On the religious front, Pope John-Paul II surprised many when he announced that evolution is no mere theory. This undeniably conservative religious leader endorsed evolution as a fact. I support his view: God created life, and evolution was a tool He used continue the development He began.
Intelligent Design in "Time" this week
- Thread starter coolioc
- Start date
actually, yeah they are, since the point everyone STILL seems to be ignoring is that there is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for the existence of any kind of "creator intellect." saying "god designed evolution" is attempting to marry scientific fact to blind faith, e.g. being wilfully retarded. people can't simultaneously try to accept and deny the basis of logical science in the same statement, and still expect anyone to take them seriously.
Not at all. Religion is not science, nor should it try to be, and vice-versa. That does not mean that they cannot coexist. Christianity, Judaism and Islam view God as the Creator, and as such, He is the Author of nature. Science demonstrates to us the case for evolution, which is feature of nature. I can accept the existence of God and the existence of evolution, and logic dictates to me that evolution is a design of God's plan on the basis of my beliefs, not on the basis of my 'wilful retardation'. I don't expect everyone to accept my religion or my belief in evolution; that's their decision. It works for me.
Not at all. Religion is not science, nor should it try to be, and vice-versa. That does not mean that they cannot coexist. Christianity, Judaism and Islam view God as the Creator, and as such, He is the Author of nature. Science demonstrates to us the case for evolution, which is feature of nature. I can accept the existence of God and the existence of evolution, and logic dictates to me that evolution is a design of God's plan on the basis of my beliefs, not on the basis of my 'wilful retardation'. I don't expect everyone to accept my religion or my belief in evolution; that's their decision. It works for me.
[/b][/quote]
Yeah. ID being right or wrong is not the issue here; the issue here is that ID is not science, it is a belief. There is no science behind it and never will be.
dufus
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2005
- Posts
- 359
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 19
- Points
- 163
- Location
- The Briar Patch
- Sexuality
- Unsure
- Gender
- Male
Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
The concept of a creator, creationism, and intelligent design are based on faith. Faith is the basis of religion.
Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
In all of recorded history, faith based beliefs have been defeated by science. The concept of creationism was long ago defeated. Intelligent design is just another term for creationism that some think makes it sound more "politically correct."
If science is to be taught in public schools, it should be based on knowledge explained by experience, not on beliefs that have no logical proof.
Defying the preachers of faith can be fateful, which often makes scientific progress slow. Consider the fate of Galileo. After scientifically discovering that objects of different weights fall at the same velocity in a gravitational field and that the earth moves around the sun, he was ordered to appear before the dreaded Inquisition in 1632. Facing brutal torture and a slow, painful execution, he was forced to declare his scientific findings to be heresey. This spared his life, but he was sentenced to indefinite imprisonment. He served until his death under house arrest near Florence.
Galileo is now a giant in science. Unfortunately, the methods of his tormentor Pope Urban VIII live on unabated today. But Urban's faith-based explanation of gravity and the motion of the earth are considered to humorous to say the least.
Let me preface my thoughts by stating that I was raised Catholic, attended catholic elementary school with nuns, etc. I did complete catechism in 10th grade, and am thus theroretically a full member of the church.
The hardest part of Christianity for me to accept was, devoid of any other influence, there are very many different religions that have multiple gods, spirits infused into objects, etc. Christianity supposes that it is the "true religion" since it answers all the questions of life very simply and without too much room for interpretation, i.e. what is the purpose of life? to live your life according to the 10 commandments and the teachings of Jesus and receive heaven as a reward. This very much so oversimplifies the entire religion, but basically you get the point.
The problem is, all of the other world religions also believe that they have answered many of the unexplainable or unfathomable questions of life in a tangible way. Before Italians believed in God and Jesus, the Romans believed in Jupiter and Mars, and Venus (Roman mythology) which answered the questions about the nature of the world that were unexplainable (i.e. why are there eclipses, why is winter the way it is, etc.) Is it also possible that the Bible is a compendium of stories that address the unanswerable questions of the time period 2 thousand years ago?
Going with this, is it not the ultimate arrogance of a religion to believe that it is the only explanation for the history of the world (and cosmos), especially in light of so many newer discoveries such as evolution for instance? Was it not this arrogance that has paved the way for so much conversion and bloodshed over the years? I think it's just built into the religion that other explanations are inherently not correct.
