Thumbs Up

[Del Arroyo]

Science requires testable, disprovable hypotheses, for which the existence of a god and his hand in the process of creation there are none.

Therefore, god and Intelligent Design do not belong in a science classroom. Doing so would fundamentally contradict a purpose to science education even more important than a familiarity with the theory of evolution-- and ability to think logically and understand the Scientific Process.

The beauty of the Scientific Process is that impartial and Scientific minds will always be able to, if not agree on the interpretation of data, at least have a common starting point from which to debate. ID in the classroom would be a serious erosion of this principle, and should not be allowed no matter how politicized this concept has become in the US.

DA

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The beauty of the Scientific Process is that impartial and Scientific minds will always be able to, if not agree on the interpretation of data, at least have a common starting point from which to debate.

So do religions. That no where near as disimilar as many think. We are clueless as of 99.99% of the universe nevermind what may lie beyond it. Science is also a faith based endeavor.

[Red Harvest]

So do religions. That no where near as disimilar as many think. We are clueless as of 99.99% of the universe nevermind what may lie beyond it. Science is also a faith based endeavor.

No, it is not. In science ideas, theories, and "laws" get tested. Even generally accepted ones are rejected when NEW information is received. That is not the case with religion. And there is little effort from within religion to actively challenge the basic precepts of the religion.

In any case religion is not science, and science is not religion. Keep 'em separate.

[Papewaio]

Mixing science and religion ends up with something akin to science fiction not science fact.

Scientology anyone?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

No, it is not. In science ideas, theories, and "laws" get tested.

Thewre tested by our rules. We dont know if these are correct we belive they are just like religous people do. Again you cant prove 99% of whats around us all we can do is give our best guess. Just like people science discovers that the more it knows the less it knows. At 21 I thought I knew everything. The older I get the more I realise I still have a lot to learn. Science goes by rules science makes up. I hardly call that proof.

[AntiochusIII]

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?

I may not consider myself a Buddhist anymore, but I do know quite something about them, and hope this will help: Hinduism, which is, in many ways, Buddhism's "predecessor", believe that the entire universe is created by "Brahman" (one of the three "most important" gods, and no, not trinity. He's the embodiment of creation, practically) and destroyed by "Shiva", the god that is the embodiment of destruction. Note, however, that Shiva is not viewed (at least by the majority of Hinduism, the religion has literally thousands of cults and doctrine differences among the cults) simply as evil. He's like a benevolent destroyer of evil kind of stuff. However, it is a circle of destruction and creation. The universe has been destroyed and recreated since..well..there is no since, to my limited knowledge about the religion. Even the gods are just, in fact, aspects of one mighty spirit that is...everything. An equivalent of god, but we (according to the religion) are not his servants, but part of Him.Therefore, the history of time according to Hinduism is not linear, but circular. Buddhism, this gets more complicated. The Buddha's original thoughts none could intrepet, but the religion that is Buddhism is clearly far more superstitious (well, the point of religion, that is) than what the Buddha, whom I (and many others) doubt ever wanted to "be a god," originally intended. However, in modern practices, Buddhist doctrine seems not to recognize any such "creation myth," but the common folk would just adhere to what the Hindus believe. This I speak, however, from the Theravada (so-called "traditional") side. The Mahayana side possess, according to my limited knowledge, their own creation myths, which varies from "cult" to "cult." Shinto could easily be considered as just another Mahayana sect, which simply means that the Buddhist "monks" would mix the doctrines of both what was Buddhism during the reign of king/emperor Asoka with local beliefs.

As a side note, my old country's (I'm in the US now...) teachers often promote Buddhism as a "scientific religion", which sounds cool and tolerant. But I doubt the legitimacy of such claims. However, note that the best that Buddhist scholars could speculate about the Buddha's original teachings (time changes things, you see) is that he did not concern himself with creation myths for his "religion."

I guess at least some Buddhists would have to support evolution, then, being the most plausible scientific theory out there, and that the Buddha, according to the rather unreliable older-than-bible doctrine, wants his followers to uphold reason. His last teachings (again, from the doctrine) seems to be something like "don't believe what is not proven enough."

[bmolsson]

Mixing science and religion ends up with something akin to science fiction not science fact.

Scientology anyone?

What about antropology then ??

[Roark]

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.

The archetype of the Hanged God features in some other religions (Odin impaled on Yggdrassil etc), but there are secular historians who refer to the crucifixion, so I doubt that the event was contructed to slot Christianity in with other faiths.

Maybe you could elaborate further on specific "borrowed" elements. I find that stuff really interesting.

[Del Arroyo]

So do religions. That no where near as disimilar as many think. We are clueless as of 99.99% of the universe nevermind what may lie beyond it. Science is also a faith based endeavor.

