I'm going to check with my daughter. I know she had some discussions about various religions and creation theories at school last year, and I was under the impression that at least a couple of them were in the classroom.
(And yeah Cail, I had gotten the impression that you like to say what you mean...)
Intelligence: Random Chance or Deliberate Design?
Moderator: Fist and Faith
“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
-- James Madison
"If you're going to tell people the truth, you'd better make them laugh. Otherwise they'll kill you." - George Bernard Shaw
-- James Madison
"If you're going to tell people the truth, you'd better make them laugh. Otherwise they'll kill you." - George Bernard Shaw
Oh... mentioning 'alternative' theories is fine - as long as they don't contradict your philosophy?Cail wrote:I have no problem with alternate theories being brought up, but strict religious teachings should not be taught in science class.
Gee, how broad-minded...
Check out my digital art at www.brian.co.za
-
Lord Mhoram
- Lord
- Posts: 9512
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2002 1:07 am
Okay, I can concede that intelligent design/creationism can be mentioned in class. But it cannot be taught, in a full chapter, nor cannot should it be considered in the public school classroom to be a scientific, teach-able theory.
ur-bane,
Theoretical science, or at least theoretical science that can be taught, should have nonrefutable evidence supporting it. Evolution has this, intelligent design does not.
Regarding Ptolemy and Aristotle - these are a) as Syl said ancient science that was a precursor to modern science and b) obviously refuted by today's scientific community. Intelligent design is at best junk science, and there are those today that still believe in it.
ur-bane,
Theoretical science, or at least theoretical science that can be taught, should have nonrefutable evidence supporting it. Evolution has this, intelligent design does not.
Regarding Ptolemy and Aristotle - these are a) as Syl said ancient science that was a precursor to modern science and b) obviously refuted by today's scientific community. Intelligent design is at best junk science, and there are those today that still believe in it.
"Nonrefutable science" "proving" the "theory of evolution"?Lord Mhoram wrote: Theoretical science, or at least theoretical science that can be taught, should have nonrefutable evidence supporting it. Evolution has this, intelligent design does not.
In what universe did you dream that?
Check out my digital art at www.brian.co.za
-
Lord Mhoram
- Lord
- Posts: 9512
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2002 1:07 am
No, it certainly has not been proved.
It is just one of a number of 'origin' theories.
It is just one of a number of 'origin' theories.
Check out my digital art at www.brian.co.za
-
Lord Mhoram
- Lord
- Posts: 9512
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2002 1:07 am
You know, thinking that religion should be taught in a science class isn't broad-minded. It's just silly.Edge wrote:Oh... mentioning 'alternative' theories is fine - as long as they don't contradict your philosophy?Cail wrote:I have no problem with alternate theories being brought up, but strict religious teachings should not be taught in science class.
Gee, how broad-minded...
Religion requires faith. Science requires proof. The two seem to be at odds with each other, no?
“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
-- James Madison
"If you're going to tell people the truth, you'd better make them laugh. Otherwise they'll kill you." - George Bernard Shaw
-- James Madison
"If you're going to tell people the truth, you'd better make them laugh. Otherwise they'll kill you." - George Bernard Shaw
-
Loredoctor
- Lord
- Posts: 18609
- Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2002 11:35 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
- Contact:
It's the issue of faith. I'm sure people like Edge have their own proof. And that's not a criticism of Edge. What matters to him, matters. In some sense, it requires us to understand him, not him to prove to us.
Waddley wrote:your Highness Sir Dr. Loredoctor, PhD, Esq, the Magnificent, First of his name, Second Cousin of Dragons, White-Gold-Plate Wielder!
Not at all. But teaching religion in a science class is like teaching Shakespeare in geometry class. It doesn't make sense.Edge wrote:Oh... mentioning 'alternative' theories is fine - as long as they don't contradict your philosophy?
Gee, how broad-minded...
There's also the question of how many alternative theories you want to introduce. Do we want to talk about the Worm of the World's End? That's an alternative too. I have no idea what the Buddhists believe, but should we teach that as well?
See, that's the problem with this. I don't think there should be an issue with a teacher mentioning Creation, but I don't think it should be part of the curriculum.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
-
ur-bane
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 3496
- Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 10:35 am
- Location: United States of Andelain
Sylvanus wrote:If you guys want a Creation Day, and your local school endorses it or State legislatures will approve it, I'm all for it.
Assuredly, nobody here is trying for that Holiday.
I am in complete agreement with Cail when he states:
No red herring. No hidden agenda. How could there be? I am not a "creationist." I just don't have a problem with a discussion on the origins of life including creationism if it comes up in science class.Cail wrote:I don't think there should be an issue with a teacher mentioning Creation, but I don't think it should be part of the curriculum.
