Intelligent design taught in our schools. Good or Bad

[TheJenn88]

It's hard to know what to say because nowadays people take advantage of any controversial issue, and make it into something bigger than it is, sometimes - or go off into extreme tangents. What I'm getting at is when people say things, like,

"If they teach the creationist theory in schools, it will brainwash my children into believing something, without giving them the chance to make up their mind!"

Which definitely has the potential to morph into something more extreme, courtesy of some wackos,

"THE CHRISTIAN AND CATHOLIC CHURCHES ARE TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD AND BRAINWASH OUR CHILDREN INTO CHRISTIAN CRUSDAERS ALL OVER AGAIN" or something stupid like that.

 

I think, with proper teaching and educating methods, the creation theory is as deserving of being taught as the evolution theory. It's just a matter of the educators and how they present the topic. It's a touchy thing, because we are toying, defying, and promoting people's personal beliefs. If taught from an objective point of view without bias (much like I've seen when being taught the evolution theory), then there is no problem. It is just as interesting and fufulling of information to know.

 

That also leaves the issue of omitting other religions. People who belong to other religions may be offended that the "one way" of creationism is being taught through a Christian viewpoint, and therefore feel that their children are being preached to exclusively, and not having THEIR religion expressed in schools.

 

I see no problem with expression different viewpoints of evolution and creation, but the system has to be very careful not to tread upon the beliefs of the families to which the children belong to. Also, it should not to act as a "guiding force" for which the child feels they have to choose this religion because it's what they know most of. Religion is something very sacred and personal, and should be left to the choice of every individual.

 

I say go for it. It's a good idea, but basically, don't be exclusive to the Christian religion, and include other religions. Make it a learning experience, not a preaching experience

[Thermite Wielding Troll]

CES is by far the better debater. I'm good at understanding things, not so much at communicating them. Because of this I was able to see I held the high ground in this debate, and I just stuck it out.

 

If CES had been debating my side and I debating his, he would have had me running away with a red face and a sore ass in less than 200 words.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

LMAO!

 

Thanks Troll. You are an excellent debater as well and quite capable of holding your own. After you initial rudeness, I decided that it would be deliciously fun to shake your foundations a little bit, but most definitely anyone who in the heat of exchange, can recognize and call out an 'ad hominem' argument, gets my two thumbs enthusiastically up rating! Once again, well done!

 

To Anybody Who Cares:

 

In actuality, from my PERSONAL perspective, the 2 schools of thought are not diametrically opposed by rather intertwined like the DNA double helix.

 

I am an agnostic. (Derives from the Greek agnostos, a = without, gnostos = known or knowledge.) If you are not absolutely 100% sure what that means, LOOK IT UP instead of shooting off your mouth at me for no good reason. Professor T.H. Huxley was a smart cookie.

 

I find the concept of a deity interesting, but unsubstantiated, yet somehow I cannot simply dismiss the concept as would an atheist. This is not because of a preponderance of evidence, as I would argue that there is none as of yet but rather a lack of evidence to the contrary and I for one believe that a negative existential proposition cannot be proved!

 

To me, it is self-evident that it is rather difficult to prove the non-existence of something so undefined as a deity.

 

However, my view of a deity would be more of a deity who is a casual observer rather than an active participant. I find no evidence to point out that a god rules over us or demands certain things from us. In addition, I believe that historically, the engagement in such speculative beliefs or wants of a deity, has been the sponsoring thought of the majority of the inhumanity of man towards other men.

 

People will rapidly point out their respective texts of their religions and claim they are divinely authored and that everybody else's books are a lie. This is a fascinating characteristic yet only serves to further my belief that the books, although of good intentions, are man made and inherently destructive.

 

It would seem to me that if a god really did exist and really wanted to communicate its will to us, it could have so clearly and evidently done so as to not be misinterpreted by any human being whatsoever.

 

I can imagine an obelisk made of a unique indestructible material, inscribed with the entire laundry list of stuff that God wanted from us, in clear and concise writing, located in an easily findable location. A religious Rosetta Stone if you will. Surely such a feat would be child's play to the creator of the universe and leave no room for ambiguity.

 

Alas, there is no such thing, so I remain entrenched in my belief that 'if' there is a god, it is a casual observer and at best a disinterested one.

