At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
Ok I know that this is a contentious issue, but I believe that it needs to be talked about.
This has been mentioned in other threads, but I thought that it was time for a thread of its own.
The main problem that I have is how can Intelligent Design (ID) be taught as a SCIENCE when it is based TOTALLY on faith?
At least Evolution is a Theory and until it is disproved or updated it’s the best we have.
ID has it place in Religious Studies NOT in science.
Hi,
I am reminded of the joke about the Law of Gravity.
A small boy said in class, "if there wasn't a Law, then there would be no Gravity".
If there weren't laws against "church and state", then there would be Intelligent Design, taught in any subject area a school board chooses. But, according to the following quote, it's becoming "outlawed": From Nov. 5, 2005:
"by Amy Worden
Philadelphia Inquirer
Intelligent design will soon be history in Dover Area High School science classes, following an election that is reverberating around the country.
Voters on Tuesday ousted eight of the nine members of the school board, currently defendants in the first lawsuit over the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. Replacing them is a bipartisan slate of "pro-evolution" candidates who say intelligent design, with its biblical leanings, has no place in the high school biology curriculum.
The victory for Darwin's theory, the undisputed foundation of modern biology, in the York County school district came on the same day the Kansas State Board of Education approved public school science standards that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.
"The Dover election is a real shot across the bow to school boards anticipating passing these policies," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, a group dedicated to defending evolution."
Faith is again, out the window in public schools, for the time being. Deciding which subject area to teach ID is somewhat mute now. History has a way of repeating itself, and eventually will reappear.
As I have said all along, I don't think that the teaching of ID is a problem.
The problem is which subject to teach it in !
As the Dover farce has shown, if they had recomended it be taught as Religious Studies, there wouldn't of been a problem. As they insisted as teaching it as science that is how the out cry started and to insist on taking their case to court as well has annoyed alot of people.
As normal, if a contensious subject is handle with tact then you will succeed, otherwise it is doomed to failure.
Faith is again, out the window in public schools, for the time being. Deciding which subject area to teach ID is somewhat mute now. History has a way of repeating itself, and eventually will reappear.
Your hypocrisy is showing again, Fred. You have previously supported the will of the majority. Well that's what happened in Dover. As Need said, "democracy at work".
Faith SHOULD be out in PUBLIC schools. Faith is a religious subject, it should be taught in religious institutions and/or in the home.
And I think you meant "moot", though "mute", is what I hope the proponents of ID as a science become.
Hi,
It would be nice, for a change, to read something from ScottGem without his usual condemnation of a personal nature.
"Water off a duck's back" is the term. Or, should I say a Turkey's back?
Happy Thanksgiving.
Hi,
It would be nice, for a change, to read something from ScottGem without his usual condemnation of a personal nature.
"Water off a duck's back" is the term. Or, should I say a Turkey's back?
Happy Thanksgiving.
Fred, Fred, Fred, We have been over this so many times before.
I've mentioned several times about your penchant for false generalizations. The fact is that my responses rarely include a "condemnation of a personal nature". But sometimes, when a comment is so off the wall, its hard
to condemn what one has written without condemning the person writing it. But I try to restrict my comments to what was actually said.
And your writings here WERE hypocritical. On the one hand you have supported the will of the majority, but when that majority will is exercised you complain about it because it doesn't fit your desires.
Probably should put this elsewhere,but as I "know" most of the other members who have responded to this thread,I thought you might like to view this link (with apologies to Curlyben for "wrecking" his original post),to Carl Sagan.Even here in the UK,years after his death,he is still respected amongst the scientific community.As a kid,here in the UK, I remember watching many interesting programs that he hosted for the BBC:
His views on alien civillisations,time travel,plus many others,are interesting to read.There's even an audio link,to the right of the page,so you can hear the great man's thoughts yourselves.You'l need to have RealAudio installed to hear Mr Sagan.
At the bottom of the page are more useful links,to more wonders of life,the universe,etc.