I know much of what I have said is inflammatory, but I hope it provides food for discussion. Much of Christianity is very good to me, so please don't think I am a total hater. I think Christianity does provide fundamentally good ideals, e.g. the 10 commandments are things I still take to heart. The communities set up provide a real grounding for individuals who might otherwise feel disconnected in a disconnected society. The list goes on and on.
Philosophically, what do people think? Please try not to attack me, but do attack the theories. These are things I wrestle with in my brain. I loved the movie Contact (Jodie Foster) since it was one of the most compelling arguments in movie form that I have seen for the coexistence of science and religion. It rocked my world!!!
Thanks
The hardest part of Christianity for me to accept was, devoid of any other influence, there are very many different religions that have multiple gods, spirits infused into objects, etc. Christianity supposes that it is the "true religion" since it answers all the questions of life very simply and without too much room for interpretation, i.e. what is the purpose of life? to live your life according to the 10 commandments and the teachings of Jesus and receive heaven as a reward. This very much so oversimplifies the entire religion, but basically you get the point.
The problem is, all of the other world religions also believe that they have answered many of the unexplainable or unfathomable questions of life in a tangible way. Before Italians believed in God and Jesus, the Romans believed in Jupiter and Mars, and Venus (Roman mythology) which answered the questions about the nature of the world that were unexplainable (i.e. why are there eclipses, why is winter the way it is, etc.) Is it also possible that the Bible is a compendium of stories that address the unanswerable questions of the time period 2 thousand years ago?
Going with this, is it not the ultimate arrogance of a religion to believe that it is the only explanation for the history of the world (and cosmos), especially in light of so many newer discoveries such as evolution for instance? Was it not this arrogance that has paved the way for so much conversion and bloodshed over the years? I think it's just built into the religion that other explanations are inherently not correct.
I know much of what I have said is inflammatory, but I hope it provides food for discussion. Much of Christianity is very good to me, so please don't think I am a total hater. I think Christianity does provide fundamentally good ideals, e.g. the 10 commandments are things I still take to heart. The communities set up provide a real grounding for individuals who might otherwise feel disconnected in a disconnected society. The list goes on and on.
Philosophically, what do people think? Please try not to attack me, but do attack the theories. These are things I wrestle with in my brain. I loved the movie Contact (Jodie Foster) since it was one of the most compelling arguments in movie form that I have seen for the coexistence of science and religion. It rocked my world!!!
Thanks
InsertHere
Experimental Member
Ha! I wrote a paper on this! (I knew college would come in handy!
note in advance: one of the major failings of this paper was my failure to distinguish between creationism and intelligent design, as supporters of intelligent design do.
Creating a New Debate: Creationism and Evolution in Public Schools
Since Darwins publication of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859, the theory of evolution has been under attack by Christian creationists. According to University of Minnesota professor Randy Moore, Tennessee was the first state to enact a law against teaching evolution, the Butler Act; the famous Scopes trial of 1925, in which a high school substitute biology teacher was convicted of teaching evolution, was a turning point in how evolution teaching was regarded. After Scopes conviction, discussions of evolution quickly disappeared from American high school biology textbooks. Moore says that this anti-evolution bias continued almost unchallenged until the late 1950s, when the United States government became concerned about our students science performance in comparison to the Soviet Union. With the National Defense Education Act and the introduction of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) textbooks, which credited evolutionary theory with unifying and making sense of all of the life sciences, evolutionary theory became more common in biology textbooks. By 1970, Moore says, nearly half of all high schools in the United States had adopted the BSCS books, prompting commercial publishers to include evolution in order to compete. Several state and federal Supreme Court cases between 1968 and 1987 challenged the teaching of evolution and were defeated. Then in 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Louisianas Balanced Treatment Act, saying that it advances a religious doctrine by requiring either the banishment of the theory of evolution from public school classrooms or the presentation of a religious viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety. The Act violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose.
The teaching of creationism in public schools, either to the exclusion of evolution or in equal time with evolution, was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court seventeen years ago. So why is this debate still raging in school boards and courts all over the country? It seems that creationism has recieved a facelift, aided primarily by its new name: intelligent design. Although proponents of teaching intelligent design are overwhelmingly Christian, they insist that it has nothing to do with the creation story in Genesis and so does not violate the First Amendment. This reflects the narrow view of some Christians, who seem to think that their religion is the only one. Although 77% of Americans describe themselves as Christians, the United States is still a spiritually diverse country. If 77% of people describe themselves as Christians, that means that 33% (a third of the country) do not.
According to University of Georgia professor Barry A. Palevitz, there is a fundamental misunderstanding among teachers and students of the scientific philosophy, which needs to be remedied with more complete scientific education. The new battle to get the idea of intelligent design into the classroom, led by the same fundamentalist Christians who led the crusade for creationism, is just a thinly vieled attempt to invade the sphere of science with religious philosophy.
The battle seems to stem from a fundamental misunderstanding between creationists and scientists, Palevitz says. Creationists attack evolution by saying that it is just a theory, citing unexplained phenomena that they say indicate supernatural intervention. This is an old argument, but yesterdays scientific mysteries, such as how the eye developed, have now been explained scientifically. Todays attackers of evolution have moved on to new unknowns which science will likely explain in the future. Some scientists attack creationism in return, claiming that there is no scientific data supporting it, but this tactic ignores the fundamental issue at stake.
Religion and science are two completely different, separate, but not necessarily conflicting modes of thought. Science is based on objective data, subjected to repeated tests, sent out for criticism and arguments by peer reviewers, and always open to revision. A scientific theory can be changed to accommodate new information or, in extreme cases, thrown out completely. In contrast, religious creation stories are accepted as absolute and complete truth which cannot be revised. They derive their authority from a subjective source, such as the Bible, in the case of Genesis, rather than objective measurements and observation. Despite the outraged arguments of fundamentalists, this means that creation science, a popular euphamism for biblical creationism, simply does not fit the definition of science. Creationism cannot be scientific fact because its authority does not derive from objective data and the scientific method, but from its absolutely authoritative source.
This does not mean that creationism is not fact, it simply means that it does not belong in the science classroom. Calling creationism science is a misnomer; it is an inaccurate depiction of the value of biblical authority. The value of religion is moral and spiritual. It gives us guiding principles by which to live our lives and lends value to our pursuits. Science cannot do this. Trying to teach creation myths, which are unalterable stories with an absolute authority, as science belittles those myths.
Just as teaching creationism as science belittles biblical authority, failing to teach evolutionary theory belittles the faith and intellect of religious youth and their parents. Parents who fight to keep their children from learning about evolution admit their inability to effectively convey their beliefs to their children. Faith, by definition, should hold up to all challenges. Claiming that children should only learn what they already know reveals the fear that those children will abandon their faith if they learn something that contradicts it. Understanding the opposite viewpoint does not lead to conversion; often it confirms faith in ones own beliefs. Children should be armed with the information they need to critically evaluate both evolution and creationism and come to their own conclusions. The goal of schooling is to teach children. In the science classroom, they learn about established scientific theories; in the history classroom, they learn established versions of history; they have the more than seventeen hours a day they are not in school to learn the established doctrines of their religion.
The United States Constitution and hundreds of Supreme Court decisions uphold separation of church and state and equal rights for all. Using taxpayer dollars to ensure that a Christian creation myth is taught alongside science unfairly ignores the thousands of other recognized religions in the United States. The Christian parents and school board officials who cry out against the teaching of evolution would probably be further outraged if their children learned the creation myths of other religions alongside their own. In a debate over distributing Bibles to students in Charles County, Maryland, school board Chairman Kathy Levandusky said, Voodoo is a recognized religion. Wicca is a recognized religion. My biggest concern with opening [is that] we open to all. The creation myths of these religions should be just as valuable, from the governments standpoint, as the Christian creation myth. Separation of church and state demands that the government cannot help any church, monetarily or otherwise, to further its religious goals. Attempting to indoctrinate children by teaching them the Christian creation story as fact is an unconstitutional breach of the separation of church and state.
The Christian majority has used their influence and a new name to make creationism in schools an issue once again, but the arguments against it have not changed. Teaching creationism is bad science, unfair to Christian children and parents, and a clear violation of the separation of church and state.
note in advance: one of the major failings of this paper was my failure to distinguish between creationism and intelligent design, as supporters of intelligent design do.
