controversy by simply presenting both sides of the issue.

 

Well said.

 

I believe in evolution, but not in the way "evolution" is most commonly known today. The term has been misinterpreted to mean "Darwinism", but Darwins theory used evolution, not created it.

 

I believe evolution in the sense that I believe that environments evolve over time. I believe that animals and mankind alike evolve (over time) to better suit their environment and climate. I do not believe that mankind oozed from a mud pool, then turned to some ape-creature, then evolved into its current state.

 

Let me also lay down some common sense to this discussion. To set the record straight, "Intelligent Design" does not advocate Christianity, or any other religion. This assumption comes from athiest (and like minded people) who want to feel a sense of authority in today's society.

 

I, myself, feel that to boycott things such as this (and make up claims of it being religious, when it is not) is closed-mindedly absurd, and shows only that individual's ignorance...and the ignorance of all who follow.

 

And for anyone's information (if anyone cares) I am from the south. I am a Christian, and am not ashamed, nor will I ever be made ashamed, to admit it. And I amd sick and tired of the worn-out preassumptions that everyone seems to have of "the South".

 

To enlighten you weak-minded children, the fake accents that you might hear on movies and television shows are just that...fake. They are performed by those who are not from the south, and who have very much the same views as you. Many - if not all - of it is extremely overdone. Most that have seen sound much like a Brit speaking cajun. It just doesn't work.

 

To educate you furthur...with the mass-media that exist today, cultural differences are becoming more and more diminished with every year.

 

And to conclude my minor fit of rage against stupidity...

For you to continuously berate others for having been born in an area seperate from yours, or for believing something other than what you believe, shows that your parents failed miserably in teaching you to not judge others.

 

P.S. I would also like someone to explain why the Bible has stated scientific fact, on many occasions, before science did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And you're missing the point as well. Creationism is not science. How many times am I going to have to say it?

 

I live in the South as well. Been here off and on for eight years. I've also lived all over. The South is pretty damn religious, and I can hear plenty of drawls whenever I care to.

[Dark Moth]

It's an analogy.  World War II is to math class as creationism is to science class. 

 

And for the record, if you're even remotely religious, you do not want discussions of creationism happening in public schools.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, you're wrong. The topic being discussed is how man came about, right? Science teaches man came about through evolution. ID teaches that man came about by some supernatural outside force. They are two radically different theories, but they are presenting both sides of the same topic.

 

World War II, however, has absolutely nothing to deal with math. If you're discussing functions in math, bringing up WWII won't help you one bit in determining the vertex of a parabula. It's a completely different, impertinent subject. They are two completely different things. They don't even discuss the same topic.

 

And once again: I believe both theories should be presented. However, of the two, I think evolution should be the one taught (keyword). For ID, my view is they should just present it as a theory, just to keep the field level. If people want ID taught in the classroom, they can take a religous study for that.

Edited November 11, 2005 by Mothman

[WITHTEETH]

Wow Jedi Master Dakari, Your a character.

Anyways...

[Commissar]

It's an analogy.  World War II is to math class as creationism is to science class. 

 

And for the record, if you're even remotely religious, you do not want discussions of creationism happening in public schools.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, you're wrong. The topic being discussed is how man came about, right? Science teaches man came about through evolution. ID teaches that man came about by some supernatural outside force. They are two radically different theories, but they are presenting both sides of the same topic.

 

World War II, however, has absolutely nothing to deal with math. If you're discussing functions in math, bringing up WWII won't help you one bit in determining the vertex of a parabula. It's a completely different, impertinent subject. They are two completely different things. They don't even discuss the same topic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Intelligent design is not science. World War II is not mathematics.

 

You know, I'm sorry, Mothman, but if you really can't understand how creationism does not meet the standards necessary to be considered a scientific theory, I really can't help you. I can tell you this, though: the Kansas school board recognized it couldn't possibly be considered science, and consequently changed the definition of science to suit the teaching of intelligent design. If creationism was good science, they wouldn't have needed to do that.

[Diamond]

No, you're wrong. The topic being discussed is how man came about, right? Science teaches man came about through evolution. ID teaches that man came about by some supernatural outside force. They are two radically different theories, but they are presenting both sides of the same topic.

Whereas evolution theory is backed by volumes of works and research by numeorus scientists, and intelligent design is backed by what?

 

It is simple - if it doesn't have SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, do not teach it. Because there is less probability of it being valid. That's why some SCIENTIFIC theories are not taught (not only in biology)

[Deraldin]

No, you're wrong. The topic being discussed is how man came about, right? Science teaches man came about through evolution. ID teaches that man came about by some supernatural outside force. They are two radically different theories, but they are presenting both sides of the same topic.

Whereas evolution theory is backed by volumes of works and research by numeorus scientists, and intelligent design is backed by what?

 

It is simple - if it doesn't have SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, do not teach it. Because there is less probability of it being valid. That's why some SCIENTIFIC theories are not taught (not only in biology)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No one here said anything about teaching Intelligent Design! It was suggested to mention it as an alternative that some people do believe in and then teach Evolution.

[Dark Moth]

Intelligent design is not science.  World War II is not mathematics. 

 

You know, I'm sorry, Mothman, but if you really can't understand how creationism does not meet the standards necessary to be considered a scientific theory, I really can't help you.  I can tell you this, though: the Kansas school board recognized it couldn't possibly be considered science, and consequently changed the definition of science to suit the teaching of intelligent design.  If creationism was good science, they wouldn't have needed to do that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think you're the one missing the point, and I think you're being unfairly dismissive with the whole thing. WWII has nothing to do with math, but ID does have something to do with presenting a theory as to how man came about. I'm well aware creationism is not science, nor has any evidence to back it up. But that's not the issue here. It's pretty easy for you to say being an atheist, but you're not thinking from other perspectives.

 

And I'll say it AGAIN:

I believe both theories should be presented. However, of the two, I think evolution should be the one taught (keyword). For ID, my view is they should just present it as a theory, and leave it. If people want ID taught in the classroom, they can take a religous study for that.

Edited November 11, 2005 by Mothman

[WITHTEETH]

And should evolution be presented in your sunday church as a valid possibility?

 

Faith is NOT a way to think, thus it has no place in schools.

 

faith [fayth]

(plural faiths)

noun

1. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof

2. religion religion or religious group: a system of religious belief, or the group of people who adhere to it

 

Microsoft

Edited November 11, 2005 by WITHTEETH