d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Tenessee Law Allows For Intelligent Design To Be > Taught In Class
Prev18910111213Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 1278Replies: 124Track Topic
Member
Posts: 15,743
Joined: Nov 17 2006
Gold: 33.00
#91
Apr 11 2012 05:03pm
Quote (Zurich @ Apr 11 2012 05:57pm)
i don't always agree with catkaboodle, but i think i see what he's saying here.

just like using the same drinking fountain as a black person was a novel idea less than a century ago, the idea of not teaching creationism in the classroom strikes some more "traditional" religious americans as shocking.
much like any civil rights movement, or advancement to mankind, it must be done slowly. even though cro magnons beat out neanderthals in a race to survive due to adaptability, we are still resistant to change.
i'm happy to see unrest, because it means the wheels are turning.


Creationism has been out of ours schools in most states for like 40 years. Going back to adding creationism will do nothing but make people think that they were right about an issue about which they were clearly wrong.
Member
Posts: 34,744
Joined: May 18 2010
Gold: 68.51
#92
Apr 11 2012 05:07pm
Quote (Nihlathak @ Apr 11 2012 04:03pm)
Creationism has been out of ours schools in most states for like 40 years. Going back to adding creationism will do nothing but make people think that they were right about an issue about which they were clearly wrong.


i'm not saying don't fight to keep it out.
Member
Posts: 51,940
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Gold: 8,933.00
#93
Apr 11 2012 05:08pm
Quote (Zurich @ Apr 11 2012 05:57pm)
i don't always agree with catkaboodle, but i think i see what he's saying here.

just like using the same drinking fountain as a black person was a novel idea less than a century ago, the idea of not teaching creationism in the classroom strikes some more "traditional" religious americans as shocking.
much like any civil rights movement, or advancement to mankind, it must be done slowly. even though cro magnons beat out neanderthals in a race to survive due to adaptability, we are still resistant to change.
i'm happy to see unrest, because it means the wheels are turning.



meanwhile in the year 1000AD, people thought the world was flat.
religion is intertwined with science in the sense that it provides comforting explanations for that which science can not yet explain.


and being overwhelmed by the beauty of a patch of shamrocks may not be a sign of God, it's might be a sign that your animal's DNA evolved to give you emotions.


I was totally expecting an "I don't always agree with catkaboodle, but when I do_________" meme after reading the first line. lol
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Oct 13 2011
Gold: 0.00
#94
Apr 11 2012 05:08pm
Intelligent design is not falsifiable.

From intelligent design, you can derive an exorbitant amount of predictions: zero, to be exact.

Intelligent design is an explanation that could pretty much be used to explain everything in the world. And as the saying goes, a theory that explains everything usually explains nothing at all.

It isn't scientific in any meaningful sense of the word, thus it doesn't belong in the scientific curriculum. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand for some people.

Member
Posts: 4,886
Joined: Apr 24 2010
Gold: 5.00
#95
Apr 11 2012 05:11pm
Quote (Nihlathak @ Apr 11 2012 06:03pm)
Creationism has been out of ours schools in most states for like 40 years. Going back to adding creationism will do nothing but make people think that they were right about an issue about which they were clearly wrong.


Why? I'm not saying that we should be teaching that God created the universe, just putting an aside that some people think God did, if it's necessary.

I'm just trying to be politically correct here. :rofl:

Also, it's not like putting an aside in is going to push us down a slippery slope to fundamentalist Christianity being enforced in every classroom.

This post was edited by catkaboodle on Apr 11 2012 05:11pm
Member
Posts: 5,628
Joined: May 29 2006
Gold: 5.00
#96
Apr 11 2012 05:12pm
Quote (catkaboodle @ Apr 11 2012 05:48pm)
You make a point about science as it is conceived today; however, I'm talking about what it has in common with religion: namely, they they both attempt to explain the world around us.

I'm not saying anything about teaching anything that's clearly wrong. Nowhere in my post did I mention anything about YEC. All I was saying was to acknowledge that there are religious beliefs about this hot-button subject so the religious people don't freak out.