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want
to test a man's character, give him power.
--Abraham Lincoln
Excerpt from Animal Songs Never Written
"Hey, dad," croaked the vulture, "what are you eating?"
"Carrion, my wayward son."
"Will there be pieces when you are done?"
-
[Syl]
- Unfettered One
- Posts: 13021
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2002 12:36 am
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 1 time
"It is not the literal past that rules us, save, possibly, in a biological sense. It is images of the past. Each new historical era mirrors itself in the picture and active mythology of its past or of a past borrowed from other cultures. It tests its sense of identity, of regress or new achievement against that past.”
-George Steiner
-George Steiner
As I've said before, belief in evolution requires far more of a step of faith than I'm willing to make.Plissken wrote: Religion requires faith. Science requires proof. The two seem to be at odds with each other, no?
I simply don't have it in me to believe something just because an authority figure says it's so.
Check out my digital art at www.brian.co.za
-
ur-bane
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 3496
- Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 10:35 am
- Location: United States of Andelain
I don't know Edge....the fossil record and dating techniques have already proven that the earth is far older than the 6,000 years claimed by creationists.
So if nothing else, that tells me right there that a literal interpretation of the biblical creation story is not possibly true. Why is it that some parts of the Bible are open to interpretation, meant to drive home a point, and others are so adamantly taken literally?
As Lord Foul, and Lord Mhoram, and Cail and Matrixman, and others have said, evolution does not deal with the origin of life, but it deals with the progression of life.
Even if a divine influence got it all started, why does evolution have to be a leap of faith?
So if nothing else, that tells me right there that a literal interpretation of the biblical creation story is not possibly true. Why is it that some parts of the Bible are open to interpretation, meant to drive home a point, and others are so adamantly taken literally?
As Lord Foul, and Lord Mhoram, and Cail and Matrixman, and others have said, evolution does not deal with the origin of life, but it deals with the progression of life.
Even if a divine influence got it all started, why does evolution have to be a leap of faith?
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want
to test a man's character, give him power.
--Abraham Lincoln
Excerpt from Animal Songs Never Written
"Hey, dad," croaked the vulture, "what are you eating?"
"Carrion, my wayward son."
"Will there be pieces when you are done?"
In a nutshell: because of a very conspicuous lack of supporting evidence.ur-bane wrote: Even if a divine influence got it all started, why does evolution have to be a leap of faith?
Check out my digital art at www.brian.co.za
**danlo scratches his divine-gills and yawns**-
Lord Mhoram
- Lord
- Posts: 9512
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2002 1:07 am
Very interesting.Meaning?Edge wrote:In a nutshell: because of a very conspicuous lack of supporting evidence.ur-bane wrote: Even if a divine influence got it all started, why does evolution have to be a leap of faith?
(I have had this conversation over and over again. Let me fast forward:)
By definition, belief in an unseen Judeo-Christian Creator God requires faith: The belief in things unseen and unproven. No matter which of the data on Evolution you reject, no matter which "holes" you find in it's study, the study of evolution follows the course and requirements of scientific study - which is what places it justly in the science classroom.
Religion on the other hand, also has a place in which to be studied: The church, temple, or home. These are places where the teachings of faith are rightfully taught to the next generations.
To graft the teaching of faith onto a teaching that strives to limit itself to the observable and provable causes only the withering and wasting away of both lines of thought.
“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
-- James Madison
"If you're going to tell people the truth, you'd better make them laugh. Otherwise they'll kill you." - George Bernard Shaw
-- James Madison
"If you're going to tell people the truth, you'd better make them laugh. Otherwise they'll kill you." - George Bernard Shaw
-
Avatar
- Immanentizing The Eschaton
- Posts: 62038
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 32 times
- Contact:
Personally, I'm all for a class in comparitive religion. In which all of the various creation myths should be mentioned and discussed.
How about this then: There is significant evidence that suggests that the creation story of Genesis is not true. And while some may consider "evolution" to be unsupported, I certainly don't see much supporting evidence for creationism, especially if we take the biblical account as given.
I think LoreMaster is right. It does all come down to faith. Some people have faith in god, some have faith in science. At least science is i) refutable, ii) open to question, iii) in serious search of evidence. Religion appears to be none of those things.
--A
How about this then: There is significant evidence that suggests that the creation story of Genesis is not true. And while some may consider "evolution" to be unsupported, I certainly don't see much supporting evidence for creationism, especially if we take the biblical account as given.
I think LoreMaster is right. It does all come down to faith. Some people have faith in god, some have faith in science. At least science is i) refutable, ii) open to question, iii) in serious search of evidence. Religion appears to be none of those things.
--A
