Teacher Excused from 'Intelligent Design'

Post Reply New Topic

Very true. But the problem of bad parents is one that we have no idea how to fix.


The US government has an obligation to give everyone a fair shot at making a living, which is why we have the mandatory twelve years of education. That's the beauty of the public school system -- every single child, no matter who they are or how much money they have, is entitled to a free education to prepare them for the world. Public schools continue to do a great job teaching children how the world works, and doing it in an impersonal, scientific manner that is fair to everyone by not preaching any specific religious beliefs. For the rest of that education, such as religious study, society lets you do whatever grunt work you feel is necessary. The last time I checked, it wasn't very expensive to get into church.


You seem to have something against the entire scientific establishment. You know, you're not the first person to think there are "one too many theories" out there. Your desire for a simpler, more understandable, religion-influenced version of science has been attempted once before. On a very wide scale, even! Know what it was called?

The Dark Ages.

It makes me think. Think that because people are capable of ignoring rational argument, even when supplemented by firm evidence, and can cling to some irrational concept that is analagous to a kid's belief in the tooth fairy, the man-in-the-moon or Santa Claus, that we are doomed as a species to war and tyranny for millenia to come.

Think about that.

please: dont claim something you cannot ever prove! in what way the intelligent design hypothesis is more scientifically valid? if you are talking about the validity of theories you shold USE scientific methods. if you want to believe in god, do so. but leave the children in peace with biblical myths, mmmkay?

ghotistix

I went to high school from 1978 to 1982 when states did not have all the programs like school vouchers that they have today. You have to remember it is the states that educate their the students not the Federal Government truly in the end. Massachusetts and South Dakota have two different types of economies, each state decides it selves how to spend its resources it selves. Not every state spends the same amount of money on education of its students. Not every state get the same amount of Federal Assistance from the Federal Government. You have to remember that in the United States of America we do not have a nationalized School system like in some other countries.

I have nothing against the entire scientific establishment. You must remember science is philosophy itself. I have had many scientific friends over the years in scientific community that they see science as their religion, and that is their rights to do so. I take science at face value for what it is. Science will never explain or understand everything that there is to know. Science limited by our knowledge and understanding. We do the science not science does itself. We in the end make science to fit what we know, we limit science to what we want it to be. We make theories and need more theories then we need more theories to explain them. This is the type of science we have. We must remember that we do not do perfect science at all. We are the ones that are interpreting what we think is important in science. I do not what to go back to the Dark Ages. Science will in the end never have all the answers, by the time you answer one there are more questions in the end than answers.

Darwin's Galapagos finches just we adapting through adaptations to their environment only. That is what Darwin saw the finches just remained finches they became nothing else. That is how I will always see it. The same with the horses too.

ascan

That is how HUMANS are.

Maybe I am more right than wrong in this. I see nothing in whatever anybody says yet, am I wrong show me if You can.

This is just plain stupid. When I was in grade 11 (in Canada) and was picking my optional courses for grade 12, one of my choices had a caveat that "parental permission is required". The school gave me a form letter that basically said "GEO12 (Geology) contains course material on the formation of the Earth that is not consistent with some religious views. Please sign and return the attached consent form so that we may enroll your son in this course." I think this arrangement (weeding out the easily offended in advance) makes a lot more sense than embedding religious beliefs in the curriculum.

If I was a teacher I would refuse to discuss religion in the classroom. And as far as I'm concerned, issuing a disclaimer invalidating the course material in this way is a government attempt to promote a specific religion and should be declared unconstitutional.

Around that same time, people also believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and the sun and planets all revolved around it. When Galileo used science to prove a different model existed, it was the religious establishment that threatened him because it upset their strongly held beliefs.

I have no problem with the idea that someone might come along and disprove Darwinism the same way they disproved the flat-earth theory. If they did so using observable facts and rational arguments then I'd be the first to stand behind them. That's the difference between science and religion. A scientist has no need to resort to belief because the foundation of theory is observation and testing, whereas the religious people have no desire to observe or test anything because it's considered a sin to doubt and a virtue to have faith. Religion is all about peer pressure and memes.

Because creationism or ID are the thin edge of the wedge. The Christian right wants to go back to the dark ages when they had the authority to tell everyone what to think. It's much easier to burn heretics than debate them.... I don't like debating with religious zealots because they can't be persueded by logic. They don't like debating with people like me because we don't respond favourably to "because I [or God or the Bible] said so". I would be quite happy to "live and let live" if only they would go to church and pray and do whatever it is they want to do without placing demands on my liberty. Unfortunately the religious people are not willing to "live and let live" with the non-religious people around them. They fight constantly to have their beliefs enshrined in law, and that means we much fight constantly to maintain a secular government that treats everyone equally.

don't i know it, cackle, cackle, wart, wart.

but please - not [memes[! aaaargh!

Jetson

This is one I believe, that we could have learned science even quicker, if we would have used even the Bible. Take the earth, the Bible shows and explains the earth is ((Hanging the earth upon nothing; ( Job 26:7)), ((the circle of the earth, (Isaiah 40:22)), now if people or scientists would have looked in this book they could have seen the earth as it truly is. They could have theorize this a lot earlier. Now I will move on for You.

Lets take String Theory, it has taken years before it has come in vogue. It can be explained in a math equation but it still can not truly be proved yet scientifically. Because science does not yet have the capability to truly prove it yet. But yet we do in science believe it.

There is a new theory a Theory of Everything that some are working on in the scientific community. If one day this can be proven then we might have to rethink Intelligent Design and accept it for what it is.

Your statement can be proven false by a simple observation of history. Christianity used to teach and Christians used to believe that the Earth was flat. Scientists who said it was round were considered heretics and were executed. So when it came to the common belief that the Earth was flat, the scientists were not to blame, but religion was.

Bec

The flat earth theory originally came from Plato. If Christianity would truly searched the Bible even they would seen the earth itself((the circle of the earth,(Isaiah 40:22)). Yes Christianity back the then has done more of a disservice in the past toward humanity. That is not what the point was all about.

The point is about this, that even that the Bible has science in it. Science could have used this knowledge that is in the Bible back then, maybe even science could have progressed farther than it has today. Humanity has taken a very hard road in getting KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING KNOWLEDGE. If science would have looked beyond the religiousness of the Bible who truly knows how far science would be.

I am not trying to put blame on Science. I do not but blame on anybody, Science or the Religions of the World.

kevv729

the domain of religion is religion! (spirituality, believing, praying and so on)
although there is a kind of science in the bible (or the quran or any other 'holy' script) doesnt mean its proven reality! (just as theories of scientists unless they are proven)
so please stop arguing that religion should teach children on the same level in school as modern sciences do, it makes me sick!

if you dont want to blame science, its your decision. i do it, because scientist often ignore the ethical consequences of their dicoveries, and are used by authoritarian governments, right now and in history.

and to me its absolutely clear, that religion is to blame for the misuse of believing by religious leaders and holding up dogmas for the sake of power!

lenny77

I was just showing that the Bible shows many things, that even scientists (back then would have read it) then science maybe be further along today.

There is a new Theory of Everything that some are working on in the scientific community. If this is yet proven then we might have to rethink Intelligent Design. Because if Science can prove this Theory of Everything then it will prove the existence of God then.

Yes I know science has been used by some governments to further their causes. I also know that scientist may ignore ethical consequences of their discoveries. They have been doing for centuries I think. That is not truly their fault.