Schools - Page 3

taiarain · 09-02-2006, 03:08 PM

Not really. It's a strawman either way.

However, if we are referring to 'intelligent design', a supported scientific theory by definition, then there is plenty of room for it in science class.

Actually, ID is by no means a scientific theory.

Please take note that ID and Creationism are not the same thing.

I'm well aware of what creationism and ID are. ID is creationism slapped together with a couple "sciency words" in the hopes of convincing those without an understanding of scientific theories that it is one.

Wikipedia actually has some decent information on this topic:

Intelligent design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More can be learned about the scientific method and scientific theories here:

Introduction to the Scientific Method

Taia

ninikins · 09-03-2006, 05:26 AM

of course the evolution theory is not the only acceptable theory.

LilOne1989 · 09-10-2006, 04:40 PM

I homeschool my kids so I teach them both versions and let them decide which one makes more sense to them. I already know that evolution makes more sense to them but I will teach them the other way too, already have a little bit, plus other alternative ideas from different faiths.

JustDucky · 09-11-2006, 12:35 AM

I believe that schools should be a place that allows kids to learn and the best way to get people to learn is to spark their attention. I believe that kids should be offered all sides and only tested on what can be proven by science.

**George** · 09-11-2006, 08:12 AM

It's all nice and touchy feely to say that we should have it from all sides and frankly on a personal note I agree...

But the bottom line is our constitution provides for the separation between church and state. It's kind of what sets us apart from other countries where religion is forced on it's citizens not only by society but from the government as well. So if not allowing creationism to be taught in schools means I get to keep that freedom, sorry, but so be it.

Brandon · 09-11-2006, 03:42 PM

to taia:

Quote:

Not really. It's a strawman either way.

haha, ok I'll give that to you. I'm a weak debater, but a strawman is not a contradiction

to George:

Quote:

But the bottom line is our constitution provides for the separation between church and state.

come on, George. This is not what was implied by the constitution. This separation refers to governments forcing the citizens to accept a certain belief under punishment of law. Simply allowing an alternate viewpoint of a scientific theory (that happens to be aligned with religious beleiifs) is not forcing anything on anybody. If anything, its allowing MORE freedom into the class room. example: If someone really believes evolution is wrong then why should their kids be FORCED to believe in views that they disagree with.

people abuse the "separation of church and state" more than they know. Read the constitution. That phrase isn't even in there.

GloryB · 09-11-2006, 04:59 PM

Creationism is really just religion in pseudo-scientific clothing. It does not meet the scientific definition of a theory, so it should not be taught in a science class as such. It is fine to teach it in a world religion class. Evolution on the other hand is a scientific theory and should be taught along with other scientific theories, such as the theory of relativity, in a science class. A theory does not mean fact, it means it's a theory based on evidence... rather than trying to create a theory to support a story that already exists... like creationism.

GloryB

Paula62 · 09-11-2006, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by palefrost

The only difference between science and religion is science needs evidence and can be scrutinized thereby allowing you to think and be creative. There is always a measuring stick with science this allows you to evolve. Religion has none of that. It’s based completely on faith. So, no i wouldnt lump creationism in the same class as the evolution theory.

This is a brilliantly insightful description of the issue. In religion, the "answer" is part of the dogma, and while religious students do analyze teachings to arrive at their menaing, or truth, religious students are not supposed to "disprove" or "prove" elements of the religion. Lots of parents do not want their religious views taught in a classroom by someone who is not a practioner of their faith, and they would really yell if the teaching involved questioning the particular religious teaching.
It's just not science if there's not questioning.

DizzyDee · 09-12-2006, 10:43 AM

Brandon said

Quote:

Simply allowing an alternate viewpoint of a scientific theory (that happens to be aligned with religious beleiifs) is not forcing anything on anybody. If anything, its allowing MORE freedom into the class room.

Brandon, ID is not a scientific theory. Try reading the links above that taiarain posted - it is a great overview of why ID is not a scientific theory and has it's roots in theology. In fact, the main drivers behind the theory already believe they have the answer - that is not science. In fact, it seems they are looking for loopholes in scientific language to prove their point. Also, one thing that was hammered into me at University was to try to evaluate your research sources - where is the funding coming from? What are the researcher's biases? Evolution is not just some crazy idea dreamt up to persecute Christians, it is supported by evidence in a number of disciplines including biology, chemistry, archeology, anthopology, biological history, etc. And unless you are a scientist (and I believe few of us on the board are), there is probably a great deal about evolution that we don't know because we are not heavily involved in the scientific process.

The problem with teaching ID in the class room, is it confuses students as to the meaning and purpose of scientific theories. I find it so interesting people say "Evolution is just a theory, well here's a theory that supports my religious beliefs, doesn't that make it valid" - not in the scientific world.

mtatum4496 · 09-12-2006, 02:23 PM

You know, while I have my own ideas about how the creation of the universe came about, I do not think my religious ideas should be fodder for the classroom. I don't think anyone else's should be either.

Primary, middle, junior high, and high schools are places our children should encounter facts. Intelligent Design and Creationism are both concepts based on factors of faith and to a degree how those factors relate to scientific evidence. However, the concepts of Intelligent Design and Creationism are not something we can verify through the scientific methods we have today - in short, if we espouse those concepts, we must do so by emphasizing the faith aspect rather than the science aspect.

Facts are concepts that are based in tangible evidence that can be measured and verified. It is not necessary to have faith in the outcome of the measurement - it is simply so.

I consider the job of my son's teachers to be teaching him the facts, as best as we currently are able to quanitify and validate them. I consider it the responsibility of myself and my child's mother to oversee his religious upbringing.