Many Texas Schools Teach Creationism

But wouldn't that be more public?

 

The burden of proof is on belief, not disbelief.

Science hasn't disproven that invisible unicorns made the world either.

You can devise any number of ideas without evidence, but it's only the ones with evidence that need discussing.

 

Too many quotes to reply to them all, here's my general response:

I don't understand why so many oppose a brief examination of intelligent design/creation theories in science class. In my opinion though, it has more to do with bitterness towards anything which resembles religion, than it does with being purely 'pro-science'. I say this as an agnostic who generally accepts popular scientific theories which seek to explain our origins and natural phenomena. The difference though, is that I lack pretension. I don't try to pretend that I know these scientific theories to be fact (suggestive evidence aside), therefore, my mind is open enough to acknowledge that things might not be what they appear to be.

Also, I think some must be confused about the extent to which I believe these theories should be explored. I'm not suggesting that one specific doctrine be endorsed and examined in depth. A simple discussion of what ID and creationism are, and some examples of both would suffice. Again, there shouldn't be any fear of students going off the deep end and becoming crazed street preachers. It wouldn't be a big deal at all.

 

But they are not science. Again should we teach humans are the result of masturbating God's they are equal in the science class

 

This is what I was talking about. Your disdain is palpable, displayed by the hyperbole.

 

Why exclude that?

 

Why pick the most absurd thing that comes to mind?

 

Why is it absurd? It is an ancient story of creation. It involves at least some sexuality. And it has the same level of science supporting it as ID.

 

YOU tell me why you think it's absurd. You wouldn't have given that example if you didn't think the idea is patently absurd.

With the I.D. Karma Mechanic, I assume you know something about Buddhism. If so I'd like to recommend some books, if you haven't read them already, they might change your perspective a bit.

The Universe in a Single Atom
The Tao of Physics
Zen and the Brain

 

You cannot have a meaningful discussion about intelligent design or creationism.

The only reason people want creationism taught isn't to expand science knowledge, but to not have the Sunday school teaching undermined by reality.

 

How about worrying less about what I read and tell me why an Egyptian creation myth is absurd and ID isn't.

 

You tell me. Clearly you know.

 

Another stab at religion.

My hypothosis appears to be holding up pretty well.

 

You see it as a stab, but what I said is true. For religious people, it's the perfectly logical for them to do whatever they can to preserve their religion, and making church goers not doubting the very first chapter of bible is very very very important.

And your hypothesis is wrong. I believe religion has its place in life, but science class is not it.

 

Every time I hear something new about Texas schools I just want to face palm. I lived in Texas from birth until the age of 13 and already noticed things were wrong. I mean, there's really no reason to take up half of the class to go on about a spill about how the teacher doesn't believe in evolution and doesn't want to teach the subject but legally has to. Frustrating, how are kids supposed to learn to think for themselves.

 

As with seemly much of the religious population, you have no idea why your beliefs should not be taught in school or endorsed by the government and see an attack where none exists. In this particular example simply because someone said something may be possible is not reason to teach it. You can honestly replace ID with whatever fantasy you want because they have the same amount of scientific evidence. Science doesn't deal with the supernatural, that's for the church to deal with.

There is no reason that we need to teach theological beliefs in school at all but there are reasons we should not, religious freedom being the biggest. I know, "how is it religious freedom if you are not free to teach it in school," but what you should really be asking is how can you have religious freedom if you teach religion in school. How can a government which endorses religion promote religious freedom for all?

I guess it really comes down to the point of why do you think religion should be taught in school or endorsed by government to begin with? How does it benefit anyone but believers in that faith, and how does that promote religious freedom? I what does forcing a religion onto those who do not believe in that religion promote the religious freedom of all?

 

My friend, a teacher, has no problem with this. He's an atheist so I guess it makes it that much easier to say "that's a religious subject and we're not going to discuss that" every time religion is brought up in his class. When he taught in Georgia the school was given a donation of Bibles. The principal said that every classroom needed on displayed prominently for the students to read, religious freedom and all. My friend never had to display the bible, because he told the principle he would put it next to a Koran and other religious texts. Funny how that worked out. All about religious freedom indeed.

