Intelligent Design - yea or nay?

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:45 am

OK. So a judge ruled that Intelligent Design can not be taught in PA. public school biology class.

OK. I am not dumb - I understand the whole seperation of Church and State thing. I have stated before that while I am not religious, I believe in God.

It seems to me that the purpose of our schools is to teach our children things. I honestly believe that teaching Intelligent Design next to the theory of evolution gives our children a better, more rounded education.

I also think that high school students should have to take a world religions class. Explaining the beliefs of different cultures/religions can only help our young people to be better people. In this melting pot known as the United States of America - having a basic understanding of different religions would help the next generation be more understand of people of other religions.

It also seems to me like PUBLIC schools are just that - PUBLIC. Not GOVERNMENT schools.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:54 am

And what (not to mention WHO) determines which religions and which aspects of those religions are taught? When a decision is reached, how many other religions will come forward and gripe about being left out? Sounds like a recipe for lots of offense to be taken or inferred.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:30 am

I think the school boards would get bent out of shape if teachers stressed too strongly that the theory of evolution is a Theory, not fact.

Notice how it becomes a national issue even though each state is supposed to control its own schools? Hmmm

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:46 am

In this day and age, people are offended at the drop of a dime, so I don't think that a world's religions class in high school will ever happen.

As for which religions would be included in that class - I was just thinking of the major ones - Christianity, Muslim, Buddists and I am sure there are others.

I would be interested to know if religions, if any, are taught in Japan and other countries that continually pump out kids that are more educated then those that graduate from the public school systems in the U.S.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:51 am

I know as a social studies teacher, we have a unit on 3 religions: Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Someone always gets offended when I teach one of them, no matter how politically correct we are.

When I taugh science, I taught Creationism, as well as evolution. I was never told anything negative about that though.

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 6:35 am

In a word nea, nea and nea again! I think you could teach creationism in a religion class dealing with the belief of fundamentalist Christians, but not in a science class, because put simply creationism and the intelligent design thing are not about science they are about religion, and that should be stressed very vigourously. Well, I for one am delighted at this latest ruling, as it seems at last that someone in authority in the states is standing up for science and rationalism, and that can only be a good thing in my opinion.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 6:41 am

Galbally wrote: In a word nea, nea and nea again! I think you could teach creationism in a religion class dealing with the belief of fundamentalist Christians, but not in a science class, because put simply creationism and the intelligent design thing are not about science they are about religion, and that should be stressed very vigourously. Well, I for one am delighted at this latest ruling, as it seems at last that someone in authority in the states is standing up for science and rationalism, and that can only be a good thing in my opinion.I hate to break it to ya, but creationism isn't exclusive to fundamentalist Christians. What is the harm you see in telling students that some people don't believe the theory of evolution is correct?

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 6:50 am

Is there a religion that doesn't think that man was created by a "supreme being"?

I really do think that teaching our children both theories is a good thing. How in the world can our children be harmed by learning more? NO, it is not the schools place to indoctinate my child into a religion, but teaching him/her that there is more then one way to think about things can do nothing but good.

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:47 am

Accountable wrote: 1. I hate to break it to ya, but creationism isn't exclusive to fundamentalist Christians.

2. What is the harm you see in telling students that some people don't believe the theory of evolution is correct?1. I don't believe you are correct here. Who else promotes such nonsense? Fundamentalist Muslims? Perhaps.

2. That species evolve into other species over time is a FACT. There are various THEORIES (not 'THE theory'), as to exactly how this occurs.

LilacDragon wrote: 1. Is there a religion that doesn't think that man was created by a "supreme being"?

2. I really do think that teaching our children both theories is a good thing.

3. How in the world can our children be harmed by learning more?

4. NO, it is not the schools place to indoctinate my child into a religion...1. Yes, there are quite a few. Unitarianism, Confucianism, Ethical Culture, and several others.

2. The point is, Lil, the proponents of ID are attempting to present it as SCIENCE, and it is not science, it is religion pure and simple. Hence, they are liars. Since they lie about their own motivation, how can they be expected to tell the truth about matters of scientific fact? No one is suggesting that ID should not be taught as religion; in fact, I personally believe in intelligent design. I believe it as a matter of religious faith, but not as science, nor is there the least doubt in my mind that the universe is many billions of years old and the plant and animal species have been evolving for several billions of those years, things that many proponents of ID deny.

