PDA

View Full Version : Should....


TwiggyAZ
09-28-2005, 08:58 AM
Should religion be taught in public schools, ie biology?

A court in Colorado is deciding that. To include God as a theory along with evolution. Where do you think it should be taught?

Buckeye1sid
09-28-2005, 09:02 AM
Not in science class, but in a philosophy or comparative religions class. It would be nice if instructors refered to the other's class for the other THEORY.

StrayStar
09-28-2005, 09:26 AM
I think there should be more of the "3 R's" taught in school these days, and less of the stuff that a person really don't need to have to get a job.

Evolution/Creation/Blah Blah/etc deserve a mention in a well rounded education, but many of the people that come to work for me can't spell, they can't construct a decent sentence, and I while I don't expect them to have a command of the metric system, I do expect them to be able to do the simple arithmetic when they are given the conversion for lbs to kgs. Many 20-somethings with HS diplomas can't.

Buckeye1sid
09-28-2005, 09:29 AM
It's the blah, blah, that teaches them to think. Once thinking, they may pay more attention to technical concerns.

StrayStar
09-28-2005, 09:35 AM
It's the blah, blah, that teaches them to think. Once thinking, they may pay more attention to technical concerns.


It ain't working.

OldHubcap
09-28-2005, 10:27 AM
With all due respect for folk's religious beliefs, no, I don’t think creationism should be taught in science class. Simply because its not science. It does not pass muster as a scientific theory. Neither is Intelligent Design a scientific theory, it’s a philosophical belief.

Bard
09-28-2005, 10:44 AM
I think our educational system needs to be revamped, with more emphasis on trade education, especially where inner city youth are concerned.

Creationism has been held to as truth by many for centuries now, therefore, it should be touched upon in some arena of education, to produce a well rounded education.

By enlarge, our educational system in bankrupt, insofar as its structure and success.

However, it is a political arena now, and as impossible to revamp as the IRS.

Franky, science itself might be debated, insofar as its redeemable value, concerning your average individual attempting to make his way in life.

Stray, if you saw the new mumbo-jumbo math they are teaching our youth today, you would understand why they cannot add.

They do not even teach the basics anymore.

Geometry advances few, concerning the masses today, science & biology as well in my opinion.

To become well rounded as individuals should perhaps become the burden of advanced education.

Perhaps HS should be used to teach the basics, in addition to trades, so our kids can make a damn living.

Afterall, the MAJORITY of folks, never even go to college.

I say, lets get praticle in our basic educational system

I have never yet, in my 54 years, been asked to disect a frog on the job.

BunnyBun
09-28-2005, 11:16 AM
But you know what, Bard, some kids do go on to become doctors, nurses, EMTs, these are the activities that stimulate a child's learning and interests. I think focusing on trades limits a kid--if never exposed to biology, how would a kid know if maybe they wanted to be a nurse or doctor? Plus, the schools around here at least, they have plenty of trade studies options for those who wish to go that direction. The BOCES program in NY is all about learning a trade. There are a zillion unions out there offering apprenticeships as well. And guess what, most trade unions do require the study of math or physics, which you will use in your carpentry, your masonry, your plumbing, your HVAC, etc etc. Trades.

Stray, what state do you live in, and is it a rural, suburbab, urban area you are in? I'm curious because there is a wide range of "success" in educational programs depending on location. I agree that a school should be making sure kids can read and add. But that doesn't mean they should not also provide other types of studies.

No, I do not think that religion has any place in a science classroom. Like Hub said, it's not a science. I would not necessarily object to a single statement being made at the beginning of the semester in that class, such as "Evolution is a theory of science, with evidence to back it up. Some people believe in Creationism. Please ask your priest or mom about it if you want to learn more, this is a science classroom where we learn about evolution."

The problem with the Creationists in schools is that they DO want to teach a certain values package, namely about the "rightness" of the Bible and the wrongness of evolution. That, IMO, belongs in the home or the church. Send your kids to Bible school or Sunday school if that's what you want them taught. It does not belong in a public school. (private school, that's OK with me as long as they aren't receiving public monies).

Bard
09-28-2005, 11:27 AM
The problem with the Creationists in schools is that they DO want to teach a certain values package, namely about the "rightness" of the Bible and the wrongness of evolution. That, IMO, belongs in the home or the church. Send your kids to Bible school or Sunday school if that's what you want them taught. It does not belong in a public school. (private school, that's OK with me as long as they aren't receiving public monies).

With all due respect Bunny, that is how a lot of Christian taxpayers feel about teaching evolution verse creationism.

They are both theories, that mark our culture in a very real way.

It sounds unfair, perhaps, to teach evolution, and give only an honerary mention to creationism, as you suggest, afterall, most of our society does subscribe to these religious beliefs and ideas, like it or not.

I'm merely playing the devils advocate here mind you.

On your other points made, I say this

We need to educate our children to make a living, not just educate them for the hell of it, if we own them as captives for 12 years, the least we can do is teach them a practicle means of supporting themselves, if we do not, we have failed them as a society.

Remember Bunny, our educational system has an obligation to teach all, not just the brightest among us.

BunnyBun
09-28-2005, 11:34 AM
With all due respect Bunny, that is how a lot of Christian taxpayers feel about teaching evolution verse creationism.

I appreciate your respect. Christian taxpayers are protected by the Constitution as well. This protects THEIR children from being forced to learn, say, Buddhism or Islam, as well as protecting non-Christians from being forced to learn Christianity. The government has no business teaching ANY religion. The reason for this is not because I don't believe kids should study religion at ALL, but because the government has no right to bring that stuff into a public school. Evolution is inexact, to be sure, but so are many branches of science. And they are FAR more exact than any study of religion or philosophy, which HAVE no solid "truth" or evidence to back them, only faith and a spotted history of Biblical mistranslation and political misuse of the principles.

Also, what did I just say? We have trade schools. Scads of them. At least here we do. A kid in public HS here can go to these programs during school hours half a day, to learn a trade, while still being enrolled at the school for basics. Whether that be mechanics, HVAC, welding, cosmetology, child care, nursing (the beginning levels anyway), you name it. Do you not have those where you are? Other kids go on the Regents or college or AP track (I know not every state has Regents, and not every school as AP either), other kids go on the basic HS disploma track.

Bard
09-28-2005, 11:44 AM
If evolution is inexact, why teach it at all then?

Because it is a theory held too in our society, is why, correct? As is creationism, correct?

Why be unfair because it has a religious conotation?

If it's not proven, then dump it, but let's dump evolution then too, right.

I'm pleased you appreciate my respect :happy

Missed you.

OldHubcap
09-28-2005, 12:04 PM
With all due respect Bunny, that is how a lot of Christian taxpayers feel about teaching evolution verse creationism.

Bard, I understand what you are getting at, but a couple of points. First, science’s job is to explain the observable universe. As result, science has to go to where the evidence points and theories have to meet certain criteria in order to be considered scientific. Simply put, an idea has to be logical, and there has to be evidence that indicates it could be so. There have been various theories of evolution put forth during the 19th Century, however Darwin’s was the particular theory that became accepted because the evidence in nature backed Darwin up. His initial theory had some problems but once genetics came into being, some tweaking of Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection fitted in with the evidence better. Evolution has been backed by nearly a century and a half of evidence. Creationism relies on a particular interpretation of the Bible as its authority and not on any factual evidence; this qualifies creationism as a belief system and not a scientific theory since there is no evidence in nature to support it.



Second, we live in an open society, which means that there are other taxpayers besides Christian taxpayers who believe in creationism. Some Christian taxpayers believe in evolution (the Catholic Church accepts evolution). What about Buddhist, Hindus, Shinto and Native Americans who have different creation beliefs. In all fairness we should teach those also. However, none of them qualify as science.

Religion is a very personal thing and there are a host of religious beliefs in our nation. Therefore religious education should be the responsibility of the family not the government

Bard
09-28-2005, 12:16 PM
Hub,

I am not disputing your feeling about not having creationism taught in the science class, how about history?

Would you deny it's existance for history sake?

I must point out too, that in regards to various religions and taxpayers rights, that christianity is the majority in this country, not buddah.

Should that make a difference, I know not.

OldHubcap
09-28-2005, 12:33 PM
Bard, the evolution versus creationism debate is important in US history so it would only make sense to discuss it in history class, I have no problems with that.

I understand that Christians make up the majority of Americans but people are supposed to be free to practice the religion of their choice, so anything that looks like the government is trying to push one religion over another should be avoided.

BunnyBun
09-28-2005, 12:35 PM
Because it is a theory held too in our society, is why, correct? As is creationism, correct?

Why be unfair because it has a religious conotation?

You are using the layperson's definition of 'theory' here. I'm talking about scientific theory, you are talking about philosophy, religion. Both are theories, yes, but only one is a scientific theory. You are also asking why we are unfair for not teaching creationism? How would it be fair to impose a Christian "theory" in a public classroom? The Constitution and a zillion court cases will tell you why religion has no place in a public school. Remember our forebears, they were oppressed by England, forced to a religion by the government, they did NOT want a scenario whereby the government could impose the teachings of any one religion, NOT EVEN THEIR OWN. Just because Christians may be the actual majority does NOT mean that our PUBLIC schools should have religion in them, even if it is Christianity the majority religion. Private schools, religious schools, do what you like.

As for "inexact" what I meant by that is that we don't know everything about it. We are still learning. We find new evidence, we fit it in through scientific method. There IS no science to religion. It is 100% faith and morals.

Really, we might as well not send any kids to any school, because there are still unresolved math theorems out there, scientific paradoxes we cannot explain, heck, we might disagree on how to make meatloaf in home ec class, or one child might not wanna make a bench in shop, how do we ever come to a consensus on what language to teach, should the children read Shakespeare in 11th grade or Hemingway? Just about everything gets a political spin if some zealot wants one there.

Bard
09-28-2005, 12:46 PM
Bunny

Sooooooooo

Should it (creationism) be included in history education?

Surely, there MUST be someplace, where creationism can be taught, if the majority of American taxpayers embrace it as true, don't you think?

Is it not a part of our past and present history and culture?

Or does the MAJORITY of taxpayers matter, when it comes to what their children are taught?

Yes, I was most likely presenting myself as the layman I am, I do see your point.

BunnyBun
09-28-2005, 01:59 PM
The writers of the Constitution wanted to make sure that no one religion, even the majority, was pushed on the people by the government, even if a lot of people wanted it. Even if ALL people wanted it. The Constitution was designed to protect us from ourselves as much as the government, which yes, does include a certain assumption on the parts of the writers that the masses are dumb as rocks. In some ways I agree with that, too. Many of the people who support the teaching of Creationism do not look at the long term results of allowing such a thing, the effect it could have on our freedom of religion.

So, creationism, IMO, has no place in public schools AT ALL in its usual form (coming from those with a religious agenda). In a history class? Not sure I agree with Hub on that one, except as I said before, in a private school. Or in college (which would likely also be private).

I took a writing seminar on evolution vs. creationism in college. IMO that's one academic setting where the debate is valuable and appropriate. The class developed critical thinking skills on BOTH sides. The creationists at the public school level do NOT want to develop critical thinking. They just want to be right, and they're on some kind of crusade. It isn't about learning, or fairness, to them. It's about being morally supreme to others.

You said yourself that you feel schools waste too much time on this stuff, and don't spend enough time on the basics like reading, writing, and job skills. So, the debate, even on a purely academic level, has no place in public schools under those terms either.

Wolfhoundowner
09-28-2005, 02:22 PM
Before I say anything -- I'm Catholic, and I did 12 years of time in the parochial schools system, plus kindergarten, if you want to count that.

Just so everyone knows where I'm coming from. :winky

Now -- I DO NOT think that ONE religion should be taught in public schools. I think that if you're going to teach about religion in a public school, you need to make it a general study of as many relgions as can be realistically taught in a school year.

In my senior year of high school, I took an elective that was a general theology course, and I really enjoyed it. It was so great to see what was behind a Muslim's actions, why a Jewish person does the things he does, and what makes us Catholics different from other Christian religions.

I further don't think creationism should be taught in a Biology class -- that's a Biblical story that not all people believe in that has no basis in science and no place in a science class.

Want your child to learn the Bible and creationism? Send him to a parochial school, send him to Sunday School, take him to church, teach him yourself, or any combination of the above. But the children whose parents have a religion different from a Christian religion shouldn't be forced to more-or-less 'practice' another's faith at school.

Buckeye1sid
09-28-2005, 04:33 PM
Intelligent design is not necessarily Christian. It is a valid philosophy, just as evolution is a valid scientific theory. Intelligent design should not be taught in science classes, but should be taught in Comparative Religion or philosophy.
One last thought, just because something has been accepted by any number of people does not make it fact, if it still theory.

Peregrina
09-28-2005, 07:58 PM
~slighty OT soapbox~

As a former teacher, I can honestly say that standardized testing is one of the worst things to ever happen to the public school system. Someone earlier mentioned that his workers cannot do simply math, basic grammar, stuff like that. wanna know why? because kids are 'taught the test'. they are not taught how to recognize problems and how to solve them, they are taught how to take those (*&*&%*& tests and that is all. they aren't taught how to apply those skills to real life.
It is especially apparent here in Texas, home of the Edu-cashion president, G.W. Knucklehead and his ridiculous 'No child Left Behind' policy. Teachers are more concerned about how many of the kids pass the test, not whether they have actually learned anything, because the number of passes contribute to pay raises, funds for the school and yes, whether or not they have a job the next school year.

~end of soapbox~

sorry about that. :ohwell

onto your regularly scheduled thread :

if a parent wants their child to learn about creationism, they can take them to church. that's where it belongs. with intelligent design, I was reading that some school districts present it as a theory, if the student wants to learn more about it, they are welcome to research it on their own.
at this time,evolution is accepted as a valid scientific theory and in biology class is where it belongs. then again, several hundred years ago, alchemy was accepted as a valid theory as well. :ohwell

BunnyBun
09-29-2005, 05:45 AM
Well, the standardized testing issue is a separate one, but I just wanted to mention that I was born and raised in NYS, where we've had standardized testing (Regents exams and others) for a long time, well before the No Child Left Behind act. We WERE taught to the test--in fact we'd use test examples in class all the time. However, I felt that the Regents exams set a very high standard, and they were hard tests that were worth teaching to, because you really did know the material when you were done. Did it apply to real life? Nope. But nothing I learned in HS did anyway, with the one exception of my typing class, which was the most practical class I've ever taken in HS, college or grad school.

The tests should not be tied to teachers' salaries or job security, I agree with that.

Intelligent Design is just a pacifier used by creationists to try and work their way into the hearts of more moderate folk who might not want creationism, but who would consider a theory that looks more "scientific". It has no place in the public school classroom either.

I am not opposed to a theology class as an elective that would be focused on multiple religions and learning about the religion and culture surrounding it. But that's a different ball of string than the debate about teaching creationism, by far, which has a moral and political agenda behind it.

stinky*felix
09-29-2005, 06:13 AM
I work at a Title I school. While NCLB does have its faults, it is the first program that makes teachers accountable for educating all his/her students, and makes the Principal the educational leader, insuring the teachers do their jobs. Prior to NCLB, at-risk students were permitted to fall through the cracks.

Our District has adopted standards-based education. That make be looked upon as "teaching to the test," but in actuality, it is a guide to determine whether a child should move from one grade to the next, based upon whether they meet the standards for each subject at each grade level.

I do not care for standardized testing, because in situations such as ours, where schools have a transient populations, the API may not be comparing the same students' progress (or lack of) each year. But I have yet to come up with a better system.

The one complaint I have with NCLB is that it only applies its income guidlines to the District, rather than individual schools. We are steadily losing funding, even though our population remains the same, because the rest of the City is becoming more affluent.

Sorry, forgot to answer the original question.

No, it should not be taught in a science class. There is no scientific basis. But I do believe that high school students should have the option of taking such a course. But then the question becomes, should it count toward graduation credits, and if so, by what standard?

OldHubcap
09-29-2005, 06:33 AM
Back to the OP, when I stated it would be okay to mention creationism in history I didn’t mean that it would be studied in depth. It would simply be mentioned in that section of American History that covered the Scope’s trail. As something to study in depth, it could be studied under an optional comparative religion and philosophy course that was mentioned earlier in the thread. In that course one would study the creation beliefs of all the world’s major religions as well the major religions of the past. Nothing mandatory.

Sorry for the confusion.

Buckeye1sid
09-29-2005, 06:36 AM
Ve have vays of making it mandatory, Doctor has zezs tools. Ah, dis vone is very interesting. AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

BunnyBun
09-29-2005, 07:04 AM
Eeen Russia, ze test takes you!

Trouble
09-29-2005, 07:16 AM
I think our educational system needs to be revamped, with more emphasis on trade education, especially where inner city youth are concerned.

Yeah, like a 13 year old knows what trade they'll go into.

Creationism has been held to as truth by many for centuries now, therefore, it should be touched upon in some arena of education, to produce a well rounded education.

Why? That's what church is for.

By enlarge, our educational system in bankrupt, insofar as its structure and success.

Enlarge what? :D Are you trying to say "by and large?" Yes, there are problems, but much of it is societal Bard, not the fault of the educational system, although it also shares some blame in the lack of student performance.


Franky, science itself might be debated, insofar as its redeemable value, concerning your average individual attempting to make his way in life.

You may debate it pal, but you'll LOSE that debate. Easily.

Stray, if you saw the new mumbo-jumbo math they are teaching our youth today, you would understand why they cannot add. They do not even teach the basics anymore.

What? When have you helped a 3rd grader with math homework Bard? Since when are you the expert on what the schools teach and when. Mumbo-Jumbo math? :confused: Just because YOU don't understand the quadratic equation doesn't lessen it's value in EVERYDAY scientific/technical work. Some people Bard, actually USE the skills they learn in school. Not everybody can sit behind a computer for 18 hours a day and blow smoke.


Geometry advances few, concerning the masses today, science & biology as well in my opinion.

Yes, yes, THE BARD. Leader of the ignorant masses.

To become well rounded as individuals should perhaps become the burden of advanced education.

It's the goal at ALL levels of education Bard.

Perhaps HS should be used to teach the basics, in addition to trades, so our kids can make a damn living.

Yeah, but you'd like to see us all go back to the days when the wheel wasn't even invented. The rest of us, or a large portion, love science and understand full well how science has integrated itself into the very fabric of this society. You need to take your educational ideas to the badlands of Afghanistan/Pakistan or some other gawd forsaken place. They'll accept your backwards philosophy there for sure.

Afterall, the MAJORITY of folks, never even go to college.

Oh well, that's why this is America....you don't have to even have an education to get rich as hell here if you're determined. Still, education has never hurt ANYBODY in this country you freaking drop-out.

I say, lets get praticle in our basic educational system

ROFLMAO!!! Yeah! And let's learn to spell it while we're at it!

I have never yet, in my 54 years, been asked to disect a frog on the job.

When your sorry ass is laid out on the operating table and the surgeon is there to open your carcass up, you'll fucking be damn glad that SOMEBODY helped him dissect a frog in his very early years in biology. It set the foundation for his skills you short-sighted imbecile.

Buckeye1sid
09-29-2005, 07:36 AM
Trouble, don't you ever tire of being Bard's lap dog?

whiteclouder
09-29-2005, 07:39 AM
All religions are based on a philosophical point of view. Youngsters should be aware of as many of these points of view as is reasonable in a course of education. As for social studies, science and mathematics, the more they are exposed to them, the better, and those with a need for a more in-depth knowledge for a particular field will pursue it.

Standard testing is a good idea. Teachers don't like it because, at long last, it measures their efficacy and many, many fall woefully short of the mark.

Cloud..

Buckeye1sid
09-29-2005, 07:55 AM
If the standarized tests were frequently changed, and the teachers kept from either preview or any form of retention, they would improve education. Until then the Unions rule and the incompetent are protected. Now is this sufficiently off topic, Twig?

BunnyBun
09-29-2005, 07:58 AM
The teacher's unions don't set the standardized testing here--is that what you're saying? That's done by the Board of Regents in this state.

Buckeye1sid
09-29-2005, 08:00 AM
The teacher's couldn't teach to the test if they didn't know what is in it and how the questions are framed.

Trouble
09-29-2005, 08:36 AM
Trouble, don't you ever tire of being Bard's lap dog?

Your observation of what I am is about as insightful and correct as your view that space came before matter.

It's WRONG.

Buckeye1sid
09-29-2005, 08:39 AM
Dear Trouble, I said space preceded matter. Reading comprehension was apparently not your forte in school. Develop your sense of humor! Look in a mirror.

momahedger
09-29-2005, 09:03 AM
I firmly believe that both should be taught and then let the student decide which to accept or accept a mixture of both. which is what I believe. to stifle either side in a place where learning is supposed to take place, in a public school or hs or college IMO is wrong. now private schools can do what they think best until they accept public funds.

It is also up to parents to supplement the teachings of a school. the parents need to remember that. instead of getting upset that evolution does take place and the evolutional theory, then they need to supplement the teaching of creationism in that school, with more at home.

and visa versa. I believe that too many parents have given their responsibilities to the school so as to make it easier at home and alieve themselves of any blame. but the parents are where the responsibility does lie and the school is only an aide to those parents just as church groups, and other activities should be.

Buckeye1sid
09-29-2005, 09:14 AM
No, no, no! You can only learn what I say in schools!!!!!!!!! I are always write.

TwiggyAZ
09-29-2005, 09:54 AM
Momahedger said:
I firmly believe that both should be taught

Momahedger, or anyone: What about the separation of "church" and "state"?

Wouldn't teaching this in a school be violating that separation?

Buckeye1sid
09-29-2005, 10:03 AM
Intelligent Design is not a Religious tenent. It's a philosophical position. Plus the much quoted separation idea is largly misunderstood and the words are not found in the Constitution.

BunnyBun
09-29-2005, 10:21 AM
The words "separation of church and state" themselves may not be in the amendment per se, but certainly the concept is important and the amendment as it is written is also relevant. The amendment forbids the government from imposing a religion on people by law. This has been broadly interpreted to mean that the government cannot use public monies to support one religion or another. So in a public school, teaching Creationism would be the same as the government supporting Christianity, although it may not be imposing it with a law, per se. Since there are compulsory education laws in most states (if not all), that is like forcing kids to learn Christianity. I suppose you could make a legal argument that if they taught the "origins of life" concepts from all religious and scientific viewpoints possible, they would not be imposing any one religion. But to me, that is well outside the scope of what most HSs can do.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Buckeye1sid
09-29-2005, 10:37 AM
Christianity is not the same as Intelligent Design. It has nothing to do with the bible. It's a philosophic position, just like subjectivity.

So in a public school, teaching Creationism would be the same as the government supporting Christianity,

This argument is without merit.

Trouble
09-29-2005, 10:55 AM
Dear Trouble, I said space preceded matter. Reading comprehension was apparently not your forte in school. Develop your sense of humor! Look in a mirror.

Main Entry: pre·cede
Pronunciation: pri-'sEd
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): pre·ced·ed; pre·ced·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French preceder, from Latin praecedere, from prae- pre- + cedere to go
transitive senses
1 : to surpass in rank, dignity, or importance
2 : to be, go, or come ahead or in front of
3 : to be earlier than
4 : to cause to be preceded : PREFACE
intransitive senses : to go or come before

Are you hallucinating? I know what the hell you posted, I freaking read it. I couldn't believe I was reading such bullshit, but, hey.......I was certainly well aware of what you were saying which was that SPACE CAME BEFORE MATTER.

I agree that I need a sense of humor when it comes to reading the BS you spew as fact.

You don't even have a clue as to what the hell the words you use mean you moron.

Buckeye1sid
09-29-2005, 10:58 AM
Trouble, you really care! There is a separate thread with your name on it for these sweet exchanges. Are you pretty?

TwiggyAZ
09-29-2005, 11:32 AM
BB Said: So in a public school, teaching Creationism would be the same as the government supporting Christianity,

Buck said: This argument is without merit.

Why does this not have merit? I think that not only is it NOT an argument, but it is in fact, fact.

Buckeye1sid
09-29-2005, 11:36 AM
And Sid repeated himself, "Intelligent Design is a philisophical position, not a religious tenent." then he smugly turned and made an aside to the audience, "I guess I showed em, huh?" The audience went wild!

BunnyBun
09-29-2005, 12:03 PM
Intelligent design is just a way of religious people slipping religion into a classroom. It has no more scientific merit than creation, and has no place in a public high school classroom. Once again, the proponents of creationism are steering the topic back into their ballpark, without acknowledging that creationism simply isn't science and has no place in a science classroom. And still not answering the question of why religious topics SHOULD be allowed in public schools, other than "because I want them there."

Also, if you're going to say my argument is without merit, you ought to say why otherwise we're not really having a debate, are we? You're just kind of dissing me. Which, for the record, doesn't bother me, but it is taking up Bard's bandwidth.

Good discussion subject, by the way, Twigs. Always good to see you over here on the dark side.

:thumbsup

BunnyBun
09-29-2005, 12:04 PM
Also, it's "tenet" not "tenent", Bucky.

[/pedant]

Buckeye1sid
09-29-2005, 12:26 PM
He scratched his head in wonderment. Did she not understand the difference between philosophy and religion? He also noticed that she thought he was being disrespectful toward her. "Moi" he muttered, "I would never do such a vile thing", he said to no one in particular. The audience, seeing him so falsely accused, wept. How can I tell her that science is not religion is not philosophy, and moreover, that philosophy is not religion. Truly it was a conundrum. It was a mystery, wrapped in a puzzle, and hidden in a jar of medium salsa. Then it came to him, "Eureka" he shouted, "what we have here is a failure to communicate! Something is missing. What we need is a GREAT DEAL", the audience went wild.

TwiggyAZ
09-29-2005, 12:38 PM
Thanks Buck, Sid, uhhh Bucksid, anyway...I gotcha. :thumbsup

Which is not to agree with you, but understand :D

I believe there are those that think Intelligent Design IS God, is their belief, is their religion.

I'm thinking that those that want to teach "Intelligent Design" are absolutely talking about a God, not a philosophy. Maybe they are thinking something else?????

Buckeye1sid
09-29-2005, 12:42 PM
Twig, I agree with you, but ideas are many edged swords. If they put Intelligent Design in a philosophy class properly, the religious right may well be frustrated.

BunnyBun
09-29-2005, 12:44 PM
I don't get why you're talking in the third person, or why you think there is an audience cheering you on? You still aren't answering the questions, you're just puffing up your fur. :file

I know the difference between philosophy and religion. I also know that Intelligent Design is a pawn of the religious to push their own agenda. Philosophy or religion, it makes no difference.

whiteclouder
09-29-2005, 12:44 PM
Might it be god with a small "g", twig? Less intimidating that way. One of the many intangibles I learned in my formal schooling is that there are no absolutes and everything is open to debate. I don't fear knowledge, as some here seem to.

Cloud..

OldHubcap
09-29-2005, 12:49 PM
I have remembered reading that some religious conservatives are not happy about “Intelligent Design” either. That is because some proponents of “Intelligent Design” embrace evolution as a product of a god’s intelligence and therefore accepts evolution. The other scary aspect of “Intelligent Design” is that some folks have stated that the superior intelligence is not god but simply a superior being further up the evolutionary food chain from us.

TwiggyAZ
09-29-2005, 12:52 PM
If they put Intelligent Design in a philosophy class properly, the religious right may well be frustrated.

Ahhh!!! True, very true!!

Cloud: It might be a small g, and I myself don't fear knowledge. Bring it on. But I still think that I want my knowledge of God, god, Intelligent Design, religion bla bla bla, in church, not public school. I AM afraid of people wanting to make every aspect of ones life ruled by some religious faction. THAT I fear, knowledge is power so bring that on!!

Buckeye1sid
09-29-2005, 12:55 PM
Bunny Bunn, the third person, Omniscient, is just my natural style. You think there is no audience? They are there, awaiting, anticipating, I must go and show myself to them (the last time I did, they threw me in jail).

Buckeye1sid
09-29-2005, 12:57 PM
Twig, there's nothing wrong with your position. I think there's going to be a lot more fun with this topic as time goes by.

BunnyBun
09-29-2005, 01:02 PM
Looks to me like you just started using that third person thing in this thread. But, I don't have time to peruse all your meanderings, you know, it's hard to keep up with the Omniscient when they just know SO much. And I never said there was no audience, just that they aren't cheering you on.

:winky

TwiggyAZ
09-29-2005, 01:02 PM
Me too Sid, try not to get yourself thrown in jail!!


some folks have stated that the superior intelligence is not god but simply a superior being further up the evolutionary food chain from us.

Ah, what a lovely theory for discussion!! Makes one wonder who that superior being might be/was! :D

BunnyBun
09-29-2005, 01:05 PM
It's not Sid?

momahedger
09-29-2005, 01:58 PM
Momahedger said:


Momahedger, or anyone: What about the separation of "church" and "state"?

Wouldn't teaching this in a school be violating that separation? Hi there again twiggy. :thankyou

okay, if both are taught as theories than no I do not see that it is a church and state thing. if only one is taught then that can be deemed that only one is the truth.

when dau was in hs both were taught in biology. both as theories. I think the kids are fine with that but it is both sides who keep wanting more and more and afraid to let the kids finally decide.

I do not believe that the science theory can be explained away any more than the creation theory. None of us know how long a day is in Gods (or gods time) and so 7 days could be the same as a million years or whatever. :flowers

I am afraid that if only one series of thought is taught, then children as they grow and get out in the real world will feel betrayed. besides, they hear at school one thing and then at home or in church another. how confusing is that? give them both and let them deal with them as theories and make their own decision as they mature. :)

Buckeye1sid
09-29-2005, 02:05 PM
Moma, Intelligent Design has nothing to do with the creation story in the bible.

Jannilu
09-29-2005, 02:37 PM
Looks to me like you just started using that third person thing in this thread. But, I don't have time to peruse all your meanderings, you know, it's hard to keep up with the Omniscient when they just know SO much. And I never said there was no audience, just that they aren't cheering you on.

:winky

BB, I am agreeing with, and applauding your stance & statements, but I am also greatly enjoying Sid's 'setting the stage/3rd person' posts...so I guess I'm cheering for both the content and the style.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a47/rikjan/23_30_1041.gif