Who should decide what a citizen is taught?

Sorry, they arent the same thing.

Creationism is based on the bible. ID is independent of the bible and does not have to do with any particular religion

lol, come on. They can be taught many different theories and be able to decide for themselves which they believe is correct. Why are so many people against ID? Maybe they buy into the nonsense that if we teach ID that we'll also teach adam and eve. Sorry, they arent the same.

we teach in science class that scientists believed the earth was the center of the universe. We know this is false, yet we still tell kids that scientists believed this. Why is it wrong to teach ID? No one can prove that any harm will be done. It doesnt honestly take up valuable class time. Heck, it probably takes longer for teachers to do roll call every day than it would take to explain the watchmaker theory.

The Big Bang is a theory, ID is a theory.

 

Do you claim to "know" that the universe is not the product of intelligent design?

As explained in the last link I cited above, the Big Bang and ID are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they're often closely intertwined.

My point is that ID theory is not a quaint historical relic; it is held by many prominent scientists today.

Please elaborate.

Substitute "chance" for "God" and there you have Darwinism.

 

i suck

 

I personally find it far more plausible than just a 'big bang.' Call it my inability to comprehend something coming from nothing.

Does it matter?

I never said it was.

You said that i was 'condescending' by comparing ID believers to flat earthers, as if i was saying that they both believed in lies. I am not making that comparison nor saying that ID is a lie.

 

I'm not sure I buy that, but even if it doesn't have to do with any particular religion, it's still endorsing the religion of theism.

And even if I decide to be EXTREMELY generous and agree that it's not endorsing any religion at all, it's still definitely not science and therefore does not belong in the science curriculum.

Then why is it then that ID proponents want to start indoctrinating kids in their beliefs at an early age? Why not introduce them to it in a college astronomy class (where people can actually understand it), where they'd be laughed out of the room?

By the same token, it probably takes longer to do roll call than it would to explain the creationist theory, or the idea that the entire universe rests on the back of a giant turtle. That doesn't make those theories any less stupid.

Umm no. You must be confused about what the word "theory" means from a scientific perspective. A "theory" is about as close to a fact as you can get. ID is definitely NOT a legitimate scientific theory.

 

That doesn't matter. Unless ID miraculously comes up with some evidence to back it up, it should stay OUT of the science books. Or do you honestly believe that every idea, no matter how stupid, that cannot be DISproven should be allowed its stay in a science curriculum?

No it isn't. It is held by many prominent fundamentalists masquerading as scientists.

That's just silly. You obviously don't understand evolution if you think it can be simplified into a three-word sentence like ID can. Darwinian evolution predicts a very orderly development of life over millions of years - not "chance," which would be the random evolution of life based on absolutely no rules whatsoever - and has lots of experimental evidence on its side. If the only tenet of Darwinian evolution was "Chance did it" then it would not be accepted as a valid scientific theory.

 

I'm sorry, there is no separation of church and state violation.

its historically significant.

You're ignorantly applying motive to a group of people. Kids? i hardly consider high school kids young and vulnerable.

ID is taught in astronomy class, i know it was taught at my university.

Creationist theory endorses specific religions, thus a violation of separation and church. Again, your repeated attempts to try and place ID and creationism in the same light is a vain attempt at best.

ID stupid? Maybe. Big bang stupid? Maybe. Thats for individuals to decide.

Are you confusing a LAW and a theory?

Again, ID is of historical significance.

I think this comes down to the simple idea that there are people who hate the notion of a higher being and will do and say anything to write out God or Gods from life.

ID is indoctrination? Some people need to wake up and look at our curriculums. Teaching ID alongside the big bang would probably be the least indoctrinating thing about a school.

 

Theism is just as much of a religion as any other.

Then it belongs in the history books...maybe. But why try to put this nonsense in the astronomy books?

Most ID proponents want to start long before high school.

If instructors or universities want to waste valuable class time teach students about ID or the flat-earth society or Santa Claus, I suppose that is their prerogative. However, if my university had taught me that, I'd want my money back because I'd signed up for an astronomy class rather than Stupid Ideas 101.

And once again, your repeated attempts to try to place ID and the Big Bang Theory in the same light is a vain attempt at best. I've generally ignored the religious aspect of ID for the sake of this debate, referring to creationism only as another stupid idea like ID...it is YOU who continues to compare it to creationism, as though you think I'll change my mind about ID's place in the science books if you manage to convince me that it's different from creationism. My primary criticism with ID is that it is NOT a scientific theory nor does it have any scientific merit, and therefore does not belong in the science books.

No, I am not. The main difference between a law and a theory is not the amount of evidence...it is the breadth of the idea. A physical law (such as thermodynamics) is applicable to a wide range of phenomena. A theory is more narrow in application. Gravity, relativity, the Big Bang, evolution, and quantum mechanics are all theories.

Both theories and laws have overwhelming amounts of evidence supporting them.

Then crusade to get it into the history books, rather than the physics books.

Your god has no place in the public schools and certainly no place in the physics books.

And if we allow ID, then why shouldn't we allow the Universe-On-The-Back-Of-A-Giant-Turtle theory in physics books? Furthermore, shouldn't we be fair and allow the idea that the universe was created by the Trix Rabbit its fair place in our physics books? Why include any actual PHYSICS in physics books, when you could easily fill several volumes with stupid theories like these?

...or did you mean that we should only teach the unscientific theory that YOU happen to believe in?

 

Nice, you lump every single organized religion into one and say we're endorsing that! Cause our founding fathers REALLY meant that!

But it would make sense that if we were endorsing theism, that we wouldnt teach the big bang. Why would you endorse something by putting up a plausible theory about the existence of the universe?

***NEWS ALERT*** ASTRONOMY BOOKS HAVE THE HISTORY OF ASTRONOMY IN THEM

Again, vague generalizations without any proof.

You have the right to exercise that choice. Dont deny others because you are narrow minded.

its historically significant, we've covered this. Let me guess..the history of astronomy has no place in a science class, right?

"To scientists, a theory is a coherent explanation for a large number of facts and observations about the natural world."

"A scientific law is a description of a natural phenomenon or principle that invariably holds true under specific conditions and will occur under certain circumstances."

" Theories are more certain than hypotheses, but less certain than laws."

http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/Theories.shtml

Science 101

see above for the specific definition.

It belongs in the astronomy section, which would of course start with a HISTORY SECTION!

Again, astronomy.

My god? So ID is based on MY god? Really, interesting. My god is quite different from most peoples god.

Again, astronomy books.

your attempt to mock a widely accepted theory with your drivel is tiresome and desparate, at best.

You make too many assumptions. Have i said what i believe in?

 

Freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion.

And this quote reveals your true feelings. Obviously you believe that the Big Bang is inconsistent with your religion (which even many narrow-minded conservative Christians disagree with). Or if I misunderstand you, then what does endorsing theism have to do with teaching the Big Bang?

Fine, if that's the kind of book you want to make then I have no problem with a brief mention of whatever "historical significance" it had. For example, I've got no problem with a paragraph in books that says something along the lines of:

"Some astronomers once believed that the Big Bang had a cause that must've been God. Nowadays, that position has been largely abandoned by astronomers due to the lack of evidence. It is not completely gone from the world, because it has been hijacked by fundamentalists masquerading as scientists."

Don't force me to pay for your pseudoscience classes with my tax dollars.

See my sample paragraph above for what would be acceptable.

That's what I just said, more or less.

This is erroneous. Most scientists consider theories to be very, very reliable. They're only theories because there are certain cases where they do not work or are not applicable (for example, Einstein's theory of relativity breaks down at the quantum level).

So why do you care so much about ID? There are plenty of other pseudoscientific creation myths...why do you ONLY crusade to include the most politically correct one? Why not my theory about the Trix Rabbit creating the universe? What's the difference?

Widely accepted BY WHOM? Maybe it's "widely accepted" by you and your friends, but I'm a part-time science teacher at a major university and I don't know of a single colleague of mine who believes in ID. Several polls in the last 20 years of N.A.S. members indicates that very few of them believe in any metaphysical explanation.

If you can provide evidence for ID that will convince skeptical scientists, then maybe your idea can have a place in astronomy books. As long as the only ones promoting your idea are "creation scientists", cranks, and The 700 Club, don't be surprised that scientists dismiss your ideas.

 

(M) Err, no McCarthyism in europe? Yeah, i guess hitler just killed them instead of threatening to expose them to the public. It also helps when like half of europe was under communist control...

Cradle to the grave policies work when you're protected by someone else. How nice the world would have been if america adopted cradle to the grave socialism like sweden and others. *cough*

Americans believe in hardwork and being rewarded for YOUR hardwork.

It goes back to a good quote i love.

"Democracy and socialism have but 1 word in common, equality. Democracy seeks equality in liberty while socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."

