should Intelligent design in public school [Archive]

RationalInquirer

03-08-2009, 03:22 PM

The past 5 years Intelligent design has been trying to reach out to be taught in public classrooms. Mainly to have the exact same amount of time as evolution in a science class. Intelligent designist believe intelligent desing to be an alternative theory to evolution. Some school boards have already allowed intellegent design to be taught, fights have been spread through many courtrooms about this ongoing conflict

what do you guys think?
My answer is no. Intelligent Design is creationism in disguise. As Tatterdemalion says, it holds no scientific credibility nor is it testable under the scientific method. All they have is debate and speculation. It is not science. Religion should be kept out of classrooms and stick to being in churches where they belong.This brings back memories of the Dover trial and the Kansas School Board District.

IF Intelligent Design is somehow made mandatory in the school curriculum, not only has the education system failed us, but we should also allow equal room for not only the teachings of <insert deity name here>, but the teachings of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Cthulhu, foremost of the Great Old Ones, almighty sultan Azathoth, the eternal Gatekeeper Yog-Sothoth, and the emissary of madness, Nyarlahotep.

May his noodley appendages bless us all
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/lovecraftian_school_board_member?utm_source=a-section

RationalInquirer

03-08-2009, 06:24 PM

there's another theory (which i thought WAS intelligent design...guess not) that is still from the christian perspective but that states that evolution could've been god's design after all.

still that's just another way for the christian sects to get their foot in the door, denounce and run over other theories they don't agree with.

This is called Theistic Evolution and is generally accepted by the Roman Catholic Church. It's the idea that Evolution does work but that a personal creator God is responsible for it. Strange, considering Evolution directly contradicts the origins of life on Earth as detailed in <insert your holy book here>. Personally, I think that religion should stop 'evolving' to adapt to the latest scientific findings and theories. I much prefer them opposing Evolution or abandoning the faith altogether.

Tatterdemalion

03-08-2009, 06:44 PM

Personally, I think that religion should stop 'evolving' to adapt to the latest scientific findings and theories. I much prefer them opposing Evolution or abandoning the faith altogether.

Let me get this straight...you criticize religion for being too dogmatic and stubborn, the Catholic Church does something which doesn't conform to traditional dogma, so you criticize it for not being stupporn and dogmatic enough? Make up your mind, man.

But really, if science can evolve,why not religion? The only real argument I've heard against this is that religions claim to be absolute and infallible, with the Bible as an infallible document that is an entirely literal representation of history, and cannot be subject to interpretation and textual criticism. But at the same time, there are plenty of religions that don't take this position. There are people who want them to, who pretend that they do, and who criticize them if they don't, but at the same time this isn't some sort of universal quality of religion.Just face it, the major world religions have grown up and moved on. Can you?

RationalInquirer

03-08-2009, 08:25 PM

Let me get this straight...you criticize religion for being too dogmatic and stubborn, the Catholic Church does something which doesn't conform to traditional dogma, so you criticize it for not being stupporn and dogmatic enough? Make up your mind, man.

But really, if science can evolve,why not religion? The only real argument I've heard against this is that religions claim to be absolute and infallible, with the Bible as an infallible document that is an entirely literal representation of history, and cannot be subject to interpretation and textual criticism. But at the same time, there are plenty of religions that don't take this position. There are people who want them to, who pretend that they do, and who criticize them if they don't, but at the same time this isn't some sort of universal quality of religion.Just face it, the major world religions have grown up and moved on. Can you?

Despite what you may think, religion has not really evolved at all. Bad choice of words on my part I guess. Religions and their core principles remain relatively unchanged from what they were thousands of years ago. What annoys me is that they think they can reconcile science with theistic beliefs. Despite the good intentions of doing this, they need to realize it's not possible (in the case of evolution anyways). And when they stop to think it through, if they do accept evolution and the existence of a God, they might as well take one more step and drop their current beliefs and adopt a more complex deistic or agnostic philosophy. This can also apply to moderate religious people who do not take their holy books %100 literally, it shouldn't be difficult for these type of rational people to just relinquish their faith. Perhaps it's just sentimentality or some sort of obligation that prevents them from doing so.
But this is a topic for intelligent design, so I suggest we get back on topic.

Tatterdemalion

03-08-2009, 10:33 PM

What annoys me is that they think they can reconcile science with theistic beliefs.

That's because they can. Not when you use a strict literalist interpretation, of course, but the two are far from mutually exclusive. When you try to use one as a substitute for the other, then they come into conflict, but at the same time, they both have purposes that are, for the most part, distinct.

Despite the good intentions of doing this, they need to realize it's not possible (in the case of evolution anyways).

How?

And when they stop to think it through, if they do accept evolution and the existence of a God, they might as well take one more step and drop their current beliefs and adopt a more complex deistic or agnostic philosophy.

What's the point? And if you think Deism is more complex than Theism you must be bugging.

I think the problem is that you're trying to use religion to explain the origins of the world's natural phenomena, and failing. Stop trying to use religion as a cheap substitute for science, and you won't have that problem. Bitter scientists treat religion like it's a cheap substitute for science. Don't turn into a bitter scientist, it's not worth it.

But this is a topic for intelligent design, so I suggest we get back on topic.

We are on topic. Intelligent Design is creationism, and the discussion of creationism is essentially one of the relationship between religion and science. We're discussing just that, so we're not really straying anywhere.

Eia

03-08-2009, 10:57 PM

On the subject of how to teach about how the world began...

Give students the facts (how old the earth is, etc.), then tell them all of the scientific theories that are currently available about how the universe began. Tell them that at this point it is an unknown answer as science continues to explore the question. (In other words, be honest.)

Because, frankly, I don't agree with the standard "big bang" theory that is being taught in schools either.

I think creationism should also be explored - but not in science class.

RationalInquirer

03-08-2009, 11:40 PM

tatterdemalion:
I think the problem is that you're trying to use religion to explain the origins of the world's natural phenomena, and failing. Stop trying to use religion as a cheap substitute for science, and you won't have that problem. Bitter scientists treat religion like it's a cheap substitute for science. Don't turn into a bitter scientist, it's not worth it.

Wha?! I didn't understand this part. Were you referring to Intelligent Design as a cheap substitute for science? I opposed religion for quite a while. I never suggested in wanting it to be a substitute for science. Let alone using it to explain a natural phenomena.

As for bitter scientists, the vast majority of scientists reject religion but just choose not to be vocal about it. With some exceptions (notably Richard Dawkins) they keep these opinions to themselves. However, advocates of Intelligent Design (creationists) insist on pushing ID into the curriculum. They are the ones who are bitter and refuse to relent.

By the way, I can't believe I didn't ask this earlier. But do you accept the theory of evolution, Tatterdemalion?

How?
Tell me a holy book that has references to Evolution and I'll give you a cookie. Or likewise, tell me how Evolution can possibly point to a God who supposedly created the world less than 10000 years ago. Evolution occurs over millions of years. It is incompatible with the Bible/Koran or any other creation story.

What's the point? And if you think Deism is more complex than Theism you must be bugging.

How so? I think that looking beyond an ancient book and thinking outside the box constitutes more complexity, even if it is by a margin (both still aknowledging a creator God).

rebornzombie2
I think that if a majority of people want to learn it, and they offer as many different religions as possible and don't actually preach to them, but actually tell them the facts of the religion, then yes they should teach it.

They already have these classes in college/university. I forgot what they were called though. I don't think it is Theology though, because theology is usually the study of a particular God.

Eia.
Because, frankly, I don't agree with the standard "big bang" theory that is being taught in schools either.
The Big Bang is a strong scientific theory with plenty of evidence to support it. What came before the Big Bang one may ask? That's like saying what lies North of the North Pole. At this point in time it is quite a useless question. We don't know yet. But for many God can be used as a placeholder.
I think creationism should also be explored - but not in science class.
I don't agree with creationism. But if they discuss it outside of the science classroom. Then so be it.

Tatterdemalion

03-09-2009, 07:11 PM

Wha?! I didn't understand this part. Were you referring to Intelligent Design as a cheap substitute for science? I opposed religion for quite a while. I never suggested in wanting it to be a substitute for science. Let alone using it to explain a natural phenomena.

No, what I'm saying is that you attempt to use it for such a purpose, and then reject it based on its failure to successfully do so. Are you trying to tell me that you don't attempt to evaluate religion based on the standards of how well it does this? Because I've seen you do so.

As for bitter scientists, the vast majority of scientists reject religion but just choose not to be vocal about it.

On what do you base this assertion?

However, advocates of Intelligent Design (creationists) insist on pushing ID into the curriculum. They are the ones who are bitter and refuse to relent.

Very true. And do you see me supporting them for it? Keep in mind two bitter parties doesn't change the bitterness of either of them.

Tell me a holy book that has references to Evolution and I'll give you a cookie. Or likewise, tell me how Evolution can possibly point to a God who supposedly created the world less than 10000 years ago. Evolution occurs over millions of years. It is incompatible with the Bible/Koran or any other creation story.

It goes like this: The Earth is not actually 10,000 years old. It's more like several billions of years old. Creation stories, on the other hand, are just that. Stories. That is, creation stories, as opposed to an accurate account of natural history.

The trap you seem to fall into is that of thinking that somehow if a creation myth isn't a flawless account of history, it has to be be believed to be literal by a religion anyway, or else it will completely destroy that religion's foundation, and send it spiraling into oblivion. At the same time, the fact remains that this isn't true, considering that no religion is centered exclusively, or even primarily on a creation myth. So there are plenty of people who are reasonable enough to accept this fact, and to find substance and meaning from these stories, and getting a greater understanding of their god and the like through them, without having to believe them to be entirely historical.

What part about this do you not understand?

Has it ever occured to you that perhaps a myth or story can still be meaningful, even if it didn't actually happen that way? I mean, I can think of several such stories, books mostly, but then again, perhaps that's just me.

How so? I think that looking beyond an ancient book and thinking outside the box constitutes more complexity, even if it is by a margin (both still aknowledging a creator God).

Theologists have been thinking "outside of the box" of an ancient text for thousands of years. Most theological principles are not just written explicitly in the Bible, they're the product of thousands of years of scholarship and philosophy.

And even as far as Biblical scholarship, leep in mind that the close examination of a single text is far more complex than just pulling things out of the air, no matter how far "out of the box" you go. And keep in mind, the Bible is indeed a very, very complex text.

