I believe that every belief should be challenged. Whenever a belief is challenged, people are forced to consider new perspectives and may even attain a new level of clarity (or just become more stubborn). In the case of Intelligent Design people wanting Creationism taught alongside Evolution, though, I can’t say that I support it.
The primary reason is that a person can willlingly (and quite easily) find a church, walk inside, and here about Creationism. There is no shortage of people who will talk your ear off about Intelligent Design. Why, then, should it be taught in schools? Parents can take their kids to church multiple times in a week and no one there is going to defend Evolution. Why should public school teachers be forced to give both sides of the issue fairly when very few (if any) Churches will ever discuss Evolution fairly. Intelligent Design advocates are being extremely dishonest (or deluded) about their intentions when they try to force Creationism into schools.
I think if we just look at creationism in schools for what it is, we can see why it shouldn’t be there. For instance there is no ‘religion’ subject in schools (at least not in Canada) so why should a religious view be presented in a science subject? I mean set aside the fact that the other religions are not even mentioned within this context, but why should it be mentioned at all? You learn about evolution, genetics and soforth in SCIENCE class.
The only time creationism or any sort of intelligent design should be mentioned should be in a literary subject area. Even then it would be in the context of a literary work along with huckleberry fin and The BFG. Not as some devine moral code sent from god.
There are those that would argue that the church belongs in the school system but to those I say: -Which- church? and why?.
If I pay school taxes, why should pure natural selection be taught as conclusively explaining the origin and adaptations of life on earth? It doesn’t make conclusive sense and unrealistic to state it as other than a hypotheseis. So common sense suggests stating both sides if tax money for school support is coming from both sides
In the UK, where I was educated both are taught. I spent 5 years learning ID and Evoloution. In the UK they have religious classes and science classes. In my view this is a good thing, it makes a person balanced and lets them decide for themselves without pressure from priests etc… which theory is right.
The whole agenda of the Intelligent Design advovates is corrupt and ignorant. Even if Creationism was taught along with Evolution, then they’d have to start teaching about Baptist’s beliefs vs. Catholics and Catholics vs. Mormons and on and on and on. This is a religiously motivated issue, and by letting Creationism in schools it will only open the door for more religion to come storming through. And there will never be agreement between the various sects about what to do next. It will be a disaster. And I’m not even considering what will happen if non-Christian religions want a piece of the action, too.
This attitude is the essence of the problem. You are assumingID is corrupt and ignorant. REad some of these articles or justlook at some of the namesand their credentials. Show me the ignorance and corruption.
I’m not asking to discuss religion in science class. They are complimentary. I am suggesting that the difference in approach to the question of evolution by ID should be respected and not rejected as corrupt and ignorant.
Just describing the essential difference in apporach is sufficient. This acknowledges the validity of the ID approach. Science approaches the question of evolution primarily through inductive reason which means to isolate facts and theorize laws governing them. The deductive method used by religion begins with the laws having been experienced and looks for verification in the facts that support it. There is nothing essentially corrupt or ignorant about either method. They are complimentary but either or both can be abused.
To condemn ID as you are doing can only serve to deprive the true young seeker of understanding a very necessary tool of thought for pondering this profound question of life itself.
That’s fine. Then all churches should start paying taxes. Why should they get to teach Creationism for free?
That’s a lot more acceptable than dropping Creationism in a science class. But with some of the attitudes in America, even that would be sticky situation.
I’m not going to bother trying to prove or disprove Intelligent Design theory, what I do find corrupt and ignorant is how ID advocates portray themselves as scientific when they are not. They want to get their beliefs in schools and they are pretending to do it for the sake of scientific debate, when in fact what they really want is to get their foot in the door. What happens after that is a troubling thing to ponder.
“what I do find corrupt and ignorant is how ID advocates portray themselves as scientific when they are not”
I agree with that statement, when I was at university I went along to the Christian Union ( which is a student body which promotes Christianity in universitys across the UK ) There one of the teachers was trying to convince me that dinosaurs didn’t exist. Is said and I quote “Have you ever dug up a dinosaur fossil?” Of course the answer was no. “Therefore how do you know they exist?” As you can probably tell he didn’t convince me This was for the most part their kind of logic
I say let more religion in to schools so people can see how false it is. In the UK religious education is or was compulsory. Yet it has the second largest number of atheists in Europe, after the Netherlands.
I’m just not sure what would happen in the United States if we let them in. With the Religious Right and the surge of evangelism to deal with, I’m afraid that it would be difficult to get rid of them once they get a foothold.
force a theory that isn’t contradicted??? What about the big bang theory. It turns out that the center of every galaxy has a black hole. When these black holes eat up every star within reach, they stop feeding and need more energy to reach the rest of the galaxy. Setting the galaxy in perpetual motion. Showing that the universe has an unknown starting point and doesn’t contiually collapse and explode.
Then there’s the idea that space and time are a side effect of matter. Why they aren’t constants, but variables toward matter isn’t known. But it shows some action in matter causes space and time as an equal and opposite side effect.
Then theres the idea about the sexes. Men and womens differences consolidates lifes needs into roles toward each other. Showing purpussfull design toward purpose.
Then there’s ghosts… A topic the catholic church says acknoledging ghosts give them more power. Yet science can only see electromagnetic side effects toward these annomialies. Showing the soul is an energy independent of matter. Showing the soul charges the matter it passes through.
