Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

What do you mean "finally getting it". That's another of your self congratulatory invidious comparison tricks. I do believe you don't know you're doing it.

I have thought it a conspiracy from the start. Your film reinforces that view. I have even written the scene where two bored lawyers put the whole thing together in a smoke filled room littered with coffee cups and filled ashtrays with a blue movie on the telly.

How much money was spent by TV companies around the world sending film crews to Dover and newspapers sending investigative journalists on what seems to have been a holiday.

I have seen loads of actors play parts with "strictly Evangelical Christian views".

It's time you got it fm. TV is the most fiendish instrument known to mankind. There are plenty of people claiming that Mr Bush is acting the role of defender of freedom in order to boost the profits of some companies. (I'm not one). So a school board president with a couple of paragraphs of drivel that the kids won't remember for 5 seconds should be a oiece of piss. How do you know Mr Buckingham is a genuine Christian Evangelical? Because he says so I suppose.

David Icke made quite a stir here claiming to be the Son of God and exposing the reptilian bloodline that rules the world.

If you studied Tom Jones in a literature class in a public school you would expose the kids to an anti anti-ID argument and a strong one. Would doing that breach the EC? Would studying The God Delusion do the same?

BTW- Tom Jones is a masterpiece.

How about "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife" in Jane Austen?

Wife being a religious category at that time. A slight rewording and you have a prostitute's thought as a gentleman walks towards her pitch.

I think you are focussed on evolution for your own reasons. It's an easy "Wedge". It's a business proposition.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
real life wrote:

I think Foxfyre's point is that just because some IDers are religious doesn't mean that all are.

There are IDers who are atheist, agnostic, etc

Not that that should make any difference to you, because you've conceded that it wasn't important to you to exclude the concept of God from the definition of 'natural process'.

Since the time of Thomas Aquinas the definition of what is "natural" has included God. Why do you suddenly think that 500 years of Christian teachings should be wrong and God can not have anything to do with nature?

Where have I made any such statement?

real life wrote:

Excluding the supernatural is not important to your definition of a 'natural process' , eh?

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3088342#3088342

real life wrote:

I would think it very important to you as a scientist to make sure that the definition of a natural process didn't include God.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3088291#3088291

real life wrote:

If you introduce a supernatural element, it is no longer a natural process. Period.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3051396#3051396

Aquinas believed God created the world but the world was natural. Is God a supernatural element? Is your statement definitive?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Most IDers aren't asking for ID to be science. however, and most do not believe it is. It is fine for the science teacher to tell the kids that ID is not science if the kids ask about it. It is not fine for the teacher to presume to tell the kids that there is no basis for ID.

Hokie, I think FoxFyre is objecting to anyone summarily rejecting ID as a possibility OUTSIDE of science.

I think she is agreeing that it is not scientific, but she wants teachers to acknowledge (or simply not reject) that "anything is possible" OUTSIDE of science.

What you think I think bears no resemblance to what I have said that I think. Try again a bit more objectively this time please.

Darn, I thought I had that right. I guess I don't know what the hell you're trying to say.

I'm sorry Ros. I did misunderstand your post. Knee jerk reflex after fielding so much incorrect analysis of my position I guess, but you didn't deserve the curt response. And yes you got it right, and I do appreciate that.

Whew, for a minute there I thought I was going to have to rewrite my view of reality to incorporate your view (as I was having trouble making sense of it). Smile

I can't say that I agree with your concerns regarding how teachers address issues like this (because, like farmerman, I think a vast majority of teachers don't undermine anyone's beliefs), but at least I now understand your position clearly.

I suppose the next discussion to flow from your view of this is whether it's necessary for teachers to caveat all instruction on evolution to include the disclaimer that all theories outside of science are possible.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

This however is curious in that FM so strenuously objects to any definition of ID having any credibility. How does one acccept God in the natural process and reject ID? This just doesn't compute.

They are using different definitions of "god". God is an extremely broad concept. unless people are more specific about they god they are using in their statement, it's easy to miscommunicate.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Most IDers aren't asking for ID to be science. however, and most do not believe it is. It is fine for the science teacher to tell the kids that ID is not science if the kids ask about it. It is not fine for the teacher to presume to tell the kids that there is no basis for ID.

Hokie, I think FoxFyre is objecting to anyone summarily rejecting ID as a possibility OUTSIDE of science.

