Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

To proactively not discredit.... If the schools would initiate the compromise, I am convinced the effort to include ID with science would diminish and probably go away.

Yeh, we here in the US have so much to learn from how Europe so firmly dealt with the threat of NAtional SOcialism in the 1930's

Im sure that we and the Russians will have to bail you out of your "accomodations" with Cretinism within the next 15 years

Foxfyre wrote:

To proactively not discredit.... If the schools would initiate the compromise, I am convinced the effort to include ID with science would diminish and probably go away.

Foxfyre, what bothers me is that your proposal is so vague. How do schools implement a policy of "proactively not discrediting" something? I may be wrong, but that odd phrase seems to summarize what you have been proposing.

It's quite simple. They will issue a policy to all teachers on how to appropriately respond to children's questions on religious teachings that contradict what the teacher is teaching and do this without interfering with the child's religious teachings and without derailing the science class. Teachers will also be instructed to not insert their own opinions re any religious teaching. I have already made suggestions as to how this can be done.

foxfyre

Quote:

It also speaks to my wish that the schools proactively stop warring with Creationism/ID and allow it to peacefully co-exist with science while not teaching it as science. To proactively not discredit something is not the same thing as advocacy for it.

This is not the least thought out thing that youve said on this subject , but its up there. The "WAR", as you put it, is actually being initiated by the CRETINISTS And IDjits. They are the ones attempting to infiltrate the school mcurriculum, not the other way around. You seem to be quite obtuse in your understanding of that seminal fact.

Quote:

The schools have no business and are blatantly in the wrong when they attempt to destroy a child's religious faith or push any form of relgious belief including Atheism

. Thats why the teaching of all science should be kept free of all but the subject. There are no "Why's in elementary sciences". Also, youre fondest wish is merely the desire of a relatively small bunch of Evangelical Christians. It doesnt even represent the majority view of Christianity as a whole.

Teaching With Tolerance and Respect
Science studies natural phenomena by formulating explanations that can be tested against the natural world. Some scientific concepts and theories (e.g., blood transfusion, human sexuality, nervous system role in consciousness, cosmological and biological evolution, etc.) may differ from the teachings of a student's religious community or their cultural beliefs. Compelling student belief is inconsistent with the goal of education. Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught as absolute knowledge. A teacher is an important role model for demonstrating respect, sensitivity, and civility. Science teachers should not ridicule, belittle or embarrass a student for expressing an alternative view or belief. Teachers have the opportunity to display and demand tolerance and respect for the diverse ideas, skills, and experiences of all students.

In 2007, the newly elected and more moderate state school board in Kansas revised the 2005 science education standards to eliminate controversial anti-evolution provisions. The introduction to the 2007 standards includes this paragraph:

Quote:

Teaching With Tolerance and Respect
Science studies natural phenomena by formulating explanations that can be tested against the natural world. Some scientific concepts and theories (e.g., blood transfusion, human sexuality, nervous system role in consciousness, cosmological and biological evolution, etc.) may differ from the teachings of a student's religious community or their cultural beliefs. Compelling student belief is inconsistent with the goal of education. Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught as absolute knowledge. A teacher is an important role model for demonstrating respect, sensitivity, and civility. Science teachers should not ridicule, belittle or embarrass a student for expressing an alternative view or belief. Teachers have the opportunity to display and demand tolerance and respect for the diverse ideas, skills, and experiences of all students.

A very interesting post mesquite. I was looking for that letter the other week for a discussion for a seminar that we are planning for next fall on the concept of worldviews. Its an excellent summary of the rational. (Juxtaposed with the recent Idjit Disclaimers by Cardinal Schonbrun and the very recent "ex cathedra" discussions by the Pope)

The suggestion that a teacher should be required to endorse a child's religious faith would be as stupid as a teacher belittling or discrediting a child's religious faith. I don't have a clue what 'absolute knowledge' means but would question that there is no such thing. One thing they got right, however, is that it is wrong to belittle a child's religious belief/faith, and that it is not the responsibility of good education to instill belief in anybody. Good education provides the facts as we know and understand them and teaches students to think critically about them. What they choose to believe about it is left up to them.

This is already SOP with most all the states in the US. "REspect for Diversity " training is almost universal. SO if thats all you want, consider it done. It requires no "proactive statements" only respectful responses on behalf of teachers. Now where do you go from here?

You opened the door with your smug "we dont fall for that stuff here in Europe crap"

Im sure that we and the Russians will have to bail you out of your "accomodations" with Cretinism within the next 15 years.

The way things are headed I think you might need to consult your womenfolk about that.

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

excruciatingly similar......

They are a type of literary Warholian art form Foxy. The repetitive nature is supposed to be a sort of metaphor for the banality of existence as the soup can series were. Top of the page is the equivalent of exhibiting in the top gallery. Banality does get forceful. It's obvious anti-IDers want top spot.

Quote:

What sort of class do you teach that inspires no curiosity, no questions? Do you put your students to sleep at the opening bell?

Oh no. fm's students have done with school. They are very attentive. They have come to him to get a meal ticket for life and all they need do is give him back what he thinks in the exams and they get one. They take down his lesson notes, rote learn them, regurgitate them, he approves and bob's your uncle. You get started with Exxon, good wages, pretty wife, suburban bliss like in Dick van Dyke, get loaded, pop off early and pretty wife goes on QE2 cruises to be attended to. Isn't that right fm? It's a bit like spreading your genes. You screw their heads. Style, wit, erudition, balance etc don't count a blow. It's to try their patience because patience is important for prospectors. I would be no good prospecting. If nothing came up on the first hole I drilled I would say sod this and all those hours listening to fm drone on about (insert long words) would be wasted.

The kids want to learn to live. He would put them to sleep I should think.

Quote:

It's quite simple. They will issue a policy to all teachers on how to appropriately respond to children's questions on religious teachings that contradict what the teacher is teaching and do this without interfering with the child's religious teachings and without derailing the science class. Teachers will also be instructed to not insert their own opinions re any religious teaching. I have already made suggestions as to how this can be done.

This is already SOP with most all the states in the US. "REspect for Diversity " training is almost universal. SO if thats all you want, consider it done. It requires no "proactive statements" only respectful responses on behalf of teachers. Now where do you go from here?
Is there still lre that you demand?

I think it is appropriate for the teacher to acknowledge that hundreds of millions of people think as the student thinks
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3077625#3077625

Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught as absolute knowledge.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/darwinbicentenary

And how does that student think and what?

Yeh, we here in the US have so much to learn from how Europe so firmly dealt with the threat of NAtional SOcialism in the 1930's