That sound you hear is future doctors and engineers turning into ditch diggers in Mexico beacause our education system isn't up to teaching the skills they need.

I remember why I don't do the whole forum thing. I'm too lazy to type an opinion -- if you don't know why I think it's your loss.

However, since I've gotten started:

Have some faith in the kids, man. It's not like just because some teacher proclaims ID as a creation theory they'll make the connection that this is a indirect attack on science and, as a result, abandon their belief that sceince must be supported by evidence. In fact, if they're intelligent they'll consider the facts and just decide that ID is bunk.

Personally I grew up in a Christian home, was homeschooled two years, went to a private, Christian, middle school, and wasn't exposed to evolution as anything except wacked out heresy[0] until my junior year in high school (I think). That being said, and so that my bias is known, I'm a creationist (in the classical, Genesis is literal, sense [1]).

Oh, and yea, this doesn't belong in public schools -- I'm not arguing that point... I'm just saying kids aren't stupid and teaching ID doesn't destroy the scientific foundations we're trying to instill. Tangentially, if you're worried about teaching the skills they need ID doesn't seem the biggest threat - for me the lack of basic math and problem solving skills or the inability to interact without resorting to profanity and violence coupled with intolerence of others are our big winners.

Anyway, just my two cents -- it's probably best ignored as I quit caring a long time ago about the science of creation... and I think theres at least one person here that will vouch for my lack-of-blinding-stupidity.

[0] - maybe not those exact terms, but those are more fun.
[1] - My opinion is faith is something that is supposed to transcend evidence -- what good is faith if you have hard evidence, ya know? I mean, faith is belief in something that cannot be seen and as long as we're beliving in something that can't be seen it seems somewhat... fake to twist it into something that is eaiser to swallow.

I remember why I don't do the whole forum thing. I'm too lazy to type an opinion -- if you don't know why I think it's your loss.

However, since I've gotten started:

Have some faith in the kids, man. It's not like just because some teacher proclaims ID as a creation theory they'll make the connection that this is a indirect attack on science and, as a result, abandon their belief that sceince must be supported by evidence. In fact, if they're intelligent they'll consider the facts and just decide that ID is bunk.

Personally I grew up in a Christian home, was homeschooled two years, went to a private, Christian, middle school, and wasn't exposed to evolution as anything except wacked out heresy[0] until my junior year in high school (I think). That being said, and so that my bias is known, I'm a creationist (in the classical, Genesis is literal, sense [1]).

Oh, and yea, this doesn't belong in public schools -- I'm not arguing that point... I'm just saying kids aren't stupid and teaching ID doesn't destroy the scientific foundations we're trying to instill. Tangentially, if you're worried about teaching the skills they need ID doesn't seem the biggest threat - for me the lack of basic math and problem solving skills or the inability to interact without resorting to profanity and violence coupled with intolerence of others are our big winners.

Anyway, just my two cents -- it's probably best ignored as I quit caring a long time ago about the science of creation... and I think theres at least one person here that will vouch for my lack-of-blinding-stupidity.

[0] - maybe not those exact terms, but those are more fun.
[1] - My opinion is faith is something that is supposed to transcend evidence -- what good is faith if you have hard evidence, ya know? I mean, faith is belief in something that cannot be seen and as long as we're beliving in something that can't be seen it seems somewhat... fake to twist it into something that is eaiser to swallow.

I think we have agreement. :) Here's why having this in schools worries me. The foundation for science at its most basic level is "question everything." I think that concept is incompatible the foundation of religion which is "belief." One asks questions, the other does not. Are they mutually exclusive? I wouldn't go that far, but I don't have a place for "God" in the natural world, anymore than I have room for science in the spiritual.

ID and creationism are places where one group's belief is intruding on nature, and I find that ANY intrusion of the spritual into the natural is a problem. Science is not going to show up one morning with God's phone number. It will also never satisfy the desire to hope that there is something more to this world than what we can see. That's really what defines the spiritual world. I can't see it, have no way to prove it, but believe it is there anyway.

What I AM worried about is when religion interjects into science, it does so to the purpose of stopping the questions. ID says "This is what happened. End of Story." Creationism says the same thing. Both of those stifle growth.

Genesis may well be the word of god, but it was copied down by us dumb humans, and you know what, as demonstrated in one of the othere memes popular on here right now (English as she is spoke) we're really bad at that sort of thing.

What I AM worried about is when religion interjects into science, it does so to the purpose of stopping the questions. ID says "This is what happened. End of Story." Creationism says the same thing. Both of those stifle growth.

Agreed. Which is why it shouldn't be in schools. I was saying that exposure to this may have less effect than you fear. A lot will have to do with the way it's packaged, of course. If it's taught in the form of, "Even though we have no evidence..." then the undermining potential is much higher than the, "Some believe... despite the evidence that evolution is a robust explanation of life on earth."

Genesis may well be the word of god, but it was copied down by us dumb humans, and you know what, as demonstrated in one of the othere memes popular on here right now (English as she is spoke) we're really bad at that sort of thing.

Dude, if people are crazy enough to believe that God (a being who just exists and is omnipotent) created the world fully formed and mature in seven days then the leap to believing that He protected his word is minimal. Multiple translations? Yea, well, they all hit the same high points so far as I know. (I'm going to stop there as that's a whole new argument that I doubt many of you care about)

Tangentially -- does it really matter, the whole evolution/creation thing? I mean, two cases here:
1 - Creationism is right - what does this mean? it doesn't change any of the laws of physics or the progess that various fields of science have made. All it does is negate evolution as the source of life, not refute genetic drift, natural selection, or any of the other things that have come up to explain how evolution worked.

Okay, I'm going to stop -- I see the problem. A valid argument is that, no matter the field, blind belief will have a negative impact on knowledge because there is the possibility that the Something would be discovered in attempting to prove a pet theory (in this case evolution). Yet if we're going to say this why teach evolution and not ID-with-leanings-toward-aliens? There's certainly a lot that could be learned if we put a large effort into contacting and/or visiting aliens. Also, there are points evolution doesn't address, or science in general. In the end, they face the same problem religion does "where does it come from." Relgion get's to say that, "God always was and will always be," but science has a harder time dealing it. Big Bang? but where did it come from? ad infinitum.

The whole issue, to me, just became trying to teach people what religion is and what science is. I mean it seems that people's biggest problem here is the inability to separate what is religion and what is science. ID isn't science any more than creationism is but if people continue to frame their world in such a way that something taken on faith, without evidence, is science then we're just going to continue having this problem. Maybe we're going about it entirely the wrong way, by separating religion from school[0] we're letting youth become indoctrinated by people who (for the most part) are clearly wrong[1] in how they think. And this is only going to perpetuate the problem.

Man... why can't people just not be stupid? (for that matter, why can't we all just get along?) And it's not likely this is ever going to get any better is it?

[0] - And no, I don't mean we have a class on Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. I'm talking about something as simple as a segment in class (a science class, even) 'What religion is, and why it's bad science.' Of course this may work if taught fairly but I'm certain it'd quickly become 'What relgion is, and why science is wrong' or 'What religion is, and why God can't exist'.

[1] - Ya know, wrong is really subjective though...

Mike the Usurper wrote:
During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

ID in science should be there... but they need to do it the right way. It's obviously a religious creationist theory, and a great example of why the scientific method has become so important in today's day in age. In ancient times, they truly believed interesting and ridiculous things. Teach kids the difference between "Proof & Theory" and "Faith & Myth." An excellent idea.

skullaria wrote:

During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

This whole "we should teach different ideas" is retarded. There are ideas that life spawns from rotten meat. There are ideas that the US forced Japan to attack Pearl Harbor because of an oil embargo. There are ideas that the earth is hollow.

The point is there are ideas for everything, and we don't teach them all. We have some criteria that concepts have to meet to be taught. In science classes, that criteria is the scientific method.