I think she is agreeing that it is not scientific, but she wants teachers to acknowledge (or simply not reject) that "anything is possible" OUTSIDE of science.

What you think I think bears no resemblance to what I have said that I think. Try again a bit more objectively this time please.

Darn, I thought I had that right. I guess I don't know what the hell you're trying to say.

I'm sorry Ros. I did misunderstand your post. Knee jerk reflex after fielding so much incorrect analysis of my position I guess, but you didn't deserve the curt response. And yes you got it right, and I do appreciate that.

Whew, for a minute there I thought I was going to have to rewrite my view of reality to incorporate your view (as I was having trouble making sense of it).

I can't say that I agree with your concerns regarding how teachers address issues like this (because, like farmerman, I think a vast majority of teachers don't undermine anyone's beliefs), but at least I now understand your position clearly.

I suppose the next discussion to flow from your view of this is whether it's necessary for teachers to caveat all instruction on evolution to include the disclaimer that all theories outside of science are possible.

I agree that the vast majority of teachers do not indoctrinate children with their personal sociopolitical views; however, in this modern age of political correctness and far leftwing extremism, some of that has in fact inflitrated the schools. Remember I have spent some time in the classroom and have served on a school board as well as raising two kids who went to public school and I remained proactive in school activities until we left Kansas. I'm not coming from a wholly speculative position.

Coincidentally, all that was in Kansas where a whole lot of this bruhaha is now going on. During my years there I was proactive in stopping Christian fundamentalists from trying to have "objectionable" school library books banned and also proactive in censuring teachers who were improperly indoctrinating children. I've seen both sides first hand.

And that is why I am convinced that there needs to be a compromise to assure parents that the teachers will be competently teaching good science or any other subject, but who will not be intentionally attacking or influencing the religious faith of the students (or the value system in the home which was another issue and even bigger problem.) Should the student come to a different conclusion that what he or she has been taught because s/he is exposed to Darwin, so be it. In my opinion that can be a good thing.

But it is not the teacher's responsibility to mold the child's belief. It is the teacher's responsibility to competently give the child good information on a subject, motivate him/her to learn it and think critically about it, and allow the child to believe whatever s/he believes about it.

Does the teacher need to preface a teaching on Darwin by acknowledging ID? Of course not. But the teacher needs to know how to field the child's question without attacking or belittling or casting doubts on the child's religious faith should the subject come up. And I have offered my opinion as to the best way to do that to both protect the child and reassure the parents.

And with that policy, I think we would be seeing a lot less of this ID stuff in the papers.

(P.S. I honestly have not spent a great deal of time discussing this anywhere except on this thread, so this has been interesting for me. I was gone from A2K for quite a while, however, and have not read what all transpired during that time.)

0 Replies

Quote:

But it is not the teacher's responsibility to mold the child's belief. It is the teacher's responsibility to competently give the child good information on a subject, motivate him/her to learn it and think critically about it, and allow the child to believe whatever s/he believes about it.

If that is all a teacher is supposed to do then I wonder how you test the child or evaluate the teacher.

Should we really let children decide if they believe how a word is supposed to be spelled or whether 2+2 really equals 4? To do that would create chaos in the school. We give them information that they can be tested on. Evolution is a theory. As a scientific theory it is supported by facts similar to every other scientific theory. We shouldn't teach beyond the facts but at the same time we shouldn't ignore facts simply because those facts go against someone's religion. That too would lead to chaos.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Quote:
But it is not the teacher's responsibility to mold the child's belief. It is the teacher's responsibility to competently give the child good information on a subject, motivate him/her to learn it and think critically about it, and allow the child to believe whatever s/he believes about it.

If that is all a teacher is supposed to do then I wonder how you test the child or evaluate the teacher.

Should we really let children decide if they believe how a word is supposed to be spelled or whether 2+2 really equals 4? To do that would create chaos in the school. We give them information that they can be tested on. Evolution is a theory. As a scientific theory it is supported by facts similar to every other scientific theory. We shouldn't teach beyond the facts but at the same time we shouldn't ignore facts simply because those facts go against someone's religion. That too would lead to chaos.

Did I say any facts should be ignored? You can expect the child to know the correct answer on a test related to the facts of any subject. It is not the teacher's responsibility to make the child believe it is the correct answer. It is only the teacher's responsibility to teach the child what the correct answer is.