 

The most interesting part of the debate in which Troll and I engaged in, from my perspective, is that should I intertwine the two philosophies together like the aforementioned double DNA helix, one compliments the other most beautifully. Abiogenesis can be viewed as god's primordial soup kitchen from which all life springs forth. Cook gently in a pressurized atmospheric sphere predominantly made of water, at 27 million degrees Fahrenheit flame from a distance of about 150 million kilometers for about 2.8 billion years and Voil

[phreakwars]

Myself being a Deist, my God, as it were, is pretty much the same type of God that was explained by St. Aquinas and his "5 proofs of God" theory that was discussed at one point here on GF. This is more of a physical type "GOD" then spiritual, so it is easier for me to accept. I would have no problem at all with ID teachings if the framework of it was based off of this type of explanation to students, and was not lead into a more profound biblical type God. I think it is very possible to teach ID withouit getting all fricken spiritual about it, and also making it coincide with evolution to be a plausible theory. I think St. Aquinas proves this to a certain extent.

 

.

.

[angie]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051009/ap_on_sc/intelligent_design;_ylt=ApfvMe15rxV_JmNu7WUHebdvzwcF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 

HARRISBURG, Pa. - As a federal judge hears arguments over whether a Pennsylvania school district can include "intelligent design" in its biology curriculum, Dan Barbour fears the New Mexico high school where he works could face a similar showdown.

The school board in Rio Rancho, N.M., voted in August to allow the discussion of alternative theories to evolution in high school science class. Critics say that could mean intelligent design, and some faculty are averse to teaching a concept whose scientific validity has been questioned, said Barbour, the school's science and math director.

Science educators around the nation are closely monitoring the trial, which involves eight Pennsylvania families who have sued to have intelligent design removed from the Dover Area School District's biology curriculum. They allege that it is essentially a religious concept akin to creationism, and teaching it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

"If the door is open for non-scientific viewpoints to be addressed ... I would imagine it would make some (teachers) rethink their profession," said Cindy Workoski, spokeswoman for the National Science Teachers Association in Arlington, Va.

[papabryant]

Anything of a divine/religious nature HAS NO PLACE in public schools.

Which eliminates the teaching of Plato (since he taught on the immortality of the soul), Homer (the Gods guided both the Greeks at Troy and Ulysses journey home), the history of Rome (at least from Nero forward, since he blamed Christians for the fire), the rise of monasticism (which gave us the modern library and University systems - better close those as well), the Crusades (TWO religions there), the Inquisition (which is fine by me since most histories get it all wrong anyways), the Reformation, the Enlightenment (since this was born of questioning religious authority on political, social, and scientific issues), medicine (at least the science of antiseptics used by hospitals, which was created when Joseph Lister applied the hygene principles taught in Torah to his hospital), and the law of gravity (Newton spent more time studying the Bible than studying physics - since Newton was the "religious Right" of his day, does this mean we must repeal the law of gravity?)

 

 

 

 

 

Aliens? I don't believe that rubbish one bit. If they're going to teach about aliens, they might as well make our kids watch Sci-Fi movies all day.

 

Blame Crick. He's the one so desperate for a non-theological answer to how life appeared on Earth he postulated UFO deposits of biomass on Terra Firma.

[TheJenn88]

Which eliminates the teaching of Plato (since he taught on the immortality of the soul), Homer (the Gods guided both the Greeks at Troy and Ulysses journey home), the history of Rome (at least from Nero forward, since he blamed Christians for the fire), the rise of monasticism (which gave us the modern library and University systems - better close those as well), the Crusades (TWO religions there), the Inquisition (which is fine by me since most histories get it all wrong anyways), the Reformation, the Enlightenment (since this was born of questioning religious authority on political, social, and scientific issues), medicine (at least the science of antiseptics used by hospitals, which was created when Joseph Lister applied the hygene principles taught in Torah to his hospital), and the law of gravity (Newton spent more time studying the Bible than studying physics - since Newton was the "religious Right" of his day, does this mean we must repeal the law of gravity?)

 

 

all of which I've studied, and most I've enjoyed thoroughly.

Heck, I've learnt a lot more than I care to admit from some religious psychos.

 

Like, if you want the Pope to get a hit contract on you, tell him he's a fucking bastard and convert England to protestant!!

Courtesy of,

Elizabeth