Intelligent design Vs Evolution

Should they be allowed to opine on those subjects?

What if you have a teacher who believes that aliens landed and the government covered it up? Or that the moon landing was staged?

I don't mind mentioning the theories that exist as long as the way it's mentioned is dictated in the curriculum and individual bias on the part of the teacher is precluded.

"Our Universe", or more properly, "Our Observable Uninverse", has bounds. At the one extreme is that by which some unexplained mechanism produced the sum of the energy, and thus matter, we experience and are made of. At the opposite extreme lie the remotest extra-galactic objects we are able to detect. Beyond either horizon, we have no reference. Our present horizons are perceived horizons, expanding as our ability to percieve advances, yet remaining, if ever more distant, horizons none the less. Even our assumed scientific guestimate of the age of "Our Universe" is imprecise, and riddled with inconsistencies; for example, there exist astronomicly observeable phenomona which by contemporary analysis appear very much older, therefore further, than they should be. Much evidence of "The Workings of The Universe" remains to be discovered. Conjecture as to "Extra-Universal" possibilities is at best an amusing intellectual excersize and all to often degenerates into purest sophistry. It simply does not stand to logic. "Faith", by its nature", requires an unproveable assumption, an "acceptance" or an "agreement", as opposed to forensicly valid argument.

"The Theory Of Evolution" as understood and taught today largely stems from Darwin's work, but has itself evolved into something very much more complex, supported handsomely by other disciplines such as Geology, Paleontology, Anthropology, Zoolgy, and Archeology, among others. Credible cross-referrencing corroboration is abundant enough as to be beyond coincidence. "Deus ex-Machina" is neither required nor employed.

"Intelligent Design" and "Creationism" both require and employ "Deus ex-Machina". Current Mainstream Scientific Thought bears sufficient weight of validity in its own mass as to merit being taught as "Currently Accepted Theory" with no such arbitrary, artificial support.


"Intelligent Design" and its consanguine cousin "Creationsim" might find currency in philosophy, though I would consider it even there thin coin if coin at all. They do not belong in core curriculae of public schools, nor do they belong on ballots or court dockets. If a public school should not display a Nativity Scene, or produce a Passion Play, it should not promote any other sort of mysticism either.



timber

I think the argument for teaching Theology/Spirituality by the time the children are in high school is a bit misguided. Most Americans are catholic or protestants, and they have been exposed to their religion since they were infants when their minds are more or less brainwashed to think as their parents about god. c.i.

Nope! Listen closely now - They should cover FACTS and when they get to a point where there is no scientific FACT they should state that and explain the nature of the limit (i.e. why current science has reached it's end-point) and then explain that there are various theories and give some examples of what those theories are. I have never said they should be giving their opinions.

Since there is no basis to prove or disprove any of those theories they should be providing the list with a brief explanation of what each is and recommendations on where students can find further resources id the student wishes to investigate any of those on their own.

So educating a child of the possibilities is less important at the time of high school because their minds are already made up?
It isnt important that they have knowledge of other areas, ideas, and movements as far as religion goes?



When a youth is a Junior/Senior in high school they heir parents have established the course in which they would like them to be raised with respect to their religous views and also have had their personal religous courses completed <in many cases> ...however, I dont believe that information alone is going to hurt that. My opinion is that education of the world at this point in schooling would be nothing but helpful.
These students are selecting what they want to do with their adult lives, in many cases they are figuring out what schools they want to recieve their education from, etc. To think that they could not handle nor gain anything from learning a broad study of religious themes, including creationism, as an elective, not a requisite course, I think is not taking them seriously nor giving them knowledge which could very shortly prove to be helpful as they go out into the world and discover the abundant differences there are.

My point really is that although there are many that argue the fact of Evolution being taught in schools is essential due to Science and fact, etc. arent saying that Religion is a theme we all have running through our lives, our children should be able to be educated on it, like art and music. If it is something of interest to them, why not? The courses could very much be taught like Sociology, in fact, probably could be something akin toan Honors Sociology elective that was available for them...when I sit here thinking about it more in depth really. Not just Creationism but, a broad view of all religious themes which would happen to involve Creationism, yes.
To say that a child shouldnt be able to learn those thing until they are in college just astounds me. Im not saying teach the little ones, no. Im not saying make sure there is Catholisism taught in public schools. Im saying give children the option of an education, of knowledge, thats what they are there for.
I do see the problems that could arise with that, yes. However, I believe that a wide range of study that was educational and informative rather than preaching or mandatory could successfully happen. Its a possibility, thats all.

quinn, I draw my conclusions only from what I observe in this world. Most children end up with the same religion as their parents. Call me foolish! c.i.

I propose we round up all the bigoted, intollerant, and violent folks and do away with them ... purely in the interest of peace and harmony, you understand.



timber

do away with them iin what way though....
that could be interesting in and of itself

in keeping with the spirit of maintaining favor with the gods i request a sacrifice == anyone but me!

or any of the rest of us either

Sacrifices are often selected from neighboring tribes. Perhaps we should form a war party and conduct a raid on Abuzz to gather a supply of candidates for the honor.

(just kidding, of course)



timber

timberlandko, i am not sure of this but i gather that the gods prefer physically and mentally intact sacrifices.

dys, Actually, the gods will 'accept' most animals as a sacrifice, but I think they prefer sheeps. c.i.

c.i. well yeah but they don't care for mutants

i didn't saya that, there must be an imposter using my name

But, dys, didn't god create those too? c.i.

clones?

ah ha i got it; we are dealing with doppelgangers!

Did god or man create DNA? c.i.

man created DNA in his own image