By the way, I can't believe I didn't ask this earlier. But do you accept the theory of evolution, Tatterdemalion?

Do you even need to ask this question? Keep in mind that the fact that I'm not an Atheist doesn't automatically make me ignorant and scientifically illiterate. Yes, I went to school, thank you.

They already have these classes in college/university. I forgot what they were called though. I don't think it is Theology though, because theology is usually the study of a particular God.

Are you thinking of Comparative Religion, perhaps?

OverMind

03-10-2009, 08:52 AM

Before this topic turns into an irrelevant debate with personal overtones, I'm going to do you all a favor and put it back on track.

The whole issue of "Intelligent Design" has two main flavours; an American one and the one found in backwards, theocratic third-world countries (i.e. Middle-East, etc.). The difference between the two is that the latter's education systems serve the primary purpose of forwarding the agenda of the state. Education is less of a tool for knowledge, and more of a tool for political control. Creation Science is no different in its American form, political lobbyists (with a Fundamentalist agenda) are trying to creep into an institution that's supposed to be free of this sort of perversion.

Disagree? Then you probably also disagree with a few justices in this case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District) who held the same view.

Now, I don't care if religion needs to "change" or its scriptures need to be "interpreted differently" as to appear relevant to the already closet-agnostic, skeptical, and highly-irreligious-yet-God-will-forgive-me-later-just-because-I-believe-in-him populace of the modern Western world. I do, however, care if religion tries to change the environment around it just so it can be "successful".

Any time this "debate" has come up, creationists sometimes win a few battles but they always lose the war.

Fat1Fared

03-10-2009, 10:29 AM

@The whole issue of "Intelligent Design" has two main flavours; an American one and the one found in backwards, theocratic third-world countries (i.e. Middle-East, etc.).@

I know this is off topic, but why does everyone from Continent of America, seem to think that anywhere outside America is a backwards land of mindless savages. Come on Overmind you are far smarter than that comment, just because the Middle East has some groups of Exstreamist, does not mean everyone from there only believes religious teachings and couldn't cool an egg unless they used a rock fire.

There are many intelligent people and groups...etc in these countries and the Exstreamists are in the minority.

And lets face, I know you are from Candra, but USA doesn't have the greatest record for forward thinking in some areas, (Monkey Trails anyone) and is stereotyped/famous in many other countries for being backwards....etc and has also got their own Religious Zealots (KKK/Neo-Nasi's)

Plus though Candra seems nice place, hardly has world status as place of what futuristic revolutions

killshot

03-10-2009, 10:37 AM

Where the hell is Candra?

Anyways, you can't deny that Islam has a profound impact on Middle Eastern culture. I know America has its fair share of fundamentalists, but at least they don't directly control the country.

Fat1Fared

03-10-2009, 10:51 AM

Really, what was it Bush tried to change in your Constitution again?

And only reason why don't is because most are not strong enough in USA, because your government is far more stable. However with all wars in Middle East (which Western Countries including England and USA have managed to make lot worse over last 100 years,) means that it is far easier to start revolutions in these countries, but most revolutions are done by minority groups, look at Lenin and Russian Revolution, which poeple hate

PS who cares about the spelling, the point is still there and that is that Middle east is not as backwards as we are told, yes there are some things which are culturally different and some things we may even disagree with, however does not make whole country a land of Savages and infact lot of it is misunderstood, IE woman covering their faces. Many do this because feel it frees them from drooling Men's eyes. From what I have been told USA seems to get a very stereotyped view of Middle East from their Media, and though it has problems and very different culture, need to try and understand that culture, rather than just dismiss it as savage and even then try and change it. How would you feel if they came to USA with an Army and called you savages, and told you how to structure your society?

90% of wars would never have happened, if just understood other side, WW1 being best example

OverMind

03-10-2009, 11:30 AM

I know this is off topic, but why does everyone from Continent of America, seem to think that anywhere outside America is a backwards land of mindless savages. Come on Overmind you are far smarter than that comment, just because the Middle East has some groups of Exstreamist, does not mean everyone from there only believes religious teachings and couldn't cool an egg unless they used a rock fire.

I'm sure a few Saudis would be applauding at your defence of them ... only if their hands weren't amputated by an oppressive government that punishes some crimes as such.

Seriousness asides, you've overlooked a few things. First, I'm attacking the policies of their governments, not the people or their culture. I'm not sure where you got the impression that I was calling Middle-Easterners savages.

The governments in these areas are taking the issue of creationism to the extreme by making it the only valid "scientific" framework acceptable to teach. Teaching evolution is against the law. Though it probably would never get like that in the US, you can see how this is problematic.

Why won't they allow evolution to be taught? Unless you can give me an answer other than "propaganda", "controlling the people by using education as an instrument", or "because they're dicks", I'm going to stick with "backwards" as a valid term to describe those states.

Artien

03-10-2009, 01:15 PM

This one's tricky, as people are alowed to believe what they want, however, schools are there to teach us the truth, and the theory of evolution (Theory: a hypothesis with sufficiant scientific evidence to back it up, but is not completly proven. Oxford english dictionary '08 edn.) has enough evidence for it to be believed by most of the scientific world.
As intelligent design is as vehmently accepted in the religious world, the only solution is to teach evolution in science and intelligent design in religious studies, as evolution is a scientific idea and intelligent design is a religious idea. If a student doesn't like one or the other, they should be given the option to not remain in the class. Let the people decide what they want to learn.

Off topic: as controversial as it sounds, some Americans are almost fanatical in their religious belief as muslim extremists anyway, that and America was to blame for most of the poverty in QA today, after funding billions of dollars for Afganistan to fight the Russians. if the Russians had invaded, they would have won and Afganistan and most of the middle east would've been better off. Muslim extremists are the exception, not the rule.

Fat1Fared

03-10-2009, 03:05 PM

I'm sure a few Saudis would be applauding at your defence of them ... only if their hands weren't amputated by an oppressive government that punishes some crimes as such.

Seriousness asides, you've overlooked a few things. First, I'm attacking the policies of their governments, not the people or their culture. I'm not sure where you got the impression that I was calling Middle-Easterners savages.

The governments in these areas are taking the issue of creationism to the extreme by making it the only valid "scientific" framework acceptable to teach. Teaching evolution is against the law. Though it probably would never get like that in the US, you can see how this is problematic.

Why won't they allow evolution to be taught? Unless you can give me an answer other than "propaganda", "controlling the people by using education as an instrument", or "because they're dicks", I'm going to stick with "backwards" as a valid term to describe those states.

Well, fact you called their county "backwards, theocratic third-world countries (i.e. Middle-East, etc.)" is good as calling them savages (though took bit more offense from this comment, because know you are an intelligent person,

and yes some of these countries will have governments like this, but not all of them and not just middle east countries (wasn't long ago USA was having same thing) and thid was more about the way so many poeple seem to just sweep everyone under one brush, IE all Islamic poeple are mad-murders who will bomb you second turn your back on them

Anyway this is off topic

Tatterdemalion

03-10-2009, 08:13 PM

The difference between the two is that the latter's education systems serve the primary purpose of forwarding the agenda of the state.

And since when is this not one of the primary goals of American education as well? I'm sorry, did I just sleep through a social revolution where all nationalistic dogma and economic interests were eliminated from American primary and secondary education?

Is this what happened during the hour I lost for Daylight Savings Time?

Education is less of a tool for knowledge, and more of a tool for political control.

Keep in mind, strange as this may seem, there is education in the Middle East. That is, while not economically ahead in the world, they still actually learn things in their schools, they still have higher education, they still have scholarship, and all of that stuff associated with education. The fact that a country is a thrid world country doesn't make all of its citizens ignorant peasants.

Throughout my education (following your wholesome American model), I've been fortunate enough to go to school with a significant number of people who are immigrants, many of whom are Middle Easter and West Asian, and in all honesty, it's not as though when entering an American school they're at all behind in the major fields (except sometimes English, but I think the reason there is obvious).

Again, I'm not saying that you don't have political agendas in education, you do even in countries like the United States, but t the same time it's not as though it's a battle between the Western model, where people go to school for knowledge, and that evil Oriental system of edcation, where you go to school and don't learn anything except how to submit to the government.

It's a combination of the two in most cases, which is true of first world countries, second world countries, and third world countries. It's not a matter of our education as opposed to their education. It's just education.

OverMind

03-10-2009, 11:15 PM

And since when is this not one of the primary goals of American education as well? I'm sorry, did I just sleep through a social revolution where all nationalistic dogma and economic interests were eliminated from American primary and secondary education?

Is this what happened during the hour I lost for Daylight Savings Time?

Let's extend that quote a bit further ...

The difference between the two is that the latter's education systems serve the primary purpose of forwarding the agenda of the state. Education is less of a tool for knowledge, and more of a tool for political control.

So I ask you, when did the US government last knock down your door and arrest you for teaching a scientific theory that was against their interests?

Keep in mind, strange as this may seem, there is education in the Middle East. That is, while not economically ahead in the world, they still actually learn things in their schools, they still have higher education, they still have scholarship, and all of that stuff associated with education. The fact that a country is a thrid world country doesn't make all of its citizens ignorant peasants.

Keep in mind that I never said education didn't exist in the Middle-East. In fact, Iran is heavily developing and the number of scientific periodicals their scholars have published in the past decade has grown exponentially. Much of the scientific progress varies from country to country, but it's there, of course.

However, this is unrelated to Intelligent Design.

Throughout my education (following your wholesome American model), I've been fortunate enough to go to school with a significant number of people who are immigrants, many of whom are Middle Easter and West Asian, and in all honesty, it's not as though when entering an American school they're at all behind in the major fields (except sometimes English, but I think the reason there is obvious).

Back to Intelligent Design now ...

Again, I'm not saying that you don't have political agendas in education, you do even in countries like the United States, but t the same time it's not as though it's a battle between the Western model, where people go to school for knowledge, and that evil Oriental system of edcation, where you go to school and don't learn anything except how to submit to the government.

It's a combination of the two in most cases, which is true of first world countries, second world countries, and third world countries. It's not a matter of our education as opposed to their education. It's just education.

I was discussing the two most prominent examples of creationism being mandated in schools which just happen to be occur in states that have polarized cultural values and political systems (a coincidence, I can assure you). So, I apologize if you feel that I'm treating one as "evil" (don't remember using that term) and the other as not. I'm using freedom from political interference as the sole criterion here; it just so happens that the Middle East isn't so great in this category.

