I have no problem removing ID from the science curriculum as long as all other "religion" is removed from science. Messy as it is, ID should be explained as a model along with others. Let the buyer beware!
carmel
Should Intelligent Design be taught in schools?
by AlmostAtheist 83 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
JAVA
What's behind "Intelligent Design" but to suggest there is a Christian god. It's a dishonest back door attempt to paint god as true science. I'm not suggesting there isn't a god or gods, but there isn't a single scientific fact to prove that there is a god. Until that happens, Intelligent Design is bad science at best. God is for the realm of theology; it's not scientific fact.
Should it be taught in schools--yes, Sunday Schools.
-
Narkissos
Intelligent Design is bad science at best. God is for the realm of theology; it's not scientific fact.
And for this very reason it is bad theology too: ironically ID seems to be mostly pushed by Protestant "scientists," while classical Protestant theology dismisses the Catholic "natural theology" which would theoretically make room for it.
-
AlmostAtheist
What makes anything worth teaching in schools? Is it all about teaching the truth as it is understood at the moment? Understood by who?
"Classic literature" sucks in many people's minds. But the works are studied in literature classes, presented as if they were models to be followed.
Health classes promote a particular world view, such as reducing intake of certain foods. Other people feel that a vegetarian diet is healthier, but you rarely if ever hear anyone clamoring to have health books labelled with "The diet suggested herein is not necessarily the healthiest diet available" stickers.
What if they taught kids what the major arguments are for ID, as well as the major refutations of those arguments? And taught evolution in the same way? Would that produce critical thinkers, or confused students?
Dave
-
Daunt
It's just dishonest to call it an education in science when it's not grounded in reality atheist, that's all. If it had some credibility I wouldn't even waste my time arguing against it. That arguements for that article are just plain bad also. The creationist act like the study of evolution is going toward some end all conclusion to disrupt the peace of religious people. It's not, it's just information about the different ways things react and evolve over time, that propose possibilities of different things that could be the reason for these occurances. On the otherhand. Creationism is comes straight from the start of evolution to bring it down so it won't contend with biblical or other mystic teachings. It molded to fit and try to counteract evolution's claims as if evolution is a group of traitors out to ruin something. It's just information. Wish I had some evidence on hand to back my claims up but from observation this seems to be the case. Creationists started the war against an abstract idea and now they claim they're victims.
-
metatron
This subject gets me angry because the opponents of ID keep preaching a bogus formula
namely,
Creationism = Intelligent Design
I don't see that Intelligent Design has anything to do with a literal interpretation of
Genesis. To me the correct view should be,
Intelligent Design = Pantheism
... and I like Pantheism!
metatron
-
silentWatcher
The problem with ID is that does not have falsifiablilty. This means that there does not exist an assertion that if proven true invalidates ID.
Thus, it sits outside of the realm of what the scientific method can handle. -
AlmostAtheist
>> humans and other living creatures are too intricately
>> designed to have come about randomly.
>> "We're not against evolution," said Calvert. "But there
>> is a lot of evidence that suggests that life is the
>> product of intelligence.
I have no idea what that "lot of evidence" is. I would guess most people don't. Worse, I'll bet many people read this, nodded their heads and said, "Well, if there's that much evidence, maybe it should be taught."
What if it *was* taught? Then this "lot of evidence" would be shown up for what it really is. Honestly, what could an ID curriculum possibly consist of? Not a curriculum that shows holes in evolution, but one that shows why ID is right? Is there anything more substantial than, "We can't imagine how something this complex could come about without a designer, so it must have"?
Maybe educating today's kids about what ID really stands on would give them a chance to see that it's bogus. Most religious ideology doesn't stand up well when scrutinized. But most people don't scrutinize their religion, so it works out. If it was officially scrutinized, how long could it really last? Perhaps in a generation it would go the way of the flat-earthers.
Dave -
Daunt
I dunno about that almost atheist. This education would be based on deception. I doubt any ID teacher would say, "But all of this does have the possibilty of not being true". They'll use bold claims like you said before on impressionable children. I'm all for giving kids information and facts, but not loaded claims.
-
Cygnus
In my ninth-grade biology class, my teacher, Mr. Feckham (who would smoke cigars in the bio lab hehehe) got real close to the class and I'll never forget his words. He said, to wit: "Some people will try to tell you we got here by creation. BULLSHlT. Evolution is the truth."
At the time I was a young JW and wanted to sock him in his alcoholic red nose, but now I know he was right. He's probably dead now. I say teach the kids ID,then do what my 9th grade teacher said - call it BULLSHlT.