 

"Intelligent design" isn't endorsing a specific religion, that said it's not 'science' it's basically philosophy if anything, and it's basically intent on undermining the theory of evolution

Still ID isn't the same as 'young earth creationism'

 

I had a Christian teaching science to me in the 6th and 7th grade. Without any fanfare, I remember him teaching that there were many possibilities. He taught that science offered a certain set of possibilities and that people also had certain 'beliefs' (as he did) about the same.

Even now, there seems to be more and more that science discovers/explains, that religion is NOT equipped to address. Even the computer (information) technology we are all using at this very moment, would be godlike to most just 150 years (perhaps less) ago.

Once people start trying to apply religion instead or ahead of science, it seems that mankind takes 1 step forward and gets pulled-back 3.

No need to be anti-religion/belief... yet people need to realize and accept that (faith) is NOT "science".

 

I think one can draw very clear and distinct differences between the two, regarding macroevolution.

Within the learned scientific community, as you say, the theory of macroevolution is widely accepted and the debate revolves more around the mechanisms of macroevolution, (mutations, genetic drift, natural selection, gene flow, endosymbiosis) rather than whether it actually occurs.

In contrast, the creationist argument attempts to invalidate or negate, all together, the theory of macroevolution, because they claim it cannot be demonstrated or observed.

 

BULSH

Intelligent Design is an attempted end-runaround to avoid the Establishment cause that teaching Creation runs into EVERY TIME.

 

Because you called it absurd.

 

To be honest, the federal government has no business in education anyway. It's not authorized by the Constitution and creating a national curriculum doesn't encourage diversity or freedom of expression.

I think we should teach religion from a historical, analytical and scholarly stand-point. It's important to know what people believe in. How can Americans ever hope to understand religious people if they aren't taught what they believe? But I believe religion should be taught from a neutral point of view.

That being said, I don't think the Federal Government has the authority to be dictating what Americans should teach in their own education system. If it should be regulated, the states should do it or even the county. That way the Christians could have their schools and the atheist/agnostics can have theirs. But I'm not afraid of diversity like many other Americans are.

It can't anymore than it can endorse education and make everyone happy with the system they use.

Christians do have a point when they say that deciding to teach no religion in school is still endorsing a theological position. Atheism/agnosticism is still a theological view of the world which looks at society and history different that theists and religionists do. You can't avoid educating people without imposing some kind of world view into what you're teaching.

 

Unless the curriculum does just that.

And that how it is often taught. The point is that often it is taught as an us/them and we are all US. This country has been religiously diverse from the beginning of the country.

That isn't diversity. That is not the role of the government by the Constitution. Public education is deemed important to maintaining the Republic so we do it. Not endorsing or funding religious instruction is part of settled law. Nothing is stopping any group from creating their own schools but public schools are to be religion free.

True but we make sure science is taught as science and that everyone should be comfortable and not be made to feel an outsider.

No they don't because no one is teaching atheism. They are just teaching content. The fact that excluding the supernatural is not attacking religion. It just doesn't endorse the view. No one teaches history without teaching the influence of religion at times, but telling what people believed is different from teaching it as what we should believe. ID puts supernaturalism on the same plane as science and that is wrong. That has nothing to do with diversity, it has everything to do with reality. Anyone saying differently is lying or doesn't understand the conversation.

 

If the curriculum has one way of teaching education, we don't have a diversified educational system, do we?

And God and the Bible were taught in most American schoos from the beginning as well - until the 1960s, I believe. So going back to the beginning isn't going to help your case any.

First of all, the Constitution doesn't give the role of education to any government. Second, the phrases "deemed important" and "settled law" are not valid arguments for anything. Laws are made by men and aren't infallible and opinions even of experts change over time.

You may not know this but Christians and other religious people who view the world differently than atheists and agnostics do feel like outsiders in American schools because they don't believe in many of the things being taught.

I never said it was attacking religion. But Christians have different ways of looking at history, sociology, science and the world differently from atheists and agnostics. If you teach these things from a non-religious point of view, your teachings conflict with Christianity's.

Morally wrong? Is this your religious view?

If you were running for school principle at my school I might vote for you. But even that dramatic statement doesn't justify the Federal Government's involvement American education morally or Constitutionally.