CinnamonGirl wrote: 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.
Can you explain why you think intelligent design is not religion and therefore deserves to be taught alongside evolution in science class?
Again, you cannot use that Darwin quote as evidence that intelligent design should be taught in science courses in addition to evolution. He was saying that he could see intelligent design as it applied to the whole universe, but not to each individual organism by itself, which is what evolution is all about. If you are basing putting intelligent design in any class on Darwin's opinion, then it is best suited to a philosophy or theology class. Or maybe physics, because we all know those people make up half that crap and can't prove it anyway! :jk2:
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-3154
One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions & man without believing that all has been intelligently designed; yet when I look to each individual organism, I can see no evidence of this. For, I am not prepared to admit that God designed the feathers in the tail of the rock-pigeon to vary in a highly peculiar manner in order that man might select such variations & make a Fan-tail; & if this be not admitted (I know it would be admitted by many persons), then I cannot see design in the variations of structure in animals in a state of nature,—those variations which were useful to the animal being preserved & those useless or injurious being destroyed.
Can you explain how not teaching a non-scientific discipline in a science class stomps on anyone's rights, because I still don't understand that assertion?
Creationism and ID require faith and belief. They say "this is the word of God and is truth...now you trust us, have faith...believe". Science says, "based upon what we can see, smell, hear, taste and touch, we can deduce 'this'.. can you prove wrong or otherwise?". Science welcomes that challenge...religion prohibits it.
CG...we don't have to all respect everyone's beliefs, perspectives or opinions. Sometimes, they're absurd and simply wrong, and there's no reason to respect opinions that fail or refuse to accept reality.
plaidvillain wrote: CG...we don't have to all respect everyone's beliefs, perspectives or opinions. Sometimes, they're absurd and simply wrong, and there's no reason to respect opinions that fail or refuse to accept reality.
CinnamonGirl wrote: 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.
Can you explain why you think intelligent design is not religion and therefore deserves to be taught alongside evolution in science class?
Again, you cannot use that Darwin quote as evidence that intelligent design should be taught in science courses in addition to evolution. He was saying that he could see intelligent design as it applied to the whole universe, but not to each individual organism by itself, which is what evolution is all about. If you are basing putting intelligent design in any class on Darwin's opinion, then it is best suited to a philosophy or theology class. Or maybe physics, because we all know those people make up half that crap and can't prove it anyway! :jk2:
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-3154
One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions & man without believing that all has been intelligently designed; yet when I look to each individual organism, I can see no evidence of this. For, I am not prepared to admit that God designed the feathers in the tail of the rock-pigeon to vary in a highly peculiar manner in order that man might select such variations & make a Fan-tail; & if this be not admitted (I know it would be admitted by many persons), then I cannot see design in the variations of structure in animals in a state of nature,—those variations which were useful to the animal being preserved & those useless or injurious being destroyed.
Can you explain how not teaching a non-scientific discipline in a science class stomps on anyone's rights, because I still don't understand that assertion?
Let me think about how to articulate it better.
I have thought about this and I think I said what I needed to. My view on this is too complicated to explain on a forum and I don't intend to go further here. I still believe compromise is the issue but that is me. It just seems to me this is going down a rabbit hole that I don't want to go. My point is more general than your continued requests for me to answer your questions.
I will say this to your last question. You are talking science class, I am talking more about the whole. My beef is with the demonetization of Christianity and other religions right now and I want to ADD don't TAKE AWAY. Find a way to mention it all or don't teach any of it. Science is important and I still believe ID can be brought up in a science class but I am not clinging to it... Just sayin and answering a question from you. Really if science would stay out of religion by not clinging to the "it's not a theory" argument the problem would be solved but I don't see any compromise.
Well, it looks like another school system has had enough of "creationism"...and more importantly, the Texas "Revisionist History"... I guess bat-sh*t-crazy isn't doing so well as a curriculum any more...(At least as far as Texas revisionist-history is concerned...)
New Orleans Schools Ban Creationism, 'Revisionist' History Course Promoted By Texas
The Orleans Parish School Board, which controls the curriculum and policies for six schools in New Orleans, voted Tuesday to ban the teaching of creationism as science and a "revisionist" history course touted in Texas.
Although none of these six New Orleans schools currently teaches creationism or "intelligent design," outgoing Orleans Parish School Board President Thomas Robichaux is making sure they never will, The Times-Picayune first reported in November.
The first part regarding textbooks reads: “No history textbook shall be approved which has been adjusted in accordance with the State of Texas revisionist guidelines nor shall any science textbook be approved which presents creationism or intelligent design as science or scientific theories."
The second part delves specifically into teaching: “No teacher of any discipline of science shall teach any aspect of religious faith as science or in a science class. No teacher of any discipline of science shall teach creationism or intelligent design in classes designated as science classes.”
