- Posts: 15740
- Thank you received: 319
Agreed! I realized that I didn't make this point in my last post well enough; we're essentially saying the same thing:bailey bud wrote: 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.
No, those documents are not my opinion - they are from other sources (one being the Discovery Institute itself, which pushes these legal challenges) and I quoted them so that you could read them yourself, and form your own opinions. If you aren't going to bother, then we can't have a discussion. And what we seem to be hung up on is that you consider ID a science, when it's not, and you aren't considering the implications of adding a group with an anti-science agenda into a science classroom. As you said earlier, "science should stay out of religion" - well then religion should stay out of science by that reckoning, or if ID is taught in science classes, then science should be taught in religion classes. That doesn't make any sense to me.CinnamonGirl wrote:
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?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.
This statement has me completely lost - what do you mean by "science staying out of religion" (it already does) and "it's not a theory argument"?CinnamonGirl wrote: 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.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Yes, it is a challenge to materialism, but they blame science for being the basis of that materialism and their document reads like a hostile takeover. One of their stated goals is "To replace materialistic explanations (that come from science, as they explained in their intro) with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."bailey bud wrote: 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.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.