0 Replies

Quote:

Does the teacher need to preface a teaching on Darwin by acknowledging ID? Of course not. But the teacher needs to know how to field the child's question without attacking or belittling or casting doubts on the child's religious faith should the subject come up. And I have offered my opinion as to the best way to do that to both protect the child and reassure the parents.

And with that policy, I think we would be seeing a lot less of this ID stuff in the papers.

Therein is the crux of the issue. The facts should really be simple.

Science doesn't support or deny the existence of God. Science only attempts to discover the rules of our natural surroundings.

I think the problem comes not from science but from those that think anyone that doesn't support God must be denying him. The attempt to insert ID is not an attempt to overcome the denial of God by science but rather the lack of God in science.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Quote:
Does the teacher need to preface a teaching on Darwin by acknowledging ID? Of course not. But the teacher needs to know how to field the child's question without attacking or belittling or casting doubts on the child's religious faith should the subject come up. And I have offered my opinion as to the best way to do that to both protect the child and reassure the parents.

And with that policy, I think we would be seeing a lot less of this ID stuff in the papers.

Therein is the crux of the issue. The facts should really be simple.

Science doesn't support or deny the existence of God. Science only attempts to discover the rules of our natural surroundings.

I think the problem comes not from science but from those that think anyone that doesn't support God must be denying him. The attempt to insert ID is not an attempt to overcome the denial of God by science but rather the lack of God in science.

To some fundamentalists I'm sure that is true. To most parents it is not. Most parents resist--some actively resist as I did--attempts to interject religion into the classroom. Those same parents just as actively oppose any attempt to interfere with the children's religion and/or value system in the classroom too.

So my appeal here is to the reasonable people. I think be reasonable with them, and there will be precious few left who will create these kinds of problems and those few who do will receive little sympathy and even less support from the mainstream.

Quote:

Science doesn't support or deny the existence of God.

Science doesn't. Some scientists and/or science teachers do.

0 Replies

Note to FM: I do not mind the typos and misspellings and don't pay any attention to them. You demonstrate sufficient intelligence and education to make it pretty obvious that you know better; and everybody can't be a great typist.

0 Replies

FLORIDA UPDATE

Quote:

Florida State School Board Should Reject Religious Right Effort to Weaken Science Standards, Says Americans United

0 Replies

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

I agree that the vast majority of teachers do not indoctrinate children with their personal sociopolitical views;

Pray tell dear Lady what exactly is the role of character references and questions in interviews for teaching positions relating to the applicant's character if there is not going to be any indoctrination of "personal sociopolitical views"?

A teacher indoctrinates as a matter of course.

Because you discuss things in the abstract you can only focus on some hypothetical statement made to a hypothetical class in a brief hypothetical moment.

A lot of kids have the same teacher day in day out for years in some cases.

One can easily have a history teacher for an hour a day, five days a week, 36 weeks a year through 14 to 17.

If he's any good he bends their minds. Without anybody noticing. A real educator doesn't want to be noticed. He wants the kids in his charge to benefit from his lessons. There are a large number of teachers in the US and all we ever get on here is what the ones who want to be noticed think and they might only be thinking what they say they think in order to be noticed. And I daresay the number of them is less than 1%.

But I recognise that in the US everybody seems to want to be noticed.

So this thread is in the indoctrination game. And nobody will ever indoctrinate me unless they have the style. And it can't be faked. That's why I don't buy your two big sports.

Quote:

During my years there I was proactive in stopping Christian fundamentalists from trying to have "objectionable" school library books banned and also proactive in censuring teachers who were improperly indoctrinating children. I've seen both sides first hand.

Where would you be Foxy with de Sade, Genet, Joyce, Henry Miller, Burroughs, Selby Jnr, Durell,(He wrote TUNC), Rabelais, & Co. As soon as you decide what is "objectionable" you are engaged in indoctrination. Bang at it. So basically you are defining "indoctrination" in a way which represents your "personal sociopolitical views".

You do see that don't you?

Are you a bit nervous about addressing my points? It is a science forum where one expects everything to be looked at with a cold, dispassionate, objective eye and what is observed to be reported accurately.

I wouldn't want Bob Dylan to be sneering "Ya can't look at much can you man? at me.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Foxy wrote-

Quote:
I agree that the vast majority of teachers do not indoctrinate children with their personal sociopolitical views;

Pray tell dear Lady what exactly is the role of character references and questions in interviews for teaching positions relating to the applicant's character if there is not going to be any indoctrination of "personal sociopolitical views"?

A teacher indoctrinates as a matter of course.