Simply, a Western education is less prone to interference from external interest groups (and, as you mentioned, it does happen. The best example I can think of is abstinence-only education). Contrast this with a country like China where Mao Zedong's "Little Red Book" is treated as gospel.

Artien

03-11-2009, 11:23 AM

So I ask you, when did the US government last knock down your door and arrest you for teaching a scientific theory that was against their interests?

I agree with this point made by Overmind, religion can be a form of social control, and if a government is allowed to use religious social control to their advantage, i.e. in classrooms to young people who don't know any better, is that not indoctrination?

Tatterdemalion

03-12-2009, 12:04 AM

So I ask you, when did the US government last knock down your door and arrest you for teaching a scientific theory that was against their interests?

I don't see the connection. Does the government have to arrest people for teaching a scientific theory in order for it to use education as a means to advance its own interests? Isn't it possible for the government to still use education to forward its own agenda without having laws against teaching certain material? The answer is yes, by the way.

And keep in mind, it's not as though people being arrested for teaching a scientific theory is something that's alien to the US. Not only do you have the famous case of John Sopes, who was, just as you put, arrested for teaching a scientific theory, but the law that forbade the teaching of human evolution was in place up until the late 60s. So you did have those sorts of laws in place up until pretty recently. SO yeah, that's something of an answer to your question right there.

Also in pretty recent US history, during the Cold War era, if you were a teacher and you were a Communist, Socialist, pacifist, or otherwise seen as too liberal for the political climate (which was during a very, very nationalistic and conservative period in American history), you could easily be blacklisted, which served the direct purpose of furthering the government's agenda at the time.

Is it just me or does this at least vaguely resemble the government using education to advance its own ideals? Or is that not good enough for you, because it doesn't involve people being arrested for teaching a scientific theory?

I was discussing the two most prominent examples of creationism being mandated in schools which just happen to be occur in states that have polarized cultural values and political systems (a coincidence, I can assure you). So, I apologize if you feel that I'm treating one as "evil" (don't remember using that term) and the other as not. I'm using freedom from political interference as the sole criterion here; it just so happens that the Middle East isn't so great in this category.

When I used the term "evil" (without quotes the first time, so I wasn't quoting you), I was being hyperbolic.

And yeah, as I said earlier, using freedom from governmental political interference as the sole criterion isn't the best way to go about this. When you have a vast number of schools in which the government on some level is actually setting the standards, and prescribing the curriculum, essentially deciding for themselves what is taught and how it's taught, whether a teacher can be arrested or not is besides the point. And keep in mind, it's not as though in the present day if you're a teacher you can't lose your job for teaching material that may be seen as unpopular in, say for example, a history class. It's not exactly Constitutional, and is still the subject of disputes between local school boards across the country and the ACLU, but that's not to say it's something that doesn't happen.

So while it may be more subtle, it's still commonplace in one way or another. Take a look at some of the history textbooks that schools across the country actually use and you'll see what I'm talking about.

I'm not sure how it is in Canada, but in America it's not as though national interests and governmental aims somehow take a backseat to the promotion of knowledge and scholarship.

Fat1Fared

03-12-2009, 07:18 AM

OverMind

03-12-2009, 08:42 AM

I don't see the connection. Does the government have to arrest people for teaching a scientific theory in order for it to use education as a means to advance its own interests? Isn't it possible for the government to still use education to forward its own agenda without having laws against teaching certain material? The answer is yes, by the way.

Dude, you're missing my point. I've already agreed with you that no education is free from the government putting in its own agenda (since, of course, they are the one's funding this endeavour; they wouldn't be doing it if there wasn't a benefit for them). If education was totally free from this, this thread would not have been created in the first place. The point I was making is that in a transparent, democratic society like ours, government bias is usually over-ridden in the pursuit of truth (i.e. since it is not the "primary" purpose). When such intrusions happen, they are inevitably corrected. So, yes, perhaps an agenda exists, but it does not come before truth.

I can open up an American history textbook today and find criticisms of slavery and other government policies that are quite disagreeable today ... and the government doesn't mind funding institutions to teach that it was wrong. Now, go to a country like Turkey, who will not recognize any wrongdoing in their history (i.e. Ottomon Empire). Case in point, they don't consider the Armenian Genocide a genocide at all, when it clearly is. Why? Because it was the Ottomon Empire that was responsible.

Does it not seem that in a case like this, the Turks are advancing their own agenda before the truth?

And keep in mind, it's not as though people being arrested for teaching a scientific theory is something that's alien to the US. Not only do you have the famous case of John Sopes, who was, just as you put, arrested for teaching a scientific theory, but the law that forbade the teaching of human evolution was in place up until the late 60s. So you did have those sorts of laws in place up until pretty recently. SO yeah, that's something of an answer to your question right there.

The fact that you're using the past tense sums up my point. I've mentioned that educational institutions are not flawless, but they self-correct when there's transparency and less government intrusion. Obviously, evolution is being taught now, and the American government will not come to your door today to arrest you for it.

Also in pretty recent US history, during the Cold War era, if you were a teacher and you were a Communist, Socialist, pacifist, or otherwise seen as too liberal for the political climate (which was during a very, very nationalistic and conservative period in American history), you could easily be blacklisted, which served the direct purpose of furthering the government's agenda at the time.

Is it just me or does this at least vaguely resemble the government using education to advance its own ideals? Or is that not good enough for you, because it doesn't involve people being arrested for teaching a scientific theory?

Would this happen today, though? If not, wouldn't you agree that education has self-corrected?

My question was in the present tense. Take that same question (in the present tense) and apply it to the Middle Eastern states I was criticizing.

When I used the term "evil" (without quotes the first time, so I wasn't quoting you), I was being hyperbolic.

Exaggeration is never a good way to go about arguing something. You're a smart guy, so I don't need to explain why.

And yeah, as I said earlier, using freedom from governmental political interference as the sole criterion isn't the best way to go about this. When you have a vast number of schools in which the government on some level is actually setting the standards, and prescribing the curriculum, essentially deciding for themselves what is taught and how it's taught, whether a teacher can be arrested or not is besides the point. And keep in mind, it's not as though in the present day if you're a teacher you can't lose your job for teaching material that may be seen as unpopular in, say for example, a history class. It's not exactly Constitutional, and is still the subject of disputes between local school boards across the country and the ACLU, but that's not to say it's something that doesn't happen.

Well now, my post wasn't meant to be thorough or scientific, it was to be taken with a grain of salt (an invitation you always seem to accept). I just chose one criterion for convenience, if you've got others I wouldn't mind hearing them. Though, I have a feeling that an American education will still fare pretty well in these additional criteria. It wouldn't get an A+, but it definitely wouldn't be at the bottom of its class.

And I keep bringing this point up, but I never said a Western education was perfect. Just like democracy, the way it's been set up is to translate higher, immutable ideals into an imperfect, practical human world. But, you can take a look at the past, and take a look at education now and I'm sure you would agree that it's improved. Again, self-correcting processes are at work. Will it ever be perfect? Probably not. Is there an alternative? If there was, wouldn't we be using it already? You take the best of what you get, and you improve it over time. Kind of like evolution (Oh snap!).

So while it may be more subtle, it's still commonplace in one way or another. Take a look at some of the history textbooks that schools across the country actually use and you'll see what I'm talking about.

There's bias in everything, but that doesn't mean we aren't trying to fix the problem.

I'm not sure how it is in Canada, but in America it's not as though national interests and governmental aims somehow take a backseat to the promotion of knowledge and scholarship.

I feel they take a backseat to the pursuit of truth and knowledge (i.e. the "primary" purpose).

OverMind

03-12-2009, 08:56 AM

tatter though I agree with what you put, you have slated me in past for putting similar things to that in past:

overmind, you know which country invented the idea of indoctating state schools, (well did on mass level and gave it a name:) England, It is written in the stature which made it, all countries from USA to all way down to China, use it in this way, some less than others, some just more undertoned than others, however one good example to use is history lessons, where you will be tort the History of your country and it will always be from your countries view.

IE, I have a friend, who is a teacher, and she went to USA to watch some of their lessons and guess what she was tort, according to this American School, Spain had the biggest Empire in History, not Britain and you know why?

Because according to this school, America was never part of the British Colonies, that is a country changing its very Birth, to suit it own needs.

Another example from Britain (My own Country,)and that is the Battle of Rawks Riff, read the english report and it was a great victory, read less bais reports, it was another F((K up in one of ours histories worst ever campains

Right, right, bias is present in educational teaching materials, what else is new?

Seriously, can we all get back to the point of the topic.

I still stand by my position that Intelligent Design should not be included in science classrooms anywhere because their existence is tied solely to political lobby groups (specifically, right-wing Fundamentalists), not the scientific community.

My viewpoint of less government intrusion and more encouragement of unfiltered knowledge (which I've been championing, if you haven't noticed) just can't justify it.

Tatterdemalion

03-12-2009, 11:17 PM

Dude, you're missing my point. I've already agreed with you that no education is free from the government putting in its own agenda (since, of course, they are the one's funding this endeavour; they wouldn't be doing it if there wasn't a benefit for them). If education was totally free from this, this thread would not have been created in the first place. The point I was making is that in a transparent, democratic society like ours, government bias is usually over-ridden in the pursuit of truth (i.e. since it is not the "primary" purpose). When such intrusions happen, they are inevitably corrected. So, yes, perhaps an agenda exists, but it does not come before truth.

I can open up an American history textbook today and find criticisms of slavery and other government policies that are quite disagreeable today ... and the government doesn't mind funding institutions to teach that it was wrong. Now, go to a country like Turkey, who will not recognize any wrongdoing in their history (i.e. Ottomon Empire). Case in point, they don't consider the Armenian Genocide a genocide at all, when it clearly is. Why? Because it was the Ottomon Empire that was responsible.

Does it not seem that in a case like this, the Turks are advancing their own agenda before the truth?

Of course it comes before truth. They get away with it because they present it as being the same thing as truth, but in all honesty, while not neccessarily getting to the point of revisionist history, you don't have an at all objective analysis of American history in American schools.

Yes, of course America is going to teach that things like slavery are wrong,but that's all a part of American dogma. Americans almost religiously follow this notion of freedom, and liberty, and all that good stuff as an ideal, and use that to set the interprestations of history that will be taught universally for the next few hundred years.