No worries Nez, an excellent post.
Doesn't really address the point I'm trying to make, but opens other avenues of discussion.
As I mentioned earlier, why does the 'designer' have to be God, in any form.
I love the Hitchhickers Guide explaination of the Great Green Arcleseizure (sp) and sneezing the whole universe into existance
We're all beating our heads against a brick wall here. Does anyone ,including myself, think that any arguments that we come up with is going to change anyones opinion? How do I know this? Because I've been on the front lines for 13 years after I retired from plumbing on the other side of fundamental Christians and I've heard all the auguments both pro and con.
I'm going to share a piece of my life with you to show you how I came to the above conclusion.
I retired as a construction foreman in 1988. I used to drive by the Sarasota Women's Health Clinic and see 50 to 75 protesters with signs and gross pictures ganging up on a single female as she attempted to enter the clinic compound.
One day I stopped and listened to what they were shouting at the girls. "Whore! slut! murderer! were just a few of the nasty things that were heaped on them as they walked in. They were throwing tiny plastic dolls dipped in red fingernail polish in open car windows as they drove into the parking lot.
When I volunteered as a escort the next day I had no idea it would last for thirteen years and that I would end up working with our local police and be responsible for sending a lot of the protesters to jail. In 1993 when the "lifers" begain killing doctors and escorts, the clinic owner put me on staff as head of security and chief escort for the four clinics that he owned.
In my job I have gone head to head with most of the heavy hitters in abortion protesting. Randel Terry of Operation Rescue, Flip Benham of Rescue America, Joe Scheidler of The Pro-Life Action League, Tom and Linda McGlade of Missionaries for Life to name a few. All used guilt as a club and religion as a threat. I'll not go into the insults, the threats, the stalking of both are patients and staff members, except to say the threats, intimidation, guilt and physical violence were just some of the weapons used against clinic staff and patients.
In my job I have been attacked three times, shot at twice, went through four bomb scares and had two anthrax letters come to our office, one of which we opened and got white powder on myself and the office manager. The letter inside the envelope condemed abortion and informed us we had just been exposed to anthrax and were going to die. It took three days for Hazmat to analyze the substance and report it was harmless. Have you any idea the terror involved in not knowing if you would live or die?
In my capacity as head of security, I have sent many protesters to jail and spent a lot of free time in court testifying against them. Some for violent action but most for harassment and trespass after warning. I kept at my job because I believe in women's rights. For far too long they were second class citizens, not being able to vote, own property or have control over their own bodies.
Women have fought too long and hard, have suffered too many hardships attaining these rights to have even one of them taken from them.
I'm retired again. I've run my race and looking back on it, remembering the hundreds of frightened girls I've escorted past screaming whackos, I can feel proud that in my small way I have helped keep women's rights where they belong. With women, and not with some middle-aged white man shouting threats and insults outside a clinic.
So when I say that all the lodgic and reason in the world isn't going to change a believers mind I know what i'm talking about. They have a right to their beliefs and opinions and this right should be defended at all costs. They just don't have the right to force their religious beliefs in the school system under the guise of science. I'm with the poster that wanted religion taught in the school system, but not in a science or biology class. I would like to see all religions taught as a separate subject and not snuck in under the fence as warmed over creationism. I have the utmost respect for believers, they are happy with the chuch fellowship and the feeling that they are being watched over and at times I envy them. But my opinions were formed many years ago and I'm too old to change them now. I apologize if I've ruffled any feathers by this post but I think this thread should be dropped and I've given my reasons why. My warmest thoughts to my fellow experts on this Thanksgiving Day. Tom
Frankly I think debate or discussion of such issues is good. Sometimes people are so set in their ways they just don't know why they believe what they claim to.
"Cause it's how I was taught" is the answer too many people give for what they believe about such things as this.
Everyone can learn.
Heck, I respect a person who vehemently disagrees with me using good arguments than I do someone who believes like I do but preaches it's truths because he "knows it in his heart".
Linear Mode