I quote the Intelligent Design article on Wikipedia:

Critics call ID religious dogma repackaged in an effort to return creationism into public school science classrooms and note that ID features notably as part of the campaign known as Teach the Controversy. The National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education assert that ID is not science, but creationism. While the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection has observable and repeatable facts to support it such as the process of mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, adaptation and speciation through natural selection, the "Intelligent Designer" in ID is neither observable nor repeatable. This violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability. ID violates Occam's Razor by postulating an entity or entities to explain something that may have a simpler and scientifically supportable explanation not involving unobservable help.

ID is *not* science. It should not be taught in a *science* class. Doing so undermines the entire point of science. Bush's complete misunderstanding of this is beyond excuse.

-------------------
I am glad that my child is homeschooled. We teach EVOLUTION and only evolution with no qualms about it. I don't understand why these ignorant fools can't appreciate the unbelievable wonder and beauty of evolution.

They stumble on the word THEORY. They somehow think that because we use the word THEORY in describing evolution, that it must be untested science without evidence.

The problem is that these fools don't even begin to understand the most basic science - the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Why would I want someone that lacks that fundamental understanding teaching science anyway?

Creationist have their right to see the world the way they do, as much as Nancy Reagan had the right to plan state affairs based on astrology. That's fine. I just want them to leave me and mine alone. They scare me- the creationists more than the astrologers!

Science can't prove anything (at least formally); only suggest. Science has never in the history of humankind - proven a single thing. We may say something is proven, only to be "dis"proven later. On the other hand, science is great and I love it.

ID is a suggestion touted by religious people; it really has no more or less proof than does any other theory. ID should at least be mentioned in science class as an alternative theory, one that has less scientific evidence, but can not be proven or disproven.

Actually, proving ID would be bad - then you would have proof of GOD, which would make Faith obsolete. Faith is only relavent because we can't prove GOD exists.

ibenez wrote:
Science can't prove anything (at least formally); only suggest. Science has never in the history of humankind - proven a single thing. We may say something is proven, only to be "dis"proven later. On the other hand, science is great and I love it.

ID is a suggestion touted by religious people; it really has no more or less proof than does any other theory. ID should at least be mentioned in science class as an alternative theory, one that has less scientific evidence, but can not be proven or disproven.

Actually, proving ID would be bad - then you would have proof of GOD, which would make Faith obsolete. Faith is only relavent because we can't prove GOD exists.

ID isn't a theory though.... It's a hypothesis. There is no scientific evidence supporting ID other than faith.

terratogen wrote:

ibenez wrote:
Science can't prove anything (at least formally); only suggest. Science has never in the history of humankind - proven a single thing. We may say something is proven, only to be "dis"proven later. On the other hand, science is great and I love it.

ID is a suggestion touted by religious people; it really has no more or less proof than does any other theory. ID should at least be mentioned in science class as an alternative theory, one that has less scientific evidence, but can not be proven or disproven.

Actually, proving ID would be bad - then you would have proof of GOD, which would make Faith obsolete. Faith is only relavent because we can't prove GOD exists.

ID isn't a theory though.... It's a hypothesis. There is no scientific evidence supporting ID other than faith.

Schools should probably teach evolution - but a true scientist would never exlude an idea because there is no evidence. That's the mark of a poor scientist.

ibenez wrote:

terratogen wrote:

ibenez wrote:
Science can't prove anything (at least formally); only suggest. Science has never in the history of humankind - proven a single thing. We may say something is proven, only to be "dis"proven later. On the other hand, science is great and I love it.

ID is a suggestion touted by religious people; it really has no more or less proof than does any other theory. ID should at least be mentioned in science class as an alternative theory, one that has less scientific evidence, but can not be proven or disproven.

Actually, proving ID would be bad - then you would have proof of GOD, which would make Faith obsolete. Faith is only relavent because we can't prove GOD exists.

ID isn't a theory though.... It's a hypothesis. There is no scientific evidence supporting ID other than faith.

Schools should probably teach evolution - but a true scientist would never exlude an idea because there is no evidence. That's the mark of a poor scientist.

