|
Post by ferryman on Dec 20, 2011 1:47:17 GMT
|
|
timo
Newbie
oyeme
Posts: 37
|
Post by timo on Dec 20, 2011 5:09:16 GMT
I don't think that it's at all fair to equate an opposition to creationism or ID being taught in public schools with censorship. What's at issue is not whether atheists are unwilling to expose school children to a view that is in conflict with their own. What's at issue is whether or not students should be exposed to those views as a matter of state policy. As an atheist, I'm not at all bothered by parochial or homeschool students learning that God is ultimately responsible for creation. Nor am I opposed to parents of children in public schools teaching this to their children. It's a theological point that parents and members of religious institutions should be free to advance. I just don't think that they should be advancing these points in public institutions under the banner of science, especially when the intelligent design movement seems so uninterested in doing actual science--ie things like original research and publishing papers in peer reviewed journals.
|
|
roadwarrior
Junior Member
Seeking the middle path...
Posts: 51
|
Post by roadwarrior on Dec 20, 2011 12:11:00 GMT
God created the Natural Laws of the Universe including Evolution. God gave us brains, albeit not directly. Ergo, it would go against God to go against Science.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Dec 20, 2011 12:30:24 GMT
You're expressing a disagreement with intelligent design. You have that right. You also have the right to be taught about intelligent design because without knowing about it, you wouldn't even have an opinion on it.
|
|
roadwarrior
Junior Member
Seeking the middle path...
Posts: 51
|
Post by roadwarrior on Dec 20, 2011 12:51:17 GMT
"right to be taught" that a non-scientific opinion is science? I disagree.....but can see how NAMBLA would be interested in using this form of logic.
Religion is a private matter and should not be taught in public schools lest it opens the door to other religious opinions on creation, morality and so forth.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Dec 20, 2011 16:57:00 GMT
"right to be taught" that a non-scientific opinion is science? I disagree.....but can see how NAMBLA would be interested in using this form of logic. Religion is a private matter and should not be taught in public schools lest it opens the door to other religious opinions on creation, morality and so forth. The theory of intelligent design is a scientific theory. You don't have to agree with it. Lots of scientific theories have been looked at and rejected but they were first looked at, that's the point. And even if ID is not a scientific theory, it isn't a good idea to form opinions about things without knowing anything about them. That's why ID should be taught in schools. And let's not forget the undercurrent which is that anyone who feels so strongly against the teaching of things that they disagree with is interested in bias and censorship, and not education. Without knowing about something, it's not possible to form an informed opinion. Do you agree with that?
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Dec 20, 2011 18:38:08 GMT
Yes, creationism, although I don't agree with it (if creationism means that god created the world in 7 days or whatever) should be taught in schools. Education is largely about making people aware of the world, and part of that is being aware of what people believe. The only reason why someone would strongly want to see something that they disagree with not being made available for consideration or study is if they are worried that a lot of them will believe it. But that is none of our business. We should be mature enough to be able to openly discuss all views. I don't agree with atheism one bit, and the same goes for creationism, yet I'm happy for it to be presented as a possibility and studied and discussed. Atheists often accuse theists of preaching simply for talking about their views. Yet here we see atheists turning purple at the idea that a view which they disagree with might be taught at schools. Get over it, you have your views, let others make up their own minds. And sometimes atheists get really annoyed when theists misunderstand them, and that is all the more reason why they should be happy to see all views discussed so that they may be understood. It's hypocritical. Again, there is no good reason why anyone should object to a wide variety of information being made available. And education is all about that. To have such an issue about it is to be in favour of censorship, and that's wrong. In comparative religion class certainly, even in social studies to give pupils a sense of what is out there. Teaching Christian Creationism in science class however violates the establishment clause of the first amendment. if Christian Creationism is given equal time with actual scientific theories about the origin of the earth and the universe than any child who is neither Christian nor Atheist is being discriminated against. We would need to include the Wiccan great union, and the creation myths of any other child who could conceivably be in the school. There would be no time to get into any of the concepts with any degree of detail.