There are American historical figures whose divinity you just can't challenge. The Sons of Liberty are never going to be taught as being a terrorist organization, even though it clearly was. Abraham Lincoln is never going to be taught as being a white supremacist. The Framers of the Constitution will never be presented as creating a society that was designed to exclude all but the wealthy and the educated from this so-called American dream. Political leaders of minority groups who didn't come out on top historically (say, for example, Native Americans) will always be marginalized, even when their historical contributions are significant. And on top of that, dispite nearly a century of attempting to do so, you still don't see anything as basic as the full intergration of African American history into the teaching of American history.

It's not as though American education is flexible, While the government is not presented as infallible, American ideals are, and particular historical figures and events are used to advance this idealization of American history, democracy, values and the Constitution at the expense of historical accuracy and objective critcal analysis of events.

Would this happen today, though? If not, wouldn't you agree that education has self-corrected?

My question was in the present tense. Take that same question (in the present tense) and apply it to the Middle Eastern states I was criticizing.

Yes, yes it would. Not necessarily to the extent of blacklisting, but it's not as though if you're a teacher in an American school you're free to teach the material in such a way that may be seen as advancing an unpopular position, so long as you do so with academic integrity. If you're a college professor then perhaps you can, but if you're anything less then in far too much of the country you're at the mercy of the school and school board for which you work. Is it just? No. Is it a reality? Yes.

And I keep bringing this point up, but I never said a Western education was perfect. Just like democracy, the way it's been set up is to translate higher, immutable ideals into an imperfect, practical human world. But, you can take a look at the past, and take a look at education now and I'm sure you would agree that it's improved. Again, self-correcting processes are at work. Will it ever be perfect? Probably not. Is there an alternative? If there was, wouldn't we be using it already? You take the best of what you get, and you improve it over time. Kind of like evolution (Oh snap!).

Keep in mind that changes in the way American is history is taught that have occured over the past, say, 50 years aren't the product of "self-correction" so much as they are the result of a conscious action, and direct effort made by the societal upheavals of recent history. The system itself isn't designed to allow itself to gradually improve over time. To the contrary, whatever changes do occur occur in spite of the existing system and its structure, not as a result of it.

And again, as far as ideals, teaching ideals is part of the problem, not the goal. If you're going to teach something like history accurately you can't mold it and shape it to fit the cultural ideals you're trying to advance (which, whetehr or not you're exactly advocating that, is what is being done). That's not education. To the contrary, it's tantamount to propaganda.

Once you start treating an ideal as unchanging and...well, ideal, bad things happen. From there attention to particular events and people in history is made grossly disproportionate, on top of which the curriculum itself becomes a tool to discourage criticism of principles held in high regard as opposed to promoting serious critical analysis, for better or worse.

So yeah, if education just evolved tthe way you described, that would be great. Too bad it doesn't.

There's bias in everything, but that doesn't mean we aren't trying to fix the problem.

Agreed. The fact that no widespread efforts are being made to fix the problem means we aren't trying to fix the problem.

(And how do you count as "we"? Again, aren't you Canadian? Or am I getting something wrong?)

OverMind

03-13-2009, 12:07 AM

Of course it comes before truth. They get away with it because they present it as being the same thing as truth, but in all honesty, while not neccessarily getting to the point of revisionist history, you don't have an at all objective analysis of American history in American schools.

Yes, of course America is going to teach that things like slavery are wrong,but that's all a part of American dogma. Americans almost religiously follow this notion of freedom, and liberty, and all that good stuff as an ideal, and use that to set the interprestations of history that will be taught universally for the next few hundred years.

There are American historical figures whose divinity you just can't challenge. The Sons of Liberty are never going to be taught as being a terrorist organization, even though it clearly was. Abraham Lincoln is never going to be taught as being a white supremacist. The Framers of the Constitution will never be presented as creating a society that was designed to exclude all but the wealthy and the educated from this so-called American dream. Political leaders of minority groups who didn't come out on top historically (say, for example, Native Americans) will always be marginalized, even when their historical contributions are significant. And on top of that, dispite nearly a century of attempting to do so, you still don't see anything as basic as the full intergration of African American history into the teaching of American history.

It's not as though American education is flexible, While the government is not presented as infallible, American ideals are, and particular historical figures and events are used to advance this idealization of American history, democracy, values and the Constitution at the expense of historical accuracy and objective critcal analysis of events.

It seems now that you're arguing that human bias trumps everything else (i.e. the people writing the history textbooks). That's fine and dandy, but that's not what I've been arguing. Simply put, all I've said is that most Western governments don't have systemized procedures to filter information in order to control people's thinking like they do in other countries (i.e. the "agenda" term that started this off-topic debate). This is what my original argument was.

Will you find bias? Undoubtedly. But that's never the intent.

Yes, yes it would. Not necessarily to the extent of blacklisting, but it's not as though if you're a teacher in an American school you're free to teach the material in such a way that may be seen as advancing an unpopular position, so long as you do so with academic integrity. If you're a college professor then perhaps you can, but if you're anything less then in far too much of the country you're at the mercy of the school and school board for which you work. Is it just? No. Is it a reality? Yes.

Wait. What? I see a lot of text here, but I don't see any explanation of how you could get arrested, which is the original question I posed.

It's fine that you are championing blacklisting/slap on the wrist by the school board/etc. as an argument, but it's something you brought up and not related to what I've been arguing.

Keep in mind that changes in the way American is history is taught that have occured over the past, say, 50 years aren't the product of "self-correction" so much as they are the result of a conscious action, and direct effort made by the societal upheavals of recent history. The system itself isn't designed to allow itself to gradually improve over time. To the contrary, whatever changes do occur occur in spite of the existing system and its structure, not as a result of it.

Or, you know, we could stop trying to find single explanations for complex things and agree that it's a variety of factors, maybe some attributed to self-correcting measures in the institutions themselves and maybe some attributed "direct effort/conscious action/etc." and maybe something else no one's mentioned yet.

And again, as far as ideals, teaching ideals is part of the problem, not the goal. If you're going to teach something like history accurately you can't mold it and shape it to fit the cultural ideals you're trying to advance (which, whetehr or not you're exactly advocating that, is what is being done). That's not education. To the contrary, it's tantamount to propaganda.

Once you start treating an ideal as unchanging and...well, ideal, bad things happen. From there attention to particular events and people in history is made grossly disproportionate, on top of which the curriculum itself becomes a tool to discourage criticism of principles held in high regard as opposed to promoting serious critical analysis, for better or worse.

I never said anything about molding history to today's "cultural ideals"; the ideals I was referring to were simply those that champion teaching material truthfully and not changing the facts in any way. What you're talking about falls under the category of bias introduced by people doing the actual teaching or the writing of the materials, but not anything the government intended. The ideals I'm talking about can be found in the charters of any college or private school.

I can't see how these are bad.

Agreed. The fact that no widespread efforts are being made to fix the problem means we aren't trying to fix the problem.

Because, you know, the historians that write the textbooks, or do the necessary research don't get their colleagues or trusted organizations/boards/panels to review their work to get rid of bias. I guess they're just not putting in enough effort to fix the problem, and faineantly releasing these educational materials to millions of people.

(I disagree with you).

Tatterdemalion

03-13-2009, 02:50 PM

It seems now that you're arguing that human bias trumps everything else (i.e. the people writing the history textbooks). That's fine and dandy, but that's not what I've been arguing. Simply put, all I've said is that most Western governments don't have systemized procedures to filter information in order to control people's thinking like they do in other countries (i.e. the "agenda" term that started this off-topic debate). This is what my original argument was.

Will you find bias? Undoubtedly. But that's never the intent.

Some people write the textbooks, yes. And then the department of education chooses which textbooks to use. And this choice is based largely on the approach the textbook takes to the material. So one attitude = money, whereas something that may be seen as encouraging an unpopular viewpoint, or exploring alternate approaches to the material = out of business.

It doesn't matter if you most the highest quality, most objective textbook in the world, it doesn't do anyone any good if the schools won't use them.

That's not human bias, that's systemic bias. Unless you're trying to say that the people who run the system are themselves all just guilty of human biases, which overall make the system biased. That I might be able to agree with you on.

Wait. What? I see a lot of text here, but I don't see any explanation of how you could get arrested, which is the original question I posed.

It's fine that you are championing blacklisting/slap on the wrist by the school board/etc. as an argument, but it's something you brought up and not related to what I've been arguing.

Your original question "Would this happen today, though?" was in response to a paragraph I wrote about blacklisting. The point I was trying to make is that government intervention in education to promote a particular political viewpoint can exist without arresting teachers. Nowhere in that paragraph did I discuss teachers being arrested.

So your question, in direct response to my paragraph about blacklisting, was asking about blacklisting, not teachers being arrested.

This is, of course, because the pronoun "this" takes the place of a noun. Generally the noun in question is something nearby, or that had just preceeded. If you post something I wrote, then you use the pronoun "this" you are therefore referring to the thing that you just quoted, as opposed to a question you had asked several posts earlier.

Or, you know, we could stop trying to find single explanations for complex things and agree that it's a variety of factors, maybe some attributed to self-correcting measures in the institutions themselves and maybe some attributed "direct effort/conscious action/etc." and maybe something else no one's mentioned yet.

Okay then. But at the same time, I'd respond by saying that the actions taken within the institutions were largely (not entirely, but largely) the result of pressure from outside groups.

I never said anything about molding history to today's "cultural ideals"; the ideals I was referring to were simply those that champion teaching material truthfully and not changing the facts in any way. What you're talking about falls under the category of bias introduced by people doing the actual teaching or the writing of the materials, but not anything the government intended. The ideals I'm talking about can be found in the charters of any college or private school.

I can't see how these are bad.

Those sorts of ideals are all well and good, yes. Whether or not they are upheld in practice is questionable.

Fat1Fared

03-13-2009, 03:01 PM

It

I never said anything about molding history to today's "cultural ideals"; the ideals I was referring to were simply those that champion teaching material truthfully and not changing the facts in any way. What you're talking about falls under the category of bias introduced by people doing the actual teaching or the writing of the materials, but not anything the government intended. The ideals I'm talking about can be found in the charters of any college or private school.

I can't see how these are bad.

(I disagree with you).

