|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 12, 2012 13:58:12 GMT
Whether you agree with creationism or not, and regardless of your reasons, education is about teaching people. And that includes teaching people about the world, the people in it, and their beliefs among other things.
|
|
|
Post by thomaseshuis on Feb 12, 2012 15:58:00 GMT
Whether you agree with creationism or not, and regardless of your reasons, education is about teaching people. And that includes teaching people about the world, the people in it, and their beliefs among other things. And that's why creationism and ID should only be taught in religious class. Because it is a belief, not a theory and certainly not a science.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 12, 2012 17:11:41 GMT
That's your assumption, based on your worldview. And no, it doesn't belong in religious classes (I'm talking about ID) as it is a scientific theory. You don't have to be comfortable with it, but that's neither here nor there. Mainstream science is dominated by an establishment which dictates what is and is not possible, and if you know about the history of science you will know that many, many theories have first gone through a period of ridicule and then eventually proven to have validity. Putting ID in the religious classroom makes a mockery of science, as it is effectively a way of saying that it shouldn't be taken seriously, and, given the history of science, that is very arrogant. Lessons should have been learned from the past, but as I say science is dominated by an establishment with something to lose, much like spirituality is unfortunately dominated by religion.
|
|
|
Post by thomaseshuis on Feb 12, 2012 19:17:04 GMT
That's your assumption, based on your worldview. No, it's a fact that ID does not have a scientific theory. And no, it doesn't belong in religious classes (I'm talking about ID) as it is a scientific theory. Tell me then, what is this theory? How is it falsifiable? You don't have to be comfortable with it, but that's neither here nor there. I'm never comfortable with people pandering lies and misinformation. Mainstream science is dominated by an establishment which dictates what is and is not possible, and if you know about the history of science you will know that many, many theories have first gone through a period of ridicule and then eventually proven to have validity. There is no conspiracy among scientists. The fact is that ID has no scientific theory, therefore it is irrational to consider it a science. Putting ID in the religious classroom makes a mockery of science, as it is effectively a way of saying that it shouldn't be taken seriously, and, given the history of science, that is very arrogant. Since it has no falsifiable scientific theory it's only natural to keep it out of the science classes. You're forgetting the U.S. courts already ruled on this ID is creationism and not a valid scientific theory: "In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district Tuesday from teaching “intelligent design” in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state. " Lessons should have been learned from the past, but as I say science is dominated by an establishment with something to lose, much like spirituality is unfortunately dominated by religion. They don't have anything to lose. If the theory of evolution is proven to be wrong, it will be rejected. Fact is no-one has been able to debunk it. Again ID has no scientific theory. If you think it has I challenge you to post it here.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 12, 2012 21:10:46 GMT
It makes no difference whatsoever what you think of intelligent design, or any other theory for that matter. You can be comfortable with it, or you can reject it and feel uncomfortable about your worldview being contradicted. It makes no difference. It's not your place to dictate to people what they should or shouldn't be taught, and you can't have an opinion on something if somone has taken away your right to know about it. And it's not your place to tell people what they should take seriously and what they shouldn't. You seem to have a problem with the idea of people disagreeing with your point of view, even to the extent that you'd like to see it either presented as mythology or better still not at all.
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Feb 13, 2012 1:46:19 GMT
Worldquest, do you think that alternate views of historical events, such as the theory that the moon landing was a fake or the various theories about the death of JFK should be taught in history class as equally valid as the official story?
|
|
|
Post by thomaseshuis on Feb 13, 2012 5:10:50 GMT
Or how about the Holocaust-never-happened theory?
|
|
|
Post by thomaseshuis on Feb 13, 2012 5:17:09 GMT
It makes no difference whatsoever what you think of intelligent design, or any other theory for that matter. Indeed what matters is whether it is scientific theory or not. Creationism/Id isn'tYou can be comfortable with it, or you can reject it and feel uncomfortable about your worldview being contradicted. It does not contradict my world-view, it contradicts known facts, a.k.a. reality and has no facts nor even a theory to support itself. It makes no difference. It's not your place to dictate to people what they should or shouldn't be taught, and you can't have an opinion on something if somone has taken away your right to know about it. 1. It is the courts place to dictate such things and they ruled that ID=creationism and not a scientific theory. 2. You know very well I said it could be taught in religion. I never said it should not be taught at all. And it's not your place to tell people what they should take seriously and what they shouldn't. It is my place to tell people what is supported by facts and what not. It is my place to tell people what is a scientific theory and what isn't. You seem to have a problem with the idea of people disagreeing with your point of view, even to the extent that you'd like to see it either presented as mythology or better still not at all. No I have a problem with people trying to misrepresent their unsupported ideas as facts. You still have not posted the scientific theory of Intelligent Design.......
