We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
Teaching of Intelligent Design
Topic Started: Dec 21 2005, 09:34 AM (866 Views)
Ross
Inspire
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
If you didn't hear, a Pennsylvanian judge recently ruled that "Intelligent Design" could not be taught along side Evolution in our schools. If you wish to read the arcticle it can be found here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/

Do you believe that teaching intelligent design in our schools is a violation of the seperation of church and state? Or do you feel it is a valid idea to teach a diverse array of ideas about how the world was created?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lugiatm
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't think that children should be effectively force-fed creationism at a young age. At a young age, a child is susceptible to manipulation and a compromise between Church and State whereas a child is taught different beliefs, but it is stressed more efficiently that they are not necessarily true.

Also, I think that it is more than necessary for children to be taught about atheism and antagonism in Primary School (Elementary School in America?) to show them that religion isn't a necessity in life.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Intimidator
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I guess this is where my different views come out. While I agree that the School Districts shouldn't teach creationism in schools, the shear mention of it would be fine.

The real issue behind the Dover School Board was not that they were going to teach it per say, but read a statement about it before they started teaching Darwinism in Science Class. Here is the text of the statement which was to be read
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/12753367.htm
 
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

"Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

"Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, 'Of Pandas and People,' is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

"With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.

After reading that statement there was not going to be any mention of Intelligent Design in the class. I personal see nothing wrong with what the Dover School District did. All this case was about is a group of parents who got their panties in a bunch over something which is considered non-traditional and they wanted to make a big stink out of it because they were too near sighted to see it for what it was, a statement. But then, its Dover, Pa... what can you expect ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shroud
Member Avatar
Know Your Enemy
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Lugiatm
Dec 21 2005, 04:36 PM
I don't think that children should be effectively force-fed creationism at a young age. At a young age, a child is susceptible to manipulation and a compromise between Church and State whereas a child is taught different beliefs, but it is stressed more efficiently that they are not necessarily true.

Also, I think that it is more than necessary for children to be taught about atheism and antagonism in Primary School (Elementary School in America?) to show them that religion isn't a necessity in life.

If they are being taught Evoloution alongside, then they aren't being force fed Creationism?

Our school only teaches Evoloution, and it bugs me, even though I am an Athiest. Because I don't believe whole-heartedly with Evoloution but they teach it like it is the truth.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lugiatm
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Shroud
Dec 21 2005, 05:36 PM
Lugiatm
Dec 21 2005, 04:36 PM
I don't think that children should be effectively force-fed creationism at a young age. At a young age, a child is susceptible to manipulation and a compromise between Church and State whereas a child is taught different beliefs, but it is stressed more efficiently that they are not necessarily true.

Also, I think that it is more than necessary for children to be taught about atheism and antagonism in Primary School (Elementary School in America?) to show them that religion isn't a necessity in life.

If they are being taught Evoloution alongside, then they aren't being force fed Creationism?

Our school only teaches Evoloution, and it bugs me, even though I am an Athiest. Because I don't believe whole-heartedly with Evoloution but they teach it like it is the truth.

Our school teaches neither (my RE teacher is atheist, so can teach us RE without being biased)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shroud
Member Avatar
Know Your Enemy
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Lugiatm
Dec 21 2005, 05:43 PM
Shroud
Dec 21 2005, 05:36 PM
Lugiatm
Dec 21 2005, 04:36 PM
I don't think that children should be effectively force-fed creationism at a young age. At a young age, a child is susceptible to manipulation and a compromise between Church and State whereas a child is taught different beliefs, but it is stressed more efficiently that they are not necessarily true.

Also, I think that it is more than necessary for children to be taught about atheism and antagonism in Primary School (Elementary School in America?) to show them that religion isn't a necessity in life.

If they are being taught Evoloution alongside, then they aren't being force fed Creationism?

Our school only teaches Evoloution, and it bugs me, even though I am an Athiest. Because I don't believe whole-heartedly with Evoloution but they teach it like it is the truth.

Our school teaches neither (my RE teacher is atheist, so can teach us RE without being biased)

Well in Science, we don't get taught it as a "Theory", we get taught it as a "Fact". :/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Myriad
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Good. In a public school you get people from all religions as well as agnostics and atheists. And I doubt the people who do not agree with intelligent design want to sit through an entire class and be forced to learn something they don't believe in. Secondly teaching both intelligent design and evolution is contradictory.