I just want to jump in on this one point you made, a lot of time, you don't need to change a fact, just need to change someones viewpoint of the fact, a good example to use, would be a sport>

We will take English Football, Man.U V Liverpool Utd

Score 2-1 Man.U win:

If you were to get a Man.U fans view of match and Liverpool fans view, it would be too very different things:

Man U fan would say his team defended well and took their few chances

but liverpool fan would say that Man U, were poor and only won because his was unlucky and unable to find goal,

Same facts would be there, but 2 parties would view them very differently and this is what bais really is, Bias rarely involves changing facts, it involves an unbalanced view of the facts and this what most governments use in schools to push through their own views

So my point is even though they are not changing facts, doesn't mean not bias

OverMind

03-14-2009, 08:25 PM

So my point is even though they are not changing facts, doesn't mean not bias

The whole gist of my arguments are that the government is not trying to "cover" anything up (i.e. "hide" the theory of evolution from students), while this definitely occurs in some other countries. The facts that validate the theory of evolution remain taught, nothing is swept under the rug. Heck, there are probably inconsistences with the theory of evolution itself (I don't know any, but that doesn't mean they are non-existent. We can ask an "Intelligent Design" supporter, and he'd probably be able to list some). Bringing those up in Western institutions won't get you landed in jail. Contrast this with bringing up inconsistencies with Intelligent Design in Saudi Arabia, as an educator.

You can go on and on about bias, and I'd agree with you on every point you make. That's because I'm not arguing against it; I wholeheartedly agree that bias exists because, as humans, there's inevitably going to be flaws in our perspective. Until we become Gods, or sentient robots, we will just have to live with this. But, taking this into account, the "fact" remains that the government isn't trying to hide any facts, but these facts will always be subject to bias.

Fat1Fared

03-14-2009, 09:00 PM

OK, I am going replace this, we agree that they rarely make full changes to information (though if look hard enough, suspect you will find lot of dirty)

And we agree that there is lot of Bais, but what we disagree on, is that you seem too really underestimate just how far that bais goes and how much affect it can have:

This time, I will a more close example, then, when tort about towers, you will be told that two planes hit, twice towers, was done by religious group, killed lots of poeple-That is facts (or what we will take as facts here, for simpleness's sake)

However when tort by USA school, it will involve the evils of members.....insane terrorists.........all Asians members against Democracy.....dark day in history

if tort by a Fantic, will teach of great warriors.........great freedom fighters willing to die for their cause........Defeat of evil system..........first day to glory of future

Both have same facts, will the different in view point/use of words tells to very different stories, when USA teaches of Vertieram War, it tells poeple about the mass murder of whole villiages and burnings of whole jungles, no it will be the removal of resistance members, with few civilons and the median damage of war in area

Hell one person told me, that in USA the war is called, police action and fighting is called, pockets of resistance, on TV, so take from that what you will

Tatterdemalion

03-14-2009, 11:43 PM

Also, I just noticed something.

Simply, a Western education is less prone to interference from external interest groups

Intelligent Design

Irony!

OverMind

03-15-2009, 12:46 PM

Irony!

*sighs*

Simply, a Western education is less prone to interference from external interest groups.

Note the bolded words. I didn't say political lobbyists don't ever interfere, I just said that their interference is minimal and their efforts rarely successful. Taking this into account:

Self-correcting Measure: The Judicial System declaring Intelligent Design unconstitutional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District) (when taught in science classrooms).

I guess it's not as ironic as it seems, now is it?

Tatterdemalion

03-15-2009, 01:21 PM

I guess it's not as ironic as it seems, now is it?

No, it's still ironic.

I mean, really, "less"...it's such an indefinite adverb.

OverMind

03-15-2009, 02:50 PM

No, it's still ironic.

I mean, really, "less"...it's such an indefinite adverb.

Okay, Tatterdemalion, you win. It's ironic in the faintest sense :).

Fat1Fared

03-15-2009, 03:27 PM

Doesn't anyone think it is ironic that, the political members you are talking about are actually pushing this through, not only proving tatters point's, but also this seems to prove that USA is also ruled by exstreamist members

OverMind

03-15-2009, 03:37 PM

HolyShadow

03-15-2009, 03:39 PM

Who exactly is pushing this through? Do you have names of these "political members"?
Well, according to many liberals, Obama is Jesus reborn. And according to many conservatives, he's the antichrist.

I'm pretty sure if the president is Jesus or the antichrist, there's bound to be some bias. :V

RationalInquirer

03-15-2009, 04:15 PM

Whoa, whoa, why are we talking about Obama's religious beliefs?
This is a thread on Intelligent Design in public schools.

Tatterdemalion, it seems that you believe that evolution and the biblical creation theory can somehow be reconciled. Your thinking seems to align with such people as Francis Collins and Richard Harries. Alas, smart well-educated people, but such a small minority in America.

Fat1Fared

03-15-2009, 04:17 PM

Who exactly is pushing this through? Do you have names of these "political members"?

well I was on about when you said that you were about exstream members, not on about political lobbyists getting involved, to counter his point about this theory, I was merely saying if political members behind it, then the politician and the exstreams are one in same here

RationalInquirer

03-15-2009, 04:24 PM

Well, according to many liberals, Obama is Jesus reborn. And according to many conservatives, he's the antichrist.

I'm pretty sure if the president is Jesus or the antichrist, there's bound to be some bias. :V

What is Jesus doing signing executive orders and appointing cabinet members? If he has returned, shoudn't he be ready to destroy the world at Tel Megiddo?

Tatterdemalion

03-15-2009, 07:21 PM

Tatterdemalion, it seems that you believe that evolution and the biblical creation theory can somehow be reconciled. Your thinking seems to align with such people as Francis Collins and Richard Harries. Alas, smart well-educated people, but such a small minority in America.

When did I say that? And what's that about smart, well-educated people?

EdBat

03-27-2009, 09:52 PM

Computer_Sage

03-30-2009, 10:30 AM

I once had a teacher that told me she worked in a very religious region once. When she tried to teach them about evolution they all turned their chairs around and had their backs to her, refusing to listen.

That's not unusual of any group when they hear something they don't like and don't know the arguments against it. It's either turn your back and not list or continue on with your current view. You'll see this from any big group. Anti-war protestors, environmentalists, pro-life and pro-choice groups. It's not stuck on one side or the other.

What I don't get is that we have just as much proof of evolution as we do of creationism, and yet we have a big fuse about which one we should teach. Since when could schools not teach both sides of an arguement?

OverMind

03-30-2009, 11:30 AM

What I don't get is that we have just as much proof of evolution as we do of creationism, and yet we have a big fuse about which one we should teach. Since when could schools not teach both sides of an arguement?

That's just the whole problem ... there isn't any evidence for creationism. If there was, this whole discussion wouldn't exist. So, taking that into consideration, why should creationism be taught alongside a theory that actually does have a solid framework of evidence?

It's fine to teach creationism, but it has no place in a science classroom. It would, however, sit quite comfortably in a philosophy textbook.

Computer_Sage

03-30-2009, 12:32 PM

But then why do we teach the Big Bang Theory? There is very little, if any, proof that it could be correct. And yet we teach it in science classes. If it has the same level of proof that creationism has, shouldn't it be moved to the philosophy class too?

There is some evidence that supports creationism. About two years ago, scientists came out with a statement that they think that all matter in the universe may have come into existence in a billionth of a second.

killshot

03-30-2009, 03:51 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

It's better if you just read the evidence for yourself. I would have a hard time explaining it. The Big Bang hasn't been proven, but its a valid hypothesis with plenty of evidence to support it. Creationism, on the other hand, has no evidence to speak of.

I'd be interested in seeing a source for that evidence you are referring to. I haven't heard anything about the universe spontaneously popping into existence.

OverMind

03-30-2009, 04:50 PM

There is some evidence that supports creationism. About two years ago, scientists came out with a statement that they think that all matter in the universe may have come into existence in a billionth of a second.

Following killshot's lead, I have to inquire about this. Assuming that this is true, how does it support creationism? The link must be so blatantly obvious that I must be overlooking it or something.

FuzzyNecromancer

04-02-2009, 08:13 PM

Spoofs3

04-03-2009, 01:11 PM

Why should Intellegent design be taught in schools?
This is because even the Pope (Pope John Paul II) Has admitted that Intellegent design is wrong, And that evolution is Gods design all the time.
So if the Catholic domain has accepted Evolution, being ever so extreme on their views (So extreme, They did not change their views which the Protestant faiths have changed hundreds of years ago)
So why SHOULD it be taught?

I know places which try to teach Intellegent design are not Catholic, But i suppose my point is still valid

OverMind

04-03-2009, 03:03 PM

I know places which try to teach Intellegent design are not Catholic, But i suppose my point is still valid

I'm actually quite surprised the Catholic Church has no qualms with evolution while the Protestant sects (which are reformist) do.

However, there are inherent flaws with using an argument from ignorance to attribute evolution (or even the big bang) to the work of God. I can only imagine what shape a firm believer's faith will be in if and when these events are credited to an actual existent source/reason/event, etc.

This isn't directed at anyone but, for the love of God, don't base your faith on ignorance.

Computer_Sage

04-03-2009, 11:26 PM

Following killshot's lead, I have to inquire about this. Assuming that this is true, how does it support creationism? The link must be so blatantly obvious that I must be overlooking it or something.

Sorry for the delay. I had some things to take care of...... Maybe I'll show it to you all later. [Evil Laugh].

Anyway, I can't remember where that article was. But it doesn't matter. I already got you to agree to my real argument, which had nothing really to do with intelligent design, evolution, or whatever other theory exists about how life came to be.

I thought this might be an interesting topic, but it seems that it won't go anywhere.

What I really find amusing is that you jumped on me for my statement, and yet you make a similar statement with your "there are inherent flaws with using an argument from ignorance to attribute evolution (or even the big bang) to the work of God..". What flaws? You don't give any example or even a reason why there would be flaws.

OverMind

04-04-2009, 10:54 AM

Anyway, I can't remember where that article was. But it doesn't matter. I already got you to agree to my real argument, which had nothing really to do with intelligent design, evolution, or whatever other theory exists about how life came to be.

lolwut? I don't remember agreeing to anything you've said. If you're referring to this:

Assuming that this is true, how does it support creationism?

I wasn't agreeing with you. I was assuming you couldn't provide a source (I was right), and so I let it slide so we could focus on your argument that "the universe may have come into existence in a billionth of a second". How does that validate creationism? Like I said, I fail to see the link.

