1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Why is this so hard? - intelligent design in schools

Discussion in 'The OT' started by n8dagr8, Jan 23, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jan 23, 2005 #1 of 175
    n8dagr8

    n8dagr8 Resident Rounder DBSTalk Gold Club

    1,837
    0
    Aug 14, 2004
    Like I've always stated...I have no objection to teaching evolution as the origin of life as a theory as long as intelligent design (creation) is also taught. Give the people a choice. No one can truly prove either. Naturally, when everything is laid out in a far way (students/teachers have the option to not teach/leave the room when creation is taught), someone must object that it is violating their rights and waste tax payers money and jam up the courts with lawsuits....guess the silent majority has no rights. :rolleyes:

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/01/19/evolution.debate.ap/index.html

    Biology teacher Jennifer Miller said although she was able to make a smooth transition to her evolution lesson after the statement was read, some students were upset that administrators would not entertain any questions about intelligent design.

    "They were told that if you have any questions, to take it home," Miller said.


    Bet they weren't given the option to leave/not teach when evolution was taught. :nono2:
     
  2. Jan 23, 2005 #2 of 175
    HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    I have no problem with teaching creationism or its newer designation "intelligent design", but not in a science class. Teach it in a class on religion as much as you want, but it does not and never will belong in a science class because it simply is not science.
     
  3. Jan 23, 2005 #3 of 175
    Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    I have no objection to teaching creation as the origin of life as a theory as long as Douglas Adams (bath taking travellers crash landing on Earth) is also taught. Give the people a choice.

    :nono2:

    Of course the trick is that Douglas Adams should be taught in literature class. Evolution in science class, and Intelligent Design in religion class. I object strongly to mixing one subject with the other. Why is this so hard? Because creationists insist on promoting their religion as science without going through the proper requirements for it to be considered true science.

    guess the silent majority has no rights.

    Just as the crazy parents who choose not to innoculate their kids can home school, so too can the "silent majority" who also choose to teach their kids something other than true science.
     
  4. Jan 23, 2005 #4 of 175
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    I believe that the creation stories of Native Americans and Buddhists should also be taught.
     
  5. Jan 23, 2005 #5 of 175
    pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    Not acceptable. First this is not a basic health issue. But more importantly - you neglect to mention that these parents are being taxed, heavily sometimes, for that public school - whether they feel the education being administered to their children is appropriate or not. There used to be a thing about taxation without representation as bad and schools taught kids needed skills like reading, math,... instead of philosophy (which is ultimately how evolution (perhaps better stated as human origins by evolution through natural selection only) is taught to kids).
     
  6. Jan 23, 2005 #6 of 175
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    I also pay taxes. I want my kids taught science in school, not religion. I will take care of their religious education at home and at church.
     
  7. Jan 23, 2005 #7 of 175
    SimpleSimon

    SimpleSimon Hall Of Fame

    5,468
    0
    Jan 15, 2004
    "Of course the trick is that Douglas Adams should be taught in literature class. Evolution in science class, and Intelligent Design in religion class."

    "I believe that the creation stories of Native Americans and Buddhists should also be taught."

    And Z. Sitchin needs to be taught, too ;) - Archeology class? His stuff makes a lot more sense than the "raw" Bible does. Try "Genesis Revisited" for a real nice go. ;)
     
  8. Jan 24, 2005 #8 of 175
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    :bang::nono2:

    Not ANOTHER evolution thread?

    n8, haven't you been paying attention?:scratch:

    Where does this idea that "evolution" cannot be proven come from anyway? There is probably no "theory" or "concept" or "principle", be it scientific, philosophical or religious, that is MORE PROVEN then evolution as originally postulated by Charles Darwin. There just simply is no controversy, certainly not among any who have taken the time to seriously study the matter.

    But forget all the empirical evidence, all the excrutiatingly detailed observations, experiments and research from everything from fossil analysis to DNA coding to molecular chemistry. Throw it all out and just look around you man!

    You seem a reasonable sort. Do you think it's an accident that all fish resemble each other in shape, internal organs and body structure? Is it just coincidence we bear striking resemblence to primates like chimpanzees and gorillas? Or closer to home, is it just serendipity your immediate family(cousins, aunts, uncles, etc.) have common traits like eye or hair color, or freckles? Shade of skin? General height, weight and body build? Would it be easy to differentiate your cousin or sister or daughter from someone of the same age in say, Africa or India?