"Hmm... so according to this class we were created by some higher power but according to this class we evolved."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Katie
Member Avatar
xx.you.have.stolen.my.heart.xx
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I think that it's important to know that both creation by a God and evolution can coexist, because evolution might've been started by a God. I doubt that it would be able to be taught that way in public schools though due to the separation of church and state law. I think that the law is misused at times.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Corey89
Member Avatar
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Can't schools just teach math and reading like the good ol' days.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave
Member
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Why can't we simply present both theories to the students? After all, neither is solid fact, so why teach one over the other?

It is not hard to teach what each theory is, and teach them equally. That would end the dispute, the controversy, and almost all of the issues this subject faces. Yet we continue to teach only one? I fail to see the logic. I assume we cannot tie religion into science, but I don't think it should matter. The people that believe either way, are a group of people with a theory about how humans came to be. Neither are right nor wrong, because we don't know for sure. Teach them each as "views" on the subject, and leave it at that. We do not need to teach them as facts, which deals with your thoughts that they are contradictory, Myrdaal.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Myriad
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
zorg222
Dec 21 2005, 12:08 PM
Why can't we simply present both theories to the students? After all, neither is solid fact, so why teach one over the other?

Because, one is based on religuous views which not everyone embraces. The other is based on research and experimentation unbiased by religion. Therefore the latter is more acceptable generally.

Oh and the teaching may start as "views" but it will eventually turn into being taught as fact. Shroud brought the point up, despite the fact that much of what we are taught in science is theory it is taught to us as fact.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Benjamin
Member Avatar

[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Myrdaal
Dec 21 2005, 03:00 PM
zorg222
Dec 21 2005, 12:08 PM
Why can't we simply present both theories to the students? After all, neither is solid fact, so why teach one over the other?

Because, one is based on religuous views which not everyone embraces. The other is based on research and experimentation unbiased by religion. Therefore the latter is more acceptable generally.

Oh and the teaching may start as "views" but it will eventually turn into being taught as fact. Shroud brought the point up, despite the fact that much of what we are taught in science is theory it is taught to us as fact.

What if I don't embrace all of the evolution theory. It's only a theory. No one has proved that the Big Bang occured, but we're expected to believe that it did.

No one proved that God created the Universe, and no one is being forced to believe that He did.

Evolution and Intellegent Design should be separate optional courses, but not mentioned in a science class.

Besides, the opposite of Intellegent Design isn't evolution. It's the Big Bang. I do believe that evolution occurs, but I do not believe that the Big Bang occured.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Glitch
Blasphemer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
zorg222
Dec 21 2005, 02:08 PM
Why can't we simply present both theories to the students? After all, neither is solid fact, so why teach one over the other?

It is not hard to teach what each theory is, and teach them equally. That would end the dispute, the controversy, and almost all of the issues this subject faces. Yet we continue to teach only one? I fail to see the logic. I assume we cannot tie religion into science, but I don't think it should matter. The people that believe either way, are a group of people with a theory about how humans came to be. Neither are right nor wrong, because we don't know for sure. Teach them each as "views" on the subject, and leave it at that. We do not need to teach them as facts, which deals with your thoughts that they are contradictory, Myrdaal.

You, my friend, do not understand what a theory is. A theory is a series of scientific hypotheses that have been rigorously tested and for which extensive observations and evidence supporting it has been published. There are no legitemate scientific documents about intelligent design. I challenge you to go ahead and try to find one. Evolution, on the other hand, is one of the best-supported theories in science. I can find you tons of studies on it.

Hey, I agree that intelligent design would be interesting to learn about in school. But... not in a science class. Face it, intelligent design is religion. Religion requires faith, and most intelligent religious people I know can attest to this. Science is not about faith, but about evidence and experimentation. To teach religion in a science class undermines both religion and science.

Intimidator - Even the mention of intelligent design does not belong in a science class, since it is not science. Go ahead and teach it as religion. See if I care. It's just not science, and I don't know how anyone can argue that it is.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DaNtE X
Member
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I honestly thing this whole "intelligent design" crap is all BS. Today, the judges voted against it, so its not going to happen. The fact that the school system is blatantly lying, calling it scientific, is just stupid. Evolution should be and will be the only creation theory taught in schools for a while.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Glitch
Blasphemer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
DaNtE X
Dec 21 2005, 05:33 PM
I honestly thing this whole "intelligent design" crap is all BS. Today, the judges voted against it, so its not going to happen. The fact that the school system is blatantly lying, calling it scientific, is just stupid. Evolution should be and will be the only creation theory taught in schools for a while.

I agree with you, except for one thing. Evolution is not a creation theory. Evolution does not explain how life came about, or how the Universe came about.
Even theories like abiogenesis and the Big Bang are not creation theories, because nothing is being "created" in those theories.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Community Chat · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4