The Texas State Board of Education in 2010 adopted a statewide social studies and history curriculum that amended or watered down the teaching of the civil rights movement, religious freedoms, America's relationship with the United Nations and hundreds of other topics. Its approved social studies curriculum included religious and right-wing viewpoints, the New York Times previously reported. Social studies and economic textbooks were altered to include "the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light."
Bailey bud, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said ID is the "philosophy of science". That is a perfect description, and why I have said that ID, in fact belongs if not in a religion class then in a philosophy class. I do not care that ID strsses that they don't mean "God", that they assign a "why" to something at all is the crux of my beef. Science is not meant to ask why, merely how - it is what distinguishes science as a discipline from religion and philosophy, even sociology in my mind.
Blazer Bob, as far as which grade level: I mean them all, although I recognize that most of the controversy is over K-12. Whether the kids actually get exposed to a significant enough amount of evolution is another topic - I don't think they do (there are many schools that avoid it altogether to skip the controversy, which means those with an agenda to destroy science win), which is what makes this brouhaha even more ironic and sadly funny.
CG, all I can say is please read The Wedge Document that I posted, and the summary from the Council of Europe, and the Berkeley list of whether ID is a science. They do have a very dangerous, much more encompassing agenda that is anti-science. And sadly, they are going about this in all the wrong way - there is absolutely no reason that science and a philosophy of science couldn't co-exist because there are a great many discoveries in science that require moral application (stem cell therapy, brain scans of criminals that could potentially be applied to someone on trial to prove guilt, genetic engineering of novel organisms never before existing in nature, etc). The problem with the ID people who have an agenda is that they are coming from a place of fear because they perceive science as a threat to their way of life and they are fighting tooth and nail to "save it". It doesn't need saving, we need to include all perspectives - but not in the same classroom. Philosophy subjects belong in philosophy class and vice versa, so they can complement each other in the real world.
Alright, I've gotta get back off the phone and rest - my kids' flu germs finally got me last night and I only now feel semi-human. Don't wanna push it since my folks just got into town. Thanks for the great discussion everyone!
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
I don't think the "why" is something that should be ignored in education.
That's why we have philosophy, history, and religious studies.
Granted - first principles are a tough for most students. However, I'd argue it's essential for any education.
A lot of our problems emerge because we fail to think.
Granted - many of today's "christian" fundamentalists would prefer not to think (ergo, you see creationism and providential history in their curriculum). However, I think the lack of thought is just as prevalent among materialists. Just look at Ibsen's Enemy of the People . When science dwells solely on science --- it becomes less relevant, and ergo - less effective.
I think ID introduces a way of thinking that forces students to consider why they know what they know
and it might even help them persuade others to know what they know.
It would be great...in a philosophy course...or a comparative religion course...or religious history course.
However, it is STILL not science, and does not belong in a science class...And I'm delighted to see yet another major school district issue a rule that: "No teacher of any discipline of science shall teach creationism or intelligent design in classes designated as science classes.”
Science Chic wrote: CG, all I can say is please read The Wedge Document that I posted, and the summary from the Council of Europe, and the Berkeley list of whether ID is a science. They do have a very dangerous, much more encompassing agenda that is anti-science. And sadly, they are going about this in all the wrong way - there is absolutely no reason that science and a philosophy of science couldn't co-exist because there are a great many discoveries in science that require moral application (stem cell therapy, brain scans of criminals that could potentially be applied to someone on trial to prove guilt, genetic engineering of novel organisms never before existing in nature, etc). The problem with the ID people who have an agenda is that they are coming from a place of fear because they perceive science as a threat to their way of life and they are fighting tooth and nail to "save it". It doesn't need saving, we need to include all perspectives - but not in the same classroom. Philosophy subjects belong in philosophy class and vice versa, so they can complement each other in the real world.
Your opinion. I will read that if you read some items I have. I don't think reading this stuff is going to change either of our minds so back on point. How do we compromise?
“Smart is believing half of what you hear; brilliant is knowing which half to believe.” -Unknown
The crux of the Wedge Document is a challenge to materialism - not necessarily evolution by itself.
I'm trained in economics ---- and free-market economics to be specific. Therefore, I'm not really keen to demonize materialism (it's a crucial component to utilitarianism).
I think it's humorous that the Wedge Document authors want to lump Darwin and Marx, together. The linkages between the two are weak, at best.
To my eyes, Darwin seems to have more in common with Herbert Spencer (a social Darwinist) than Karl Marx.
Getting back to Wedge
a large portion of modern science is built on materialist pre-suppositions. The Wedge authors argue this doesn't need to be the case. Given the authors all have substantive academic credentials, I'm not sure I'd say it was an attack on science, as much as an attack on the pre-suppositions that scientists hold to - perhaps unnecessarily.
:jk2:
