Bush Advocates Intellegent Design Curriculum

[Jack]

Just so you know I'm not opposed to teaching anything under its correct subject, let me quote myself from my RadicalAtheist blog;

We will never teach our children to think for themselves by denying them access to any point of view. While I disagree with the teaching of ID as a science, it simply does not conform to the widely accepted definition of a scientific theory, I do believe it should be presented in the same way other philosophical concepts are. Students should be free to discuss it, debate it and explore its value to their lives. While I value intellectual honesty, I don't believe a person can develop their intellect without the ability to explore any and all subjects, no matter how unpopular or strange. For example, if we were, with the best intentions, to eliminate the teaching of the second World War and the practices of the Nazis from the curriculum, we would be risking history repeating itself due to ignorance. And ignorance is the enemy. These days, with all the means available to us to expose our fellow humans to knowledge from around the world, there is no excuse for any young person to remain ignorant. Every idea is worth consideration, even ID.

[Savant]

If we treat ID as if it were a legitimate "theory", kids will assume it is legitimate. Philosophy is a college course.

Putting new clothes on creationism doesn't make it any more secular.

[MerlinsByte]

And then we can include the laying-on-of-hands in medical school. Who would like to be first in line for a faith healing of their cancerous brain tumor?

Folk medicine and shamanism vs. modern medicine are much like evolution of everything vs. intelligent design or creation theory. The infancy of modern pharmacology was the use of medicinal plants herbs and minerals which usually included various spells chants and other helpful incarnations of a higher power.

We (erroneously) believe that today's medicine, and physicians are far removed from the rain forest witch doctors or pagan midwifes giving a plant extract to aid in childbirth.

Folk medicine, Wiccaism, shamanism, is ridiculed and scorned by those who are ignorant or consider themselves to be so exceeding educated that they can ignore where that powerful multi-spectrum antibiotic the MD prescribed originated. It came from plant extracts or simple processes, pioneered by witch Drs. or other pagans.

Similarly, the theory of evolution (which has expanded to explain processes in all the physical sciences) i.e. the evolution of the universe, evolution of brain processes, etc., to nausea. Must accommodate competing theories. ID or evolution cannot be proven.

Both are useful science. So both should be taught and let the child make up his own mind. The system that we have today is simply a vile form of secular/athiest propaganda forced upon our children as state mandated doctrine. In other words the state is teaching that God does not exist, it should be neutral on the subject. This is a criminal malicious affront to the sensibilities of every free thinking American, atheist or theist.


mb

[MerlinsByte]

excerped from starboys reply...Our goal is to remove the mirror as much as we are able and do our best to see it for what it is, not what we would like it to be. And the content of a science class is our best view of reality to date, not the view from a distant historical mirror.

merlin writes...The trouble with this way of thinking is that when we remove the mirror we seem to replace reality with more ignorance! We do not remember (selective memory)? That science has been so wrong in the past that those old theories accepted as immutable fact, are ridiculed today. Ridiculed as mistakes or out right lies put forth by scientists as truth!

What is different today? You, as a blind faith scientist might be the same as those piltdown man crusaders, investing your entire life in a fraud! Nothing has changed.

Blind faith in our science of the day. (which will change tomorrow) is risky. We assume that all religious ideas are wrong for our hate of God, or some other secular idea. Science claims that life arose from inorganic chemicals. Or better yet that life came indirectly from the first hydrogen in the universe.

Call me a theist but it is as logical to accept that the universe was created with intelligence and its not a manifestation of a Quantum zero point energy fluctuation.

mb

[MerlinsByte]

Putting new clothes on creationism doesn't make it any more secular.

what does that mean savant? I can assure you that ID does not want to be associated with anything that would be considered secular.

mb.............; } >



the emperor has new clothes and it is called Intelligent Design......

[Athena]

How can school present the Intelligent Design concept without questioning the definition of God?

Kept in mind, when the Greeks concluded, "reason, is the controlling force of the universe, made manifest in speech", the only conflict with Christianity was over who had the right to define God. Right now Jews, Christians and Muslims assume they have the right to define God and they do not agree. We can not bring a religious concept of creation into the class room without also having religious debate, only for the implications of this to be obvious, we need to get beyond Judaism, Christianity and Islam, to include other concepts of God. This could move humanity beyond the present religious debates in ways unexpected by the Christian Right.

[Athena]

Both are useful science. So both should be taught and let the child make up his own mind. The system that we have today is simply a vile form of secular/athiest propaganda forced upon our children as state mandated doctrine. In other words the state is teaching that God does not exist, it should be neutral on the subject. This is a criminal malicious affront to the sensibilities of every free thinking American, atheist or theist.

Wait a minute, you are assuming there is agreement about the definition of God. You have said, all those who do not accept the Christian God do not have a concept of God and this is not true. Is Jesus God? Is Jesus the messiah? What about Mohammed?
How does God really work? Did incarnate himself in Jesus, or send his only begotten son, or does he work through many prophets? Why wouldn't God do things through evolution as Chardin said he did? Didn't the science of Newton prove divine order? churches thought he did and this was the one of the big boost to democracy and the reliance on science for God's truth.