But it is a separate field with separate AND VERY USEFUL standards. This is what people need to realize. Prayer in school doesn't bother me one tiny bit, but intelligent design in biology?? Never. One of the challenges of biology class (if you have a good teacher) is to get into the guts of evolutionary theory and to try and understand the large parts which are very counterintuitive.

Intelligent design is a very simple, straightforward idea and if people are going to believe it then that's what they'll do regardless of whether or not it is given time in Biology class.

In fact, I don't even have a problem with ID being mentioned in a biology class, for instance "Well there are some things we don't yet know about evolution, AS WITH ALL theories, and as you may have heard IN THE NEWS recently, some people think it's God." I am not one of the people who thinks that religion and everything else must exist with a 10-foot thick 50-foot high wall between them-- for religion to come up in a science discussion (just as for science to come up in a religion discussion) is no problem, and indeed a GOOD THING, for religion is part of our world and that is what science is trying to explain (and vice versa).

But to pretend that Intelligent Design IS science, to confuse the two, even to (the horror!) give it EQUAL TIME in science class, is absolutely and unequivocally uncontionable and, God willing, will never happen in this country.

DA

EDIT: fast typing

[Del Arroyo]

And, Gawain, just to nitpick doctrine with you, the most current definition of science asserts that a scientific hypothesis must be DIS-provable. The nature of science is that nothing can ever be proven-- to say that something is 100% true is unscientific, technically. It is a system of logical guesses and methodical interpretations.

Whether or not you personally buy into a particular researcher's conclusions is, of course, a personal matter, and this is why scientists bicker all the time. But if creationists/intelligent designers wish to challenge evolutionary theory, the correct path is through research and publication in the scientific community-- not by cheating the system and cutting straight to the classroom.

Play fair or get out of the ballpark. And just because the most in the scientific community may be unreceptive to your ideas is NO EXCUSE. Unpopular scientific ideas are typically ridiculed for years before, if they are valid, they show their merit.

That's just the way science is.

DA

[Red Harvest]

Thewre tested by our rules. We dont know if these are correct we belive they are just like religous people do. Again you cant prove 99% of whats around us all we can do is give our best guess. Just like people science discovers that the more it knows the less it knows. At 21 I thought I knew everything. The older I get the more I realise I still have a lot to learn. Science goes by rules science makes up. I hardly call that proof.

That is an absolutely terrible defense. Since science is our way of evaluating the world around us in the absense of continual "divine revelation" you are rejecting the whole concept because it is imperfect? Even if that were reasonable, my response would be "SO???" It still doesn't make religion a substitute for science. That's called the Dark Ages.

Plus you missed the part about there not being absolute proof--instead, the "proven" portions are only considered that way as long as new information doesn't disprove them.

Put a fork in it, this bird is done.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That is an absolutely terrible defense. Since science is our way of evaluating the world around us in the absense of continual "divine revelation" you are rejecting the whole concept because it is imperfect?

Im not rejecting it at all. Arent secualrist just as guilty about religon? You reject it because its not perfect.

Heres one of the greatest scientists and theolgans.

Isaac Newton

Many dont know that it was his religous stances that he hoped to be remebered for.

[Adrian II]

Evolution is fact.

It's a scientific theory, not a fact. And it is the best scientific theory we have by far, incomparably better than intelligent design. Creationism is not even a theory, it is a myth presented in a way that makes it impossible to falsify and hence evaluate scientifically. Socially speaking, creationism is a competitor to evolution, scientifically speaking it it not.

It is this blatant indifference to the true status and meaning of science, parroted by Bush in his remark about 'competing schools', that is so damaging to the scientific community and, in the longer run, to American education.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It's a scientific theory, not a fact. And it is the best scientific theory we have by far, incomparably better than intelligent design. Creationism is not even a theory, it is a myth presented in a way that makes it impossible to falsify and hence evaluate scientifically. Socially speaking, creationism is a competitor to evolution, scientifically speaking it it not.

This really cracks me up. This argument has been going on since there were scientists and religions. No one and I repeat no one has the slightest clue or proof as to which is correct. Again they are both faith based . One is faith in man and science and the other in god. As usual the real answer lies somewhere in the middle.

[Del Arroyo]

You are 100% incorrect, Gawain. The decision as to whether to believe in evolutionary theory or creationism is a personal one based on faith.

But the scientific method itself is impartial and, by its core tenets, can never prove anything or say it for sure. It is a useful process, the understanding of which is far more important in a student's science education quite frankly than a familiarity with any specific theory.

Presenting as scientific conjectures which are not backed by studies conducted using the scientific method pollutes this and is a sin. May God smite those who would seek to further poison our educational system, if it be His will.

DA

[Gawain of Orkeny]

But the scientific method itself is impartial and, by its core tenets, can never prove anything or say it for sure. It is a useful process, the understanding of which is far more important in a student's science education quite frankly than a familiarity with any specific theory.