What I really find amusing is that you jumped on me for my statement, and yet you make a similar statement with your "there are inherent flaws with using an argument from ignorance to attribute evolution (or even the big bang) to the work of God..". What flaws? You don't give any example or even a reason why there would be flaws.

Might I suggest you inform yourself of what an argument from ignorance actually is. It's not something I made up on the spot. Here's a link as a starting point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

The flaw I was referring to was that you seem to be attributing the big bang to God which, essentially, means you are using a variant of the God-of-the-gaps argument. Specifically, for any unexplained "gaps" in science, the explanation is attributed to God. This is a logical fallacy because you're assuming that, since one hypothesis is unsatisfactory (from science), the other one (religion) is automatically correct. Of course, this is not true. In order to be correct, either hypothesis (i.e. science or religion) needs to fulfill the burden of proof. Religion has yet to prove that it was God behind the big bang, or (in relation to the topic), that it is God's will driving evolution.

Jim Profit

04-04-2009, 02:31 PM

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/HZ_invxRVcc/default.jpg
Intelligent design should not be taught in schools because technicaly it isn't even science. Not to say it couldn't be true, but there's no substantial way to prove it. Most science is regarded by the fact of how you go about it.

You take a theory
You test it, you see the results
You test it again

Intelligent design does not follow that formula, it goes
You take a theory
You take other objects and occurances and use them to make the theory credible

SCIENCE DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT!:squintyface:

Not that deceitful science is anything new. For example, blacks and whites are different on a biological level by a little less then one percent. Now, that may not seem like much, but humans and bannanas only differ on a biological scale by like twenty five percent.

Thus, one percent can mean a world of difference. And we don't want to encourage racism... If science was taught the way it was suppose to, we would have a very dark, very cold, social darwinist society where people worked constantly and we built inpenetrable safe havens! We'd be like cosmic ants! Infact, all insects are better examples of evolution then we are. A roach for example, only needs to have sex once, just once. She saves the sperm inside a special organ in her body, and for the rest of her life she can procreate with that same collected sperm. One female roach is all it takes to make a colony. That is evolution at it's finest!

And you don't see the roach complaining "waaah! I just got out of highschool! I can't be a queen! I want to party and enjoy my youth while it lasts!" Humans make me ill. I hope there is some demonic entity out there that enslaves the lot of them. And I'll be one of those kissass traitors...

Computer_Sage

04-04-2009, 03:34 PM

lolwut? I don't remember agreeing to anything you've said.

You still don't get it. I also said this:

"That's not unusual of any group when they hear something they don't like and don't know the arguments against it. It's either turn your back and not list or continue on with your current view. You'll see this from any big group. Anti-war protestors, environmentalists, pro-life and pro-choice groups. It's not stuck on one side or the other."

That was my point the whole time.

As for what schools should teach, I honestly don't care. The school system has bigger problems than whether they should use Genesis of Darwin in their lesson plans.

Oh, and Jim here is starting to sound a lot like Legato.

OverMind

04-04-2009, 05:28 PM

You still don't get it. I also said this:

"That's not unusual of any group when they hear something they don't like and don't know the arguments against it. It's either turn your back and not list or continue on with your current view."

Contrary to what you might think, my current view on anything is mutable. However, it's not going to change if I feel unconvinced of opposing arguments. Thus, for this case, I don't feel convinced of the arguments supporting creationism. I do, however, feel convinced of the opposing view that gives evolution a monopoly in the Biology classroom.

"You'll see this from any big group. Anti-war protestors, environmentalists, pro-life and pro-choice groups. It's not stuck on one side or the other."

This piece was interesting to read because it illustrates:

1. Argument against the Man (i.e. Rather than address or add any arguments, you're making an irrelevant remark criticizing the groups holding them.)

2. The Golden Mean Fallacy (i.e. The assumption that a compromise between two extreme positions is always correct. It's not.)

Computer_Sage

04-04-2009, 08:13 PM

Didn't you read the second to last line? I DON'T GIVE A ****** ABOUT PUBLIC SCHOOLS!

The only reasons I posted in this crappy thread was because no one was playing God's Advocate or devil's advocate and because I was bored. It was all "I think just evolution...". What fun is consensus? I am not equipped to argue for this topic, so stop bugging me.

OverMind

04-04-2009, 08:57 PM

Fair enough. I can see that this thread does need someone vouching for Intelligent Design, and I congratulate you for fulfilling that role.

Tatterdemalion

04-05-2009, 12:10 AM

I DON'T GIVE A ****** ABOUT PUBLIC SCHOOLS!

And that's what's wrong with America...

KuroStarr

04-05-2009, 07:23 PM

This would make sense, were it not for the fact that "intelligent design" has virtually no serious academic credibility or legitimacy, with all of its advocates consisting of an extreme minority, namely those belonging to Christian-conservative think tanks, and advocacy groups, but with the vast majority of the scientific community still rejecting it as pseudoscience at best.
I'm a Christian, and you don't see me trying to force my beliefs on the school system. They should teach evolution[I believe in it], if they don't believe in it then oh well, Christian Extremist should get on with their lives.

inamerica55585

04-16-2009, 05:41 PM

intelligent design?

um... no. no way.
creationism is not science. nor shall it ever be science. Unless, of course someone beyond a shadow of a doubt discovers evidence that God exists. But since that hasn't happened, its not a science. Evolution is a scientific theory. it should be taught in science classes because it is a science.
You know what the problem with this argument is?
Its that the outcome is either religion imitating science or science rising to the level of religion. The two are separate! let's keep it that way.

MrsSallyBakura

04-16-2009, 10:16 PM

I skipped most of the giant walls of text and I'm going to just say my own thing without trying to debate with anyone else.

I think Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools in conjunction with a comparative religion class.

While they offer comparative religion classes in college, I think we Americans need a class like that sooner in their education, especially since not everyone goes to college (though nowadays most people do, but even if they do, what are the chances of them taking a comparative religions class?) So long as whoever teaching the class was respectful and understanding towards all religions being taught, this might decrease the amount of ignorance towards those in religious groups, particularly against certain Christian denominations and Muslims. I went to a Catholic high school so we had to learn about Catholicism, but I wish that we could have taken a class that covered Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and even other Christian denominations. I've recently been researching other Christian denominations and finding out the similarities and differences between my denomination and theirs. It's really interesting and I wish I'd done it sooner.

Tatterdemalion

04-16-2009, 10:28 PM

I think Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools in conjunction with a comparative religion class.

While they offer comparative religion classes in college, I think we Americans need a class like that sooner in their education, especially since not everyone goes to college (though nowadays most people do, but even if they do, what are the chances of them taking a comparative religions class?) So long as whoever teaching the class was respectful and understanding towards all religions being taught, this might decrease the amount of ignorance towards those in religious groups, particularly against certain Christian denominations and Muslims. I went to a Catholic high school so we had to learn about Catholicism, but I wish that we could have taken a class that covered Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and even other Christian denominations. I've recently been researching other Christian denominations and finding out the similarities and differences between my denomination and theirs. It's really interesting and I wish I'd done it sooner.

Keep in mind that "Intelligent Design" refers to teaching that the universe was designed by some intelligent being, not teaching the creation myth of the Abrahamic tradition, or any creation myth at all. Or at least, not teaching it as a creation myth.

And as far as comparative religion goes, in public schools it's not going to happen anytime soon. It's too much of a gray area with the establishment clause. But at the same time, I'd say it's not a bad idea to keep it out of the public school system. I mean, no discredit to public school teachers, many of them are great, but at the same time it's hard to imagine that on a nationwide level you're going to get teachers across the board who a qualified to teach such material.

AdmiralAwesome

04-16-2009, 10:30 PM

No it shouldn't be, its just another way for those creationist hippies to weasel their ideas into the minds of young children. The fact that they are trying to redefine science so that it accepts "supernatural" explanations of things is just absured, since the basis of science is around factual evidence. So as you can see, creationists' arguments suck even in this debate.

I am totally against teaching nonsense

Tatterdemalion

04-16-2009, 10:34 PM

creationist hippies

Since when are creationists hippies?

AdmiralAwesome

04-16-2009, 11:22 PM

Since when are creationists hippies?

Since they decided that they were going to refuse to use their brains and instead join in on a collective idea which has about as much credibility as someone playing russian roulette with a fully loaded gun.

Now I think that sums up creationists and hippies fairly nicely

BTW I can take criticism, so please argue with me. I like listening to peoples' thoughts and ideas.

Tatterdemalion

04-16-2009, 11:35 PM

Since they decided that they were going to refuse to use their brains and instead join in on a collective idea which has about as much credibility as someone playing russian roulette with a fully loaded gun.

Now I think that sums up creationists and hippies fairly nicely

Not really. Hippies are part of a countercultural movement that rejects traditional, conservative social values whereas creationists are attempting to exploit the educational system in order to enforce and promote traditional, conservative values.

Very big difference.

AdmiralAwesome

04-16-2009, 11:48 PM

Not really. Hippies are part of a countercultural movement that rejects traditional, conservative social values whereas creationists are attempting to exploit the educational system in order to enforce and promote traditional, conservative values.

Very big difference.

Hey you were just asking me to draw a comparison, and I drew one. My comparison still really wasn't countered by this statement anyway.

Nevertheless

I suppose it depends on what viewpoint you take. If you look at it from a scientific point of view, you could say that science is regarded as the conservative opinion, and that any argument put foward to explain phenomena through a supernatural occurence is a rejection of the conservative idea.

Tatterdemalion

04-16-2009, 11:52 PM

I suppose it depends on what viewpoint you take. If you look at it from a scientific point of view, you could say that science is regarded as the conservative opinion, and that any argument put foward to explain phenomena through a supernatural occurence is a rejection of the conservative idea.

But it's not, because science is not a conservative idea. It's not really a political or social concept anyway, but if it was, it wouldn't be conservative. Conservatism honors tradition, whereas science promotes new discovery and advancement. Religion is very, very traditional, so placing a religious idea over a scientific idea is to value a traditional viewpoint over a modern one.

AdmiralAwesome

04-17-2009, 12:19 AM

True, although its hard for me to get my head around the idea that religion is still the default (conservative) idea, because not only do I live in a country which has no designated religion, but the idea behind science is old, regardless of the fact that it is based around new discoveries.