Because you discuss things in the abstract you can only focus on some hypothetical statement made to a hypothetical class in a brief hypothetical moment.

A lot of kids have the same teacher day in day out for years in some cases.

One can easily have a history teacher for an hour a day, five days a week, 36 weeks a year through 14 to 17.

If he's any good he bends their minds. Without anybody noticing. A real educator doesn't want to be noticed. He wants the kids in his charge to benefit from his lessons. There are a large number of teachers in the US and all we ever get on here is what the ones who want to be noticed think and they might only be thinking what they say they think in order to be noticed. And I daresay the number of them is less than 1%.

But I recognise that in the US everybody seems to want to be noticed.

So this thread is in the indoctrination game. And nobody will ever indoctrinate me unless they have the style. And it can't be faked. That's why I don't buy your two big sports.

There is a huge difference between influence and indoctrination. I can remember the handful of truly superior teachers that I had in elementary, junior high (now called Middle School), highschool, and college. They were the ones who inspired me, who so infused me with a passion for the subject that I never let it go. One was the music teacher that stayed with us for 10 years--she infused us with such passion for Handel, Brahms, Mendelssohn, Bach, and contemporary composers that it has stayed with us all the decades since. She taught us how music can speak in language too profound for words. And she interspersed that with practical education on dress, hygiene, speech, how to stand, sit, walk etc. We practically received a finsihing school curriculum along with music class.

But she never attempted to teach us what to think. She only taught us how to think critically and left it up to us whether we appreciated it or not.

I had teachers equally as passionate about science and history and English literature and journalism that sufficiently influenced me to shape my life choices. And not one of those ever presumed to tell us what to think either.

To this day I can tell you that the music teacher was Lutheran because she talked about coming out of church in Norway on Christmas Eve and it was finally snowing, so very important to them for Christmas Eve. But that is all I knew of her religious faith. I can't tell you the political leanings or what, if any, religion any of the others were.

They taught. They influenced. But they did not indoctrinate.

Quote:

Quote:
During my years there I was proactive in stopping Christian fundamentalists from trying to have "objectionable" school library books banned and also proactive in censuring teachers who were improperly indoctrinating children. I've seen both sides first hand.

Where would you be Foxy with de Sade, Genet, Joyce, Henry Miller, Burroughs, Selby Jnr, Durell,(He wrote TUNC), Rabelais, & Co. As soon as you decide what is "objectionable" you are engaged in indoctrination. Bang at it. So basically you are defining "indoctrination" in a way which represents your "personal sociopolitical views".

You do see that don't you?

????? Did you read what I said? I OPPOSED banning books that the fundamentalists found objectionable.

Quote:

Are you a bit nervous about addressing my points? It is a science forum where one expects everything to be looked at with a cold, dispassionate, objective eye and what is observed to be reported accurately.

I wouldn't want Bob Dylan to be sneering "Ya can't look at much can you man? at me.

The only thing that makes me nervous, Spendi, is that I actually am understanding most of your points. And that's scary.

0 Replies

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

So my appeal here is to the reasonable people

I'm pretty reasonable Foxy. I only ever get unreasonable when I think I might be contributing to leaving future generations a legacy of totalitarianism. My boat is already ashore.

That's why I'm the oddball.

0 Replies

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

The only thing that makes me nervous, Spendi, is that I actually am understanding most of your points. And that's scary

Yes- a lot of people have problems when they have become habituated to taking themselves seriously and then along comes someone who shows them the sheer bloody silly sod that they actually are as a product of evolution.

It happened to me. Thankfully I wasn't very old at the time.

Handel, Brahms, Mendelssohn, Bach are pure essence of Christian theology on the wing. Mainlining.

Without indoctrination we would all be feral.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Foxy wrote-

Quote:
The only thing that makes me nervous, Spendi, is that I actually am understanding most of your points. And that's scary

Yes- a lot of people have problems when they have become habituated to taking themselves seriously and then along comes someone who shows them the sheer bloody silly sod that they actually are as a product of evolution.

It happened to me. Thankfully I wasn't very old at the time.

Handel, Brahms, Mendelssohn, Bach are pure essence of Christian theology on the wing. Mainlining.

Without indoctrination we would all be feral.