3. They can't, but matters of fact should be taught as fact, matters of faith as religion. That is the central issue here.

4. Here we agree completely!

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:34 am

Accountable wrote: I hate to break it to ya, but creationism isn't exclusive to fundamentalist Christians. What is the harm you see in telling students that some people don't believe the theory of evolution is correct?

I agree that creationism is not an exclusively Christian idea, though it is a very popular idea with certain protestant christian sects at the moment. My real point is that creationism or intelligent design should not be taught as part of a scientific curriculum as these are fundametally not scientific ideas, they are religious ones and should be taught as part of religious studies, to which I have no objection at all. I just don't think that the 2 ideas of science and religion shoud be confused or taught as if they are similar, they are not.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:41 pm

Bronwen wrote: 1. I don't believe you are correct here. Who else promotes such nonsense? Fundamentalist Muslims? Perhaps.

2. That species evolve into other species over time is a FACT. There are various THEORIES (not 'THE theory'), as to exactly how this occurs.

1. I'm no scholar, but I'm pretty sure that most cultures have lore about how man was created. The theory of evolution is a very recent idea.

B. It is known as the theory of evolution, not the law evolution and its theories why.

III. So that you're aware, I personally don't give two hoots how God saw fit to bring us into being. He did it, and that's enough for me.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:13 pm

Amazingly, 63% of the US population believes that we all sprang into existance a few thousand years ago from two human beings. Despite obvious inbreeding evidence, despite the fossil record, despite homind skeletons millions of yers old.

Hey...despite the fact that orangutangs look and act just like little people!

For some stupid reason, people can't seem to understand that science, and specifically evolution, can exist side by side.

They think that if a beautiful, complicated, millenia-long process created us, then that means that God doesn't exist. Sheesh! The dedicated blindness is still the same, and has been since they all tried to burn Galileo for pointing out that we go around the Sun and not the other way around.

Why couldn't God have set up evolution, just as he set up every other process in the Universe including gravity?

It's really pretty simple, Religion tries to explain why we are here.

Science tries to explain how we got here.

Evolution is a proven fact. Now get over it.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:16 pm

Accountable wrote: The theory of evolution is a very recent idea.

Recent, like the theory of the atom, and the theory of DNA. But you don't have a problem with them, do you?

B. It is known as the theory of evolution, not the law evolution and its theories why.

It's only a theory because we can't prove it's true on other worlds. That'll change soon enough. We've proved it's true many, many times over on this planet.

So that you're aware, I personally don't give two hoots how God saw fit to bring us into being. He did it, and that's enough for me.

Said the Ostrich, then promptly plunged his head into the sand again.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:28 pm

Jives wrote: Recent, like the theory of the atom, and the theory of DNA. But you don't have a problem with them, do you?

It's only a theory because we can't prove it's true on other worlds. That'll change soon enough. We've proved it's true many, many times over on this planet.

Said the Ostrich, then promptly plunged his head into the sand again.

Sorry to put the bur under your saddle. No, I don't have a problem with DNA, the atom, or evolution. I also don't have a problem with this subject being as important to you as it apparently is. I'm marginally curious why you seem to have a problem with my acceptance of God's gift horse without looking it in the mouth, but not overly so.

I believe that the argument between evolution and creation does not determine whether God exists, and is therefore not really important.

czar · Post by **czar** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:54 pm

If they really need to be taught about God why can't they go to caticisam/conformation. They could learn everything about God there. They don't want to teach about the bible in school because as of right now it's all a story carried down by generations. There's no real proof that all these miracles happened, only in text. Stories change over time, that's why there are so many versions of what happened. If it's taught in school you should have a choice, that or study hall.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:04 pm

czar wrote: If they really need to be taught about God why can't they go to caticisam/conformation. They could learn everything about God there. They don't want to teach about the bible in school because as of right now it's all a story carried down by generations. There's no real proof that all these miracles happened, only in text. Stories change over time, that's why there are so many versions of what happened. If it's taught in school you should have a choice, that or study hall.I gotta agree with ya there, Czar. The churches need to step up their recruitment efforts if they really want to make a difference, rather than trying to force the gov't to do their teaching for them.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:05 pm

Accountable wrote: you seem to have a problem with my acceptance of God's gift horse without looking it in the mouth, but not overly so.

God's greatest gift is intelligence and life. Intelligence implies curiousity. It's you who are turning your back on God's gift, not I.