You just addmitted it cant prove anything. It is indeed very useful for teaching logic and the scientific method. Its sort of like religion. Its self fufilling. There is not one person on these boards or anywhere on this planet that knows who is correct on this matter and I doubt there ever will be until the day we all dissappear.

[Del Arroyo]

Excellent, Gawain, looks like we've got an agreement!

We can let biology teachers present evolutionary theory, parents/pastors present intelligent design, and let the kids decide!

Do you have any objection to this?

DA

[Red Harvest]

Im not rejecting it at all. Arent secualrist just as guilty about religon? You reject it because its not perfect.

Heres one of the greatest scientists and theolgans.

Isaac Newton

Many dont know that it was his religous stances that he hoped to be remebered for.

I already knew about Newton.

I haven't rejected religion (although I do reject much of the organized church.) I don't accept many fundamentalists demonstrably false views of it. I reconciled the two in my own mind at the age of 14. Religion is not science, nor is science religion.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I haven't rejected religion (although I do reject much of the organized church.) I don't accept many fundamentalists demonstrably false views of it. I reconciled the two in my own mind at the age of 14. Religion is not science, nor is science religion.

For once I couldnt agree with you more. Their two opposite poles of the samething though. Like love and hate

[AntiochusIII]

For once I couldnt agree with you more. Their two opposite poles of the samething though. Like love and hate

Which one is hate?

Sorry, couldn't resist. ;)

[Adrian II]

It is a useful process, the understanding of which is far more important in a student's science education quite frankly than a familiarity with any specific theory.

Hear hear. I find myself coming back to threads such as this in order to try and make this point, over and over again, because it is of the utmost importance for the future of our democracies that we recognise science for what it is: a main pillar of civilisation. Is it precisely that because science is not faith-based and truth does not, therefore, simply reside somewhere ' in the middle'. Without due regard and respect for science, no rational debate or meeting of minds is possible and modern existence loses a dimension that this world can not afford to lose.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Is it precisely that because science is not faith-based and truth does not, therefore, simply reside somewhere ' in the middle'. Without due regard and respect for science, no rational debate or meeting of minds is possible and modern existence loses a dimension that this world can not afford to lose.

In other words science like religion cannot be advanced unless you believe in it.Without due regard and respect for religion, no rational debate or meeting of minds is possible and modern existence loses a dimension that this world can not afford to lose.

Which one is hate?

Both

[Adrian II]

In other words science like religion cannot be advanced unless you believe in it.

No. I said 'respect science', not 'believe in science'. We don't need this kind of wordplay, Gawain.

In the past I have discussed (with Colovion and others) the fact that many people these days have 'faith' in science as if it constituted a system of revealed truth analogous to religious beliefs. I criticised that attitude because to me, the notion that science is going to 'set us free' is just as irrational as the belief that Jesus will set anyone free or that the earth has a natural history of only 8000 years.

[Del Arroyo]

Gawain, will you man up and answer the question? According to the answers you have given, it sounds as if you would agree that it is proper and good for biology teachers to present evolutionary theory, and for parents and pastors to present intelligent design, should it be their choice. Is this the case? Or will you not answer?

DA

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Gawain, will you man up and answer the question? According to the answers you have given, it sounds as if you would agree that it is proper and good for biology teachers to present evolutionary theory, and for parents and pastors to present intelligent design, should it be their choice. Is this the case? Or will you not answer?

Yes it is. However I feel both should present the fact that there are others who have a different notion and tell tem about it. Again I see absolutely no problem with both being right. Then again I also see no problem with both being wrong.

[AntiochusIII]

Yes it is. However I feel both should present the fact that there are others who have a different notion and tell tem about it. Again I see absolutely no problem with both being right. Then again I also see no problem with both being wrong.

However, I presume that Creationism (no it is NOT intelligent! design. Whatever. It's a propaganda name and nothing more.) would be presented in such a way that students will not be able to disprove it by...oh the horror...scientific means?

If they have the guts to put in the Flying Spaghetti Monster with this so-called "ID" then perhaps the students will be able to see a larger prospective, as that presents the alternate way of looking into Creationism theories and how they work.

[Del Arroyo]

It's good to hear, then, that this issue is resolved and that we can count on your support, Gawain, in keeping Intelligent Design out of the Biology classroom.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It's good to hear, then, that this issue is resolved and that we can count on your support, Gawain, in keeping Intelligent Design out of the Biology classroom.

IM afraid not. What part of this did you miss?

However I feel both should present the fact that there are others who have a different notion and tell them about it

IMO simply telling them that some people attribute evloution as a creation of god would suffice however. I dont belive in teaching something thats based solely on a religious stance in science class. Samething in religous class if they teach creationism they should also be taught if not biology at least the fact that many if not most scientists contest creationism. You dont want to send them out into the world unarmed or naive. Again my solution is get the government out of the education bussiness.

I believe they teach biology at Notre Dame an have for quite sometime now. Again I see no conflict between the two only from people who are closed minded.