Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

mesquite wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
And should you be teaching my child and refer to his/her religious beliefs as 'magic', you would be answering to me.

I would hesitate to get into any discussion of religion with a student, but if cornered, I would tell them that they had the right to believe anything they want to believe. But if they asked, I wouldn't try to deceive them by denying that the supernatural is the same as magic, because it is.

If a parent has a problem with that, then they should get their kids out of public school and cloister them at home where they can be protected from reality.

I have to agree with Foxfyre Ros. Magic is not an equivalent synonym for religious belief. Superstition is a considerably more accurate term.

I didn't say it was synonymous with religion, I said it was synonymous with the supernatural. There's a difference.

Even though religion is based on supernatural beliefs, it is far more specific and usually relates to the collection of dogma which surrounds particular cultural or historic events.

Do you agree that magic is synonymous with the supernatural?

0 Replies

ros wrote-

Quote:

By the way, I would stand beside you in objecting to any class where students were told there is no God. It is not the place of science teachers, or any other teachers to make such a statement.

What do you recommend a teacher to say, including gestures as they are important in relation to verbal expression, when a student asks the question about God after being told the origin of species was explained by evolution except for the start point of course. One might think the question is likely to be asked in view of the broohaha going on.

How about this-- God is mankind's first attempt to define the "superego" which, as you know, is a force which is set to fight the "Id" on the battlefield of the "Ego".

Hence the removal of God is just the same as the removal of the Superego and that would mean the Id triumphing. From there on only carrots and sticks are any use and with unmediated IDs in the power elite that would eventually resolve into just sticks.

A Superego created by sticks would be inoperative out of the range of sticks.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
mesquite wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

Teachers should not be teaching that evolution is the only scientific theory to explain the origin of species.

Foxfyre wrote:
I certainly have at no time advocated teaching ID as science.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3064793#3064793

I suppose you do not see conflict between those two statements. Is there some other scientific theory other than ID that you had in mind?

Try including my entire context Mesquite instead of cherry picking a line to attack. And you will see that no, there is no conflict of any kind between those two statements, nor have I changed my position or opinion on this in any way since I first posted on this thread.

I included a link to the post that the quotes were taken from so that context was available. I did not include all of the rest of the nonsense because it did not provide any meaningful addition that would change the thrust of your statements. It only added to the noise level.

There is one and only one scientific theory to explain the origin of the species. Your two statements are most certainly at odds.

If you put the statements into their proper context you will--okay most people would--see that you are attaching a meaning to the statements that I did not state.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I was also among a group who went to bat for parents who wanted their kids removed from two classes where the kids were being told there was no God. (Yes, one was a science class.)

By the way, I would stand beside you in objecting to any class where students were told there is no God. It is not the place of science teachers, or any other teachers to make such a statement.

However, I remain unconvinced that this is actually happening in all but rare cases. Certainly we have not seen this type of thing in the courts as much as we have seen the creationist attack on science.

I'm curious about the details of this particular instance you ran into. Was the teacher actually saying "there is no God", or were they simply teaching evolution and having parents object to the naturalistic basis of science?

The instances where Christians are trying to replace Evolution with Creationism is also quite rare, but it gets a lot of publicity that other instances don't. This makes it look like a huge, widespread problem.

The teacher didn't specifically say "there is no God" but used phrases similar to 'religion is nothing but magic' to make that point. I recall one line to which the students objected was "Don't put your faith in a god. Put it into something real that you can actually use." Another was "there is no material evidence for any form of religion, and you can't believe in both religion and science."

0 Replies

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

If you put the statements into their proper context you will--okay most people would--see that you are attaching a meaning to the statements that I did not state.

So what Foxy?

What difference does it make what meaning he gives to your statements? Did you not read my post of earlier in the day.

The viewers, the audience, don't need you to keep telling them these things. You sound like you are standing on your dignity like anti-IDers do.
And overdoing it too.

You are letting them off the hook I'm afraid.

0 Replies

The science teacher should tell the student that any questions about god should be asked at home or their church. If the school has a social science or religion course, they can also ask their teacher in those classes. Science class is not the place for religious questions, and the teacher should refrain from directly answering such a question.

As for the origin of species, there are some things even a science teacher cannot answer, because there is not enough evidence established. However, unlike religion, an answer may be found in the future through science. Any answer based on religion has no evidence; only conjecture. Science is not based on conjecture; it's based on observable facts.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

So what Foxy?