Ah, but here we disagree. Exposure to the great masters is not indoctrination. It is education. You leave it to the student what he or she thinks about the contents of the music and lyrics, whether he/she appreciates them and/or agrees with them. All that education requires of the student is that he know the composer, style, and flavor of the composition and/or learns how to perform it well. We learned to identify the different instruments listening to excerpts from Sergei Prokofiev's "Peter and the Wolf" during one of the most anti-communist eras ever experienced in the United States.

We were also exposed to writings of Marx, Hitler, and Hemingway along with the standard Silas Marner, Wuthering Heights, Jane Eyre, Shakespeare, Whitman, Chaucer et al. Guest lecturers at the university included everything from hard core communists to pop pysche advocates to supply sided economists. Now when students are too often being indoctrinated, they are often not offered or even allowed such diversity of experience.

0 Replies

Spendi was, as he stated , a product of a Catholic school education, wherein ALL teaching is indoctrination. I never knew the true feeling of being an amateur until I had father Joe (a Jezzy in 6th grade who explained learning for its own sake) Enjoyment o art and music, science for an inquiring mind, and literature because we need context. SPendi has, Im afraid, a jaded view of all existence and I dont feel that its our job to dissuade him because hes quite ossified.

0 Replies

Parados wrote:

Quote:

Science doesn't support or deny the existence of God

Foxy Replied:

Quote:

Science doesn't. Some scientists and/or science teachers do.

I would have thought if you were as even handed as you claim this would be a non-issue for you. Certainly scientist and even science teachers should be able to believe what they want I would have (wrongly) thought.

It's not like its even close to a fair fight. Here is an article from a BBB post.

You'll be happy to know that an athiest will never pass a law, by statute, in mant states and if your commander in chief had his way wouldn't even be seen as Americans, let alone patriots (in bold below).

So you and Spendi (who isn't even American but spends a good deal of his day worrying the minutia of life here) should sleep better this evening.

Quote:

Watch Out for those Terrible Atheists
by Lee Salisbury / February 12th, 2008

A recent study conducted by the University of Minnesota shows that atheists are more distrusted and despised than any other minority and that an atheist is the last person for whom Americans would vote in a presidential election. "Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians" all ranked higher than atheists in public acceptability. Furthermore, Americans are "least willing to allow their children to marry" atheists.

State laws instill and perpetuate this attitude. Article IX, Sec. 2, of the Tennessee constitution states: "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments shall hold any office in the civil department of this state." Arkansas, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas have similar laws.

George H. W. Bush while campaigning for President in 1987 exhibited this same attitude, "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

0 Replies

This is for the attention of all those who have made snide remarks about my going to the pub for the last hour every day for donkey's years.

It's from The Sunday Times-

Quote:

The academics found that men and women who confessed to drinking most days had the highest childhood mental ability scores, whereas those who reported that they never had alcohol had the lowest mental ability scores.

The study,by the Medical Research Council, was of 8,170 men and women all born in the same week in 1970. The report has been publishrd in the American Journal of Public Health.

And if my pub pals are anything to go by the tee-totallers must be very trying.

I have discovered that a "para-fundamentalist" is a person who loves being around fundamentalists and trying to persuade them to reform.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

SPendi has, Im afraid, a jaded view of all existence and I dont feel that its our job to dissuade him because hes quite ossified.

Which means that the rest of you are not ossified. It's an upside down assertion. The idea is to get you all to sit around fm's feet and gaze in rapture at him as he passes out his words of wisdom.

Anyone minus a jaded view of all existence is somewhat deluded assuming his eyes and ears are connected into his brain.

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

We were also exposed to writings of Marx, Hitler, and Hemingway along with the standard Silas Marner, Wuthering Heights, Jane Eyre, Shakespeare, Whitman, Chaucer et al. Guest lecturers at the university included everything from hard core communists to pop pysche advocates to supply sided economists. Now when students are too often being indoctrinated, they are often not offered or even allowed such diversity of experience

What does "exposed" mean. What's a pop psyche advocate of supply side economics?

And to what extent has a student been indoctrinated when he is led to think that being exposed to something at university constitutes education and goes about saying one has been exposed to Wuthering Heights means that one knows something significant about it. And that goes a hundred fold, and more, for Shakespeare.

You can get indoctrinated with confusion thus leaving you exposed to professional guidance.

I once recommended to a 60 year old posh ex officer who mentioned enjoying Rider Haggard as a kid that he revisit the guy. He told me later when he had done that he was gobsmacked. The kid's adventure story, great as it was, is merely the skeleton on which to drape more serious stuff.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know