More Intelligent Design

[Elspode]

The fact that The Book of Genesis says what it says, and scientific study says what it says is precisely the whole problem, here. This is why the solution should be simple. Creationism should be taught in Literature classes, and Evolution should be taught in Science classes. Then, the fact that, in Hebrew, Genesis says creation occurred in a 24 hour day could be taught as a language exercise, and Darwinism/Evolution could be taught as a Science exercise.

Seems pretty simple to me. Now...when do I get to sue to be able to teach Evolution in the Churches since we now have to teach Creationism in the schools? Fair is fair, after all.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

It's kind of hard to quantify a negative don't you think?

I thought "dearth" in context meant "wealth" or "great deal of", and as HM pointed out, I should look up dearth. I did. It means "lack of".

I apologize.

However, I am now confused. I said "You'll notice Jews don't have a problem with all this ID/evolution crap because most of the can read Hebrew and read the text for themselves." and you agree with me in your reply, saying there is a lack of opinion, then request a cite from me saying they don't have a problem with it.

How am I supposed to cite what you've agreed is lack of opinion?

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Elspode

The fact that The Book of Genesis says what it says, and scientific study says what it says is precisely the whole problem, here. This is why the solution should be simple. Creationism should be taught in Literature classes, and Evolution should be taught in Science classes. Then, the fact that, in Hebrew, Genesis says creation occurred in a 24 hour day could be taught as a language exercise, and Darwinism/Evolution could be taught as a Science exercise.

Seems pretty simple to me. Now...when do I get to sue to be able to teach Evolution in the Churches since we now have to teach Creationism in the schools? Fair is fair, after all.

OK, again, for the record, and I'll speak in third person so everyone can be clear.

OnyxCougar does not believe Creationism (or ID, which are two separate things) should be taught in public school. OnyxCougar does not believe Origins Theory should be taught in public school. OnyxCougar believes that Mutation and Speciation occurs, is observable, and repeatable. It is completely within the realm of Observational and Experimental Science, and absolutely should be taught in science classes in public schools. OnyxCougar believes that Observational and Experimental Science has NOTHING to do with Origins Theory, and that cell mitosis and all that other great biology stuff can be taught WITHOUT origins theory. It HAS been done, it CAN be done, and it SHOULD be done.

My problem with Origins Theory is that is taught as FACT. I was watching a show on Stonehenge on the Discovery (natch) channel, and they stated AS A FACT that the ice ages came and went over millions of years, blah blah blah. No scientist in the world can prove that anything is "millions of years" old. They can speculate, they can postulate, they can guess. But there is no proof. There just isn't.

When we're talking about "there is no proof there is a god" it's called religion.
When we're talking about "there is no proof of millions of years" it's called Science.

I call it hypocritical.

Any scientist will tell you carbon dating is accurate only when the item is within a few thousand years old. Anything older (millions of years) is a false reading. Even the guy who came up with carbon dating has stated that it's more and more inaccurate as the dates get older.

By the way, the "scientific" program on the "Discovery Channel" about Stonehenge also mentioned that about they have the first history of man in the region, about 5,000 years ago. What a coincidence.

Look, I'm not trying to convert people to Christianity. I'm not saying Science is Evil! I'm just saying that people are not thinking critically about this origins theory, but posit it as a fact, and are trying to brainwash our children into "buying it" as "real science", when it's clearly not. That is wrong.

Let's teach our children to think critically about ALL subjects, ask their own questions, and form their own opinions based on Observational, Experimental Science.

I don't want ANY religion in public school, including Evolutionism. Leave faith to philosophy, huh?

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Elspode

The fact that The Book of Genesis says what it says, and scientific study says what it says is precisely the whole problem, here. This is why the solution should be simple.

It is simple.

Creationism should be taught in Literature classes, and Evolution should be taught in Science classes.

I disagree. Creationism and Origins Theory should not be taught in public school at all. Or, if you insist, they should both be taught as philosphy, along with the great turtle, Gaea, Atlas, and other religious theories of Origin.

This is where the debate hinges. I say quell the debate by not teaching ANY of them in public school.

Then, the fact that, in Hebrew, Genesis says creation occurred in a 24 hour day could be taught as a language exercise

Had Hebrew been available in my High School, I would have taken it. But if you offer Hebrew, you better offer Arabic and Latin as well. Wouldn't want to be biased, now would we?

and Darwinism/Evolution could be taught as a Science exercise.

Here is the crux of the debate. Origins theory is NOT science. Hence, it should not be taught as such in public school. Lump it in with Philosophy if you feel it MUST be taught.

Let me throw this out there....