What difference does it make what meaning he gives to your statements? Did you not read my post of earlier in the day.

The viewers, the audience, don't need you to keep telling them these things. You sound like you are standing on your dignity like anti-IDers do.
And overdoing it too.

You are letting them off the hook I'm afraid.

Probably because it is so difficult to confront prejudice with reason. Smile

You are probably right Spendi, but if we are to commit to an open mind in science, we have to be willing to look at all points of view don't you think? Lead by example, as it were?

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

"Children, we will now be learning addition. First I must acknowledge the following:
1. Euclid can not answer all questions, any more than any number theory can.
2. There is more yet to learn than what any mathematician has ever devised.
3. There are other theories out there such as 2 plus 2 equals 5. However, since this can not be mathematically proven, I am not allowed to discuss it in math class. (I realize that I just discussed this other theory but I was told to acknowledge it and then to confuse you further by saying it can not be discussed.)"

Post of the year.

T
K
O

0 Replies

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

Science class is not the place for religious questions, and the teacher should refrain from directly answering such a question.

The teacher has provoked the question.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The instances where Christians are trying to replace Evolution with Creationism is also quite rare, but it gets a lot of publicity that other instances don't. This makes it look like a huge, widespread problem.

The teacher didn't specifically say "there is no God" but used phrases similar to 'religion is nothing but magic' to make that point. I recall one line to which the students objected was "Don't put your faith in a god. Put it into something real that you can actually use." Another was "there is no material evidence for any form of religion, and you can't believe in both religion and science."

An individual teacher making an offensive remark can be dealt with very swiftly. However, it is much more troublesome when a school board mandates that all science teachers teach something that is not science. To correct the action of a school board is much more difficult than to correct the behavior of an individual teacher.

0 Replies

No, the teacher is only being honest that the origin of life question is still unanswered. It's not religious at all; the student brings religion into it, not the teacher.

0 Replies

(this thread is really "hopping" today)

0 Replies

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

but if we are to commit to an open mind in science, we have to be willing to look at all points of view don't you think? Lead by example, as it were?

Anti-IDers committing to an open mind!!!!

They would faint clean away. They are just dissident Christians. Tell them twenty times about de Sade, their only martyr, and watch them scutter. Even Ms Greer gives them the heebie-jeebies.

Its a pose. For their own mirror. Trying to make their Id look respectable.

0 Replies

Science does look at all points of view that can be observed. If it can't be observed, it's not science. Poofism is not science.

0 Replies

c.i.

ros wrote-

Quote:

Evolution definitely IS the only scientific theory to explain the origin of species, and that point can not be overemphasized to every student.

That provokes the question unless the class has gone to sleep.

0 Replies

What is the resone of the teacher if asked the question. That's what I asked. Why all this semantic twaddle?

If the teacher doesn't answer at all he discredits science teaching and if he says what ros said he should say and emphasise it to a kid who believes in God, and who's family and community do he also discredits science in their eyes.

0 Replies

No. Only the religious would dream up the connection of god or religion to science.

Without religion, there would be no question of the kind. Studemts would want to seek scientific answers for that very question.

0 Replies

BTW, scientists are seeking the answer to that very quesiton. ID doesn't answer anything; it only makes students lazy.

0 Replies

Cripes!!

Avoid Hawaii in Feb and Albuquerque in May.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

mesquite wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
And should you be teaching my child and refer to his/her religious beliefs as 'magic', you would be answering to me.

I would hesitate to get into any discussion of religion with a student, but if cornered, I would tell them that they had the right to believe anything they want to believe. But if they asked, I wouldn't try to deceive them by denying that the supernatural is the same as magic, because it is.

If a parent has a problem with that, then they should get their kids out of public school and cloister them at home where they can be protected from reality.

I have to agree with Foxfyre Ros. Magic is not an equivalent synonym for religious belief. Superstition is a considerably more accurate term.

I didn't say it was synonymous with religion, I said it was synonymous with the supernatural. There's a difference.

Even though religion is based on supernatural beliefs, it is far more specific and usually relates to the collection of dogma which surrounds particular cultural or historic events.

Do you agree that magic is synonymous with the supernatural?

Sorry rosborne, my bad. You didn't say magic was synonymous with religion. Foxfyre made that leap for you and I quoted her without checking the accuracy of the words she attributed to you. I should have known better. Yes, I agree magic can be synonymous with the supernatural.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know