Jump to content

Change Mode

"intelligent design" should it be taught in class?


Intratech
 Share

Recommended Posts

President George Bush has started a national debate in the US over the teaching of evolution in school.

The president has suggested that a theory known as "intelligent design" should be taught in the classroom.

It proposes that life is too complex to have developed through evolution, and an unseen power must have had a hand.

President Bush's championing of intelligent design will be interpreted as further evidence of the growing influence of the religious right.

The US president told newspaper reporters in Texas that children should be taught about intelligent design so they could better understand the debate about the origins of the universe.

Intelligent design differs from biblical creationism in that it is not tied to a literal interpretation of the biblical book of Genesis.

Nevertheless, intelligent design points to the role of a creator, and it has become increasingly influential in Christian circles.

Linky

 

Seems like a load of crock to me. That is a theory that I can see no scientific support for. :erm:

 

edit: Can a mod add a "?" to the end of the topic please? :blushing:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Linky

 

Seems like a load of crock to me. That is a theory that I can see no scientific support for. :erm:

....because there is none. Don't mean it ain't true though.

 

Bush is trying to slip his policies of religious indoctrination through the backdoor and in a slightly altered guise. If he has his way, America and the West will be over-run with Muslim hating, Christain zealots like him in 2 or 3 generations from now.

 

I hope America wakes up to his deviousness and kicks him in the ganglies :beer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh well.. I don't really know what to make of it all. I guess the yanks can debate the topic since they will probably have a better idea about what's up and what's behind it. I'm interested in reading what people think of it. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though there's a fine line between science and religion, this is probably the biggest way you can find a deviation between the two.

 

"It proposes that life is too complex to have developed through evolution, and an unseen power must have had a hand."

 

It's a proposal, therefore nothing is proven. Therefore this is not fact based science. Without facts, you can only have opinions and speculation. Therefore this subject belongs in a class that rests purely upon opinioins, such as "gays shouldn't marry," etc. Way to go Bush.

 

Seems like it is more suited to a debate class, because even philosophy is based on facts, rather than proposals.

 

Propose: To put forward for consideration, discussion, or adoption; suggest (Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=propose).

 

How can something that is based on consideration be taught in class?

Edited by DK64_MASTER
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ive got no issue with it.  fine with me.

Then it shouldn't be mandatory. It might go against someone's beliefs (such as athiests). Why force it into curriculum? I could be preaching quotes from the koran, and have the same intention of teaching "Intelligent Design", but I'm sure I'd get put on the hot plate by other religious and non-religious groups.

 

(NOTE: I'm not bashing the Muslim fate, I'm just giving an example).

 

 

Angela, or anyone else, would you feel weird if teachers were reciting passage from the Koran, the Bible, the Guru Granth Sahib (my holy book), etc just to teach intelligent design to people you know?

Edited by DK64_MASTER
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intelligent Design sounds fine.

 

Show me the Intelligence, once that has been shown, then I want to see the "design" plans.

 

Obviously if it is "intelligent design" then there must be a design created with intelligence.

 

A design is not an intangible, it is a tangible thing, and intelligence is something that can be measured. I see niether of those things in the idiot savants proposal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not give all the facts gathered (from all sides) of religion and science?

 

Instead of teaching what is ::accepted:: by some and not by others.....just present the different views. Kids will learn something in this fashion and draw their own conclusion.

 

An argument over creation is absurd. :blank:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jacee, can we swap GWB for you? Your point makes real sense and - it allows the young-uns to make choices of their own rather than have one crammed down their throat. ;) Of course the next hurdle to overcome would be finding people who are honest enough not to push any particular aspect more than the other :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not give all the facts gathered (from all sides) of religion and science?

 

Instead of teaching what is ::accepted:: by some and not by others.....just present the different views. Kids will learn something in this fashion and draw their own conclusion.