Creating a New Debate: Creationism and Evolution in Public Schools
Since Darwins publication of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859, the theory of evolution has been under attack by Christian creationists. According to University of Minnesota professor Randy Moore, Tennessee was the first state to enact a law against teaching evolution, the Butler Act; the famous Scopes trial of 1925, in which a high school substitute biology teacher was convicted of teaching evolution, was a turning point in how evolution teaching was regarded. After Scopes conviction, discussions of evolution quickly disappeared from American high school biology textbooks. Moore says that this anti-evolution bias continued almost unchallenged until the late 1950s, when the United States government became concerned about our students science performance in comparison to the Soviet Union. With the National Defense Education Act and the introduction of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) textbooks, which credited evolutionary theory with unifying and making sense of all of the life sciences, evolutionary theory became more common in biology textbooks. By 1970, Moore says, nearly half of all high schools in the United States had adopted the BSCS books, prompting commercial publishers to include evolution in order to compete. Several state and federal Supreme Court cases between 1968 and 1987 challenged the teaching of evolution and were defeated. Then in 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Louisianas Balanced Treatment Act, saying that it advances a religious doctrine by requiring either the banishment of the theory of evolution from public school classrooms or the presentation of a religious viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety. The Act violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose.
The teaching of creationism in public schools, either to the exclusion of evolution or in equal time with evolution, was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court seventeen years ago. So why is this debate still raging in school boards and courts all over the country? It seems that creationism has recieved a facelift, aided primarily by its new name: intelligent design. Although proponents of teaching intelligent design are overwhelmingly Christian, they insist that it has nothing to do with the creation story in Genesis and so does not violate the First Amendment. This reflects the narrow view of some Christians, who seem to think that their religion is the only one. Although 77% of Americans describe themselves as Christians, the United States is still a spiritually diverse country. If 77% of people describe themselves as Christians, that means that 33% (a third of the country) do not.
According to University of Georgia professor Barry A. Palevitz, there is a fundamental misunderstanding among teachers and students of the scientific philosophy, which needs to be remedied with more complete scientific education. The new battle to get the idea of intelligent design into the classroom, led by the same fundamentalist Christians who led the crusade for creationism, is just a thinly vieled attempt to invade the sphere of science with religious philosophy.
The battle seems to stem from a fundamental misunderstanding between creationists and scientists, Palevitz says. Creationists attack evolution by saying that it is just a theory, citing unexplained phenomena that they say indicate supernatural intervention. This is an old argument, but yesterdays scientific mysteries, such as how the eye developed, have now been explained scientifically. Todays attackers of evolution have moved on to new unknowns which science will likely explain in the future. Some scientists attack creationism in return, claiming that there is no scientific data supporting it, but this tactic ignores the fundamental issue at stake.
Religion and science are two completely different, separate, but not necessarily conflicting modes of thought. Science is based on objective data, subjected to repeated tests, sent out for criticism and arguments by peer reviewers, and always open to revision. A scientific theory can be changed to accommodate new information or, in extreme cases, thrown out completely. In contrast, religious creation stories are accepted as absolute and complete truth which cannot be revised. They derive their authority from a subjective source, such as the Bible, in the case of Genesis, rather than objective measurements and observation. Despite the outraged arguments of fundamentalists, this means that creation science, a popular euphamism for biblical creationism, simply does not fit the definition of science. Creationism cannot be scientific fact because its authority does not derive from objective data and the scientific method, but from its absolutely authoritative source.
This does not mean that creationism is not fact, it simply means that it does not belong in the science classroom. Calling creationism science is a misnomer; it is an inaccurate depiction of the value of biblical authority. The value of religion is moral and spiritual. It gives us guiding principles by which to live our lives and lends value to our pursuits. Science cannot do this. Trying to teach creation myths, which are unalterable stories with an absolute authority, as science belittles those myths.
Just as teaching creationism as science belittles biblical authority, failing to teach evolutionary theory belittles the faith and intellect of religious youth and their parents. Parents who fight to keep their children from learning about evolution admit their inability to effectively convey their beliefs to their children. Faith, by definition, should hold up to all challenges. Claiming that children should only learn what they already know reveals the fear that those children will abandon their faith if they learn something that contradicts it. Understanding the opposite viewpoint does not lead to conversion; often it confirms faith in ones own beliefs. Children should be armed with the information they need to critically evaluate both evolution and creationism and come to their own conclusions. The goal of schooling is to teach children. In the science classroom, they learn about established scientific theories; in the history classroom, they learn established versions of history; they have the more than seventeen hours a day they are not in school to learn the established doctrines of their religion.
The United States Constitution and hundreds of Supreme Court decisions uphold separation of church and state and equal rights for all. Using taxpayer dollars to ensure that a Christian creation myth is taught alongside science unfairly ignores the thousands of other recognized religions in the United States. The Christian parents and school board officials who cry out against the teaching of evolution would probably be further outraged if their children learned the creation myths of other religions alongside their own. In a debate over distributing Bibles to students in Charles County, Maryland, school board Chairman Kathy Levandusky said, Voodoo is a recognized religion. Wicca is a recognized religion. My biggest concern with opening [is that] we open to all. The creation myths of these religions should be just as valuable, from the governments standpoint, as the Christian creation myth. Separation of church and state demands that the government cannot help any church, monetarily or otherwise, to further its religious goals. Attempting to indoctrinate children by teaching them the Christian creation story as fact is an unconstitutional breach of the separation of church and state.
The Christian majority has used their influence and a new name to make creationism in schools an issue once again, but the arguments against it have not changed. Teaching creationism is bad science, unfair to Christian children and parents, and a clear violation of the separation of church and state.
that's kinda my whole point. evolution is scientifically proven. intelligent design is a religious belief.
you're saying that trying to reconcile scientific fact with the presupposition of some kind of creator, for which no scientific evidence exists, is NOT retarded? we must be working with widely differing definitions of the term here.
GottaBigOne
Cherished Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2004
- Posts
- 1,035
- Media
- 13
- Likes
- 255
- Points
- 303
- Age
- 42
- Location
- Dallas (Texas, United States)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
that's kinda my whole point. evolution is scientifically proven. intelligent design is a religious belief.
you're saying that trying to reconcile scientific fact with the presupposition of some kind of creator, for which no scientific evidence exists, is NOT retarded? we must be working with widely differing definitions of the term here.
[post=334877]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]I believe the definition of being retarded has something to do with a low I.Q.
Religious belief has nothing to do with a low I.Q.
GottaBigOne
Cherished Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2004
- Posts
- 1,035
- Media
- 13
- Likes
- 255
- Points
- 303
- Age
- 42
- Location
- Dallas (Texas, United States)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Originally posted by Dr Rock@Aug 12 2005, 09:53 AM
you're saying that trying to reconcile scientific fact with the presupposition of some kind of creator, for which no scientific evidence exists, is NOT retarded? we must be working with widely differing definitions of the term here.
[post=334877]Quoted post[/post]
That's not exactly what I'm saying. Science and religion are two separate fields. I do not try to prove or disprove evolution based on my religious beliefs, and I do not look to science to prove or disprove the existence of God. I'm not trying to reconcile anything, because you can't reconcile that which is not in conflict. There is room in my belief system for both God and evolution.
By that definition, then I'm definitely not retarded. I don't find any reason to slow myself down with trying to figure out which idea outweighs the other. I can accept both as valid since evolution and the concept of God are not at odds with eath other, and I can go on with my life without impediment.
From all the misinformation and justification for intelligent design by its advocates, I have concluded that explanations of the physical world fall apart unless one accepts that there are/have been multiple creations. In short, God is redefining his work. To the believer, this is not a case of "Oops, I did it again...." but evidence that today God is actively creating a better world. Perhaps, this is a comfort to Intelligent Designers....knowing that God is still active in their world.
May I suggest a mantra for those who long to return to the Dark Ages, "I believe; therefore, it is." Apologies to Descartes.
jay
May I suggest a mantra for those who long to return to the Dark Ages, "I believe; therefore, it is." Apologies to Descartes.
jay
I'm not being snarky towards you when I ask the following. The question is not intended to annoy or antagonize you. Instead, I'm truly interested to know what you think.
Do you think the fossil record is patently false? Specifically, do you believe the fossil record was contrived by the creator to fool overly proud humans into believing they know a thing or two about how nature works?
[/b][/quote]
Yeah, Young Earth Creationists (Pecker) believe that the fossil record was altered by God to test us.
The Catholic Church (DoubleMeatWhopper) supports Old Earth Creationism which involves rejection of Special Creation (i.e. God created all species as they are and species can never evolve into newer species), and believe that God started it out simple and guided evolutionary development to where we are today.