    Organisms resemble each other because of common heritage, the DNA passed from parent to child. And the closer the heritage, the closer the resemblance. Your child resembles you more then the child in Bombay does, and all three of you resemble each other much more then the gorilla(mother-in-laws notwithstanding;)). And we and the gorillas look much more like each other then we do trout, for instance.

    And the same paradigm holds true for every organism, animal, plant and slime mold on this planet. IT'S BEEN CHECKED!!!(at least for EVERY organism we've had time to examine, and that's a mighty huge sampling)

    There is no such "proof" for "intelligent design". It is based solely on an assumption. And that assumption is "Some things are complicated and(to a simple mind) seem unlikely, therefore there must be a God".:hair: Their rallying cry is "IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY!" But so far anyway, there IS no such thing! Not a single ID argument or claim cannot be more simply and reasonably attributed to perfectly natural and logical chemical processes, and many have been duplicated in laborotories.

    Now, it is entirely possible some "creator" was involved somewhere back in the depths of history. No one is denying that. But, there is no scientific basis for such a conclusion. And what we're talking about here is SCIENCE CLASSES, not literature, or theology, or creative thinking classes.

    I outlined in another of the million or so threads on this subject, we are a "designing species", pretty much the ONLY one. We see patterns in nature and in man made objects and are confident we can always tell the difference. And for the most part, we can. But your dog doesn't look at a doornob and assume it's "designed", even though it may seem to worship what it perceives as the doornob's creator, you. But even then, your dog is probably wrong as you almost certainly didn't design and create the doornob.

    We might look at river deltas and volcanos and say "wow, that's a pretty neat, if sometimes violent and destructive, "design" to lay down fertile soil to grow crops in!" But are they intentional designs? Intelligent designs? Maybe yes if you believe God intentionally created water erosion and river deltas and volcanos expressly for that purpose. But even in that case it is an "intentionally designed natural process", just as evolution by all evidence appears to be. So should we teach in geology and geography classes that rivers deltas and volcanos are the result of "intelligent design"? This is the logic and rationale of advocates of teaching intelligent design in science class. There is no reason, certainly no scientific reason, to "assume" any of it except it reenforces an "assumption" of God.
     
  9. Jan 24, 2005 #9 of 175
    Spruceman

    Spruceman Legend

    234
    0
    Nov 21, 2004
    Intelligent Design could also mean a belief that one or more time, earth was visited by more highly developed lifeforms who manipulated the genetic makeups of one or more native species -- or "seeded" earth with one or alien species. While I don't believe that aliens go scooting around the earth in their flying saucers on a daily basis [interstellar distances are so great], I do think it's highly likely that we've been visited on occasion -- even if it's just once every ten thousand or one hundred thousand years.

    Maybe even the Noah's Ark story is a thousands of generations hand-me-down account of either (1) a craft carrying plants and animals (in whole or in genetic material only) from some endangered planet (or for research purposes) seeding earth, or (2) represented a wholesale destruction of life here "to correct mistakes" to start over with "new & improved" life.
     
  10. Jan 24, 2005 #10 of 175
    Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    Maybe even the Noah's Ark story is a thousands of generations hand-me-down account of either (1) a craft carrying plants and animals (in whole or in genetic material only) from some endangered planet (or for research purposes) seeding earth, or (2) represented a wholesale destruction of life here "to correct mistakes" to start over with "new & improved" life.

    You are back to the origins problem however. Even if life here on earth was seeded, or perhaps began by spores falling in from space (there was an interesting article in Discover Magazine a few months back about bacteria which contaminate our NASA labs, which can easily survive hard gamma radiation and vacuum), you still have to account for the origins of THAT life, and evolution still works for it as well.

    First this is not a basic health issue.

    Yeah, its not a basic health issue, but the fear involved for both is the same, caused by an unreasonable misunderstanding of science due to a willful lack of knowledge.

    As for taxes, its precisely because we do pay taxes to our schools that we should expect the BEST education from them. Creationists want science to not be taught as scientists desire it, but instead to have unpopular ideas watered down if they conflict with religious dogma. This is recognized today as being unacceptable in the days of Galileo, and its still unacceptable today.
     
  11. Jan 24, 2005 #11 of 175
    HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    So are non-parents like me.
    Wrong. The theory of evolution is science, it belongs in science class. It is appalling at the misinformation you dole out, especially considering you claim to be a scientist. You should be ashamed because you do know better.

    Again, teach creationism and its off-shoots in a religion class, but keep science for science. And regardless of your misinformation tactics, evolution theory IS science.
     