I view science and religion as two sides of the same coin. I am fairly certain that for as long as you have had people preaching religion, you have had people questioning it. The only difference is the fact that science required more resources and development in understanding before it becomes a fundamental part of society. Thats why I don't really accept that religion is still or was ever the conservative view. I simply view it by the fact that religious enthusiasts were more adamant to have their views expressed than scientists, which resulted in the odd "heretic" being burnt at the stake etc.

Although this is purely my view

As for the hippies, you could compare their ideals to be similar to those of religious people years ago, of not becoming infatuated with material possessions etc so in that way religion and hippies can be compared

Tatterdemalion

04-17-2009, 12:49 AM

True, although its hard for me to get my head around the idea that religion is still the default (conservative) idea, because not only do I live in a country which has no designated religion, but the idea behind science is old, regardless of the fact that it is based around new discoveries.

I view science and religion as two sides of the same coin. I am fairly certain that for as long as you have had people preaching religion, you have had people questioning it. The only difference is the fact that science required more resources and development in understanding before it becomes a fundamental part of society. Thats why I don't really accept that religion is still or was ever the conservative view. I simply view it by the fact that religious enthusiasts were more adamant to have their views expressed than scientists, which resulted in the odd "heretic" being burnt at the stake etc.

But the thing is that while things like invention and engineering and discovery have existed for much of human history, the scientific method as we know it today is a pretty recent concept, and the notion of a naturalistic explanation for things like the origins of life is fairly recent compared to the religious explanations people use.

AdmiralAwesome

04-17-2009, 01:37 AM

But the thing is that while things like invention and engineering and discovery have existed for much of human history, the scientific method as we know it today is a pretty recent concept, and the notion of a naturalistic explanation for things like the origins of life is fairly recent compared to the religious explanations people use.

I suppose. Well it has always been easier to give the reason "God did it" rather than actually think about the logical explanation behind it.

I like arguing with you. I have to go now, but I will hopefully be back on tomorrow to argue some more. :)

Fat1Fared

04-17-2009, 02:42 PM

In answer to the question of scenice, being new or old, well it has been around sense start of man, as anything which is learning and trying to advance through reasoned logic, fact and invention, is scenice, however it didn't get a name or become the more domiant of 2, till about 150 years ago, in the Enligthen theory, when a group of mostly english men, grouped together in several key areas of england and decided, they wished to answer the questions of the Universe through the things above, as to them religion had failed,

This has gone from strenght to strenght, though some reseach suggests, it is having a deline last 10 years, <ERM>

And Adirmel has a point, they are the two different sides of same coin, as in end both want to answer questions of universe, but through very different ways

Sally, in england, Religion is one of only 4 subjects we are forced by law to study and yet, we are a greatly falling country when comes to religion, so don't think schools will save it

Also I think many of things learn in education, we cannot get anywhere else, Religion we can, (if we want it) so I still think it would make more sense to leave it as choice subject, I really hated wasting 2 hours of my life a week, learning about something I had no need for in MY life, aspeically when it stopped me doing a subject I wanted to,

-Best bit, though I took mick in RE, and was told by a teacher, who basically spent the hour telling us, we were all going to hell, I still pasted it with top marks

OverMind

04-21-2009, 09:24 PM

For those that still aren't convinced that the Intelligent Design proponents have a hidden, right-wing, religious agenda, see the Wedge Strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy).

Here's a quote if you're uninterested in clicking the link:

The Wedge Document outlines a public relations campaign meant to sway the opinion of the public, popular media, charitable funding agencies, and public policy makers. According to critics, the wedge document, more than any other Discovery Institute project, demonstrates the Institute's and intelligent design's political rather than scientific purpose.

The document sets forth the short-term and long-term goals with milestones for the intelligent design movement, with its governing goals stated in the opening paragraph:

"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

Apparently, the main organization lobbying for the theory to be introduced into the classroom (i.e. Discovery Institute) drafted this "top secret" document for internal circulation only which then somehow got leaked onto the internet.

So, essentially, all the apologists can suck it. Anyone with a capacity to think rationally could have deduced that these lobbyists don't care about advancing science but, rather, are purely interested in advancing their own social agenda. This document is the smoking gun that justifies everything I've been saying.

So, basically:
Your religion is losing followers because of an educational system which (for better more than worse) gives plausible explanations for life's mysteries?

Well, then, why not concoct a plan to change the system by slowly bringing in subtle reforms (i.e. changing the definition of "science" or "theory"), right under the noses of everybody?
Then, while your at it, why not change the curricula to be sympathetic to your beliefs only?
Further, once you've succeeded there, why not move onto other parts of American culture and start changing them too? (i.e. They actually had the nerve to include the fact that they ultimately wanted to reform American culture to be inline with Christian values ... over a period of two decades ... in this document)

Disgusting. To sum it all up in one word.

maisetofan

04-21-2009, 11:40 PM

this reminds me of an episode in season one of boston legal, needless to say intelligent design was the enemy as it always is nowadays and there was a debate on whether or not it should be taught as a science, i am christian but i do not think creationism is a science however i would probably walk out if i were forced to learn something i disagree with, like evolution.

Abraham lincoln said, he could not comprehend how a man could look to the sky and say "there is no god"

how can one hold a new born in there arms and not believe there is a higher power responsible?

The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe. It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells. This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain.

OverMind

04-22-2009, 12:58 AM

i am christian but i do not think creationism is a science however i would probably walk out if i were forced to learn something i disagree with, like evolution.

*sighs*

Argument from Personal Incredulity; Just because you don't believe something is true, doesn't mean it's not true.

However, you are fully entitled to blind yourself from knowledge and I totally respect how you are willing to disadvantage yourself for the sake of a religious conviction that may or may not be true.

See, I can remain politically correct and satirical at the same time.

Abraham lincoln said, he could not comprehend how a man could look to the sky and say "there is no god"

See above.

how can one hold a new born in there arms and not believe there is a higher power responsible?

It's actually quite simple. You just do it.

The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe. It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells. This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain.

Just because something appears elegant, does not automatically mean there's a designer (if, indeed, that is what you are implying).

For every elegant organ you throw at me, I will throw a vestigial one at you which will make you question why the overseeing architect put it in there in the first place or left it "unfinished".

maisetofan

04-22-2009, 01:21 AM

And for everything you say i will disagree
you are obviously very unspiritual and have little or no faith >_<

is THAT why you criticize people who are of a belief or who simply do not agree with you

OverMind

04-22-2009, 08:19 AM

And for everything you say i will disagree
you are obviously very unspiritual and have little or no faith >_<

It's almost as if your chastising me for this.

is THAT why you criticize people who are of a belief or who simply do not agree with you

I don't see where I am wrong for pointing out the shortcomings of another person's beliefs or arguments. Just because its religion, doesn't mean it gets a free pass. Not anymore anyway.

Fat1Fared

04-22-2009, 12:40 PM

mai, I like you, but have to say Overmind has you on everything here, I mean there is no need to blind yourself because of religion, I don't agree with all I was tort in science class, but still learned it, so as to try and understand it, somethings I did find after time made sense, others were what I believed to be wrong,

And it was same with religion, I am very religious, yet I never worked out on it, as I gave it a chance to try and enlighten my view, it failed, but I still gave it a chance

And your last post, you criticized overmind for the very thing you are doing

PS also Lincoln wasn't a genius and just because he said we should believe in god, doesn't mean we should, he was an ok politician, but not who I would look to, to change my view on religion

PSS, the brain isn't actually that efficient, it is like a car, it wastes 80% of its power lol

maisetofan

04-22-2009, 05:33 PM

i am not blinded with religion cuz i see religion as a man made ritualistic practice of which god was never in to begin with. I have faith and beleive in a god above, not in a religion and its practices

Also cant one be blinded with science

Before darwin did no one believe in evolution?
you could also say that L Ron Hubbard is right then with his scientology bull

Fat1Fared

04-22-2009, 06:23 PM

-Sorry, didn't mean to be consending their, but suppose I was, however you should not give up learning on practical level, just because want to be with god, I mean surely your god wants to improve yourself, like I said you don't have to agree, but still need to listen and try to understand

-Yes one can, but me and overmind are not, more than once on these very broads I admitted science isn't full proven and even critizied it at times

-The name James Hutton, mean anything to you?

Also he was not only one, Darwin was only one of many theorists, he just had better marketing manger

as for darwin's theory itself, well he is easy to criticize in his research, but still there is solid base behind it all, though now we do know his base, is not be your and end all of evolution.

-Who says it isn't, I mean to me, there is no more evidence for god than is for his theory,

killshot

04-23-2009, 03:35 PM

Also cant one be blinded with science

(I'm assuming this is a question despite the lack of an appropriate punctuation.) The purpose of science is to give us a clearer understanding of the world we live in. What exactly would science be blinding us of? Science opens our eyes to the mysteries of our universe and teaches us to question everything around us. Blindness is the ailment that science seeks to cure.

Fat1Fared

04-23-2009, 03:55 PM

Killshot don't mean lol

However I have to disagree, there are cases where science has blinded the very people who are trying to use it to enlighten themselves, a good example of this, is a case me and overmind were talking about today in Homosexuality thread, of David Reimer, here the researcher was so blinded by his own theory, he destroyed several poeples lives trying to prove it right and even when it was plain to see his theory had failed, he continued on with it, leading to death of his 2 test subjects (who were real people)

The first Atomic Bomb is another example, here the scientists making it, knew there was a 10% chance that the electio magnet wave wouldn't stop and that there was 2% chance that radiation wouldn't stop and though they knew this could happen, the idea of spitting an atom was to them justifiable cause to take this risk, was it and all events which followed it, worth it?