We shouldn't just "accept" anything. We should be seeking more and more answers, all the time.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:09 pm

Jives wrote: God's greatest gift is intelligence and life. Intelligence implies curiousity. It's you who are turning your back on God's gift, not I.

We shouldn't just "accept" anything. We should be seeking more and more answers, all the time.;)Ouch! I never said either of us was turning his back. We're both well established here as curious truth-seekers. We just have different priorities here. I'm on your side in this thread...... mostly.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:21 pm

lol. I know...I'm just argumentative today.:wah:

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:22 pm

The stupidity of the "down with the clown" thread got me all fired up.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:22 pm

*Jives is feisty on vacation*

:p

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:22 pm

Jives wrote: lol. I know...I'm just argumentative today.:wah:To the MOON, Alice!

LilacDragon · Post by **LilacDragon** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:27 pm

czar wrote: If they really need to be taught about God why can't they go to caticisam/conformation. They could learn everything about God there. They don't want to teach about the bible in school because as of right now it's all a story carried down by generations. There's no real proof that all these miracles happened, only in text. Stories change over time, that's why there are so many versions of what happened. If it's taught in school you should have a choice, that or study hall.

I don't necessarily think that the Bible should be taught in school. You are right - that is something to be taught by family and church. But the basic theories behind the different religions should be.

Maybe, just maybe, if the different theories were taught in school, we wouldn't need to be so politically correct. People would be more understanding of other cultures and realize that a Nativity scene, for example, wasn't a slap in someone's face but a way to symbolize an important cultural event.

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:38 pm

Geez - I do not know. I am not smart enough. I have a problem with the Big Bang because our science does not explain it well enough yet in that where did it come from..... and I have a problem with a Superior being because I want to know where he/she came from........Where is the ultimate beginning of the universe (as we know it).I don't have a problem with NOT having these answers. I take my peace in knowing I will be on this Earth for a short period of time. I choose to live it my way.

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 8:17 am

Accountable wrote: 1. I'm no scholar, but I'm pretty sure that most cultures have lore about how man was created. The theory of evolution is a very recent idea.

B. It is known as the theory of evolution, not the law evolution and its theories why.

III. So that you're aware, I personally don't give two hoots how God saw fit to bring us into being. He did it, and that's enough for me.1. Of course they do. That is just the point. "Lore" is just that; it is not scientific fact. Nor is the awareness that species evolve that recent. Recent compared with ancient legends, certainly. We have access to knowledge that pre-scientific civilizations lacked, and that knowledge continues to grow. That is the essence of science.

B. You are still misusing the word 'theory' here. Theories are not guesses or things people make up. Theories explain facts. The evolution of species is THE central fact of modern biology. Without it, nothing in biology makes any sense. There are various THEORIES as to exactly how evolution works. Intelligent design does not meet the test of scientific theory, as it is neither provable nor disprovable. It is a matter of faith. It therefore belongs in a religion or perhaps a philosophy class. Teaching it as science is deception, pure and simple.

III. That is your religious belief, and thank God we live in a country where we can state such beliefs freely. Unfortunately, that is not the case in much of the world. But religious beliefs do not belong in science classes.

By the way, the Bible also says that the sun revolves around the earth and that the earth has four corners. Should that be taught as science too?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 9:42 am

Accountable wrote: III. So that you're aware, I personally don't give two hoots how God saw fit to bring us into being. He did it, and that's enough for me.
Bronwen wrote: III. That is your religious belief, and thank God we live in a country where we can state such beliefs freely. Unfortunately, that is not the case in much of the world. But religious beliefs do not belong in science classes.

By the way, the Bible also says that the sun revolves around the earth and that the earth has four corners. Should that be taught as science too?
I don't think I advocated mixing religion in science classes. However, I don't see them as mutually exclusive. Science exists. God created all that exists. Therefore, God created science. I don't think the mystical/religious should necessarily come into the science class any more than algebra should be taught in grammar class. But what use is a word problem without proper grammar? What use is science without an appreciation of who created it? Wow, I guess I do think religious beliefs belong in science class. Thanks for helping me clarify that.

Do you see religion as equal with superstition? Maybe that's the disconnection between us.

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 9:59 am

Accountable wrote: 1. Science exists.

