#1Jun 27th, 2006
just curious what i would find in the faith based portion of the forums, and whether or not the teaching of evolution is precieved as a threat?
intelligent design
just curious what i would find in the faith based portion of the forums, and whether or not the teaching of evolution is precieved as a threat?
#2
Re: intelligent design
Jun 27th, 2006
ummm, no, when I have children, in science I want them to learn evolution and not fiction. While I would not be against the teaching of ID in a philophy or religion class. There is a place for everything in school, but ID does not belong in science nor history.
#3
RE: intelligent design
Jun 27th, 2006
No. Teaching ID in science class is an insult to science. Science is about evidence. It is about making observations and coming up with the most reasonable explanation or hypothesis. There is nothing scientific about ID. I believe, as george bush said, that people "ought to hear both sides of the argument". But I believe that ID (or creationism) should be taught in church, and evolution taught in science class. Trying to teach ID in a science class would be like trying to teach evolution in church, it doesn't belong there.
#4
Re: intelligent design
Jun 27th, 2006
Well if they believe teaching ignorance as fact is both sides of the story! Complete and utter ignorance and BS. I have nothing against creationism as long as it is taught in the right contest, to religous theory in a religous class, our one on philophey, but science, history or any other kind of science ID should never be taught. If we teach ID in science, or teach it has how we became on earth with history then we miles well teach all other ignorances to our children as well as fact.
Also if we were to teach that in class I think we should hear everyone elses theories as well, Wiccan, Pagan, Hindu, Moslum, buddhist, Shinto and whatever else you can think of. These ancient theories which are based on faith and not science are for classes which the students know are faith based theories from our past which some people chose to believe.
Also if we were to teach that in class I think we should hear everyone elses theories as well, Wiccan, Pagan, Hindu, Moslum, buddhist, Shinto and whatever else you can think of. These ancient theories which are based on faith and not science are for classes which the students know are faith based theories from our past which some people chose to believe.
#5
RE: intelligent design
Jun 27th, 2006
good point, if they want to teach ID in class, then they should teach every other religion as well, and not only that, but if you want to use the term ID broadly enough, then include extraterrestrial life as a possible creator to our own life.......it is after all just as credible as any other form of ID if not more so
#6
Re: intelligent design
Jun 27th, 2006
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with teaching ID, it just depends on where you put it. It's a philosophical/religious position, so it could be part of a course on comparative religions, sociology, history, philosophy of religion or ideas or history or whatever. But it's not science, so it doesn't belong in the science classroom.
#7
Re: intelligent design
Jun 27th, 2006
When I was in high school in the 90's we had a grade 12 course called "World religions" where we talked and was taught these things. But of course you didn't have to take the course. It was an ellective. I took the course and enjoyed it very much because I enjoy religion. But thats totally a personal choice of mine. I don't believe pushing religous beliefs on anyone nor should they ever be pushed on others by the government though the schools.
I'd bet any high school in the states at least has a course like this already if not many and I bet the Chrsitian right wing is just complaining so that they can push there theories into the science and history courses based on science and not faith, knowing full well there faith beliefs are already represented in other courses. I think it's a ploy the religous right is using. In the states they still play the whole, "the democrats are out to get them in government" even though they rule all three branches of elected government. Their "power sundays" and so on are almost mind boggling on how the Chrsitian right still tries to make it look like they are the ones under attack in the USA and not the other way around.
Don't be fooled for one moment, seculerism and science are under attack in the USA. The only thing holding a complete victory of the christian right in the USA are Moderate Republicans.
I'd bet any high school in the states at least has a course like this already if not many and I bet the Chrsitian right wing is just complaining so that they can push there theories into the science and history courses based on science and not faith, knowing full well there faith beliefs are already represented in other courses. I think it's a ploy the religous right is using. In the states they still play the whole, "the democrats are out to get them in government" even though they rule all three branches of elected government. Their "power sundays" and so on are almost mind boggling on how the Chrsitian right still tries to make it look like they are the ones under attack in the USA and not the other way around.
Don't be fooled for one moment, seculerism and science are under attack in the USA. The only thing holding a complete victory of the christian right in the USA are Moderate Republicans.
#8
Re: RE: intelligent design
Jun 27th, 2006Quote: Originally Posted by gc
I think ID should be mentioned, but just that.No. Teaching ID in science class is an insult to science. Science is about evidence. It is about making observations and coming up with the most reasonable explanation or hypothesis. There is nothing scientific about ID. I believe, as george bush said, that people "ought to hear both sides of the argument". But I believe that ID (or creationism) should be taught in church, and evolution taught in science class. Trying to teach ID in a science class would be like trying to teach evolution in church, it doesn't belong there.
I find it hard to believe intelligent people think life, the universe, and everything is an accident. HUH?
