Inteligent Design

[Minimalist]

Without a doubt this is the finest response to Creationism and the derivative pseudo-science of Intelligent Design. Warning, it is long.


http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articl ... =1&catID=2



I think you miss the point about the debate, Arch. If they want to teach ID or any other form of religion in a church or church school, that's fine. Just keep that drivel out of science classrooms. American high school students get 50 minutes of science classroom instruction per day and some of that is taken up with mundane administrative tasks. We are already well behind other nations in the number of scientists produced which is a national scandal in and of itself. But to further water down the science curriculum so the religious right can feel happy about their superstitions is just asking too much.

What's next? Do we teach that the sun moves around the earth because the church once thought it to be so? Do we teach our doctors to "bleed" people because that is how medicine used to be practiced? Should the "Flat Earth" theory be introduced because many people used to believe it?

[Guest]

To me, that comes across as patronising BS from people who can't stand anyone having a different opinion.
Not so long ago, a member of the British Cabinet stated that schools should stop teaching history, since it was 'a waste of time'.
http://news.scotsman.com/education.cfm? ... 006<br%20/>
Several Left-wing authorities in Scotland banned competitive sports a few years back, since it 'wasn't fair to teach kids that someone may not win'. The point is that bigotry isn't confined to the 'religious right'; the biggest opponents of ID are every bit as bigoted and intolerant as it's most fervent supporters.

[Guest]

sorry, i didn't miss the point. since this is a generic topic on i.d., i thought i would point out the frailty of the evolutionary position and its insecurities. one would feel that if evolutionists were secure in their theory, they would accept all aternatives to being taught for those alternatives could not match up with evolution.

by judging the reactions and actions of evolutionists, one can see that they are not fully sold on their product or evidence. there are too many variables that they can not circumvent.

i do see however that though science is to be objective in its study and experiments, that those adherents of evolution want to have a pre-determined conclusion reached long before it can be proven viable via scientific study. thus they are using bias to influence the outcome instead of being honest and seeing the actual result and then coming to a proper conclusion.

though i understand your viewpoint about where to teach intelligent design, i am questioning the objectivity in the science classroom if study is limited only to the theory of evolution. that doesn't sound like science but a move to protect one's own faltering domain.

i would like to read some answers to the questions i proposed.

[Guest]

The answer is they're not afraid of ID, it just doesn't fit in with their dogmatic world view.
Here in Britain, schools go overboard about teaching other points of view when it comes to religion. My kids are Protestant, but the school authorised a trip to a synagogue thirty odd miles away as part of the 'comparative religion' curriculum. I encouraged them to go, and they enjoyed it.
Point is, why can't they do the same in science classes? I'm only 43, I remember being taught about evolution in primary school, but the teacher also gave us the creationist viewpoint as a contrast. Neither was emphasised; we were just taught both. Isn't it sad that Scottish schools in the 1960s were more objective than they are now? Why can't they do the same now? Politics. ID doesn't fit with the 'progressive' socialist world view trendy in the west.
As for not teaching religion at all; France has followed that route for nearly a century and a half-is it less of a Roman Catholic country as a result? Preventing the teaching of any religion in schools isn't 'progress', it's just dogma. Anyway, it amazes me that most people who object to ID-or religious education-are usually atheists. If they have no interest in the first place, why the hell does it matter whether other people learn about it or not?

[Rokcet Scientist]

Those 'other people' are our children, Realist. That's why.

[Guest]

So educate them at home if you're so worried; that way, you can guarantee they'll only listen to your take on the world! Does everyone forget that they have a legal RIGHT to withdraw kids from school and teach them at home if they disagree with the curriculum -in Britain at least? Or would that spoil their chances of whingeing every 5 minutes and demanding schools only teach subjects THEY approve of?

[Rokcet Scientist]

'whingeing' is appropriate indeed.

[stan]

I am not a scientist.



But I think it is important to remember in the discussions of the age of the earth (particularly the scientific vs. Biblical account), that most of the evidence comes from the science of geology.
Having observed geologists and done a little reading in that area, I am very impressed by the thoroughness and objectivity of it.
It seems firmly based in the hard sciences. The dependable dating of various strata and of the activity of the earth's crust is fundamental to the science of geology, and many contemporary studies are based on it, ...including climatology as well as fossil-fuel prospecting.
I don't think geologists generally have a hidden agenda...they just report what they learn.
I am sure there are some disagreements in the field, and dogma that perhaps change from generation to generation, but if I want to know the age of things in the earth, I would prefer knowing what geologists think.
We depend on the physical and natural sciences to give us progress in medicine, technology, astronomy, and anything involving experimentation. If scientists conducted their work according to religion, it wouldn't work.

[Leona Conner]

Bravo Stan. The major problem with teaching I.D. in schools is that if they have to use the Bible as a textbook, they won't learn anything new. In order for it to work, the Bible must be taken apart , questioned, and put back together in order to do it all over again in a different way. By the Bible's own teachings it cannot be questioned. Kind of an oxymoron situation if you ask me.

[stan]

thank you for the bouquet, leona.

[Guest]

realist-- you make a good point and i too was taught evolution in schools as i was growing up and i was taught the bible in church. i do think that your idea of pulling kids out of school is the direction most religious people may take soon.

i agree with the idea of exposure to many different ideas and theories, for it is more beneficial than harmful but what i am saying though is that to eliminate alternative theories from the science classroom is to presuppose a conclusion and influence experiments with a pre-determined direction. there is no objectivity, no rationality, no attempt at honesty.

conner-- you don't have to introduce the whole Bible, just the Genesis account and have it investigated thoroughly. i don't see any problem with that as many other myths are introduced in part and they are examined for whatever gain they can provide. the same for the Biblical record.

stan-- i think that many scientists and geologist try to be honest and thorough in their work yet i feel that by eliminating variables, such as the creation story and the flood , the studies and experiments are not complete and lacking in data, making the conclusions biased and uncredible.

i don't necessarily agree with the young earth theory, ussher was wrong and i don't like how so many people jump on his bandwagon. the bible does not mention how old the earth is for a very good reason-- when it comes to our lives the age of the world means nothing.

i have been leaning towards the gap theory, which would justify many of the geologists claims but the lack of evidence and investigation makes it hard to render a decision on that aspect.

i wish more christian scholars would take the Bible apart more, so that we could learn more intimately what is being said but too many are not brave enough to attempt such a project. whether that is due to the 'evangelical' mindset or not who knows but information is lacking and it is sad.

[Rokcet Scientist]

realist-- you make a good point and i too was taught evolution in schools as i was growing up and i was taught the bible in church. i do think that your idea of pulling kids out of school is the direction most religious people may take soon.[...]

Unless children have to go to school by law until they are 18 years old.
Most civilised countries have those or similar laws. As a result most of those countries have a lot fewer 'social autists' than others.

[Guest]

Arch,
The argument works both ways of course. Those who oppose ID are also within their rights to teach their kids at home in protest.
Fair comment, RS. In Britain, parents have the legal right to withdraw children over 5 from state schools and educate them at home, as long as they can prove that the child will be taught to an appropriate level that they could have got at school.
The thing is, if the child is under 5, you're not required to send them to school in the first place; parents aren't even required by law to notify the education authorities the child exists! They can educate him at home.
As for civilised countries which require kids to be schooled until 18, and having fewer 'social autists'-I prefer 'sociopaths' - I think America somehow disproves that theory.

[Minimalist]

Given the mentality of most parents who think that their children should not hear anything of which the parents do not approve, one can only imagine us living in caves and eating rocks in short order.

Grovelling to human weakness should not be the goal of education which has become far too politicized.

[Guest]

Exactly.