Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

The student will be able to explain how scientific and technological innovations as well as new evidence can challenge portions of or entire accepted theories and models including but not limited to cell theory, atomic theory, theory of evolution, plate tectonic theory, germ theory of disease and big bang theory."

To his credit, Ros, was at least honest enough to flat out said he would tell the kid that ID/Creationism or whatever is magic. Then he affirmed that he would tell the kid that and if the parent had a problem with it the kid should be taken out of public school and put in a Christian school.

And is THAT kind of attitude that I think has prompted all these silly efforts to put Creationism into science class.

But the anti-IDers don't want to discuss any form of compromise. No siree. They excoriate the very suggestion. They apparently don't care if a child's faith is destroyed but they do care that a science teacher might be expected to be sensitive to that.

But we IDers who can accept both ID and science are the close minded ones you see.

Foxfyre wrote:

To his credit, Ros, was at least honest enough to flat out said he would tell the kid that ID/Creationism or whatever is magic. Then he affirmed that he would tell the kid that and if the parent had a problem with it the kid should be taken out of public school and put in a Christian school.

And is THAT kind of attitude that I think has prompted all these silly efforts to put Creationism into science class.

But the anti-IDers don't want to discuss any form of compromise. No siree. They excoriate the very suggestion. They apparently don't care if a child's faith is destroyed but they do care that a science teacher might be expected to be sensitive to that.

But we IDers who can accept both ID and science are the close minded ones you see.

Foxfyre,

In my opinion, you are blatantly distorting and misrepresenting what Rosborne said.

You recapped part of the discussion, Foxfyre.

The discussion with Rosborne was spread out over more than one day (with Rosborne forced to deal with your previous misrepresentations of what he was saying).

These kinds of questions help us to understand why the effort to establish science standards require 12 months of work.

wandeljw wrote:

You recapped part of the discussion, Foxfyre.

The discussion with Rosborne was spread out over more than one day (with Rosborne forced to deal with your previous misrepresentations of what he was saying).

Okay, here's the beginning of it. Again, tell me how I misrepresented what he said:

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3067152#3067152

Absolutely right that public school teachers have NO business trying to define, compartmentalize, marginalize or otherwise interfere in a student's religious beliefs in ANY context ---- whether that is scientific, political, or otherwise.

The context in which that came up, however, was the likely questions re God and/or ID that could come up during a discussion on Darwin and how the science teacher should handle that. My opinion is that all the teacher needs to do is explain that some form of ID is a belief or theory held by millions of people but it cannot be tested, proved, or refuted scientifically and therefore it can't be considered as science. The student doesn't have to believe in natural selection, but he's going to have to know what that is and pass a test showing that he learned it. I think only a tiny number of parents would object to that approach.

mesquite wrote:

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 significant test of time. The student doesn't have to believe it, but he's going to have to know it for the test.

They apparently don't care if a child's faith is destroyed

Foxfyre wrote:

Absolutely right that public school teachers have NO business trying to define, compartmentalize, marginalize or otherwise interfere in a student's religious beliefs in ANY context ---- whether that is scientific, political, or otherwise.

The context in which that came up, however, was the likely questions re God and/or ID that could come up during a discussion on Darwin and how the science teacher should handle that. My opinion is that all the teacher needs to do is explain that some form of ID is a belief or theory held by millions of people but it cannot be tested, proved, or refuted scientifically and therefore it can't be considered as science. The student doesn't have to believe in natural selection, but he's going to have to know what that is and pass a test showing that he learned it. I think only a tiny number of parents would object to that approach.

Notice the difference in the amount of placating language that you suggest for the above situation as compared to the below situation.

Foxfyre wrote:

mesquite wrote:

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 significant test of time. The student doesn't have to believe it, but he's going to have to know it for the test.

Could the lack of placating language in the Creation Museum example be because you know that the museum is bunk, but that ID on the other hand is your sacred cow?

foxfyre said

Quote:

They apparently don't care if a child's faith is destroyed

Why should they (teachers or others) care? Education and learning occur alongside the re-evaluation of previously held notions. Old ideas constantly fall by the wayside (if you are learning), categories shift, and there's turmoil in the noggin. It is the way of it. The goal of education is something quite other than destruction of previous ideas...that is, at least very often, a logically necessary consequence of the educational process.

By contrast, what of a Christian missionary in Pago Pago? How concerned ought that missionary to be that he is out there for the express and forthright motivation to destroy previous faith-ideas?

Do you see a missionary in Pago Pago as the same thing as a public school teacher? I don't.

Would you be so agreeable to have faith destroyed if the teacher was teaching Christian principles to your kid and suggesting that everything you had taught him was wrong? I rather doubt you would.

In my opinion, the purpose of public education should be to teach math, science, reading, writing, literature, and principles of social structure and government. It should be exposing the children to as many realities and possibilities of life as possible and encouraging children to assimilate and think critically about these things. It should not be indoctrinating them with any religious concepts and that includes Atheism.

Quote:

Do you see a missionary in Pago Pago as the same thing as a public school teacher? I don't.

Of course not. The point is that "destroying a child's faith" is a direct and primary goal of Christian (or other) missionary work. So it makes it rather tough for a christian (or other) to argue that there's something inherently evil or inappropriate in doing something which effects or alters a child's faith.

Quote:

Would you be so agreeable to have faith destroyed if the teacher was teaching Christian principles to your kid and suggesting that everything you had taught him was wrong? I rather doubt you would.

There's no place for religious indoctrination in schools. But it is certainly the case that, say, if my daughter were to take a course in World Religions and if it were to then happen that she gained affinity for Buddhist ideas or Christian ideas then that's quite appropriate and nothing I'd want to alter...it is her mental universe and not mine.

In my opinion, the purpose of public education should be to teach math, science, reading, writing, literature, and principles of social structure and government. It should be exposing the children to as many realities and possibilities of life as possible and encouraging children to assimilate and think critically about these things. It should not be indoctrinating them with any religious concepts and that includes Atheism.

How concerned ought that missionary to be that he is out there for the express and forthright motivation to destroy previous faith-ideas?

Im sitting here in the Charleston W Va general aviation , waiting to hitch a ride. They have an information booth that presents the Creation Museum.
I really want to go.

Bernie wrote-

Quote:

How concerned ought that missionary to be that he is out there for the express and forthright motivation to destroy previous faith-ideas?

There's a story of a British military officer in India who was supervising mourners at the cremation of a an elderly gentleman. The mourners tried to throw his wife into the flames. The officer stepped forward and prevented it.

They said that they had always thrown the deceased's wife onto the fire. He replied that we hang people who throw people on to fires.

Suttee ended right there.