Intelligent design Vs Evolution

I find some the argument that 'x% of scientists are Christians that truely believe in a Creator/Creation" curious. The model (for want of a better word) of the rise of life relies on input from every branch of hard science and a little something from the others too.

For instance, you couldn't have a geologist who believes that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and still goes ahead to finish their doctorate. On what? A molecular geneticist who manages to overlook the obvious relationship between humans and the great apes? A marine engineer that insists that a small nomadic family in the desert could construct a vessel purpose-built for the transporting of several million species of animal? Either they have an implicit trust in the science they practice or their practicing some sort of weird thinking.

Here in Ohio, "Intelligent Design" (stealth christianity) was supposed to have been introduced into all the schools' curricula. However, the state board of education vetoed the plan, and, so far, the courts have refused to review that decision.

Mr Still, Here's a link that supports my statement about scientists and their belief in god. http://wilyelder.stormloader.com/a/einstein.html

I'm not for or again 'em. I'm an atheist.

c.i.

"Intelligent Design"? Watchout people I think some of the big marketing firms are getting in on this stuff....and boy, I thought the zealots were enough...this is just too scary.

Science is science..thats what should be taught in science. Period.
However, I do believe that either an introductionary course in Theology/Spirituality and/or Philosophy should also be taught.
Just my opinion folks, I personally dont think it hurts to have a child learn whats out there on all sides.

Ive spoken however with parents and those who do not want their children to learn about evolution want their children opted out of the Science courses that would teach this. If you bring to their attention courses as above as an option however....they would argue that it is not their spirituality being taught, so thats wrong for their child as well.

The problem is that there are such divergent views in the world. From which perspective should a course be taught? IMO, religion, philosophy spirituality and ethics need to be modeled at home, and possibly at a private, religious after school program chosen by parents.

When I was a kid, my folks bought me a children's book called, "One God, the Ways We Worship Him". It was a very basic, introductory course in comparative religion for children. I think that every home with children needs to have a book like this available for youngsters.

College is time enough for young people to learn about theology in the classroom.

quinn1



Public schools should not have as part of their curriculum Theology/Spirituality. They should be imparting upon the students what is not what might be. Those subjects could introduced as part of a college course on Philosophy but certainly not in a high school science course. Or for that matter any science course.

You speak as if high school students have not already been taught these issues by their parents, and/or do not have their parents to go to with any questions that may arise that they might feel uncomfortable with in a classroom. I dont think you give them enough credit. I also said introductory...certainly not college/adult level simply an introduction to what they will have to face in the world.
I did say it shouldnt be part of Science in any way.

What is the elementry or secondary school teacher supposed to do when they get to the point where current science has no answers? Wht do they tell the child that asks "What was there BEFORE the Big Bang?"? Do they lie to the students and say that there is only one theory in existance?

What do they tell the child that asks about the relevance of Gallieo and why his ideas were fought against? How are the time periods of the Crusades, the Spanish Inquistion and the Reformation explained? Should all of these items be stricken from public schools because they involve religion in an explanation?

It seems the zeal to strike religion from public view exceeds common sense when we get to the point where we can't teach significant portions of science or history because it might involve mentioning religion.

fishin'
Theories about creation should be taught in religious school,since that is where they belong. As for the other subjects you mentioned they were taught in high school under the heading of history, which of course they are. There was one course if memory serves me called ancient and medieval history. A good part was devoted to the Christian church from it's beginning through the reformation. Could anyone object to that being taught? Of course not, because it is historical fact. Creationism is only a myth.

au - Right now with the current state of science EVERY idea about what happened prior to the Big Bang is a myth. There is ZERO evidence to support any claim of what the universe was like, where the material spewed forth in the Big Bang came from, why the Big Bang occured or anything else.

So why should your myth superceded anyone else's when the question arises? If there are 1,000 theories with equeal supporting evidence then it is the teacher's respoonsibility to cover ALL of them.

Fishin'


There is scientific evidence related to the big bang. There is absolutely none that there is a supreme being. Which is what religion and creationism supports?

There is scientific evidence that the Big Bang occured right up to about 1 billionth of a second AFTER the actual explosion and through time since then. There is NO scientific evidence of ANYTHING prior to that time.

Where did the matter spewed forth in the Big Bang come from? What caused the Big Bang to happen? Science can't even tell us if the matter that exploded in the Big Bang was dark or bright prior to the Big Bang happening. Every explanation for things prior to the Big Bang is myth.

Have no Idea what they teach if anything about what there was prior to the big bang.

And that is my very point. IMO, the only thing a teacher can do is say:

"Here are the current various theories.
a.) ...
b.) ...
c.) ...
d.) ...

