The case for Intelligent DesignFollow

Hadta look twice when I saw the post to be sure it wasn't a lookalike troll. Not like they wouldn't get their jollies off by fooling someone if they could. I know you people by yer avatars, and poorly even then. Stop confusing me.

I think the teacher in your son's class cut it off.

You can do like Angsty and continue to use [:smilecodes:] like a year after your premium expired.

Or ask your husband for $3.00 in bed tonight. Just sayin'.

I picture you leaning against the wall smoking a cigarette right after you hit "enter".

And yet it's perfectly acceptable to force children to learn about the unsubstanciated "theory" of evolution. Thier parents have tried to bring them up in an environment of faith and a belief that a higher power brought it all into existence. It's ok to step on thier toes regardless of thier wishes...hmmm. To tell these impressionable young people the basically the values and teachings of Mom and Dad are so much hooey is unpardonable. Leave it out of the classroom...both ID and Evolution...till these kids have matured to the point where they can draw thier own conclusions.

the difference betwen the two is that one is based soely on science, which is taught in a science class, and another is a theory based on faith. As it stands that not every single person in a science class at a public school will not believe in the same faith, it is perfectly logical to keep it out of the science classroom. So yes, its perfectly acceptable.

As for forcing kids to listen to a "theory" based on the subject they are learning (science just in case you were wondering) would not people want to have their kids be as open mnded as possible? Its not like schools are teaching that evolution is pure fact. they teach it as a theory, just one based on science. Playing devils advocate, if you are using the forcing argument, would you not then be forcing your faith on to people who may not believe in it in a public schooling background where faith and religion should be kept seperate unless in a private school?

And on the 9th day, God created mindless argument

So send them to a private school in Kentucky.

damn those hamsters and their ilk

Well, like I said, your brother was wrong on a number of levels.



In bold, we have the material difference. Discussion that arises from education has a tendency to evolve, if you will pardon the use of the term. Not too long ago, I was in an English Lit class that spent 15 minutes giving a history lesson on the Rodney King trial. Why? Because we were reading a book called Native Speaker that dealt occasionally with interracial relations between the African and Korean communities, and inquiry was made about the cause of some of those tensions, which lead to, among other things, the fact that one of the groups most devastated by the riots that followed the Rodney King trial were Korean-American business owners. So yes, discussions evolve, and that's because the point of education, first and foremost--ESPECIALLY IN SCIENCE CLASSS--is not to teach kids stuff but to teach them how to inquire.

If, in the course of a biology class that was touching upon evolution, some kid raised his or her hand and said, "Well, what about the idea that God created, or at least guided the creation of, the world?" it would then be perfectly appropriate for the instructor to take a moment to say, "Well, there are people who have theories about that, but we don't address them in this class because ultimately it's an issue based upon faith rather than science, but if you are so inclined, you can research it for yourself, talk to me after class and I can give you the name of some books to look for." That would be a perfectly organic "evolution" of an educational discussion. Anyone who has a problem with a teacher answering a student's question honestly would need to have his or her head examined.

But the problem is, this statement that students in a SCIENCE class are being compelled to hear unless their parents pull them out of the class does not evolve from the course of discussion within the class. It's an interjection, really apropos of nothing, which is basically the equivalent of the religious element sticking it's head in the door of the science class and yelling, "See, we're still here! See?! See?!" It's an interruption to the flow of education, like a speed bump, not an evolution thereof.

The only thing it can honestly hope to accomplish is to remind the children of the "believers" who are in the class and already learned about creationism in Sunday School that they aren't supposed to take what is being taught in the classroom so seriously that they "forget" the beliefs their parents would have them embrace. The other side of the coin is that it might get the children of "unbelievers" to question their parents' beliefs and therefore may have some evangelical value.




I know, but that begs the question of WHY do these ID proponents want kids "simply made aware of its existence." I can't see a purpose for it other than to "remind" kids who are already being taught creationism elsewhere of what their "true" beliefs are supposed to be, or to make a half-hearted evangelical grab at kids who haven't been taught creationism. Either of those is, in fact, a violation of the concept of separation between church and state when dealing with a public school. But more importantly, it's the forced interjection of a non-scientific dialogue into a class that is supposed to be about science, and is therefore out of place.

I really think the best solution to the issue is to create an elective course that kids can sign up for with their parents' permission, much like a Comparative Religions course, that deals with different theories on the origins of being, and make it a philosophy course, not a scientific one.


Edited, Mon Oct 17 18:47:49 2005 by Ambrya

I think he exists in the hearts and minds of the believers.

So lets rip apart their hearts and minds and pry him out.