America has always been instilled with ideas like that. Europe, well, hasnt. It has a history of entitlement through its kingship/aristocratic roots. People believe they are entitled to what they dont earn. Sorry, doesnt fly as much over here.
Now, i dont understand is why you're trying to say that "western culture isnt uniform." So what?
Socialism, democracy, etc etc, are all western ideas. Who cares if france is more socialist than america? What does that have to do with anything?

**

At first I thought you just didn’t get it, but rereading your post it struck me it might not be a matter of not getting it but of been unable or unwilling to get it. The whole thing the attitude, language and demeanour brings to mind the indoctrinated rather than the free thinker.
But you seem so unaware of your own indoctrination to the point that you feel no need to question it.

All of the points you spit out are un-thought through. Comparing Hitler’s Nazis with the hysteria of McCarthy and the un-American committees. Of American ‘self sacrifice’ to protect the world. The myth of the ‘American Dream’ and American exceptionalism,

You seem so rapped up in these indoctrinated tenets that you seem incapable of thinking straight.

I have been trying to say that the western tradition of culture and thought has many strands and influences and my point has been that these are leant, and can also be taught. So when you say that –


(M) -Who cares if france is more socialist than america? What does that have to do with anything?

It is clear you haven’t actually being thinking. Here are two countries that are part of the same western cultural tradition that have different views. My argument is that this is due to what they have learnt and most likely been taught. It is about what they are learning about the western cultural experience that shapes the views being held.

To which you say "So what?". Well since the ‘what’ seems to be fundamental to how Americans think, what they believe, it seems pretty important to any discussion on education and if you cannot see that it truly is a sad indictment of the US educational system or just your own.

**

(M)-"What is rational to you might not be rational to someone else".

But the point is that both viewpoints are based on reason. It is then that the scrutiny of ones peers and debate become important.


(M) "So how do you decide what is rational?"

Are you saying you have a problem knowing what is rational and what is not? There are two children in a room with a ball, you leave the room and when you return a vase is laying on the ground broken. You ask the children what happened. One child says they were playing with the ball and it hit the vase and the vase smashed. The other child says that a demon appeared from nowhere, broke the vase then disappeared. Which do you think is the more rational story?

(M) "Things that can be proved? Science? Heck, most of science is still just theory with some laws thrown in"

You are on a jury. A man (X) is being accused of stabbing and murdering another man (Y). The man X pleads not guilty and claims that a wizard appeared and stabbed the man Y, it was only after the wizard had disappeared again that he X had gone through Y’s pockets and stolen all his money. The prosecution set forward its theory of what happened. There is scientific forensic evidence that can place X and Y at a card game where Y won a lot of money and Y lost a lot, other evidence scientific evidence places the men in the ally. A witness says that both men went in and only X came out. The prosecution’s theory is that X stabbed Y for the money.


Is the prosecution theory as valid as the wizard theory?

**

So meg

Let be get this straight are you saying that you support the intelligent design notion? That all life on earth is the result of the conscious effort of some super being(s) that an alien race, god, demon or wizard or some such is somewhere behind the scenes with a draft board and an Acme creature maker?

If so what is the rational thinking behind such a view?




**

 

**

But getting back to the education question, let us look at the trial story I gave above.

You are on a jury. A man (X) is being accused of stabbing and murdering another man (Y). The man X pleads not guilty and claims that a wizard appeared and stabbed the man Y, it was only after the wizard had disappeared again that he X had gone through Y’s pockets and stolen all his money. The prosecution set forward its theory of what happened. There is scientific forensic evidence that can place X and Y at a card game where Y won a lot of money and Y lost a lot, other evidence scientific evidence places the men in the ally. A witness says that both men went in and only X came out. The prosecution’s theory is that X stabbed Y for the money.

What if that in the community this trial took place many people believed in wizards and in this case a majority of these people are in the jury and free X.

Should the community accept this or should it try and educate people to the fact that wizards are mythical?

**

 

To my knowledge, the pillars of macroevolutionary theory are random mutation and natural selection. Please correct me if I'm wrong, and be specific.

But philosophical materialism/naturalism is not? Read the "Blind Watchmaker" article I cited earlier in this thread.

Could it be that such skepticism is not rooted in scientific knowledge but in ideological bias?

Resorting to smug, dismissive caricatures doesn't exactly bolster your credibility. Try actually dealing with the content of the article I recently cited by respected astronomer Hugh Ross, for example.