#9
Re: RE: intelligent design
Jun 27th, 2006Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy
Why not keep ID just for Religous classes in high school only. I don't think teaching religion to kids from kinder garden - grade 8 by the government is right at all. Later on I do not think it is right to allow it to be taught as a science either.Quote: Originally Posted by gcI think ID should be mentioned, but just that.No. Teaching ID in science class is an insult to science. Science is about evidence. It is about making observations and coming up with the most reasonable explanation or hypothesis. There is nothing scientific about ID. I believe, as george bush said, that people "ought to hear both sides of the argument". But I believe that ID (or creationism) should be taught in church, and evolution taught in science class. Trying to teach ID in a science class would be like trying to teach evolution in church, it doesn't belong there.
I find it hard to believe intelligent people think life, the universe, and everything is an accident. HUH?
#10
Re: RE: intelligent design
Jun 27th, 2006Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy
If there was any shred of evidence to suggest ID, then I would agree. However, there is no scientific evidence at all. It is important for kids to understand the scientific process, how scientific theories are developed. If we teach kids the scientific process and then teach ID without any evidence to back it up, then we would be contradicting ourselves as to how science is actually conducted. I agree with other posters that it could be mentioned in other classes, but not in science class. Quote: Originally Posted by gcI think ID should be mentioned, but just that.No. Teaching ID in science class is an insult to science. Science is about evidence. It is about making observations and coming up with the most reasonable explanation or hypothesis. There is nothing scientific about ID. I believe, as george bush said, that people "ought to hear both sides of the argument". But I believe that ID (or creationism) should be taught in church, and evolution taught in science class. Trying to teach ID in a science class would be like trying to teach evolution in church, it doesn't belong there.
Quote:
It doesn't matter what you or I think, it matters what the evidence suggests. The evidence suggests evolution is what happened, and it is the job of science to follow the evidence. If one day credible scientific data surfaces that points towards ID, then by all means teach it in science class.I find it hard to believe intelligent people think life, the universe, and everything is an accident. HUH?
By the way, not to get too off topic here, but there is nothing unintelligent about believing in evolution. If you believe that God created life, then where did God come from? Was he created by accident? How is that more intelligent than believing evolution happened by accident?
#12
Re: intelligent design
Jun 27th, 2006Quote: Originally Posted by Finder
(iq test)
Good one, must remember that.
#13
Re: intelligent design
Jun 27th, 2006Quote: Originally Posted by Finder
Umm, who's Peter? Is this the great pumpkin eater of mythical lore?
(iq test)
#14
Re: intelligent design
Jun 27th, 2006
I think it's possible that one day, ID and science will complement each other. In fact personally, I think they already do. Evolution looks pretty intelligently designed to me! 
#15
Re: intelligent design
Jun 27th, 2006
I don't believe evolution and religion are mutually exclusive. It is only when some inane group wants to tout Genesis as literal fact that there is a problem. The abundant evidence for evolution cannot be denied. God did not put fossils out there to fool us. Intelligent Design is a nonsensical tool of the religious right, and has no place in science. I.D. taught alongside evolution? I don't think so. I.D. deserves only a paragraph or two to relate exactly what it is; Nonsense!!
#16
RE: intelligent design
Jun 30th, 2006
Poor old adam, and after all he went through as well. Is there no- one in Canada willing to defend his corner? He did give up a rib which got him thrown out of paradise you know. Creationism very big right now in the u s , so there mst be something in it-just ask george w.
#17
No I.D.
Oct 30th, 2006
If you teach I.D. as truth, you had might as well add Hansel and Gretel to the history books.
THE ABOVE IS FACT CHILDREN!
THE ABOVE IS FACT CHILDREN!
#18
Re: intelligent design
Oct 30th, 2006
are you in favour of the teaching of ID in schools
ID is as science is a joke. For one reason who is the Intel. Design. Gawd? It something that could be studied in comparaitve religion or a current event class.
Here's a quote when I searched for one the fictional gawds I like. google 'conan's god'
Conan's god, Crom, created a person, but that's all he was ever going to do for him. Don't bother praying to him, to give him a tribute, the epitome of the old don't call me, I'll call you. It's up to the individual to carve his own destiny, unhelped and unhindered.
ID is as science is a joke. For one reason who is the Intel. Design. Gawd? It something that could be studied in comparaitve religion or a current event class.
Here's a quote when I searched for one the fictional gawds I like. google 'conan's god'
Conan's god, Crom, created a person, but that's all he was ever going to do for him. Don't bother praying to him, to give him a tribute, the epitome of the old don't call me, I'll call you. It's up to the individual to carve his own destiny, unhelped and unhindered.