How did we get to this very wrong conclusion that the debate is limited to Christians and athenists? What is the truth of God? How do we know it?

[rcne]

Quote by: Starboy Sure and astronomy was an outgrowth of astrology. So what? If the goal is to teach how we came to think what we do then that should be taught in a history class, but if the goal is to teach what we currently understand of reality then that should be taught in a science class and should cover the best explanations to date. Those that want the history should take a history class. When it comes to science, understanding how people came to think what they do doesn't explain why reality is the way it is, only the way we came by how we think it is. But that still doesn't change the fact that when it comes to science our goal is not to hold up a mirror and call it reality. Our goal is to remove the mirror as much as we are able and do our best to see it for what it is, not what we would like it to be. And the content of a science class is our best view of reality to date, not the view from a distant historical mirror. Starboy

If the quest is to understand how things work then the history of how we arrived at our current state is by all means necessary.

The triumphs and the failures should be open to all who seek answers. Sometimes you learn more from your failures than your successes. Science is the same. To disregard the past means we have learned nothing.

There is a saying about ignoring the past, we need to study the past and integrate it into our pool of science.

[MerlinsByte]

Wait a minute, you are assuming there is agreement about the definition of God. You have said, all those who do not accept the Christian God do not have a concept of God and this is not true. Is Jesus God? Is Jesus the messiah? What about Mohammed?

merlin writes...Not a tall' !!! One only needs to envision God as a higher power. The question of who worships the right God is an immaterial non question. No one knows the face of God, this is why in the new testament God was manifest as a burning bush or such. God isn't of our physical world, which means the deity is not energy as we know it or normal "atom based' matter. God is alpha and omega and timeless. The only reason for time to exist is that matter as we know it requires time to exist.


God does work via natural processes. Evolution within a species is a fact. But one species "evolving into a higher and more complex and completely different species is myth. This might be possible if there were more time, but even then it would be a long shot in a dark room for evolution to produce life and improve on this life. Newton was an alchemist and a genius in math who invented many of the expressions we use today. While Newtonian orbital mechanics explain much of what we see today, his theory was not applicable the finer points of motion gravity and time.

Why wouldn't God do things through evolution as Chardin said he did? Didn't the science of Newton prove divine order

mb

[Starboy]

Quote by: rcne If the quest is to understand how things work then the history of how we arrived at our current state is by all means necessary. The triumphs and the failures should be open to all who seek answers. Sometimes you learn more from your failures than your successes. Science is the same. To disregard the past means we have learned nothing. There is a saying about ignoring the past, we need to study the past and integrate it into our pool of science.

Fine, but in a history class, not a science class.

Starboy

[MerlinsByte]

excerpt from starboys post...Fine, but in a history class, not a science class.

merlin writes...And all references to Darwin and traditional evolution should also be in a history class, along with most other science greats should moved to history class as well.

[Matt W]

Not when it's still relevent to modern day, mb. You can't teach the advanced stuff of today without comprehending the basics, so Darwin stays in science.

[MerlinsByte]

Not when it's still relevant to modern day, mb. You can't teach the advanced stuff of today without comprehending the basics, so Darwin stays in science.

Yes, I can see that, the point that I was attempting to make is that intelligent design would probably need to use some primitive texts for background also. ID could be taught, I suppose with no reference to any religious texts, and come to think of it I would support this as well. I have no desire for traditional Christianity or Islamic principal to be taught in (public) school, just that an alternative to evolution be taught as well. I feel darwinism is not a viable theory to explain the origins of life on earth and it certainly cannot explain the beginnings of space/time the universe and all that it contains.

[Savant]

You would have to talk about deitys as if they were real to explain ID.

[Chris]

Whatever happened to "Scientists now believe..." and "You can come to your own conclusions..."

If you want creationism taught go to a freakin private school.

[MerlinsByte]

You would have to talk about deitys as if they were real to explain ID.

well they are real, but you could replace god with a force or a higher power.

Whatever happened to "Scientists now believe..." and "You can come to your own conclusions..." If you want creationism taught go to a freakin private school.

merlin....I would rather go to schools that teach both theories. My taxes pay for the school and the teachers , so I have the right to demand equal time be given to both theories. If you want a darwin myth taught excluding all other theories, go to a freakin private school...... ; } >

[Matt W]

so I have the right to demand equal time be given to both theories

In a religious class, yes. If you want ID, then I want Norse, Greek, Roman, and Hindu creation myths presented as 'science'.

[Jack]

you could replace god with a force or a higher power.

That's just like calling creationism intelligent design. You're just changing the words without changing the underlying meaning. You're still supposing a supernatural creator, something that cannot be tested or questioned logically. As soon as you invoke the supernatural in any way, you've gone beyond the bounds of science and entered the realm of philosophy, speculation, supposition and science-fiction.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Isherwood As soon as you invoke the supernatural in any way, you've gone beyond the bounds of science and entered the realm of philosophy, speculation, supposition and science-fiction.

Including science fiction is a stretch, at least good science fiction.

Starboy

[MerlinsByte]

In a religious class, yes. If you want ID, then I want Norse, Greek, Roman, and Hindu creation myths presented as 'science'.

thats cool with me and a good trade off.

mb