 

Nice interpretation or "shall make no law respecting an establishment or religion or prohibit the free exercise there of."

Cause that really sounds like FROM. It is whacko interpretations like yours that are a serious cause for alarm in this country. You're reading what you WANT to read into it. Not what it says or not what they meant.

You're a science teacher and you've been provided with no evidence of what i think and yet you come to conclusions about whta i believe. Crap, you sound like the scientists that you call "pseudoscientists."

Here, let me give you you first bit of evidence. I believe in the big bang. I dont believe in creationism.

You hold so many people in contempt, sad really.

I dont force you to pay anything. You have a choice whether or not you want to pay taxes.

see my contempt bit.

No

I never said they didnt believe they were true, i just said that they werent regarded as infallible as laws.

Its not just ID, its what all this represents in the greater scheme of things.

I dont believe in your interpretation of the first amendment. I believe it simply means that the state will not setup an official church ala england. I am sick and tired of atheists(in particular, but not exclusively) crusading to remove God from our whole life.

There is no harm in teaching ID. I am content with a 2 minute explanation of ID being taught and no more. It is not creationism.

You may call removing god "progress," but i dont see it as necessary or beneficial. Like it or not, around 95% of people in this country believe in a God of some sort. If they want to believe that, fine, let them, it does no harm to you.

But this tired and flawed interpretation of the constitution is dangerous and scary.

What next..freedom of the press really means FREEDOM FROM THE PRESS!?

I dont socialize about god with anyone.

However, there are NO short supplies of scientists who believe in God.

As for widely accepted? Look at our population.

 

*yawn* Calling someone indoctrinated because they dont believe what you do is a weak attempt to defame someone.

Maybe you have not read up much on the subject, but Hitler's hate and hysteria for the communists was far worse than McCarthys. To say that Europe never had witch hunts for communists is well, laughable.

My friend, we've had troops in europe since the early 40's. Spent hundreds of billions of dollars not only to rebuild much of europe but to protect it from yourself(europeans). You can call us self serving, fine. At the end of the day, that doesnt change what we did/do for europe. You can argue what our motive is all day long, but you cant deny that europe and large amounts of the world were protected under an american defense guarantee.

As for the American dream? It has happened to too many families just to be a dream, well it is a dream, the american dream of course You can point to ghettos, slavery and whatever in your vain attempt to prove the american dream doesnt exist, but you'll fail utterly. America has 300 million people, the majority are well taken care of. Considering most people came to this country dirt poor and now have something is a testimonial of the American dream. Mock it if you will, but i am living how i am today because of the american dream. You wont convince me otherwise on this.

American exceptionalism? You posted results saying that europeans believe it is the governments job to take care of people and that it wasnt so of what americans believe. Which side is indoctrinated? What i said is consistant with what you posted.

Americans believe they take care of themselves. Europeans believe the government should take care of them.

Are americans indoctrinated against socialism? These concepts have been instilled in americans long before any red scare, long before karl marx. They are capitalist beliefs, not indoctrinated beliefs against socialism.

I dont believe in American exceptionalism, so please keep your unfounded claims to yourself. While i may criticize "europe" for what i perceive as poor work ethic and socialist ideas it does not mean i believe europe is inferior. The world could learn a lot from America and American culture. America could learn a lot from other countries and other cultures. But, thats neither here, nor there.

You might want to think again about calling them indoctrinated tenets. let me guess, any criticism against other people automatically makes me believe in american exceptionalism?

Again, you are talking about something else. Follow the argument, dont make up your own thread.

\
I said america was founded on western ideals. You're spouting off about france learning other western ideals. Again, they are instilled with the same belief about democracy, freed, etc that we are. Your vague attempt to say "but but but, they're socialist, so its not the samething!" is weak.

America was founded on western ideals, not non western. Until you can prove otherwise or even add something thoughtful, i'm done responding to this bit.

edit: excuse me? You're trying to warp the thread into something else. I said the US was founded on western ideals. Either accept it or refute it. Saying "france is socialist, america isnt!" isnt refuting it.

As i said above, i believe in the big bang.

Just because people argue for something doesnt always make them believers in that ideal.

I see no harm in ID being taught.

as for your above statements i erased, i wont play your one sided games.

You may think that only one person can be rational at a time, but thats not how life works.

You may call someone who believes in god irrational, fine. But many people will believe the irrational one is the one who believes that the universe exploded out of nothing with such conclusive evidence like galactic dust and an expanding universe. It might convince scientists and some people, but many people will believe that God is a far more rational belief than that. You can call them narrow minded, republican, conservative or whatever, you only show your contempt for them and your utter disrespect for differing opinions.