This is BRIEFLY, what they cover...

blah blah blah

...and here is where you can find more about each of them:

Bibliography attached."

In those theories "God/god/supreme being" has to be mentioned to remain honest and ethical. The seperation of Church and State doesn't go as far as the state denying (or refusing to acknowledge) that religion exists.

So my theory that I created it all in another life and forgot about it must be included too.

I think it's ludicrous to include a theory just because people believe in it. Only theories with a mite of fact should be allowed to be taught.

So what would you tell a student that asked you what there was before the Big Bang Craven? Would you stand there and tell them that you aren't allowed to reply because there are no facts to support any theories?

"I think it's ludicrous to include a theory just because people believe in it."

Remember that everything that is commonly referred to as "fact" is in reality, theory that hasn't been proven wrong thusfar. In effect, all of our best science is just theories that people believe in. That's where we make the break into philosophy...

But.. Yes, maybe I should have qualified my earlier statement better and said "popular theories".

Not all facts are simply unproven theories, many required a lot of convincing to become called facts in the first place. But I do get your point.

If a student asked me what there was before the bigbang I'd simply say that I don't know. And anyone who says they do runs a great risk of being wrong.

In my argument I already inserted "popular theories" for you, my question is whether all I need to make my theory valid to you is to convince people it's real. I can admit to you that it's a load of bull and I created it to be an arse and you still would not place the burden of proof on me and accept it out of popularity?

--

Shouldn't this topic be under teaching or philosophy BTW? Mayhap both?

If you got enough people to actually believe your theory then why shouldn't it be listed with other popular theories? Of course if people manage to prove it wrong then you may have trouble maintaining "popularity"...

IMO, that is why theism has managed to stick with us for so long. Major portions of every organized religion have been shot down in flames but no one has proven that there isn't (or wasn't) a supreme being, that "Karma" doesn't exist, etc.. Those types of things that are at the core of our theisims and they hold up to the same standard of science as items we accept as scientific fact.

The thread here started with the idea of Intelligent design vs. science with teh two being taught side by side. I don't believe that is either necessary nor that it should be done (as I said way back on the first page or so.). I do believe however that our educational system should be able to say "There are some things that science can't explain. There are a many theories that attempt to explain those aspects and some of them are X, Y and Z."

Unlike, some others here, I also don't see why a course in "Comparative Religion", philosophy, etc.. can't or shouldn't be taught in the secondary schools at least. If a school can discuss the views on abortion and cover the pros/cons of oral sex in sex education why can't they explain that some people believe "God" is the explanation while others think that's rubbish?

I have no qualm with what the list of popular theories contains I just don't want ANY theories that didn't pass a semblance of the burden of proof to be taught solely based on the fact that they are popular.

Many people think aliens landed in area 51, there is a lot of bull floating around and I don't think we need to give all of it it's limelight.

When discussing the moon landing we'd have to say that many think it was faked, if we mention JFK we'd have to say many think LHO didn't do it and others think the coincidences between his and Lincon's assasinations proove a cosmic force.

I can churn out thousands of theories that can't be disproved, man has done that.

I don't want popularity to be the criteria. It's popular to be an idiot (based on the undereducation of the world's population) popular is a criteria that has little merit and any truly popular theory will become known to any student through the vehicles of folklore.

As to discussing creation or God I have no problem with it.

As long as parents accept the fact that some teachers will have a bias and preach and some will have a bias and debunk.

If /i were a teacher and were allowed to discuss religion I assume I'd be allowed to say I think religion is man's greatest stupidity and I assume parents would be mad.

I prefer that the whole thing were avoided.

In school I fought against teaching evolution as fact BTW. When my tests asked me how old the earth was I'd demand to asnwer how old my teacher thought it was and if they wouldn't change the test I wouldn't answer those questions.

I'm being pedantic but I think education should have as a criteria truth. If we don't know the truth we need to state what we do know not guess at what we don't know.

I agree that much of evolution is based on conjecture and I reject the teaching of that as fact as well.

BTW I see no correlation re abortion/God.

Abortion has been proven to exist, gods haven't.

Well, just to use one of your examples, if a student asked me "Who killed JFK?" I'd tell them the events that were reported, what was listed in the investigation reports, that Oswald had been arrested and killed in prison before he was ever tried, the Warren Commission reports, etc.. and then I'd also tell them that there are several conspiracy theories that are out there that claim the CIA, Castro, The Soviets and/or other groups were involved and if they want more info on those they can find them in any library or on the web. I wouldn't deny that the other theories exist.

As far as "religion in the classroom", I don't believe teachers should have students reading the bible or the Koran but that is another large step from telling students that theism exists and what that means in very basic terms. I wouldn't ever go along with any type of religious indoctrination in public schools.