  12. Jan 24, 2005 #12 of 175
    djlong

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    4,343
    57
    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    If "creation science" were a science, it would adhere to principles of scientific review. that means coming up with a theory and telling all comers to try and shoot holes in it.

    Creationism starts with it's "theory" and invites people to come support it and ignore the compelling evidence to the contrary.
     
  13. Jan 24, 2005 #13 of 175
    pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    unfortunately that is what a lot of evolution does too. The basis is really teaching the theory of origins. Evolution as it is taught discounts and refuses to even acknowledge alternate views other than a purely random "creation" - which has been shown to be scientifically flawed. Evolution as presented in middle and high schools, is taught as much a combination of science and philosophy as any "creation science" presentation would be.
     
  14. Jan 24, 2005 #14 of 175
    HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    No, it isn't, at least not in any texts I've seen, and I've seen the most used ones.

    Creationism is NOT science, it does not come close to being science. It is religion and could be taught in a class on religion, but it nor any of its namesakes belongs in a science class.
     
  15. Jan 24, 2005 #15 of 175
    Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    which has been shown to be scientifically flawed

    Actually not. There has yet to be any criticism against evolution posted on this board that hasn't itself been proven to be seriously flawed.

    Thats not to say evolution doesn't have its flaws. There is still lots we don't know and gaps to be filled. But no flaw has appeared as yet which invalidates it.
     
  16. Jan 24, 2005 #16 of 175
    Spruceman

    Spruceman Legend

    234
    0
    Nov 21, 2004
    Hey! I have news for everyone. For the evolutionists and the creationists. The creationists will say that God created the Universe, Earth, and all life so 6000 years ago in a six-day span; [and on Saturday He rested because it rains every Saturday and God didn't want to get wet]. All those fossils, geological formations, carbon 14, etc are the works of the devil to make us think everything is really millions and billions of years old. Those of scientific bent will say things have been around over the past 14 billion years and evolved (if not creatively evolved) to what we are now.

    Well, everything we know today is the result of our sensory inputs -- sight, sound, smell, touch, taste, [ESP?]. Given that we are confined to our senses, you have no absolute proof that you have existed no longer than the past microsecond and all your memories and learnings were just popped into your brain -- if you have a body at all -- by some outside creator. Maybe the devil infected our senses with material to make us think everything's some 6000 years old or the universe is 14 billion years old.

    Maybe God created everything in six days just a few hundred years ago; and on day 7, he submitted a rain-soaked copy of the Bible to King James -- written in plain English of course, God's language! -- and said " Ye-all believe this regardless of what thy logic would dictateth, else ye shalt suffereth in that place I hast spent billions of years creating -- a place ye shalt calleth Hell!".
     
  17. Jan 24, 2005 #17 of 175
    Tusk

    Tusk Back in the Game DBSTalk Gold Club

    738
    1
    Nov 14, 2002
    Spruceman, I'll summarize your point since reading it gave me a headache.

    Religious people are stupid. See how fewer words that took. :rolleyes:
     
  18. Jan 24, 2005 #18 of 175
    dummyproof

    dummyproof Godfather

    326
    0
    Jan 30, 2004
    Amen! ...er I mean "right on!" :D





    ...though "ignorant hypocrite's" would be my choice of description.
     
  19. Jan 24, 2005 #19 of 175
    Tusk

    Tusk Back in the Game DBSTalk Gold Club

    738
    1
    Nov 14, 2002
    dummyproof, you must not have read many of my previous posts. :lol:

    I enjoy a good discussion of ideas and that's why I hang out in the Potpourri forums. However, the threads where a spiritual person (i.e. Christian) makes a statement and is immediately attacked by the atheists and agnostics of the board doesn't facilitate much discussion. The same holds true for statements by nonspiritual individuals who are immediately called sinners by the religious group.

    Can we all just slowdown a little and try to have discussions that don't result in name calling and snide remarks. When both sides approach the other with contempt, the intelligence of the conversation declines quickly. Just because you believe something that I don't doesn't make me think you're stupid. It just makes us different.

    That is all. :D
     
  20. Jan 24, 2005 #20 of 175
    dummyproof

    dummyproof Godfather

    326
    0
    Jan 30, 2004
    I stand by my "kinder", "gentler" afterthought in my post above.

    For the record once again
    ignorant
    ADJECTIVE:
    1.) Lacking education or knowledge.
    2.) Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
    3.) Unaware or uninformed.
    ********
    hypocrisy
    NOUN:
    1.) The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
    2.) An act or instance of such falseness.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page