97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Forums: Evolution, Science, Intelligent Design, Religion, Creationism
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Mon 5 Dec, 2005 11:39 am
Guess you haven't noticed, Wilson, our ideology is not collapsing.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 5 Dec, 2005 01:33 pm
wande-

Do you like running on the spot?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Mon 5 Dec, 2005 01:36 pm
Since Einstein, we understand all running is on the spot running.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Mon 5 Dec, 2005 01:49 pm
spendius wrote:
wande-

Do you like running on the spot?


spendius,
I think you are trying to confuse me. However, I answered one of your questions on a different ID thread:
Dover School Board Campaign
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Mon 5 Dec, 2005 01:57 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Guess you haven't noticed, Wilson, our ideology is not collapsing.

While the parent ideology may retain its inflation, the current agenda of the Fundamentalist American Protestant fringies driving the ID-iot lunacy is nowhere near so secure, and the proponents thereof should be unsurprised to discover themselves sorely dismayed and roundly discreditted by the inevitable bursting of that particular blister on the hide of intellectual legitimacy.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Mon 5 Dec, 2005 02:09 pm
Timber,

And in that case, I would say I am glad. I am not for this Christianity at all costs. It is a personal decision for everyone. I think this argument could stand well on its own if it were just presented as something other than science. I mean, for Pete's sake, if it's not science, it's not science. The main thing IMO is teaching the idea and not worrying about proving it.

It cannot be proven scientifically. I finally came to understand how teaching this as science would be lowering the standards of science.

Teach it under religion or philosophy. As long as the information is made available.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 5 Dec, 2005 02:17 pm
Bernie wrote-

Quote:
Since Einstein, we understand all running is on the spot running.


Not all running.Just the SDers.Makes perfect sense to them.

Is nobody going to address the science is the "what is" and social pragmatism is the "what ought to be" problem just because it defeated Sigmund Freud.What does science say about what ought to be because something has to be an ought to be to get us through next week.Just because one is interested in "what ought to be" doesn't mean one rejects the "what is".The "what is" needs no help from anybody.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Mon 5 Dec, 2005 02:21 pm
Quote:
Teach it under religion or philosophy. As long as the information is made available.


You still have a problem here, though I like the idea in part.

The problem relates to the establishment clause - you must avoid the establishment or favoring of one faith over others. That doesn't apply to what goes on in a church or a home, but it does to what goes on in a public school.

Yet, as religious ideas and history are a big and important part of human culture and history, it seems a lack of address to this in schools is surely going to produce insufficiently educated and knowledgeable citizenry.

So I end up concluding that religious studies ought to be a part of what schools (at some level) teach, but by the logic of the establishment clause, it ought to be education that covers not christianity alone, but all the major faiths and more.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 5 Dec, 2005 02:25 pm
blatham, I agree with your opinion about "teaching all religions," and not just christianity.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Mon 5 Dec, 2005 02:25 pm
Blatham
blatham wrote:
Quote:
Teach it under religion or philosophy. As long as the information is made available.

You still have a problem here, though I like the idea in part.
The problem relates to the establishment clause - you must avoid the establishment or favoring of one faith over others. That doesn't apply to what goes on in a church or a home, but it does to what goes on in a public school.
Yet, as religious ideas and history are a big and important part of human culture and history, it seems a lack of address to this in schools is surely going to produce insufficiently educated and knowledgeable citizenry.
So I end up concluding that religious studies ought to be a part of what schools (at some level) teach, but by the logic of the establishment clause, it ought to be education that covers not christianity alone, but all the major faiths and more.


Do they teach comparative religions in middle or high schools? I don't think they did when I was a child. I had to read about them on my own.

BBB
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 5 Dec, 2005 02:29 pm
Are we including all religions or just those that the lower middle class think they can understand.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Mon 5 Dec, 2005 02:30 pm
B

No. Not in any curriculum I've seen, that is. It's university level, and even then, a not well-attended option.

The problem isn't the relegation of the subject to an intellectual hinterland BECAUSE it involves religion, but rather because the folks who establish curricula already have more to jam in than they can fit.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Mon 5 Dec, 2005 02:31 pm
There is an efficiency to be obtained through stucturing to the lowest common denominator.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Mon 5 Dec, 2005 02:31 pm
Well, if this class were being taught as a religious class then yes, I would say you would have to offer the other religions as well. But, it is not being taught in a religious context. It is being taught in a more literary sense. Does that change things or not?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Mon 5 Dec, 2005 02:35 pm
An appropriate sub-curriculum would be Comparative Mythology - in fact, such studies abound, moreso in post secondary education, but not entirely absent from secondary, or even from primary, education. Exceptional, perhaps, but not unknown. That is a real pity.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 5 Dec, 2005 02:36 pm
Sounds like you have a compromise MA.You just change the room and the label and in the basement you can do The Seventh Temple Of Isis and on the roof you can do Aztec sacrifice to the Moon Goddess.ID is about half way approximately.Voodoo in the playground.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Mon 5 Dec, 2005 02:39 pm
spendius wrote:
Sounds like you have a compromise MA.You just change the room and the label and in the basement you can do The Seventh Temple Of Isis and on the roof you can do Aztec sacrifice to the Moon Goddess.ID is about half way approximately.


Just as long as there are no animal or human sacrifices, ok? Laughing I just can't go along with those.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 5 Dec, 2005 02:45 pm
There you go then.See how sweet Christians are.
SODs could have no objections.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Mon 5 Dec, 2005 02:46 pm
SODs?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Mon 5 Dec, 2005 02:48 pm
If there is a simple and obvious solution to any problem of this sort, well then it just isn't.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution - Discussion by wandeljw
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Is the theory of evolution correct? - Question by kampung
More (much more) dinosaur soft tissue turning up - Discussion by gungasnake
Miss USA delegates on evolution in schools - Discussion by hingehead
Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why? - Discussion by edgarblythe
Future of evolution - Question by elletheduck
Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution - Discussion by aperson
Armored fish: yet another body blow to evolosers and evoloserism - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?
  3. » Page 116
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/14/2025 at 03:55:32
▲ ▼