#19
Re: intelligent design
Oct 30th, 2006
Im happy to tell you that cortex has solved this puzzle.
An ordered system ie biological life forms appear ordered ONLY becuase we have within our experience a RANGE of ordered systems we can compare it to.
example --we observe the RELATIVE simplicity of say--a hydrogen atom and then marvel at the APPARENT complexity of say---a strand of DNA, each is as improbable as the other --or as probable BECAUSE the universe is deterministic--one state following the other in the only sequence it can.
We look VERTCALLY ie hydrogen versus DNA not HORIZONTALLY through time---from which we ---by our imbeddedness in it ie our temporal entanglement---cannot extricate ourselves
there is no intelligent design there are only different states of matter some more complex than others.
hypothetical example
in a hypothetical parralell universe lifeforms are considered primitive--compared to the organic galaxy sized conscious beings they are a part of.
another example
Lifeforms appear a mystery in their evoluton/creation/emergence from nonlifeforms ONLY because we dont have the intelligence as a species to perceive the vastly more complex---a trillion orders of magnitude more that MUST exist--in order to bring about and sustain the existence of ANYTHING--rather than nothingness
if ya all have any other metaphysical issues --dont be afraid to ask--Ill do the best i can
----best dope i ever had---
An ordered system ie biological life forms appear ordered ONLY becuase we have within our experience a RANGE of ordered systems we can compare it to.
example --we observe the RELATIVE simplicity of say--a hydrogen atom and then marvel at the APPARENT complexity of say---a strand of DNA, each is as improbable as the other --or as probable BECAUSE the universe is deterministic--one state following the other in the only sequence it can.
We look VERTCALLY ie hydrogen versus DNA not HORIZONTALLY through time---from which we ---by our imbeddedness in it ie our temporal entanglement---cannot extricate ourselves
there is no intelligent design there are only different states of matter some more complex than others.
hypothetical example
in a hypothetical parralell universe lifeforms are considered primitive--compared to the organic galaxy sized conscious beings they are a part of.
another example
Lifeforms appear a mystery in their evoluton/creation/emergence from nonlifeforms ONLY because we dont have the intelligence as a species to perceive the vastly more complex---a trillion orders of magnitude more that MUST exist--in order to bring about and sustain the existence of ANYTHING--rather than nothingness
if ya all have any other metaphysical issues --dont be afraid to ask--Ill do the best i can
----best dope i ever had---
#20
Re: intelligent design
Oct 30th, 2006
Hahah, thats an awesome last line. I've heard similar explanations to this one. Very good Cortex! Although I'm not that sure that hydrogen atoms are all that simple on their own, as you said, our knowledge seems infinitesimal compared to the orders of magnitude more to understand. Do you know much about abiogenesis or have any unique theories on that to share?
#21
Re: intelligent design
Oct 30th, 2006
Of course you are right--a hydrogen atom isnt simple--its just simple in comparison to lifeforms--thats the point complexity and simplicity are relative terms that have absolutely NO INTRINSIC meaning WHATSOEVER
abiogenesis--
last time i checked most amino acids and some primitive protien strands have been synthesized in vitro under conditions that mimiked the earth's approximately 5 billion years ago.
so experimentally is not impossible, But the order for burden of proof is a tall one right know. think about it--in order to PROVE that abiogenesis is possible --we would have to be able create lifeforms ourselves out of inorganica matter---wont happen anytime soon --but give it a hundred years or so
again--abiogenesis appears mysterious--even impossibe only becuase we dont have the capacity to observe conditions on the millions of planets that exist in this galaxy tht could potentially generate life---we cant SEE what is going on ove there --so our condition hear--the living planet of earth appears unique. it isnt.
abiogenesis--
last time i checked most amino acids and some primitive protien strands have been synthesized in vitro under conditions that mimiked the earth's approximately 5 billion years ago.
so experimentally is not impossible, But the order for burden of proof is a tall one right know. think about it--in order to PROVE that abiogenesis is possible --we would have to be able create lifeforms ourselves out of inorganica matter---wont happen anytime soon --but give it a hundred years or so
again--abiogenesis appears mysterious--even impossibe only becuase we dont have the capacity to observe conditions on the millions of planets that exist in this galaxy tht could potentially generate life---we cant SEE what is going on ove there --so our condition hear--the living planet of earth appears unique. it isnt.
#22
Re: intelligent design
Oct 31st, 2006Quote: Originally Posted by viago
Well the Dogrib people of the NWT say well ... it was a dog rib. Hmm who's right?Poor old adam, and after all he went through as well. Is there no- one in Canada willing to defend his corner? He did give up a rib which got him thrown out of paradise you know. Creationism very big right now in the u s , so there mst be something in it-just ask george w.
Similar Threads
3
4
2
4
1