No doctor or surgeon will tell you that Origins Theory has ANYTHING to do with healing a patient. No AIDS researcher needs to believe that we evolved from primordial ooze to find a cure, no geneticist needs to believe that in order to find the gene that "turns on" Altzheimer's or Cancer or Down's or Sickle Cell or ,or, or. No physicist in the world needs to believe that dinosaurs evolved from birds to smash atoms together to try to find theoretical quarks. Origins Theory is just not a science, guys. I'm sorry that you think it is. I truly am.

I'll go so far as to say that you don't have to choose OT or Creationism. You don't have to choose anything at all. You can just accept we're here, this is the way things are, this is how it works, and go from there. That's ok, too. And that's how it should be taught in public school. Origins is entirely the realm of religion. As a parent, I don't want any school teaching my children religion of ANY kind. That is not what that school is there for.

Seems pretty simple to me. Now...when do I get to sue to be able to teach Evolution in the Churches since we now have to teach Creationism in the schools?

I think that every church, synagogue, temple and mosque (and other places of worship) need to teach ALL the theories it can. Absolutely. My particular faiths call me to be responsible for my choices and actions and to be able to answer questions as knowledgebly and with as clear an understanding as I can.

Fair is fair, after all.

Absolutely. Keep Origins Theory (Humanism) in the religious realm with Christianity, Islam, Baha'i, Shamanism, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and all the rest of the -isms, and out of my son's school.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

I thought "dearth" in context meant "wealth" or "great deal of", and as HM pointed out, I should look up dearth. I did. It means "lack of".

I apologize.

No problem.

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

However, I am now confused. I said "You'll notice Jews don't have a problem with all this ID/evolution crap because most of the can read Hebrew and read the text for themselves." and you agree with me in your reply, saying there is a lack of opinion, then request a cite from me saying they don't have a problem with it.

How am I supposed to cite what you've agreed is lack of opinion?

Isn't there, somewhere out there, an article or something citing where jews fall on this issue?

And more to the point, is there anyone other than evangelical xtians pushing the ID agenda?

[BigV]

and Darwinism/Evolution could be taught as a Science exercise.

Originally Posted by onycougar

Here is the crux of the debate. Origins theory is NOT science. Hence, it should not be taught as such in public school. Lump it in with Philosophy if you feel it MUST be taught.

This is where you derail, no, hijack the discussion. By putting the words "Origins Theory" in the mouths of people who say for themselves "Darwinism/Evolution", you unilaterally move the discussion from the scope of the subject likely to be taught in public grade schools, and into an area that is not at issue in a 9th grade science class. Come on. It is a reasonable direction to explore, backward in time, what might have happened before, and before that and before that, etc. And ultimately the question about the "origin" must be faced. But by the time that question is in front of us, we've left the borders of a high school biology class with a section or two on the Theory of Evolution far far behind.

That's why insisting on the different terms and focusing on a very different aspect of the information is unhelpful.

Originally Posted by onycougar

My problem with Origins Theory is that is taught as FACT. I was watching a show on Stonehenge on the Discovery (natch) channel, and they stated AS A FACT that the ice ages came and went over millions of years, blah blah blah. No scientist in the world can prove that anything is "millions of years" old. They can speculate, they can postulate, they can guess. But there is no proof. There just isn't.

I haven't see the television show you're talking about. But I do know a little about the scientific method, and about colloquial english. Incidentally, the two only overlap in part. And I think you're complaining about one of the areas where the two do not overlap. Terms like "fact" and "theory" and "law" and "proof" mean very different things when used in the context of science compared to watercooler discussions. You interchange their meanings at your peril. The most egregious example of this is when opponents of teaching evolution claim that evolution is weak because it is "only" a "theory". Please save yourself some embarassment and everyone around you some confusion by being clear and correct in your usage.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

And more to the point, is there anyone other than evangelical xtians pushing the ID agenda?

One datum:

My kids go to Catholic school here in the Chicago suburbs. I help the kids prepare for most of their tests so I can tell you:

1) They have covered the big bang theory in science.
2) They have learned about plant and animal adaptations.
3) Their teachers use the term evolution in class and they have been taught what it is.

[Troubleshooter]

Well, the vatican came out in favor of evolution here.

"But we also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason and becomes prey to fundamentalism," he said.

"The faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity."

Poupard and others at the news conference were asked about the religion-science debate raging in the United States over evolution and "intelligent design."

Intelligent design's supporters argue that natural selection, an element of evolutionary theory, cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms.

Monsignor Gianfranco Basti, director of the Vatican project STOQ, or Science, Theology and Ontological Quest, reaffirmed John Paul's 1996 statement that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis."

"A hypothesis asks whether something is true or false," he said. "(Evolution) is more than a hypothesis because there is proof."

[warch]

Oh, I think there are some fundamentalist Muslim parents around here that don't dig their kids learning about evolution and science, too. From what I gather, Nancy Drew mysteries are a threat as well.