I'm not talking about science in general, I'm talking about a hot-button issue in particular that has the potential to turn people away from science because it's not being handled right. I'm not trying to be specific and say the Earth was created 6000 years ago. I'm just saying to stick in the clause that yes, evolution is compatible with religion. That's it.


Sure it is, but to teach that god or any other divine being is what started evolution as we understand it today is not scientific. Therefor it should never be taught in Science class. I can understand a Social Study type setting for discussing the different views on creation, but that does not belong in a science class.
Member
Posts: 15,743
Joined: Nov 17 2006
Gold: 33.00
#97
Apr 11 2012 05:14pm
Quote (catkaboodle @ Apr 11 2012 06:11pm)
Why? I'm not saying that we should be teaching that God created the universe, just putting an aside that some people think God did, if it's necessary.

I'm just trying to be politically correct here. :rofl:

Also, it's not like putting an aside in is going to push us down a slippery slope to fundamentalist Christianity being enforced in every classroom.


As Lohgrevance just mentioned, God is not relevant in science. What would saying, "Some people thought God created the universe" bring to a science curriculum other than irrelevancy?
Member
Posts: 55,371
Joined: Mar 6 2006
Gold: 22,720.48
#98
Apr 11 2012 05:30pm
Quote (BarnabyJones @ Apr 11 2012 05:55pm)
not everything is about science dude. somethings cannot be explained by science.

it is spring time now i live in new york. the other day i was working out in my shed and i stepped out to soak in some sun. i look at the ground there is a forest of shamrocks. just an absolutely glorious forest of shamrocks. i couldn't even make sense of the whole patch of shamrocks. i can focus on one point at a time but i can't see the whole thing it is just to much. there is to much beauty for my whole eye to absorb i can only soak a little bit by scanning over the patch.

my point is this. science is great but to say there is no "god"/wizard of oz is silly. science proves many things can is a great tool to getting a better understanding of all the beauty out there in the world. there is also an extent to that knowledge goes the rest is really up to faith. faith in humanity to use the science correctly, faith in the universe/god/wizard of oz to give us the right signals and show us the way.

i think when some people say god gives them messages it is god. i think we are all one and we are all god and we are all observing life subjectively. i think the universe is just a form of expression for "god".


Science class isn't about science? who would've thunk it.
Member
Posts: 4,886
Joined: Apr 24 2010
Gold: 5.00
#99
Apr 11 2012 05:36pm
To clarify, this clause that I've been talking about would be one line that would be used ONCE before the class started on evolution. Just once.

Quote (Aisu_aS @ Apr 11 2012 06:12pm)
Sure it is, but to teach that god or any other divine being is what started evolution as we understand it today is not scientific. Therefor it should never be taught in Science class. I can understand a Social Study type setting for discussing the different views on creation, but that does not belong in a science class.


Quote (Nihlathak @ Apr 11 2012 06:14pm)
As Lohgrevance just mentioned, God is not relevant in science. What would saying, "Some people thought God created the universe" bring to a science curriculum other than irrelevancy?


Honestly, I think the disciplines should be more interrelated than they are now. While I don't think we should be learning everything about literature in science or something, I do think it can be appropriate to teach the histories of theories sometimes. In my view, the sentences I'm advocating would be something along those lines.
Member
Posts: 31,203
Joined: Sep 26 2008
Gold: 0.00
#100
Apr 11 2012 05:44pm
Quote (catkaboodle @ Apr 11 2012 03:36pm)
To clarify, this clause that I've been talking about would be one line that would be used ONCE before the class started on evolution. Just once.





Honestly, I think the disciplines should be more interrelated than they are now. While I don't think we should be learning everything about literature in science or something, I do think it can be appropriate to teach the histories of theories sometimes. In my view, the sentences I'm advocating would be something along those lines.


That should belong in its own class, such as history of world religion or history of science or what have you. However, biology should stay biology. We don't teach physics in biology, nor do we make kids read the Origin of Species. I get what you're saying (things have to be done gradually), but teaching ID in biology will undermine the entire subject. There is no point in teaching it at that point.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev18910111213Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2024 d2jsp  Contact