True, but there far many more hypothesis than theories. The main gap being scientific evidence. If I say the universe was created by drunken elves, that's a hypothesis too. A scientist would require proof to respect this as a theory and would likely disregard it. ID isn't too different than the drunken elves hypothosis. Mainly, there are far many more people who believe in a God rather than drunken elves. This still doesn't make it a theory, it only shows the effect of faith. A theory has much more credibility, and that's why they should waste more time on them rather than a whimsical hypothesis like ID.

Fractal: Yes, ID is not science, according to you. However, Evolution is not scientific law, either. It's a theory. This theory may make sense to you, but not everyone trusts it. So, in the interest of tolerance, both will be taught and people can make up their own minds. What's wrong with that? Why is someone "a flaming douchebag" because they refuse to subscribe to your dogma? Are you that insecure in your beliefs that you must denigrate someone who wishes to have their own beliefs co-exist with yours? You do very little to promote the idea of "liberal tolerance." You are a facist like the conservatives. Go sleep with each other. You have a great deal in common.

fractal wrote:
bush is a flaming douchebag.

During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

This whole "we should teach different ideas" is retarded. There are ideas that life spawns from rotten meat. There are ideas that the US forced Japan to attack Pearl Harbor because of an oil embargo. There are ideas that the earth is hollow.

The point is there are ideas for everything, and we don't teach them all. We have some criteria that concepts have to meet to be taught. In science classes, that criteria is the scientific method.

I quote the Intelligent Design article on Wikipedia:

Critics call ID religious dogma repackaged in an effort to return creationism into public school science classrooms and note that ID features notably as part of the campaign known as Teach the Controversy. The National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education assert that ID is not science, but creationism. While the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection has observable and repeatable facts to support it such as the process of mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, adaptation and speciation through natural selection, the "Intelligent Designer" in ID is neither observable nor repeatable. This violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability. ID violates Occam's Razor by postulating an entity or entities to explain something that may have a simpler and scientifically supportable explanation not involving unobservable help.

ID is *not* science. It should not be taught in a *science* class. Doing so undermines the entire point of science. Bush's complete misunderstanding of this is beyond excuse.

wow! well, it was pretty much not meant to be a serious comment, however, there are a lot of scientific theories that dont get attacked at all whatsoever by the same ppl that attack evolutionary theory: cell theory, theory of relativity, etc. where are the complaints about those? they are also called theories, yet are essentially accepted as fact. this is the same spirt in which evolution is a theory. go find in the bible where the value of pi is said to be 3. and yet i dont hear people attacking the irrational value of pi. why? its because of too much pride that the theory of evolution is attacked. it undermines their idea that people are special, set apart. if man is just another animal that evolved on the earth, then it chips away a little further and the idea that humans are so wonderful. remember all that stink when scientists said the earth wasnt the center of the universe? it all stems from the same issue. look, feel free to believe what you want, but ID is not science, and dont expect it to be taught in a science classroom. like the article says, it doesnt follow scientific theory, which is the very definition of what makes something science. im not averse to ppl learning or teaching whatever crackpot ideas in their churches or places of worship or wherever ISNT my science class. im not going to church and putting stickers on their bibles saying that creationism is only a theory. c'mon. there is a place for everything. separation of church and state is good for RELIGION. its not some evil thing athiests came up with to oppress the religious. its the best thing that ever happened to religion because it ensures everyones rights to their own religious believes, not just some wacky born again prestident, like bush! sorry, had to get that last stab in there. how about my right to the belief that the president sucks? cant you have that belief coexist with yours? etc etc?

Vile wrote:
Fractal: Yes, ID is not science, according to you. However, Evolution is not scientific law, either. It's a theory. This theory may make sense to you, but not everyone trusts it. So, in the interest of tolerance, both will be taught and people can make up their own minds. What's wrong with that? Why is someone "a flaming douchebag" because they refuse to subscribe to your dogma? Are you that insecure in your beliefs that you must denigrate someone who wishes to have their own beliefs co-exist with yours? You do very little to promote the idea of "liberal tolerance." You are a facist like the conservatives. Go sleep with each other. You have a great deal in common.

fractal wrote:
bush is a flaming douchebag.

During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.

"I think that pa... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]