2. God created all that exists. Therefore, God created science.

3. What use is science without an appreciation of who created it?

4. Do you see religion as equal with superstition? 1. That is obvious.

2. That is less obvious. That must be discerned by faith since it cannot be proven factually. You and I have that sort of faith; many people, including some very good ones, do not.

3. Well, my atheist neighbor's car seems to run as well as mine. Science and religion are 'useful' in different ways.

4. Partially. The belief that the Bible, including the two contradictory creation accounts, is literally true is superstition, because it can be easily shown that hundreds, possibly thousands, of things found there are NOT literally true. So that is a false faith.

On the other hand, feeling God's presence in the world and in one's life is not superstitious at all. That is TRUE religious faith.

Mark Twain was referring to the first kind when he wrote, 'Faith is believing what you know isn't true.'

czar · Post by **czar** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:06 pm

Bronwen wrote: 1. That is obvious.

2. That is less obvious. That must be discerned by faith since it cannot be proven factually. You and I have that sort of faith; many people, including some very good ones, do not.

3. Well, my atheist neighbor's car seems to run as well as mine. Science and religion are 'useful' in different ways.

4. Partially. The belief that the Bible, including the two contradictory creation accounts, is literally true is superstition, because it can be easily shown that hundreds, possibly thousands, of things found there are NOT literally true. So that is a false faith.

On the other hand, feeling God's presence in the world and in one's life is not superstitious at all. That is TRUE religious faith.

Mark Twain was referring to the first kind when he wrote, 'Faith is believing what you know isn't true.'

Very good way to put it so both sides get what they want.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 12:19 pm

An update.

Seems to me a zealot is making a ham-handed attempt to back-door the issue. There's not an entire class on Darwinism, is there? I still think it should be okay to mention it in science class, though.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

California Parents Challenge Intelligent Design in High School Philosophy Class

United Press International January 12, 2006

LEBEC, Calif., Jan 11, 2006 (UPI via COMTEX) -- Parents in a small California school district are challenging a high school class there that teaches intelligent design in a philosophy class setting.

Eleven plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit in a U.S. District Court in Fresno, Calif., saying the course "Philosophy of Design" violates the U.S. Constitution, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Intelligent design is the belief that the world is so complex that an unnamed being must have created it.

The plaintiffs are parents of children at Frazier Mountain High School in Lebec, Calif., 63 miles north of Los Angeles in the Tehachapi Mountains.

A course description distributed to parents said the class will use scientific, biological and biblical arguments against the theory of evolution.

The lawsuit also complains that special education teacher Sharon Lemburg will instruct the class. She has a bachelor of arts in physical education and social science, but no degree in science, religion or philosophy.

The lawsuit says she is the wife of the minister of a local Christian fundamentalist and pro-creationist church.

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 9:57 am

Accountable wrote: An update. Seems to me a zealot is making a ham-handed attempt to back-door the issue. You are correct. The tipoff is in the title. It is a class in 'philosophy' only in that the WORD 'philosophy' appears in the title.

The fact that certain fundamentalists have to use such subterfuge to disguise their crapola is highly significant.Far Rider wrote: 1. The teaching of the scientific data that contirbutes to the theory of Intelligent design should be taught.

2. To attempt to indoctrinate and sway ones beliefs does not belong in school on either side of the argument between the two opposing theories.

3. I believe that at no time should a single religious denomination control our government or our school system.

4. I do not want anyone coming into my religious school and tell us what we can or cant teach thats why its a PRIVATE school. 1. FR, that is just the point. There IS NO scientific data supporting intelligent design. It is purely a matter of religious faith. As I have said before, I personally believe in intelligent design. But I see no scientific evidence of it. If you think you can provide some, please do so.

2. True, but once again, they are not 'opposing theories'. One is well-supported and the other has no scientific support whatsoever. It would be like teaching all of the scientific data we have learned about our moon and then giving equal time to the belief that it is made of green cheese. Or teaching the facts of human reproduction and then giving equal time to the belief that babies are delivered by storks.

3. Can't disagree with that.

4. That is true. The fact remains, if intelligent design is taught as SCIENCE rather than religion that is deception and as such impunes the integrity of that particular religion in general. Besides, private schools, in order to qualify as a student's principal source of education, must conform to certain basic educational norms set by the municipality or state. Those norms, however, cannot include religion except in rare cases where there might be illegality falling outside the limits of religious freedom, e.g. drug use, human sacrifice, etc.