Thumbs Up

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Gawain ; In that case teach it in religeous studies where it belongs .

Ok im all for classes on religous studies in school just like science. How about you? Great idea you have there.

[Steppe Merc]

Sure. Just as long as it covers Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judiasm, Christanity, Zorarastisim, Norse Mythology, Greek and Roman pantheons, it's all good.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Sure. Just as long as it covers Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judiasm, Christanity, Zorarastisim, Norse Mythology, Greek and Roman pantheons, it's all good.

Why of course. I was taught all these things in school. Did you know that the founding fathers and our governent at one time made religous teaching is schools even universtities mandatory. That it was thought to be unconstitutional not to.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Last I checked, they give you the cursory run of each major religion and it's history in school.

Yup that they did. But I suggest we learned much more about their relgous practices than you do today other than in those schools that stress these things. I used to love learning the Hanakah songs and the traditions behind them.

That's as far as it should go.

Again thats not what the founding fathers thought. Religion is still the best to way to teach morality. They wanted the fear of god to be in everyone.

[Steppe Merc]

Again thats not what the founding fathers thought. Religion is still the best to way to teach morality. They wanted the fear of god to be in everyone.

They might of thought that, but today that should no longer be mandatory.

However, I would enjoy a more full religon course that included highlights of the history of that religon. We practically learn nothing about anything other than America, at least in my school. And there oppitional history courses are all dumb, except for Art History (which I'm taking, and it's an AP class to boot!)

[Kanamori]

You are again making my point calling a theory fact.

If it were proven, it would be a law and, therefore, fact. However, it is not proven and, therefore, it is not fact.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

We could debate that all day. What it comes down to is that schools are there to teach you the practical knowledge necesarry for every-day life. Math, Science, History, ect. It is not there to impose a sense or morality in you.

Again this is against what the founders and writers of our constitution believed. If we keep ignoring them and the constitution we are doomed. Weve already outlived the time alotted most democracies. They would abhor secuarlism as it is espoused today.

[Papewaio]

But at that point, we have moved beyond scientific evolution to doctrinaire Evolution. The randomness of the mutation cannot be demonstrated or proved; it is simply an article of belief, no different in character from a belief that an intelligent Creator nudged the adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine bases of that DNA strand into the right order. Or that he took the clay of archaic homo sapiens and molded Adam in His own image.

If it can be explained without the need of an external source why add it? Very important why add this particular creation story, why not that of an Australian Aboroginal Tribes (each tribe has a separate creation myth and to label another tribes one as theirs is an insult) or Hindu belief system

Mutation occurs all the time. Some of it is called cancer. It happens. We know some of the causes like UV light changing the bonds in the cells. Oxidation again causing issues etc.

But I also don't think science is well served by elevating to the status of unquestionable truth the image of a material universe governed solely by random and otherwise inexplicable events. That's a worldview, not a scientific conclusion, and it has no better claim to our intellectual assent than views that postulate an underlying purpose, meaning, or destination for humanity.

a) Science unlike the poor mathematicians version Anthropology doesn't deal in absolute truths. He is making a false assertion to push his own one forward... Strawmans arguement if I understand the meaning of that phrase.

b) The material universe is random at the quantum level. It is not a worldview, it is part of the science that has lead to solar cells, nuclear weapons, LEDs, semiconductors, computer chips etc

[Gawain of Orkeny]

And who are you to speak for them?

Now this is funny Seems youve been taking lessons from Red Harvest. You ask me that question and then do the same thing yourself.

I think any one of them would take a long hard look at our government and say "What a bunch of dicks, let's start another revolution."

But I totally agree.

We could debate all day what they would and would not approve of.

Well we could try if you like. Care to start thread on the matter?

[bmolsson]

The theory of, evolution, creation and intelligent design all deserves respect and consideration. If they are the truth or not can be discussed.
With respect, objectivity and tolerance, we can move our knowledge forward.

[Ronin]

Again this is against what the founders and writers of our constitution believed. If we keep ignoring them and the constitution we are doomed. Weve already outlived the time alotted most democracies. They would abhor secuarlism as it is espoused today.

OT....but what the heck.

as i said before this is why it seems to me that it would be obvious for you guys to re-write your constitution.
a document, no matter or well it was written, loses it´s perspective after...let´s say 200 years and becomes outdated?.
wouldn´t it be better to write a new one than to keep bashing each others in the head debating what the founding fathers "meant" and what they "believed"?
not being coy here...just looking for an honest opinion.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Papes contributions hit the nail on the head:

If it can be tested within the scientific framework, then teach it in a science class.