Science is the purest form of enlightenment, however man still eats from the rotten fruit

maisetofan

04-23-2009, 08:53 PM

(I'm assuming this is a question despite the lack of an appropriate punctuation.) The purpose of science is to give us a clearer understanding of the world we live in. What exactly would science be blinding us of? Science opens our eyes to the mysteries of our universe and teaches us to question everything around us. Blindness is the ailment that science seeks to cure.

well the same can be said for mysticism and witch craft when it comes to mysteries of the universe, psychics believe they can get in touch with the dead to learn about the past and what went on as they also believe they can see into the future, yet you would think that sort of thing preposterous as do i being christian but it seems that people who believe in science dispute and supernatural force entirely, how boring seriously

how are hippies conservative? protesting against the norm?
wearing clothes that make people stare, alot of the time partaking in illegal drugs, yes very conservative :squintyface:
PS i am biased though toward hippies anyway :)

Duykur

04-23-2009, 09:07 PM

hmmmmm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Fat1Fared

04-24-2009, 06:10 AM

well the same can be said for mysticism and witch craft when it comes to mysteries of the universe, psychics believe they can get in touch with the dead to learn about the past and what went on as they also believe they can see into the future, yet you would think that sort of thing preposterous as do i being christian but it seems that people who believe in science dispute and supernatural force entirely, how boring seriously

how are hippies conservative? protesting against the norm?
wearing clothes that make people stare, alot of the time partaking in illegal drugs, yes very conservative :squintyface:
PS i am biased though toward hippies anyway :)

Sigh, Mai this is why you don't walk out on your science lessons, if you hadn't you may have known 55% of sciences registered in this profession, actually said they are religious and believe in god, just most are smart enough to split the two, and realise that god isn't a science, this is what me and sally were trying to tell you in Homosexuality thread,

As for witchcraft, well like said with Scientology, who says it isn't, no less evidence for these than is for christain beliefs

Now I did defend your point that science isn't faliable as it isn't, but the difference is science can, tries and does prove itself, the others are based on faith

God is made from faith, and faith is believing in something without provf, and so thus when young scientist <NAME> finally proved god existed, god was destroyed

maisetofan

04-24-2009, 08:44 PM

yes you and sally, who have different beliefs but somehow agree??

Apple

04-24-2009, 11:33 PM

Fat1Fared

04-25-2009, 11:49 AM

okay i have avoided posting on this thread because i like being away from debates and do not like being flamed but in this case i must intervene.

Fatfared, it seems you are out to undermine Maisey's opinion no matter what she says and i do find it alarming that you agree with what bakurasally has to say when her beliefs are almost similar to maisetofans entriely, i think you are showing favoritism and this must be said, in order to stop hurting other users feelings.

Suppose mai told me about this thread and i decided to stand up for her?
i would for anyone who knows me on this site well and felt they were being victimized

that is all

Apple, first of all, please read our posts again and you will see that I am merely making points, others have made as well, I am not just undermining Mai, I am merely showing her floors in her points and then showing her my own view, which she can feel free to do same too, but has chose not too:- (I like Mai, why would I try to undermine her, and infact said sorry, when one of my posts came off as consending, which is more than most would do:-

Secondly I actually defended Mai's point that science can have problems

Thirdly, apart from being christian her and Sally don't have same view

Fourth point, this reason you put your views :rolleyes: if don't want others to my points about them, don't put them, Darkacher gave me, a real rubbing in homosexual thread once, even though he didn't actually disagree with me, he wanted to make the holes in my theory known, I didn't cry about it, I merely returned the favor, until I had made every point I could and we had middle ground of understanding,

maisetofan

04-25-2009, 04:41 PM

well thank you apple for defeding me and thank you fared for clearing it up:)
since this topic is actually on whether creationism should be taught in public schools i say Not as a science it shouldn't so i agree with you all there. I do not think it is right to not teach it at all in schools under a different subject.

After all the western world claims to still be a christian nation
"God save the queen" England's national anthem
"America, god shed his grace on thee" and in "god we trust" American anthem and slogan, well it was the anthem before star spangled banner
God defend NZ is another one
We are still a christian bout of countries whether you admit it or not
GOD still play a part in western nation society

just listen to former presidents and prime ministers
Henry VIII declared himself DEFENDER OF THE FATIH
we gont there though lol

no one can dispute that

so why would it make any sense scrubbing creationism from a country or countries that still claim to be christian and god trusting?

Ishikawa Oshro

04-25-2009, 06:58 PM

I skimmed and read a bit here and there and got caught up with this whole conversation.
I believe America should teach it.
Mai already stated america is a country founded and supposed to be based on "christian" soil.

I believe creation should be taught in schools because to just say its a theory is not good enough. evolution is only a theory and yet I had to listen to it for a whole 2 weeks in school just to learn its not proven. Then the big bang theory which is once again only a theory and one that isent a complete one at that. Theres still x variables in it.
To say religion and science dont go together is ignorance.
If anyone keeps up with the discovery channel or sciences LATEST discoveries you would see that scientist study the bible just like any other theory. They study to see "well if GOD is real and the bible says this happend......did it really happen?"
And the birth of Jesus. There was a movie recently released on science and religion. Expelled. Funny, serious, and one other element to it. Though I wanted to watch it I diddent get the chance. If anyone did watch it PM me about it T_T
Heres the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE

The main protagonist was basically talking about how a lot of scientist are ridiculed for trying to question darwinism because proof leads to the fact that humans were made by intelligent design. They are made jokes and revoked sometimes.

Watch the preview of the movie. It had me hooked and Im still determined to watch.
Why the fear of creationism??? ^_~

OverMind

04-25-2009, 08:00 PM

Why the fear of creationism??? ^_~

Did you even read my post on the Wedge document?

That post is to this thread what the nuclear bomb was to WWII.

Ishikawa Oshro

04-25-2009, 08:12 PM

Did you even read my post on the Wedge document?

That post is to this thread what the nuclear bomb was to WWII.

I told ya I skimmed *sigh*
Ill go back and look for it
*walks away dragging feet on the ground*

maisetofan

04-25-2009, 08:18 PM

so yet again this debate comes down to America, and if intelligent design should be taught in american schools? *sigh* there is a world outside of the america's

Anyway over mind cannot dispute that america along with the majority of the western world is still a god based nation

OverMind

04-25-2009, 08:26 PM

Anyway over mind cannot dispute that america along with the majority of the western world is still a god based nation

America can believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster) or even an Invisible Pink Unicorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Invisible_Unicorn) for all I care. I have no qualms whatsoever, just as long as they keep that in the private realm of their homes or churches.

Society should be secular. If it ain't broken, why fix it?

Ishikawa Oshro

04-25-2009, 08:33 PM

*breathing deeply trying to not lose cool after reading the hyprocritical article*

Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or to understand better, the history of the natural world and how the natural world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding1. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural processes under controlled conditions.

Religion claims to have a peice of the natural worls. Science's job is to study that history wether they like it or not hahaha. Its their job.
Science doesent say we study everything except religion. They try to better grasp concepts of the world. So for them to study creationism and then not want to teach about it why is that?

Were still back to point A
Science is hiding something.
There running out of theorys and ideas.
It's only a matter of time.
There getting the people to question less and accept more.

maisetofan

04-25-2009, 09:46 PM

Were still back to point A
Science is hiding something.
There running out of theorys and ideas.
It's only a matter of time.
There getting the people to question less and accept more.

Tehehehe so true

Fat1Fared

04-26-2009, 08:50 AM

After all the western world claims to still be a christian nation
"God save the queen" England's national anthem
"America, god shed his grace on thee" and in "god we trust" American anthem and slogan, well it was the anthem before star spangled banner
God defend NZ is another one
We are still a christian bout of countries whether you admit it or not
GOD still play a part in western nation society

just listen to former presidents and prime ministers
Henry VIII declared himself DEFENDER OF THE FATIH
we gont there though lol

no one can dispute that

Mai already stated america is a country founded and supposed to be based on "christian" soil.

Ish, please tell me I have misread this, your actually saying that USA soil is land of God, as long before Christians ever got their, the red Indians had their own religions and if your saying the mordern state of USA, then yes it was foundered by very religious group, does that mean it is not allow to change, that group was also White Supremacists, but expect your glad that idea has long sense been removed:-

Mai the western world has long sense move away from Christian beliefs as its core:-

-90% (not real state) of english people hate our national anthem, and want it changed as it is so clearly out of date

-Bush may have believed he was acting under will of god, but believe most Americans and most poeple in general wish he hadn't, of course when people make mistakes, it human, when succuss, it is god acting through them <erm> (lot of other presidents said they were acting under will of god, doesn't mean they did godly things)

-Tony Blair changed his religion to CoE, not to be more religious, just because had to be prime minster

-As for good old Henry, well that is hardly needed in a talk about modern age, however he admitted he broke away from Catholic Church, in order to gain fame and power, not on religious grounds,

Finally just because a country claims to be of one religion, doesn't mean we all are, only 12% still go to church in england, (that is including all religions,)

I believe creation should be taught in schools because to just say its a theory is not good enough. evolution is only a theory and yet I had to listen to it for a whole 2 weeks in school just to learn its not proven. Then the big bang theory which is once again only a theory and one that isent a complete one at that. Theres still x variables in it.
To say religion and science dont go together is ignorance.
If anyone keeps up with the discovery channel or sciences LATEST discoveries you would see that scientist study the bible just like any other theory. They study to see "well if GOD is real and the bible says this happend......did it really happen?"
And the birth of Jesus. There was a movie recently released on science and religion. Expelled.

No, they are not theories, they are hypothesis's which have some evidence to back them up, creationism is a story, which has been proven, cannot be truth, but can be in religious class. However intelligence deigsn cannot be in schools...... some of these, makes earth only 2000 years old, now maybe I am putting to much faith in world here, but seems strange that there are hundreds of societies in world, many non western or Christian and they too seem to believe the world is older than 2000 and their pasts go back further than this, so it would be pretty impressive group, that manged to trick us all into believing in this past, (not saying everything learn in history is right, hell the Anglo Saxon invasion never happened,) but this is going very far

Now I am not saying it should be illegal, creationism cannot be a school science, but it can be in religious classes, however intelligence degisn is something, you can learn yourself, but not a classroom of any sort, as it is 99.9999999999% provable as WRONG

To say religion and science dont go together is ignorance.

Well clearly, the scientific world is ignorant then:-

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[17] T

Religion and science cannot go together as they look at two different things, like I have said more than once, what you are on about is historical science and mythological science which are different, both need studying, even if seems silly yes, but they are different fields.

Historical science is History, basically, and yes historians have to look at whether Jesus lived, I mean cannot, not do this, and some believe may have been a man of this type, whether was really son of god or not is hard to say, but evidence shows, was a man who made some trouble at this time

mythological science is merely looking at myths, magic.....etc and trying to see why we have/do believe in them and if evidence to them,

however neither of these these are physical fact based sciences, like soicalogy, they are science but they are far more subjective science and go more on opinion, as what look at, is from hard to impossible to prove