[BigV]

From here...

Originally Posted by ABC News

The Kansas school board now says high school students should learn that evolution is controversial — including some of its basic tenets, such as monkeys evolving into men.

They also redefined the word "science," no longer limiting it to natural explanations of phenomena. The move opens the door to alternative explanations such as intelligent design.

"This is a great day for education," said Kansas Board of Education member Steve Abrams. "This absolutely raises science standards. I have no doubt about it — positively no doubt about it whatsoever."

Not all board members agreed. "I think this is a sad day," said another member, Carol Rupe, "not only for Kansas kids, but for Kansas."

Emphasis mine. That's why it's not science, you can't just make up the definition of the words you like to suit yourself. IDiots crave the credibilty of the word science. But since their predefined conclusions do not conform to the scientific method, they just hijack the word.

Spreading FUD by teaching the (entirely self generated) "controversy", they kick up enough dust to redraw the lines. This is no different than identity theft. If someone used your name and personal information to their own personal benefit that they otherwise would not have been able to get, you'd feel violated. The ID movement's misdirection of "teaching the controversy" and "redefining the word science" (excuse me, I just have to laugh--like when our kids were little and they'd dress up in our clothes, big shoes, coats that hung to the floor, tromping around pretending to be grownups...please. It's cute when it's your kid, but it's frightening when it's your kids' educators.)...It's just plain fraud.

Fear based fraud. How can you be so insecure that your God can't handle a seemingly complicated bankshot like evolution. There are **lots** of things going on in the world that I don't understand. That doesn't mean that God put a little cosmic backspin on the ball just to confuse poor li'l ol' me. Stop trivializing God. If you can't understand it means He couldn't have done it that way? I don't find God and evolution incompatible, much less mutually exclusive. Hmm. Maybe my God's just more talented than theirs.

[hampor]

If gravity is only a theory, does that mean that we will have to worry about learning IF (intelligent falling)?

[Elspode]

With evolution, there are observable things that can be corroborated in order to determine unambiguous age for an item or event. The theories that result are therefore based upon known quantities, known progression of processes that are observed not only on Earth, but on the other planets of our Solar System.

Creation (or ID) is based on *a book*.

I'm as big a fan of faith in the unknown/supernatural as anyone here, I think, but the teaching of Science will eventually encounter Evolution, or you aren't teaching it correctly. Teaching Science will never encounter Creationism, because it doesn't add up to the observed processes and evidence. It is based on a book, and nothing else. The associated theories of Creationism and Intelligent Design grew out of a book...and that isn't Science.

As I posed in another thread...what if the Intelligent Designers are just really, really advanced aliens, and we are essentially a big ant colony? Do we still have to call them God?

[richlevy]

From here

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson warned residents of a rural Pennsylvania town Thursday that disaster may strike there because they "voted God out of your city" by ousting school board members who favored teaching intelligent design.

All eight Dover, Pa., school board members up for re-election were defeated Tuesday after trying to introduce "intelligent design" — the belief that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power — as an alternative to the theory of evolution.

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city," Robertson said on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club."

From threatening foreign leaders to small rural towns, this man's work is never done.

[tw]

Long ago when that original right wing school board was running for election and when Nightline had reported on this upcoming story, I took a trip to and spent about 1/2 day in Dover PA. I expected to find a town that was predominately religious. In fact, I couldn't find anyone who really had any religious attitudes. Most residents had breadwinners who commute long distances out of that town. There was no business district. It mostly centered around an Exxon station whose pumps did not display a real price. Pay cash and the price was lowered.

At a high point in the town was a church with big speakers for church bells. But no one really knew that those speakers were there - as if they never really played any religious themes or church bells.

There were lots of campaign signs for the school board outside most homes then. But I did not know who the religious extremists were so I could not say what I was looking at. If not for those signs, then I would not have even known an election was upcoming.

Dover was no different than most rural PA towns I had visited. Even the town diner had few breakfast customers - the town being that small. Nothing special about the people. No special convictions. No religious symbols on the cars. Apparently it was a town with a strong extremist minority that spun up a maelstrom with only a few strong supporters. I believe same could happen in most any little town.

BTW, the strongest advocate of Intelligent Design was the school board member who, this time, received the least number of votes. Apparently god was not out campaigning for him.

Well I went to Dover. Did Pat Robertson? Maybe I should go back to see what a devil and evil now looks like? "A man who marries outside of his religion inherits the devil for a father-in-law". I wonder if I can find a bride in Dover?

[warch]

The rules are made by whoever shows up.

Poor, self-righteous Pat Robertson is sad and ridiculous. He should be allowed every opportunity to prove it to a wide audience.