Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Foxfyre wrote:

Wait a minute. Let's have another definition for 'muzzling science' before we put Foxy on that committee. I don't remember signing onto that.

Also, Lola was being sarcastic. Lola should not be on the list either.

0 Replies

And I'd bet that not all snake-oil salesmen lacked integrity. I'd bet some of them had faith in the remedy they were peddling. And such faith may have been communicated in their sales patter which had a healing effect all on its own.

Such men sell alcohol now. Alcohol has almost as big a "cloud of witnesses" testifying to its healing properties as The Church has which is a very satisfying way of agreeing with Matthew Arnold, Joubert and Foxy and bridging the centuries with literary handshakes with the class acts.

Priests have a foot in both camps. The two camps with the largest "cloud of witnesses" in Christendom which I think most Americans like to still feel a part of.

Skakespeare has also.

Personally, I wouldn't be able to feel married if a celibate priest hadn't granted me the rights. I know it's a shot in the dark but rather one of them than no shot at all. It may well be the last fingernail. But I'm hanging on in company with the biggest "cloud of witnesses" in Christendom and we have votes. Concentrated sometimes in key marginals. And being provided with guidance once a week. I stopped going when I no longer needed guidance. I've been in the military and one important lesson I learned, there were a few actually but this is not the time to speak of them seeing as how I am trying to be concise, was to stay with the biggest "cloud of witnesses". The uniform symbolises it.

Counter-jumpers always dropped the lot of us in the ****.

0 Replies

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

Wait a minute. Let's have another definition for 'muzzling science' before we put Foxy on that committee. I don't remember signing onto that.

You've nowhere to go Foxy if you don't. My casting your vote was posited on the assumption that you have a modicum of intelligence. If I made a mistake I sincerely apologise.

There are no definitions of muzzling science. It's either muzzled, as now by general consent, or it is unmuzzled. A mad bear isn't restricted by a muzzle hanging off its ear.

0 Replies

wande wrote-

Quote:

Also, Lola was being sarcastic. Lola should not be on the list either.

I'm was aware wande that Lola asked the question in the tone of "have you stopped beating your wife" rhetoric.

I read it as "Do you want to muzzle science eh? eh? eh? you silly man?

And I answered straight away, as I know which way up I am, that Yes I did want to muzzle science.

I went on to provide a few reasons to justify my view and Lola agreed, in a roundabout way that she also wanted to muzzle science.

I was amply justified in including her in the list of those who have so far cast their votes. As I was Eorl if we assume we don't want any more Nazies.

I don't think you have cast yours yet wande. The exit polls are showing a wipeout at the moment.

And do not forget that an anti-IDer raised the subject.

0 Replies

The 'cloud of witnesses' is a (Biblical) metaphor for those claiming the same or similar experience. There is indeed a very large 'cloud of witnesses' who can testify first hand to what military life is like and/or what war is like and how those who have never experienced it can have such wrong impressions about it.

There is a far larger 'cloud of witnesses' of those who claim to have experienced something much larger than themselves; i.e. a 'higher being--the most common name for this is "God".

Evenso, the vast majority of those witnesses have no quarrel with science, science curriculum, or Darwin or his Theory of Evolution. And despite the incidents where wrong-headed Christians attempt to include religious teaching in the science curriculum or, worse, want to replace the science curriculum with ID, the fact remains that most of us 'witnesses' do not want that and strongly oppose that.

I think any teacher who teaches kids that Darwin and his Theory of Evolution are wrong and not to be believed is both ignorant and wrong and certainly should not be paid to teach kids. There is simply too much evidence supporting evolution to dismiss it as valid science. All kids old enough should know and understand all scientific concepts and principles of the origins of the universe and its evolution.

I think any teacher who teaches kids that there is no ID and it is not to be believed is both ignorant and wrong and certainly should not be paid to teach kids. To presume to use science as proof for that which cannot be proved nor disproved scientifically automatically disqualifies him/her as authoritative on science.

I have no problem with the religionist accurately pointing out that there are broad gaps between the known scientific realities and what remains scientific speculation and that the science we have know teaches us much but is able to support, test, or prove only a tiny fraction of all that there is to know. Keep an open mind to all the possibilities out there, but learning basic science is a necessary thing for a complete education.

I have no problem with the science teacher explaining that there is no accepted scientific principle or process that can defend or dismiss ID and no matter how many people believe it, it will not be discussed or included in what the kids will be expected to know about science. The focus of the class will be science that is necessary for a complete education, but understand that we are constantly learning and expanding our knowledge and there is a whole lot more to know than what science can show us at this time.

