Faith vs Science in Schools

Science Chic wrote:

CinnamonGirl wrote: My point is that is your perception. There are millions of people who disagree. So, who wins?

Millions?

Part of the answer is we have to stop pushing our views on others. Really, the more we do the more hypocritical we all are. Compromise and compassion come from acceptance that our views are only right for ourselves. We all have different paths that brought us here. And looking into others with curiosity rather than trying to change their views is a start. IMO.

And why do you assume that by stating my opinion that I am "pushing" my views on others. By expressing your view that you believe evolution and intelligent design should be taught together, does that mean that you are pushing your view on others?

In my view, if you put the two together you can learn more than taking away teaching intelligent design along with evolution. IN my mind they can go together. If you knew me and my thoughts on God and the universe you may understand where I am going with this. Really, string theory is part of that. One interesting fact that has some searching string theory is that if it is proven it could explain some parts of some religions scientifically.

Did you not read a single thing I posted? Intelligent design's stated goal is to re-establish fundamentalist religious views in all areas of science, starting by attacking evolution - they are waging war on science and you want to let them in the classroom????? Don't believe me? Read their own words - http://www.scribd.com/doc/20872000/The- ... e-Document
If you want a cleaner pdf version, go here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006 ... the-wedge/

Another book that is fascinating is the book "Embraced by the Light". My view of the universe, God has nothing to do with religion. But it does have to do with Evolution and Intelligent design together. SC, you are asking me the wrong questions. I can't answer them in this context, because that is not my point.

God may not have anything to do with religion to you, but it does to these people and they have an agenda to make you believe it to.

What exactly does God have to do with evolution?

Asking the wrong questions...you're doing a fantastic job of avoiding them. You try to use a Darwin quote to prove your point that religion and science should be taught together because even the Father of Evolution supposedly believed it, then when I point out the rest of the quote that refutes that, you try to twist this back on it being "my opinion". You started off the thread by saying those of us on this board made fun of creationists, and when asked to provide evidence, you tried to backtrack by saying you really meant some unspecified, amorphous "group" - you who have complained about other members painting groups with broad-brush, generalized statements did that exact thing to us who say creationism and intelligent design shouldn't be taught in science class.

CinnamonGirl wrote: Really, the problem is fear. What are you afraid of if intelligent design is taught with evolution? It would solve the problem of people fighting the teaching evolution in science class.

Fear?? Do you know why they're fighting the teaching of evolution? Their attempts to destroy science are pitiful and transparent, which is why they've lost over and over again in courts of law. Every other person who's posted on this thread has even agreed that if it's to be taught, it should be in its own separate religious class, not in science classes - why are you stubbornly clinging to having to teach them together or not teaching them at all - that's what they want, that's their proven agenda, so it comes down to what's right and what's wrong, and what's legal. It's illegal to teach religion in public school, period. It's not fear, it's about what's appropriate: you don't teach history in math class, you don't teach underwater basket weaving in Biology 101, and you don't teach a concept created by people who have blatantly stated that they are trying to destroy science in a science class. It's a fact as admitted by the Discovery Institute themselves, not "perception". Would you be okay with teaching atheism in Sunday school? That Hitler was a hero, and concentration camps were fictitious stories made up by the media, at a Jewish synagogue?

SC, this was not directed at you, it was general. This was my opinion only. That was the point. I said several times the specifics was not my point. So I don't want to get dragged it that, it will never end. My point is that we all have a different opinion and this is about all of our kids and grandkids. What we need is to learn how to get along with each other and get some respect or other's opinions and paths in life. That is it. Pure and simple.

And that is my opinion only. I appreciate yours but I don't want to debate it.

And, once again, "opinions", particularly religious ones, don't belong in a science class.

LadyJazzer wrote: And, once again, "opinions", particularly religious ones, don't belong in a science class.

I am telling you our SCIENCE could be proven wrong someday.

Science is always open to new DATA... That's why it's called SCIENCE...

Religious opinion is not verifiable, and is therefore NOT science. It still doesn't belong in a classroom. One of these days you'll "get it."

I did not say I was in favor of religion I said intelligent design. There is a big difference. But even then that is for all of the parents to decide together. You can believe in god and not religion. I am one of those.

"Intelligent design" is just "creationism" trying to pass itself off as "science".... It is not science, and it does not belong in a classroom--for all the reasons that SC has already stated much more succinctly than I can.

LadyJazzer wrote: "Intelligent design" is just "creationism" trying to pass itself off as "science".... It is not science, and it does not belong in a classroom--for all the reasons that SC has already stated much more succinctly than I can.

Respectfully, no that is not true in my mind. Still I do not want to get distracted from my original point. We need to learn respect for all views and work on that. IMO.

I respect your right to believe what you want to believe... I just don't want it even remotely trying to coexist with science in the classroom.

Those beliefs belong in a comparative-religion class because they are not science.

I'm one of those unusual evangelicals that is just fine with evolution. (Behe and I see things in a similar frame).

I consider evolution a credible theory that explains how things develop ("evolve," if you prefer).

Microbiology makes the process reasonably observable. Genetics explains the mechanics of evolution.

I believe that evolution explains a significant proportion of life as we observe it.

I think you're more religious than I am if you think evolution explains everything. (Dawkins, for example).

I think evolutionary models can save lives (study genetic drift in viruses, for example).

Here's where I have problems ---- evolution is not a "superior" discipline.

Consider, for example, the work of someone like Herbert Spencer. I disagree! I think moral beings ought to step in --- and insist that some outcomes not necessarily be the "natural" outcomes. (racism, for example, is often masqued as simple genetics --- a link I do not accept).

That's why we have bio-ethics (medical ethics). There are limits to knowledge and limits to our understanding, and evolution is not an answer to every big question.

Even so ---- I don't get why so-called Christians reject science. Jesus walked on water ---- do we challenge the laws of physics??? Jesus turned water into wine ---- do we reject the fundamentals of chemistry? Yes - I believe these things happen, and I don't mind discussing that belief - which is a belief in the super-natural.

Evolutionists can explain what happened - but nobody can explain WHY it happened. (a question I think is much more interesting).

As far as what's taught --- evolution teaches how, but it doesn't teach why...... I'm not satisfied with replacing the "why" with evolution for its own sake (that's a stance Dawkins would take). I don't think evolution should be taught as a be-all, end-all process (I don't think the ultimate goal is to evolve). That's where evolution becomes a religion --- and I agree, schools should not be teaching religion.

And for me - Intelligent Design provides evidence that as serious thinkers/scholars, we owe just as much attention to the question of "why?" --- as we owe to the question of "how?"