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Posts
- 5,842
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2,609
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
- Gender
- Male
I believe we have hashed this out before on another thread. It is unforutnate that some people are trying to pass inteligent design as science when it is religion. But this thread is dealing with public schools and what to teach.
It isn't really that difficult. In science classes the sciences should be taught period. Darwinian evolution is a theory. As has been stated evolution is a fact. We have evolved so many breeds of dogs and that proves that evolution does in fact happen. What we can't prove is the evolving of the various species any further back than recorded history. Hence it is called the Darwinian Theory of Evolution.
Now in liturature and world history and cultures we study the various cultures and their belief systems, economic systems and on and on. We study what the ancient Eguptians, Greeks, Nartive Americans and so on believed about the orgin of life as one of those parts of their belief systems. And we study the ancient Hebrews as well. All of these various ancient cultures had different beliefs about the oirigin or the world and the origin of man. It is not the business of the schools to teach the students that the story of creation in the Bible is right or wrong. Nor is it appropriate to copmment on the validity of what the Native Americans, or Chinese believed or believed.
A well rounded liberal arts education includes knowledge and a broad based knowledge of the world and what people have believed in the past as well as the present. It also includes the principles of science which include how a theory is develolped and tested. Science is not in a static state. Science will always be developing new theories and modifying old theories, proving some wrong and proving some right on many of the various disciplines in the area of science.
The sinsiter part of the debate on intelligent design is that some want to use this as a way to disprove to the students the validity of scientific discovery and of even science itself.
I am like Jacinto, I don't have a problem believing in the theory of evolution and also being a practicing Christian. We observe evolution and we base our theories of evolution on what we can observe and test to the best of our ability. Science can never prove that God does not exist. Neither can the existance of God be proven in a science lab. Religion is a matter of the heart. It is spiritual, not materialistic. The role that God may play in the origin or the world and the evolution of the universe including lviing organisms has to be a matter of faith, not theory. It is religion, not science. Though one can believe in both.
However, it is wrong to pass off intelligent design as science. It is religion and schools should teach ABOUT all religions. But not in the science class. It should be taught in world history and cultures. And the school must be neutral in teaching of the various religions. The teacher doesn't have the authority to declare some religions truth and some religious false in the classroom.
It is a shame that this is a political football. Sure, there are those who believe that the earth is only 6000 years old, but to be truly educated those people need to know what science has discovered and postulated about the earth and yes the theory of evolution. Consequently, it is fine for a scientist to be an atheist. But to be truly educated, that scientist must also be aware what various people both past and present believe about the origin of the universe and the origin of life itself.
We are shortchanging our children when all the discliplines aren't taught correctly. Science should be taught as science and social studies should be taught like social studies. Hiding information from our students is wrong.
It isn't really that difficult. In science classes the sciences should be taught period. Darwinian evolution is a theory. As has been stated evolution is a fact. We have evolved so many breeds of dogs and that proves that evolution does in fact happen. What we can't prove is the evolving of the various species any further back than recorded history. Hence it is called the Darwinian Theory of Evolution.
Now in liturature and world history and cultures we study the various cultures and their belief systems, economic systems and on and on. We study what the ancient Eguptians, Greeks, Nartive Americans and so on believed about the orgin of life as one of those parts of their belief systems. And we study the ancient Hebrews as well. All of these various ancient cultures had different beliefs about the oirigin or the world and the origin of man. It is not the business of the schools to teach the students that the story of creation in the Bible is right or wrong. Nor is it appropriate to copmment on the validity of what the Native Americans, or Chinese believed or believed.
A well rounded liberal arts education includes knowledge and a broad based knowledge of the world and what people have believed in the past as well as the present. It also includes the principles of science which include how a theory is develolped and tested. Science is not in a static state. Science will always be developing new theories and modifying old theories, proving some wrong and proving some right on many of the various disciplines in the area of science.
The sinsiter part of the debate on intelligent design is that some want to use this as a way to disprove to the students the validity of scientific discovery and of even science itself.
I am like Jacinto, I don't have a problem believing in the theory of evolution and also being a practicing Christian. We observe evolution and we base our theories of evolution on what we can observe and test to the best of our ability. Science can never prove that God does not exist. Neither can the existance of God be proven in a science lab. Religion is a matter of the heart. It is spiritual, not materialistic. The role that God may play in the origin or the world and the evolution of the universe including lviing organisms has to be a matter of faith, not theory. It is religion, not science. Though one can believe in both.