If it relies on something that is untestable then leave it to a religion class.

To do otherwise is bad science AND bad religion.

Some additional points are worth noting:

Natural selection is NOT evolution. There is plenty of evidence for natural selection actually happening. Someone has already mention the white and black moths. The theory of evolution suggests that natural selection is responsible for the development of new sepcies. This was Darwins leap of imagination. The theory of evolution seeks to explain the fossil record showing life changing over time and becoming more complex, with new species appearing and others going extinct. It is elegant, simple, and it fits the evidence, which is why almost all biologists and paeleontoligists accept it.

It is also worth clarifying what scientists mean by "theory" and "law" because these terms have been bandied about in this thread.

Theory: In science: "A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data." (Wikipedia) (Paradigm - way of thinking). Some people suggest that the Theory of Evolution is not a valid theory because you can't make predictions about things that have already happened. I disagree, because you can predict, for example, the existance of missing evolutionary links and then see if fossils which match your predictions are found. In any case, I am not sure that the "predictions" bit is the key characteristic of a theory. The important part is the "explains much of the data we have".

Law: "a scientific generalization based on empirical observations" (Wikipedia again - a really useful resource!). Note it does not have to be "true" or "fact". Some laws, e.g. Ohm's law are only true in some situations, others are only approximately true and this only in certain circumastances (e.g Newtons 2nd Law of Motion - an excellent approximation at speeds much less than the speed of light)

[BDC]

If you teach ID, then you damn well teach alchemy and astrology (and the Great Spaghetti Monster too) in science as well.

[Ironside]

If you teach ID, then you damn well teach alchemy and astrology (and the Great Spaghetti Monster too) in science as well.

well alchemy is already teached, but is now known as chemistry.

[Ironside]

The difference between Alchemy and Chemistry is that one produces results, the other doesn't.

The basic issue in Alchemy is to mix different substances to get gold (probably silver too). Modern chemists knows that it's impossible to get gold in that way, but does instead mix different substances to get other substances.
Not that big difference. Chemistry is basically modern alchemy. And chemistry is then gaining the advantages of more research and better equipment.

BTW you can create gold today, but that's in physics
And very expensive.

[Quietus]

Arguing that Intelligent Design and Evolution are the same meant arguing against the existence of god itself.

[Hurin_Rules]

Just so you all know:

King's College (where the guy who wrote the original article at the top of this thread is provost) is the absolute bottom of the barrel in terms of academia. It has not gotten full accreditation yet (only temorary extensions, for five years, and even that was hotly debated). They appear to have two programs: philosophy/politics/economics, and business. Whether this 'anthropologist' actually teaches, much less does research, in anthropology is anyone's guess. Note the provost is not an academic position.

In short, his credentials are about as weak as they can possibly be. How about getting some academic heavyweights to weigh in on this? Oh right, none of them give any credence to so-called 'intelligent design'. Why? Because theories that are not testable, verifiable or falsifiable by the scientific method are not scientific theories.

[Roark]

Alchemy was an allegorical occult art concerning the metaphysics of consciousness. The creation of Au (Gold) was only a side product of the process of spiritual transformation which occurred within the Alchemist himself. Incidentally, the birth of chemistry was also a side-effect of this art.

I'm with Gawain and Drone (et al): Creationism and evolution aren't mutually exclusive, and to think of them as such is myopic and a little bloodyminded.

As far as the week of creation in Genesis goes, the Aramaic word for "day" simply meant "period of time"...

[drone]

Are there any Hindus, Shintoists, or Buddhists here? I'm not very familiar with these religions, so I don't know how creation is dealt with for them. How can a state justify teaching ID/creationism if some of the students don't believe in a standard Judean/Christian/Islamic monotheistic religion? Or is this all part of a plan to lower the overall grade point averages of the Asian kids in our schools?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

How can a state justify teaching ID/creationism if some of the students don't believe in a standard Judean/Christian/Islamic monotheistic religion? Or is this all part of a plan to lower the overall grade point averages of the Asian kids in our schools?

The same way you justify teaching evolution to fundementalists who dont beleive in it.

[drone]

The same way you justify teaching evolution to fundementalists who dont beleive in it.

True, but at least evolution offends all of the religions, and doesn't discriminate.