 

Random mutation from one generation to the next, yes. In the long term, natural selection predicts a very orderly development. The best comparison I can think of is the stock market.

Over time, the animals best-suited to their environment thrive and the worst-suited die out, thus leading to adaptations to the environment and/or biological improvements such as intelligence or sharper teeth. The only chance involved is the state of the environment at any given time. There is little chance involved.

No, it couldn't be. Any ideological bias from one scientist would be cancelled out by ten others. Scientists as a whole are willing to change their opinions in light of new evidence, and have done so thousands of times over the centuries. Contrast this with religious authorities, who stammer and hold fast to a position in spite of the evidence to the contrary.


Resorting to smug, dismissive caricatures doesn't exactly bolster your credibility. Try actually dealing with the content of the article I recently cited by respected astronomer Hugh Ross, for example.[/QUOTE]

Try dealing with the many, many rebuttals that are available online to Hugh Ross' arguments.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/ross.shtml

 

You honestly believe that the Founding Fathers meant that you can practice any religion you want, but screw you if you're an atheist or agnostic? My "whacko interpretation" is also the Supreme Court's whacko interpretation. As John P. Stevens wrote in his majority opinion of Wallace v Jaffree (1985), "The individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all."

Since I've made no scientific claims in this thread, I have no need to provide evidence. However, I'd be happy to give you evidence for the Big Bang if you so desire.

Good. So why do you care so much about the pseudoscience that is ID?

Yeah, the choice is pay for your pseudoscience education or go to prison for tax evasion. That's quite a choice.

They're as "infallible" as laws within their sphere of influence. There are just certain exceptions or inapplicable scenarios to theories. For example, at the macroscopic level, I can predict with nearly 100% certainty what will happen to an object's mass as I accelerate it closer to the speed of light.

As I've said before, I have no problem with religion as a concept being taught in history or english classes. But don't try to indoctrinate people by claiming that ID is science, when it very clearly is not.

That doesn't even make sense.

I think you might be surprised. Recent polls of NAS members indicate that only about 7% of them have a personal belief in God (and presumably even less believe in ID).

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Things in a science book should be based on what SCIENTISTS believe based on the evidence, not what the uninformed general public believes based on whatever whim enters their mind.

 

I understand the "natural selection" concept, but that's only half of the picture. You've given no explanation of the other crucial pillar of the whole macroevolutionary framework: random mutation.

I beg to differ. As described in the "Blind Watchmaker" article I cited, a naturalistic philosphical groupthink pervades modern academia.

An organization called "infidels.org" is hardly an objective source! At least Ross acknowledges his religious bias, unlike you or the authors featured on this page. It should be noted, however, that none of them belittles Ross as a "quack" like you have. Their critiques are generally philosophical (and weak, in my opinion) not scientific.

Stenger's book review is characteristically shallow, as is one of his recent papers attacking ID theory:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/stengercritique.shtml

This does not guarantee the "right" to be shielded from any and all religious ideas.

 

As I said, you are correct that random mutation occurs from one generation to the next, but in the long-term it is a very orderly development.

If you can provide evidence for ID, you would convince at least enough scientists that the others would have to listen to the ideas, encouraging the debate in the scientific community about ID that you claim to want.

What does acknowledging bias have to do with anything? Fine, I acknowledge that infidels.org is not objective. So what?

I didn't belittle him as a quack, as I'd never heard of him prior to your mention of him.

ID offers NO testable hypotheses, and therefore is NOT a scientific theory. If I'm wrong, please name me some testable hypotheses of ID.

I agree. But it does guarantee my right to not spend my tax dollars on your religious ideas.

 

This is a copout. Random mutation is foundational to Darwinian theory, yet to my knowledge, no credible mechanism has ever been posited to explain how the vast array of intricate life forms ultimately evolved from a microscopic cell that spontaneously emerged from nonliving matter.

This debate is presently occuring, regardless of whether the institutional bigwigs acknowledge it. (The issue is similar to the stifled debate in the mental health community over the nature of homosexuality.)

Then maybe you should be so quick to label all proponents of ID as "cranks" like you did in post #50.

What tests have verified the theory that random beneficial genetic mutations can/have transform/ed fish to amphibians to reptiles to birds, etc?

Again, your pretending that a Darwinian framework rooted in atheistic presuppositions is somehow religiously neutral.