The religionist is wrong to teach bad science or dissuade kids from learning science.

The scientist or science teacher is wrong to attempt to destroy the students' faith in ID or any other religious beliefs.
_________________
--Foxfyre

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I?-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

0 Replies

People believe all sorts of things Foxy. Eric Gill and Bernard Shaw and many others firmly believed that ladies should not be taught to read and write and they would have been shocked, indeed outraged, at the idea of teaching them science. They believed ladies were better off learning how to cook and sew and make flowers grow.

I don't think your mind is quite focussed on the actual classrooms and the teachers teaching these subjects of which you speak. One cannot simply say that teachers should be allowed to teach about those things without any reference to who those individual teachers are and how they go about it. Teachers are notorious for being highly politicised and opinionated. It is not an abstract problem. It is only the large number of classrooms which might make it seem so.

I don't see any point in teaching any of that stuff to anybody who isn't going to specialise in it. They will find out about such things when the time is right to do so and from sources much more powerful than lesson situations. They are not, to me, subjects they have any need for and they distract from the subjects they have a need for. Such as providing them with intellectual defences against the other powerful sources they will meet later.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

People believe all sorts of things Foxy. Eric Gill and Bernard Shaw and many others firmly believed that ladies should not be taught to read and write and they would have been shocked, indeed outraged, at the idea of teaching them science. They believed ladies were better off learning how to cook and sew and make flowers grow.

I don't think your mind is quite focussed on the actual classrooms and the teachers teaching these subjects of which you speak. One cannot simply say that teachers should be allowed to teach about those things without any reference to who those individual teachers are and how they go about it. Teachers are notorious for being highly politicised and opinionated. It is not an abstract problem. It is only the large number of classrooms which might make it seem so.

I don't see any point in teaching any of that stuff to anybody who isn't going to specialise in it. They will find out about such things when the time is right to do so and from sources much more powerful than lesson situations. They are not, to me, subjects they have any need for and they distract from the subjects they have a need for. Such as providing them with intellectual defences against the other powerful sources they will meet later.

I am for teachers teaching available information in the most honest and accurate way possible whether it is English class or music class or math class or history class or science class. To not teach kids the science that is the general scientific consensus these would be criminal. Also to teach kids that the scientific consensus is never wrong or that science knowledge is not constantly evolving would be criminal.

I want kids to be taught, not social engineered. I want kids to be equipped with the best information available which in itself will teach critical thinking as well as develop self confidence, self esteem, and equp them for what they need to be competent, productive adults. I want kids educated, not indoctrinated.
_________________
--Foxfyre

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I?-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

0 Replies

Quote:

We seek, I presume, to encourage scientists to explore our world for the benefit of all and guided by a political process in which there is some religious influence. More of the same in other words.

Science DOES explore our world to the benefit of all. Politics corrupts nearly every process with which it comes in contact. I do not see how adding a political element to the process of scientific learning would help anything. Even more, adding religion to science is ridiculous. Religion has fought against science for hundreds of years. In 1616, Big Religion told everyone the world was flat, as that is what the bible says... They ordered silence of Gallileo because he defended the theory of a heliocentric solar system.

Religion doesn't not want to learn or explore. Religion wants to control and contain. That can never be to the benefit of mankind.

0 Replies

USAFHokie writes

Quote:

Religion doesn't not want to learn or explore. Religion wants to control and contain. That can never be to the benefit of mankind.

And here you show your ignorance my friend. Some religionists are ignorant, true, but for the most part religion isn't attempting to discredit science. But here you are attempting to discredit religion. So who has the open mind or is demonstrating willingness to learn and explore? Not you. Your mind is made up and appears to be quite closed.
_________________
--Foxfyre

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I?-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

0 Replies

Foxfyre,
The "critical thinking" rationale has been used in states like South Carolina in an attempt to force biology teachers to discuss intelligent design. The South Carolina attempt failed. (See news article below.)

Quote:

High school biology standards cleared for June 12 adoption
(BY MINDY B. HAGEN, Charleston Post and Courier, June 1, 2006)

The impasse to potential changes to high school biology standards has ended, with the state Board of Education and Education Oversight Committee reaching a long-awaited agreement on the guidelines that govern teaching evolution and other scientific theories.

On Wednesday, the state Board of Education unanimously voted to send the biology standards back to the oversight committee for final approval, without the scrutinized 'critical analysis' phrase that drew science educators' ire. The committee is scheduled to adopt the standards at its June 12 meeting.

While all other academic standards were approved by the oversight committee in the fall, controversy erupted concerning the biology guidelines. The recommended wording called for students to 'demonstrate an understanding of biological evolution and the diversity of life.'