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 13, 2012 13:30:25 GMT
Worldquest, do you think that alternate views of historical events, such as the theory that the moon landing was a fake or the various theories about the death of JFK should be taught in history class as equally valid as the official story? They should be taught in history class, yes. The validity of those ideas or any mainstream ideas is up to the student. Yes, the holocaust never happened theory, that too, thomas.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 13, 2012 13:36:17 GMT
Thomas :
ID contradicts your worldview. Your worldview says more about you than it does about facts. Your worldview may happen to be correct or it may happen to be completely wrong, but it's not your place to dictate to others what they should be told about. Again, your opinion on ID is irrelevant and of no consequence. If you think ID is unscientific, go ahead and demonstrate that. But after you've done it, it still makes no difference anyway as it is merely your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by thomaseshuis on Feb 13, 2012 14:46:09 GMT
Worldquest, do you think that alternate views of historical events, such as the theory that the moon landing was a fake or the various theories about the death of JFK should be taught in history class as equally valid as the official story? They should be taught in history class, yes. The validity of those ideas or any mainstream ideas is up to the student. Yes, the holocaust never happened theory, that too, thomas. Look if you want your children to be taught that nonsensical and baseless speculation has just as much validity as verifiable theories and hard facts, send them to a private school. The rest of the world likes to deal with facts and reality.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 13, 2012 14:55:22 GMT
Again you're completely missing the point. This isn't about teaching people what you think are facts, this is about teaching people about the world, the people in it, and the views that some people have. Intelligent design is a theory that has been put forward by scientists, not by religious representatives. You can disagree with it all you like, that is an irrelevance. You seem afraid and defensive about your worldview. You are not in a position to dictate.
|
|
|
Post by thomaseshuis on Feb 13, 2012 14:59:38 GMT
Thomas : ID contradicts your worldview. Your worldview says more about you than it does about facts. Your worldview may happen to be correct or it may happen to be completely wrong, but it's not your place to dictate to others what they should be told about. But after you've done it, it still makes no difference anyway as it is merely your opinion. If by worldview you mean looking at facts and accepting reality for what it is, then yes, that's my worldview. Excuse me for accepting reality instead of going with what feels better. but it's not your place to dictate to others what they should be told about. Again, I have every right to point out the facts. One of those facts being that ID=creationism and does not have scientific theory nor peer-reviewed studies to support itself. If you think ID is unscientific, go ahead and demonstrate that.Again, your opinion on ID is irrelevant and of no consequence. 1. You made the claim that it is a scientific theory. Therefore you have the burden of proof to post that scientific theory here. As everyone can see you have failed to do so. 2. I on the other hand already showed you 1 court ruling that states ID is both creationism and unscientific. But after you've done it, it still makes no difference anyway as it is merely your opinion. I have already shown you a court ruling. That's not my opinion. It's the ruling of the judge after weighing the case. As it is the verdict of 99% of scientists in the world. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. ID does not have a falsifiable, scientifically valid, theory. It does not explain anything. You're claiming it does, ergo you have to provide evidence. In short, I already have shown proof. You on the other hand have presented nothing but sophistry and baseless assertions.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 13, 2012 15:04:47 GMT
By worldview I mean worldview, that's why I said "worldview". If you think your worldview is based on facts and other people's worldviews aren't, that's just your worldview. You have a right to express your worldview, and others have the right to express theirs. You don't have the right to dictate.
|
|
|
Post by thomaseshuis on Feb 13, 2012 15:06:35 GMT
Again you're completely missing the point. This isn't about teaching people what you think are facts, this is about teaching people about the world, the people in it, and the views that some people have. No you're missing the point. Science is about facts, not assertions and believes. Social studies and religion are classes where children are taught about the believes and ideas of others. Science classes are for scientific theories based on facts. The same is true for history: facts, not fiction made up by laymen. Intelligent design is a theory that has been put forward by scientists, not by religious representatives. Argument from authority fallacy. Just because a scientist says something does not make it a scientific theory. The scientists who made up ID were squandering their reputation by creating a pseudo-scientific construct. Again, the courts already rules on this and you have failed to present the scientific theory of ID. You can disagree with it all you like, that is an irrelevance. You seem afraid and defensive about your worldview. You are not in a position to dictate. No, your notion that fantasies and baseless assertions should be tuaght in science instead of socials studies/religion is fallacious and irrelevant. For the last time I never said it should not be taught at all, that's a straw-man. It just should not be taught in science as that's based on scientific theories based on facts. ID is neither.
|
|