Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Foxfyre wrote:

Balony. You're in the middle of a discussion on Darwin and the kid asks you what about ID or what about God? You don't have to know what religious teachings the child has in order to formulate an appropriate answer that won't mess with the kid's religious beliefs or concerns and/or won't violate the integrity of the science class. To feign being 'cornered' and equating such belief to magic is both inappropriate and way over the line. Again, I'm not buying that you were referring to 'outside the classroom and in the hallway somewhere.'

What does the science teacher who is showing evolutionary time lines to the class say to the student that states the teachers facts must be wrong because he has been to the Creation Museum and has seen hard evidence that humans and dinosaurs existed together?

He explains the Darwin theory of how dinosaurs and humans evolved and explains that it is the accepted scientific theory that has stood a signficant test of time. The student doesn't have to believe it, but he's going to have to know it for the test.

Foxfyre wrote:

He explains the Darwin theory of how dinosaurs and humans evolved and explains that it is the accepted scientific theory that has stood a signficant test of time. The student doesn't have to believe it, but he's going to have to know it for the test.

Now there is an answer that I can almost agree with (explaining the Darwin theory of how dinosaurs and humans evolved seems a bit much for that question), and it seems just as appropriate as the other situation in which you wanted the teacher to spout a bunch of weasel words.

So far, unfortunately for your ilk, , IT IS THE ONLY SCIENTIFIC THEORY TO EXPLAIN ORIGIN OF SPECIES All the rest is non scientific. You conflate the "gaps" in knowledge regardin natural selection to be an automatic default to ID. WEll thats sloppy thinking. If there were any competing theory, itd be discussed openly at the conferences, all scientists in the field are openly competitive.

ID has a habit of "sounding almost reasonable"

Nobody has even suggested a teacher should compromise any principles.

So, I ask you, why must we waste time in class teaching what doesnt work

There's no guarantee, but the possibility of finding an answer is better than "it's because of ID" which doesn't seek to find answers, but relegates it to some unknown god or gods.

Yup. When the insults start flying and they become more and more personally insulting, dismissive, and increasingly fanatical and screechy, we can be absolutely 100% certain we won the argument or at least they have absolutely nothing with which to refute it.

Foxfyre wrote:

Yup. When the insults start flying and they become more and more personally insulting, dismissive, and increasingly fanatical and screechy, we can be absolutely 100% certain we won the argument or at least they have absolutely nothing with which to refute it.

You're describing your own behavior pretty well. I was just answering your questions until you started saying you didn't believe me. Check the posts. They speak for themselves.

I DO care whether they use science class in an attempt to make children anti-religion.

I don't want science teachers using their classes to make children anti-religious, and I don't know anyone on this thread who does. So there's probably no debate on this issue.

Thank you Ros. But I still can't get past your statement that, if asked, you would tell that child in science class that religion is nothing more than magic.

Not "Religion". The "Supernatural". Haven't you been reading the posts? Or do you not see the difference?

Foxfyre wrote

Quote:

What Ros specifically said verbatim is

Ros's response:
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.

This, in context, was in response to the child's question re God or ID during a class exercise or discussion on Darwin. So if 'religious belief' is translated 'supernatural' and equated with magic, tell me again how the child is not being led to disbelieve in his/her religious beliefs? Explain how the child would not feel that his/her religious beliefs are being attacked? How is this not suggesting that if the parents don't want their kid indoctrinated with Atheism or Atheistic beliefs, don't send your kid to public school?

I can't change the facts of life Fox. The supernatural is synomymous with magic. It just is. If you want kids protected from definitions, then you are going to have to hide the facts from them, and that's not what schools are about.

If you don't like the fact that the basis of your particular religion is a belief in the supernatural, which is the same as magic, then I can't help you. You need to come to grips with the way you've chosen to see the world.

Also, I didn't assume that this type of question would come up in class. As I said above, I would only say something like that if "cornered". And by cornered, I assumed that some kid was approaching me after class and unwilling to just accept my class answer, which would simply have been that God and ID are not topics for a science class.

Nobody has even suggested a teacher should compromise any principles.

"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.)"
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3064920#3064920

Schools should teach those views that are supported by the evidence and by the consensus of experts in those fields and it doesn't matter whether it conflicts with someone's religious views. We teach that the earth is round no matter what the flat earthers think the Bible says. We teach that the earth rotates around the sun no matter what the geocentrists think the Bible says. We teach that modern life forms share a common ancestor regardless of what the creationists think the Bible says. We teach that humans have been on the earth for only 200,000 years no matter what the Hindu creationists think. We teach that disease is caused by microorganisms and other physical causes no matter what the Christian Scientists think. We teach that earthquakes and hurricanes are caused by natural phenomena no matter what Pat Robertson or the Bible says. And that is how it should be. The fact that some religion may object to any of those ideas has no relevance whatsoever to whether they should be taught.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/01/my_churchstate_views.php#more

BUMP

Diest TKO wrote:

Spendi - Are trying to suggest that morality did not exist prior to Judism or Christianity?

What about the Native Americans?

T
K
O

And frankly it wouldn't make any difference whether a teacher did that in class or out in the hall. The effect is the same..

This covers it for me.

Quote:

Schools should teach those views that are supported by the evidence and by the consensus of experts in those fields and it doesn't matter whether it conflicts with someone's religious views. We teach that the earth is round no matter what the flat earthers think the Bible says. We teach that the earth rotates around the sun no matter what the geocentrists think the Bible says. We teach that modern life forms share a common ancestor regardless of what the creationists think the Bible says. We teach that humans have been on the earth for only 200,000 years no matter what the Hindu creationists think. We teach that disease is caused by microorganisms and other physical causes no matter what the Christian Scientists think. We teach that earthquakes and hurricanes are caused by natural phenomena no matter what Pat Robertson or the Bible says. And that is how it should be. The fact that some religion may object to any of those ideas has no relevance whatsoever to whether they should be taught.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/01/my_churchstate_views.php#more