But a group of lawmakers and the oversight committee, which includes state Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, fought to make the standards more specific by adding that students should 'use data from a variety of scientific sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.'

Biology teachers and science educators rallied against that proposed change, arguing that 'critical analysis' would push aside evolutionary theory and Darwinism and potentially open the door to religious teachings about creationism in the classroom.

Every five years, the state Board of Education and oversight committee must give the go-ahead before teaching standards are enacted and the disagreement over 'critical analysis' caused a stalemate between the governing agencies.

But discussions in recent weeks and a compromise reached as part of the Legislature's annual budget, helped bring about progress. The budget calls on the state Department of Education to buy textbooks that use 'higher-order thinking skills and critical thinking, which should be integrated throughout the core curriculum.' With the critical thinking issue now addressed by the purchase of new textbooks in all subjects, proponents who wanted similar language inserted in the biology standards backed off their demands.

Jo Anne Anderson, executive director of the oversight committee, said the idea of using 'critical thinking' as a guideline when selecting textbooks satisfied those people who wanted to see similar language inserted as part of the state curriculum standards.

'It would have been nice if we had been able to resolve this six months ago, but this process has allowed South Carolina to have a full airing of this issue,' Anderson said.

After Wednesday's OK from the state board, the biology standards will become final if adopted by the oversight committee June 12.

0 Replies

Why not muzzle religion? After all, most cultures of this world (excepting those creationist types) accept science and all it has to offer. However, religion is often the cause of turmoil and fighting between cultures. There has never been a war between two countries because one of them said the atomic weight of gaseous oxygen was 32g/mol and another said it was 35g/mol. One is true. One is not.

Science does not advocate killing someone because of what he or she does or does not believe. Science is not responsible for withholding civil rights for entire classes of people. Science does not pass judgement.

Religion does.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

USAFHokie writes

Quote:
Religion doesn't not want to learn or explore. Religion wants to control and contain. That can never be to the benefit of mankind.

And here you show your ignorance my friend. Some religionists are ignorant, true, but for the most part religion isn't attempting to discredit science. But here you are attempting to discredit religion. So who has the open mind or is demonstrating willingness to learn and explore? Not you. Your mind is made up and appears to be quite closed.

You can argue with me and tell me I am close-minded all you want. You cannot argue with history. Religion, as a whole, has a WELL documented history of holding back intellectual progress. Can you honestly say that I'm wrong?

I understand completely that not *all* people that believe whatever religion are standing in the way. That being said, the "church" itself, does.

0 Replies

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

I am for teachers teaching available information in the most honest and accurate way possible whether it is English class or music class or math class or history class or science class.

I'm not. It is far too sweeping a statement Foxy no matter how good it might sound. All you need do is examine it closely and that will become obvious.

It assumes teaching = learning for a start. I have marked a lot of stuff in my time and I can assure you that the teaching resulted in a lot less learning than those not involved in education might expect.

Available information is a very loose term. So is honest. People can, and often do, honestly teach falsehoods.

I have little doubt we would all nod our heads in agreement on hearing such a statement. Who wouldn't? But afterwards what is it we put into practice. It has something for everyone. One might on the strength of it have courses on William Burroughs or Jean Genet. I won't mention extremists- their names often shock people. The young female students could easily be taught about the antics of Sabina Poppaea honestly and accurately if the available information is to be trusted. Or those of Madame de Pompadour.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Foxfyre,
The "critical thinking" rationale has been used in states like South Carolina in an attempt to force biology teachers to discuss intelligent design. The South Carolina attempt failed. (See news article below.)

Quote:
High school biology standards cleared for June 12 adoption
(BY MINDY B. HAGEN, Charleston Post and Courier, June 1, 2006)

The impasse to potential changes to high school biology standards has ended, with the state Board of Education and Education Oversight Committee reaching a long-awaited agreement on the guidelines that govern teaching evolution and other scientific theories.

On Wednesday, the state Board of Education unanimously voted to send the biology standards back to the oversight committee for final approval, without the scrutinized 'critical analysis' phrase that drew science educators' ire. The committee is scheduled to adopt the standards at its June 12 meeting.

While all other academic standards were approved by the oversight committee in the fall, controversy erupted concerning the biology guidelines. The recommended wording called for students to 'demonstrate an understanding of biological evolution and the diversity of life.'

But a group of lawmakers and the oversight committee, which includes state Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, fought to make the standards more specific by adding that students should 'use data from a variety of scientific sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.'