However, it is wrong to pass off intelligent design as science. It is religion and schools should teach ABOUT all religions. But not in the science class. It should be taught in world history and cultures. And the school must be neutral in teaching of the various religions. The teacher doesn't have the authority to declare some religions truth and some religious false in the classroom.
It is a shame that this is a political football. Sure, there are those who believe that the earth is only 6000 years old, but to be truly educated those people need to know what science has discovered and postulated about the earth and yes the theory of evolution. Consequently, it is fine for a scientist to be an atheist. But to be truly educated, that scientist must also be aware what various people both past and present believe about the origin of the universe and the origin of life itself.
We are shortchanging our children when all the discliplines aren't taught correctly. Science should be taught as science and social studies should be taught like social studies. Hiding information from our students is wrong.
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Freddie, that sure does seem like an obvious and simple solution, doesn't it? Sometimes I wonder if our government isn't just trying to keep us all angry at each other so we won't pay attention to what a mess they are into in Iraq (not to mention our economy).
I really don't even mind much that Christianity be given more than equal time amoung the world religions taught here, because it is the religion more people will encounter and should know about. I think it would be good to also know about the others, as well as the beliefs of the ancient cultures, as they give backdrop to understanding how Christianity developed. No doubt, many who are Christian would do well to learn that also.
But science is a hairier breed. It is difficult enough to present it realistically without blending in beliefs that are not part of the theories. Throughout history, we have had examples of what a detrimental effect religion and government have had on science. I am reading some of the writings of Galileo, and it is riddled with letters about how he had to dance around the religious and political leaders of the time, often having his students present his ideas for him in order to avoid persecution (we all know how well that worked for him in the end). Still we learn nothing. We mock the "primitive" behaviors of past cultures while repeating them! Human ego is the most limitless resource.
I really don't even mind much that Christianity be given more than equal time amoung the world religions taught here, because it is the religion more people will encounter and should know about. I think it would be good to also know about the others, as well as the beliefs of the ancient cultures, as they give backdrop to understanding how Christianity developed. No doubt, many who are Christian would do well to learn that also.
But science is a hairier breed. It is difficult enough to present it realistically without blending in beliefs that are not part of the theories. Throughout history, we have had examples of what a detrimental effect religion and government have had on science. I am reading some of the writings of Galileo, and it is riddled with letters about how he had to dance around the religious and political leaders of the time, often having his students present his ideas for him in order to avoid persecution (we all know how well that worked for him in the end). Still we learn nothing. We mock the "primitive" behaviors of past cultures while repeating them! Human ego is the most limitless resource.
orionsword57:
Although this thread is about religious issues, MZ has highlighted one of what I consider to be the principles of modern day control by the "haves" over the world of the rest of us. There has never been a ship's crew that has mutinied in a hurricane. They're too busy holding on to the rail and trying to keep the ship afloat.
Although this thread is about religious issues, MZ has highlighted one of what I consider to be the principles of modern day control by the "haves" over the world of the rest of us. There has never been a ship's crew that has mutinied in a hurricane. They're too busy holding on to the rail and trying to keep the ship afloat.
I wonder: What doors would a thorough understanding of intelligent design open?
Perhaps, a degree in medicine? This would possibly mean that for many Americans the hex theory of disease replaces the quaint 19th Century "germ theory of disease" of Lister et al. This would mean a return to the golden yesteryears of Colonial days when a cold or a pox resulted from a witch twitching her nose at a victim. Hmmmmm...maybe this is not such a bad idea if we could pass a law requiring all Intelligent Designers to choose Hex HMO's as their primary care practicioners. For entertainment while waiting to see a practicioner, patients could pass vipers around.
jay
Perhaps, a degree in medicine? This would possibly mean that for many Americans the hex theory of disease replaces the quaint 19th Century "germ theory of disease" of Lister et al. This would mean a return to the golden yesteryears of Colonial days when a cold or a pox resulted from a witch twitching her nose at a victim. Hmmmmm...maybe this is not such a bad idea if we could pass a law requiring all Intelligent Designers to choose Hex HMO's as their primary care practicioners. For entertainment while waiting to see a practicioner, patients could pass vipers around.
jay