Well, we're talking about a supposedly free country, right? If the Religious Right and evangelicals have the power to get things done through the normal means people accomplish things in a free country (voting, lobbying, and such), then who is it that is 'dealing with them'? On who's behalf are we 'getting rid of them'? I can see why it would be in bests interests to stop the Christians from having influence in the schools from the perspective of an atheist pushing for atheism, but this is still a Christian country for the most part. Saying that there is a 'danger' of Christians taking over is rather odd if they are the majority, yes? You seem to have the attitude that Christians in the United States are these heathen raiders from another land trying to subvert our culture (Hint, that's closer to [i]you[/i], skeptic). Heaven forbid the Christians should get their foot in the door in American education!
All of that said, It seems to me that evolution, or something like evolution, is close to the truth of what happened. At the very least, it's the best we have. So of course it should be taught in schools. Creationism comes in many flavors. The "6,000 year old Earth" variety is all a bunch of baloney from what I can tell, and it would be sad if it were taught to kids. At the same time, I don't know much about the more sophisticated versions of Intelligent Design, they may or may not have some value.
The danger is, as I have said, that there are too many sects and too many interpretaions within Christianity alone. I don’t see how religion getting into the classroom could be a good thing. There will still be people complaining that their views are being represented and whatever sect or interpretation does get in will do their best to alter public schools in other ways more agreeable to them. I don’t think the Religious Right in particular would be too concerned about having a free country if they got their way. You can’t possibly believe that they would.
Well, it’s not a danger if we have voting and hands-on involvement in what gets taught in schools. If trends today favor Creationism, then creationism gets taught. If trends tomorrow favor evolution, then evolution gets taught. If one sorts of teaching is enforced and the other banned by act of Government, then it truly does become a danger if one sect or the other controls the Government.
Certainly, and those people complaining should either shut up and realize they are blessed to live in a country that allows them to hold minority views and not expect them to get more than a minority of attention, or else rally support until they aren't a minority anymore. Do any of the versions of Intelligent Design being suggested for schools endorse the Methodists but not the Episcopalians for example? I really don't think the issue of origins is going to be very sectarian in nature. Even if things went beyond Creationism, and we reverted to the days of reading the Bible in schools as part of English class, I think it would be more benefit than harm to the country.
As a member of the religious right myself, of course I know that we would want a free country, and have no interest in making the US into a Christian version of, say, Syria. After all, what you are calling the Religious Right have been in the majority in the United States ever since there[i] has been [/i] a United States, and you can see as well as I the sort of nation that has resulted. This is just my perspective, but I think folks who see the religious as curly-mustached villians tying America to the rail-road tracks are much more dangerous to have in power, and much more out of touch from what Americans really want.
I believe that the squeakiest wheel gets the most oil.
I think that you are being idealistc by suggesting that religion in public schools would work. The Religious Right isn’t made up entirely of level-headed individuals. It’s not uncommon throughout history for the most extreme individuals within a group to get their way. Considering that the Religious Right is a huge influence on the Republican Party (a powerful political force in this country) I can’t help but be worried about what might happen if they even got their way just a little bit.
Sure, Intelligent Design might be agreeable to most Christian sects, but can you realistically predict that once that (major) aspect of their faith is allowed in to public schools that their demands will stop there? Do you really know that everyone will play fair? We are talking about human nature, here. If things actually went so far as the Bible being taught in English class, what would come next? Maybe they would start teaching that the Sun revolves around the Earth again!
…or maybe they would start teaching things like Romeo and Juliet, to Kill a Mocking Bird and other works of literature.
Oh wait… They already do, hmh, silly me.
If there was a book about the Sun revolving around the Earth, I would endorse its teaching in schools too. Why? Well, why not? Things can be learnt from it.
Things can be learnt from just about every book you read - whats important is learning that not everybody is right. Perhaps some grammer, spelling and punctuation. Perhaps the written thoughts of others. Perhaps that no-one is right. Perhaps learning what could be right. Whatever really. Theres a lot to be learnt.
As long as things are taught so as to give the students enough information to make their own informed decisions, there should be no problem.
You do realize that the discovery that the Earth revolved around the sun, instead of vice versa, was a major turning point in our history, right? It was the beginning of the end of The Church having a stranglehold on science and knowledge. Though I was kind of joking when I said it, my point was that having religion in public schools may seem innocuous but it will slowly take over other curriculum.
I fear that religion in public schools will not lead to a fair and balanced approach to learning. It might sound nice, but I don’t think it will happen.
Why not? Seems to work fine in Christian schools. Case in point, the high school I attended had all the normal classes plus a class called simply ‘Religion’ in which we studied each of the prodominant religions and their teachings.
I dont know how it works over in the states, but that seems to work fine here in Aus.
I’d also like to point out at this point that ID is only labeled as Creationism because God is the most likely candidate for a creator. ID is a set of conclusions made from scientific evidence that basically says that we have things in our body so complex, that they could not have been created through evolution.
You should really read the link Nick_A provided - y-origins.com/
As for teaching ID in the Science room, well, whats the big deal? I mean, can you really ignore it? If you’re teaching your students evolution and it gets to the point where they ask about ID what are you gonna do? Tell them to shut up, that we cannot talk about it here? Are you going to tell them your opinion on it? Or are you going to teach them about it and make them understand it so they can determine for themselves what they believe?
The science class. Since when did it become so sacred that only science was taught there? Who really gives a flying fuck what class what is taught in, so long as the students learn.
Like I already said, I am more concerned about the motives of IDers in the United States than I am with ID itself. I guess I have to repeat myself again: I don’t think that IDers’ primary motivation is driven by scientific integrity. If you can ease my worries about it, go ahead. But I’m not convinced that IDers are trying to bring Creationism into public schools just for the sake of objectivity and learning.