Biology teachers and science educators rallied against that proposed change, arguing that 'critical analysis' would push aside evolutionary theory and Darwinism and potentially open the door to religious teachings about creationism in the classroom.

Every five years, the state Board of Education and oversight committee must give the go-ahead before teaching standards are enacted and the disagreement over 'critical analysis' caused a stalemate between the governing agencies.

But discussions in recent weeks and a compromise reached as part of the Legislature's annual budget, helped bring about progress. The budget calls on the state Department of Education to buy textbooks that use 'higher-order thinking skills and critical thinking, which should be integrated throughout the core curriculum.' With the critical thinking issue now addressed by the purchase of new textbooks in all subjects, proponents who wanted similar language inserted in the biology standards backed off their demands.

Jo Anne Anderson, executive director of the oversight committee, said the idea of using 'critical thinking' as a guideline when selecting textbooks satisfied those people who wanted to see similar language inserted as part of the state curriculum standards.

'It would have been nice if we had been able to resolve this six months ago, but this process has allowed South Carolina to have a full airing of this issue,' Anderson said.

After Wednesday's OK from the state board, the biology standards will become final if adopted by the oversight committee June 12.

Wandel, one more time, I am not disputing that there are religious idiots out there pushing bad science or non science as science curriculum. If you haven't noticed, I oppose those people as much as you do. If your only objective with this thread is to make that point, you've made that point and all the bases necessary to defend it seem to have already been covered at this time.

My objective in this debate has been to make the point that those religious nuts represent a small minority among ID-ers and most ID-ers have no quarrel with science. Further, my objective is to defend the kids against those who would presume to intentionally destroy their faith that very well may include the concept that science is a component of ID and therefore not in conflict with ID.

Again I thought my objective to be valid for the purposes of a discussion between ID and science, but I have also said I won't continue in that vein if you think it is inappropriate.
_________________
--Foxfyre

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I?-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

0 Replies

Foxfyre,

It is okay to use this thread to discuss intelligent design as a philosophical or religious viewpoint. I did not intend to discourage you.

You had said something about schoolchildren being taught "critical thinking". This "raised a red flag" because that rationale has been used by people who want science classes to give "equal time" to intelligent design whenever biology teachers discuss evolution.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Foxfyre,

It is okay to use this thread to discuss intelligent design as a philosophical or religious viewpoint. I did not intend to discourage you.

You had said something about schoolchildren being taught "critical thinking". This "raised a red flag" because that rationale has been used by people who want science classes to give "equal time" to intelligent design whenever biology teachers discuss evolution.

I know. And, without presuming to say that is what you were doing, I was reacting to the kneejerk reaction of anti-religionists to condemn all religious belief and/or the IDers because some get it wrong or attempt to use it wrongfully.

0 Replies

Foxy-

Have you not noticed that you are providing the roundabout for anti-IDers to take another spin on in order to put distance between themselves and the muzzling question.

wande has been asked the question directly and here he is with the latest regurgitation of stuff we have done to death at your prodding.

You are getting them off the hook.

What difference does it make to the actual argument if anti-IDers do link you to the extremists. That's a problem for them. If they wish to continue under that delusion why does that bother you? If they are operating under a delusion, the big straw man they don't even recognise as a straw man, then they won't have much effect upon the educational system which is the basic topic. Your pride is not the basic topic.

Why do you think they never notice? They don't want to notice. Linking you with the "religious idiots" saves them from having to think outside the box and read up the relevant texts. The conservation of energy principle at work.

They look stumped to me on the muzzling question. They're half-baked.

0 Replies

Splendi... Do you realize that most of your arguments consist of character assassination instead of actual debate? Your posts could be made shorter and much easier to read if you would stick to arguments on the subject instead of name calling.

That being said... I asked a question... Why should science be muzzled? Why not religion instead?

0 Replies

These are cyber entities. They are not characters. You must have a very shallow notion of character to think anything else.

Quote:

That being said... I asked a question... Why should science be muzzled? Why not religion instead?

We are unable to muzzle religion due to the human need for it in some form. We do muzzle some forms of religiousness.

We muzzle science for practical reasons. It suits us to do so or at least we think it does. The consensus that is currently muzzling it I mean and that is worked out by the democratic process.

I gave a few reasons for the current position in my response to Lola asking that question. They should be easy to find as I haven't seen Lola post since that short exchange. There are, of course, many others.

0 Replies

spendi

Quote:

It assumes teaching = learning for a start. I have marked a lot of stuff in my time and I can assure you that the teaching resulted in a lot less learning than those not involved in education might expect.

. Then youre a bigger smacked ass than you sound.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know