|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 7:17 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 7:39 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 7:41 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:12 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:03 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:52 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:11 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:29 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:50 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:27 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:25 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:19 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:32 pm
|
|
|
|
Berezi I guess the thing is that the issue has become so very...entangled that it's impossible for many to separate the two. I am not one of those people. This is just one man's opinion, but as far as I'm concerned that is a problem for the people who can't separate the two, not for the schools. I suppose that some effort could be made to disentangle the social and scientific aspects of the debate, but a science class would still not be the place to do that.
Quote: The thing with ID is that it doesn't say which diety is behind it. So, I suppose for those people who are so afraid of the theory of evolution/the implications of it, if you're going to teach an alternate theory along with evolution, that might be a good choice. I also think that this might be the best way to satisfy both sides. Science shouldn't be upholding any one religion, it isn't fair to the students who don't believe in that one religion. But at the same point, science shouldn't be so easily used as a tool to deny that a diety exists, as that's not what science is for. In my mind, a good middle ground for the religion thing is ID. Teach it along side evolution and then we're good. The problem with ID, though, is that it posits a deity in the first place. God isn't a scientific concept, and any 'theory' that makes recourse to ideas of God has failed as science. As to your social concerns, if you're going to argue that ID is at least religiously neutral, then I have to disagree. It's very much at odds with any non-theistic understanding of the universe (such as my own, for example), meaning that it's not exactly fair to students who don't believe in any religion, or whose religion lacks a creator deity. On the other hand, evolution does not teach that God does not exist. As I've told many people, science has nothing to say about God; the fact that God isn't mentioned in science courses doesn't amount to a denial of God's existence, it's merely a statement that the idea of God is not germane to scientific inquiry. God's place in the universe is a question for philosophers and theologists, not scientists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:38 pm
|
|
|
|
Tangled Up In Blue This is just one man's opinion, but as far as I'm concerned that is a problem for the people who can't separate the two, not for the schools. I suppose that some effort could be made to disentangle the social and scientific aspects of the debate, but a science class would still not be the place to do that. I agree, to be honest.
**still in the process of semi-devil's advocating, though**
Quote: The problem with ID, though, is that it posits a deity in the first place. God isn't a scientific concept, and any 'theory' that makes recourse to ideas of God has failed as science. As to your social concerns, if you're going to argue that ID is at least religiously neutral, then I have to disagree. It's very much at odds with any non-theistic understanding of the universe (such as my own, for example), meaning that it's not exactly fair to students who don't believe in any religion, or whose religion lacks a creator deity. On the other hand, evolution does not teach that God does not exist. As I've told many people, science has nothing to say about God; the fact that God isn't mentioned in science courses doesn't amount to a denial of God's existence, it's merely a statement that the idea of God is not germane to scientific inquiry. God's place in the universe is a question for philosophers and theologists, not scientists. And you're also right about how one should handle evolution. It doesn't preclude the existence of a diety.
And in truth, you're right that evolution is far more religiously neutral than ID is. There are so many people who don't believe that, though. Maybe it's just the area where I grew up in, but I haven't encountered many people who don't view evolution for what it is.
If it ever came down to people saying evolution can't be taught in schools any more, though, better ID than the creation story of any one religion.
If it ever gets to the point where people want some alternative (i.e. theories that are more explicit about a diety, because some people simply can't separate evolution from atheism) theories taught along side evolution, better ID than the creation story of any one religion.
If that makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:53 pm
|
|
|
|
I'm inclined to agree with Blue on this topic.
Schools, unless they're private and religious, shouldn't bring up something that breaches the separation between Church and State. Evolution is really the only theory of creation that doesn't have to involve some kind of divine creator.
True, Intelligent Design doesn't spcifically state that the Judeo-Christian God is the creator, but it still requires the belief in some intelligent creator, which is a religious idea that shouldn't be discussed in a biology class.
Now, if a school had some kind of religions class, that would be an appropriate place to discuss the different ideas of how the world came to be, but in a sciene class, religious ideas shouldn't be taught.
If parents are horribly bothered by that, then they should probably look into sending their child to a Christian school.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|