 

An argument over creation is absurd. :blank:

If we manage to use all the facts and aspects of EVERY SINGLE religione, and not make the curriculum mandatory for students to learn, I'm fine with it.

 

Somehow I'm getting a feeling that it's going to happen like that. :blank:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I may give the notion credit, it is neither scientifically sound, nor is it philosphically accurate.

 

As an alternative to the origin of the species I suppose there is some validity; however evolution (a proven theory) does a much better job of providing support for the ameobea=> ape=> man line of reasoning.

 

I couldn't say that I do or do not believe in a God. I suppose that is as reasonable a beacon of faith as polytheism, anamism, or aetheism. Clearly the laws of nature are neither fully understood, nor clearly observable. Entropy is factor that would eliminate the mere possibility of matter or energy... so something must be in effect to counter it. Is the force that counters Entropy the essence of God? I don't know... there seems to be an infinate and dynamic balance the make the universe a tenable place.

 

Indeed if Entropy were not acted upon by a creative and spontaneous force we would certainly not exist... the big bang or creation could never have happened. It indicates to me that there is something beyond our ability to comprehend our physical existance; but without measurable and tangible proof I cannot condone explaining it as 'God'.

 

I was raised as a Seventh Day Adventist- which is a fairly fundamentalist sect of protestantism; they have some interesting thoughts on the nature of life, the universe, and everything else... This gives me a fairly intimate understanding of the fundamentalist christian perspective. I cannot find anything in this mindset that is justified by solid fact.

 

I do not mean to say that people who believe a certain tract or dogma are wrong, stupid, or ignorant: I mean to say that denying fact in favor of religion is perhaps a flaw that prevents a true understanding of one's diety.

 

My Bible is a source of tradition and anecdotal history. It does not substitute fact. It has been used to "prove" that there was a world wide flood, that Adam and Eve were the first and only pair of humans, and that the world is no more than 6000 years old. Simple and rational evidence does not support any of this, nor does it devalue the book in and of itself.

 

So is intelligent design a stupid or illogical theory? I have no evidence or fact to either certify or disprove it. I can follow the logic that we are either the common offspring of an ape or amobae (depending on how far into the past you accept our existance), but I cannot accept that we are the product of pure random chance: The odds are too great against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not give all the facts gathered (from all sides) of religion and science?

 

 

Because if I wanted my child to learn "religion" I would send them to a private religious school, sunday school, church, bible study....................

 

The public school system is a state run school system, and my constitution says the two will not be mixed.

 

Now if you wish to say it would not be a biblical teaching, then I want to see the intelligence and the design before I would approve.

 

Neither intelligence or the design has been shown. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bruce, I did not say "teach" , I said "present" (as in offer) different views....There is a big difference in what I said and your statement

Because if I wanted my child to learn "religion" I would send them to a private religious school, sunday school, church, bible study....................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

90% of science class is theorys and "only ifs" I dont have a problem with them talking about it or presenting it as a theory but I cant equate it to science as its something science will never be able to explain.

Edited by one2gamble
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come again? :blink:

science, the majority of science is based on theory, not fact. Its theory based on "knowns" but much is still theory when it comes to the origins of the Universe. There is simply to much science doesnt know. Muhc of it is also only applicable in controlled situations which goes back on to why its hard to pinpoint reality.

 

My point is that much of what is in class is already theoretical or unproven, I dont see the problem with presenting another theory. I do have a problem teaching religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

science, the majority of science is based on theory, not fact. Its theory based on "knowns" but much is still theory when it comes to the origins of the Universe. There is simply to much science doesnt know. Muhc of it is also only applicable in controlled situations which goes back on to why its hard to pinpoint reality.

 

My point is that much of what is in class is already theoretical or unproven, I dont see the problem with presenting another theory. I do have a problem teaching religion.

Yeah, that's what I thought you were getting at. The problem is, that science is something we can test, with reproducable results, and how do we test this "intelligent design"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...