Edit-> Are you saying that science is using a loophole around the whole "separation of church and state" thing?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

True, but at least evolution offends all of the religions, and doesn't discriminate

There were you go wrong. Many churchews and christains also believe in evo;ution. How many times must this be stated the two are not mutally uncompatible.

[Don Corleone]

True, but at least evolution offends all of the religions, and doesn't discriminate.

Edit-> Are you saying that science is using a loophole around the whole "separation of church and state" thing?

You'd be hard pressed a more devoted follower of Christ, or a more die-hard supporter of the theory of evolution, then my 5th grade teacher, Brother Louis DeMars. Please stop saying Christian=Bob Jones because there's a wide, wide, wide range of opinions.

[drone]

There were you go wrong. Many churchews and christains also believe in evo;ution. How many times must this be stated the two are not mutally uncompatible.

I stated myself in an earlier post that they do not have to be mutually exclusive. By "offend" I mean "runs counter to the literal belief structure". People of all religions can believe both, but only if they are open-minded about it. But a Shintoist is probably going to have a problem with creationism/ID on their own.

[KafirChobee]

More support for ID - these are real, I swear it. Had you read my post above you could have found them yourself, btw. :

The arguement of:
http://slate.com/id/2118320

and my absolute fave:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1051/1051_01.asp

This is what you are arguing in favor of.

Christianity, is an extention of all former mythologys. For the transformation of heathens into christians, the formers gods had first to be supplimented by taking their concepts of creation, etc and turning them into the new-think. i.e - Nearly all mythologys have a great flood, a battle raging between good and evil in their heaven (Valhalla, Olympus, etc), and all have a summation on how the world (and man) were created.

ID, is a simple attempt to put religion in the classroom. While there is nothing wrong (as others have pointed out) in teaching the philosophies of religions - it is wrong to focus on one or to attempt to demonstrate how their is only one "true" religion. That is what the Taliban did - correct? Are we to become the Christian reversion of the Taliban? Or, remain sain.

[Xiahou]

Christianity, is an extention of all former mythologys. For the transformation of heathens into christians, the formers gods had first to be supplimented by taking their concepts of creation, etc and turning them into the new-think. i.e - Nearly all mythologys have a great flood, a battle raging between good and evil in their heaven (Valhalla, Olympus, etc), and all have a summation on how the world (and man) were created.

Get out of town! You mean religions try to explain things like creation and good vs. evil? Clearly they've all copied off of each other- what other reason could there be for them all attempting to explain such things?

[Steppe Merc]

Well all religons took ideas from ones before them, or are similar for varying reasons. Christianity isn't unique in the fact that it borrowed ideas from other religons.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Originally Posted by KafirChobee
Christianity, is an extention of all former mythologys. For the transformation of heathens into christians, the formers gods had first to be supplimented by taking their concepts of creation, etc and turning them into the new-think. i.e - Nearly all mythologys have a great flood, a battle raging between good and evil in their heaven (Valhalla, Olympus, etc), and all have a summation on how the world (and man) were created.

For once I have to agree with Kafir. If you stufy ancient religions you can see how much of the bible resembles it. But this dosnt mean that god is made up. Just like science used to believe different things and they call them theories religons have changed and its called theology. But if you look just like science its built on what we have found to work. The fact that most religions are basiclly the same reinforces for me the idea that there is a god not diminishes it.

Again this is what I believe the founding fathers wanted. They didnt really care what god you believed in but they wanted the fear of god to be among the people. Its wrong to teach a specific religion over another.

[Don Corleone]

Well all religons took ideas from ones before them, or are similar for varying reasons. Christianity isn't unique in the fact that it borrowed ideas from other religons.

You're absolutely right Steppe. It's amazing how much you know about us whacko Christians, no matter how hard we try to keep it secret. Why, just last week, my minister was working out the kinks in how to perform a human sacrafice atop a pyramid and dedicate the still beating heart to Quetzocuotal. Thank goodness she had that handy dandy 'How-to' guide left over from the Aztecs.

[Red Harvest]

The same way you justify teaching evolution to fundementalists who dont beleive in it.

And some of these same fundamentalists believe men have one less rib than women.

It has been the Creationists picking the fight. That was apparent to me when I was 14 and trying to sort all of this out in my head while still attending what other Christians called a "holy roller" church.

We don't need to be requiring the teaching of religion in science classes anymore than we need to be requiring churches to teach science.