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Dec 20, 2011 18:39:47 GMT
"right to be taught" that a non-scientific opinion is science? I disagree.....but can see how NAMBLA would be interested in using this form of logic. Religion is a private matter and should not be taught in public schools lest it opens the door to other religious opinions on creation, morality and so forth. The theory of intelligent design is a scientific theory. You don't have to agree with it. Lots of scientific theories have been looked at and rejected but they were first looked at, that's the point. And even if ID is not a scientific theory, it isn't a good idea to form opinions about things without knowing anything about them. That's why ID should be taught in schools. And let's not forget the undercurrent which is that anyone who feels so strongly against the teaching of things that they disagree with is interested in bias and censorship, and not education. Without knowing about something, it's not possible to form an informed opinion. Do you agree with that? can you offer evidence of intelligent design? If scientific evidence can be offered then perhaps it should be taught in school, so far nobody has offered any.
|
|
roadwarrior
Junior Member
Seeking the middle path...
Posts: 51
|
Post by roadwarrior on Dec 20, 2011 20:16:02 GMT
can you offer evidence of intelligent design? If scientific evidence can be offered then perhaps it should be taught in school, so far nobody has offered any. I would like to see the evidence too since, if it is to be taught as science, it must be verifiable as with any other science.
|
|
timo
Newbie
oyeme
Posts: 37
|
Post by timo on Dec 21, 2011 2:03:53 GMT
ID is not a scientific theory. It's a political movement intended to cast doubt on parts of evolutionary theory in order to advance a religious agenda, which is again why its proponents seem to be so uninterested in original research. To be sure, there are legitimate scientific controversies and disagreements within the scientific community with respect to evolution, just as there are within every scientific theory. And I don't see a problem with teaching students about those sorts of disagreements. Students should learn that none of this is set in stone so to speak. Science is always progressing. But that's something that shouldn't be limited to the evolution section of a biology class.
|
|
|
Post by ferryman on Dec 21, 2011 11:20:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ferryman on Dec 21, 2011 11:21:50 GMT
The theory of intelligent design is a scientific theory. You don't have to agree with it. Lots of scientific theories have been looked at and rejected but they were first looked at, that's the point. And even if ID is not a scientific theory, it isn't a good idea to form opinions about things without knowing anything about them. That's why ID should be taught in schools. And let's not forget the undercurrent which is that anyone who feels so strongly against the teaching of things that they disagree with is interested in bias and censorship, and not education. Without knowing about something, it's not possible to form an informed opinion. Do you agree with that? can you offer evidence of intelligent design? If scientific evidence can be offered then perhaps it should be taught in school, so far nobody has offered any. ID is not creationism.
|
|
roadwarrior
Junior Member
Seeking the middle path...
Posts: 51
|
Post by roadwarrior on Dec 22, 2011 1:58:03 GMT
Seems like it is to me.
A couple of questions.
1. How old do you think both our world and the entire Universe is?
2. How long did the dinosaurs exist and was mankind around during that time?
3. Who were the Neanderthals and what was their relation to us? What happened to them?
|
|
timo
Newbie
oyeme
Posts: 37
|
Post by timo on Dec 22, 2011 3:42:09 GMT
Yeah, ID is most definitely creationism. As veks was kind enough to note earlier in this thread, we can even trace the preferred literature of what we now call the intelligent design movement back to the creation science movement with books like Of Pandas and People.
|
|
|
Post by thomaseshuis on Feb 12, 2012 10:05:53 GMT
It should, but only when it has an actual scientific theory. It does not. Saying goddidit, does not explain anything about the process. Furthermore, claiming everything is designed because it looks that way is nothing but an argument from incredulity which is a logical fallacy.
The courts already ruled that ID is just a revamped form of creationism. It has no scientific theory nor data to support it and should therefore not be taught in any class but the religious class.
|
|