GWB endorses teaching "intelligent design" to schoolchildren!

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]

What about the theory that the earth sits on a turtles back? Should that be given equal weight?


[/ QUOTE ]

Some Native American religions which are on par with this theory are taught in History and Socialogy classes for information sake.

[ QUOTE ]

Firstly, they are children. And secondly from a personal point of view, no, I do not have a whole lot of confidence in peoples abilities judge different theories on their merits.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you think it is your job or the governments to protect people from their own ignorance? When has that been anybodies business. That is a scary place to live in. You want to live under thought police?

[ QUOTE ]

This is just so wrong. Do you realise this argument has been used throughout history to perpetuate some of the worst crimes in all humanity. Try getting the word evidence into this sentence and you may have something.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I mispoke. I think there needs to be evidence and some evidence is more compelling than others. I just think that it is ignorant to not hear varying theories. Crime was never perpetuated by the free airing of ideas\theories. It has always been at behest of a few who believed it was their gift to humanity to police thoughts and pervade ignorance at the expense of information. Tell me who is doing that in this instance?

And to steal from MIB:
[ QUOTE ]
1500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was flat...Imagine what you'll "know" tomorrow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Theories are just that theories. We are a smart species. Let people decide what to believe no matter how old or if your are worried so much trust their parents ability/right to raise their children.


-Gryph

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
As an American...

[/ QUOTE ]

As opposed to citizens of other nations, who indoctrinate their kids in school? Haven’t traveled much in life, huh?

[ QUOTE ]
How can anyone argue with teaching various theories about the origins of life and leave it up to people to decide?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a similar vein, should we also teach kids 2+2 = 3, 2+2 = 4, 2+2=5 and leave it up to them to decide? How about teaching them alchemy in chemistry class? What’s the harm in that?

Please, may I never again hear the right (at least the right that defends equal time for creationism) criticize the left for being relativist and politically correct; the Christian Right’s assault on knowledge is the most abhorrent type of relativism and political correctness – denying objective truth and facts in favor of wishy-washy proclamations demanding equality for what’s clearly wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Boy, doesn't seem like you have a whole lot of confidence in people ability to choose for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since we’re talking about students here, then no, I don’t. I assume you don’t have the same confidence in children to make lifestyle decisions about drugs and sex. Considering the Christian Right fights just as hard to remove sex education from classes as they do evolution, you’ll excuse me if I laugh heartily at statements such as this that make appeals toward putting our faith in children to exercise sound judgment.

I wonder if James Dobson would like high school students to be given a menu of birth control options and allow for them to ‘choose for themselves.’ I have a feeling he won’t share your confidence in their abilities, etgryphon.

[ QUOTE ]
If a theory is erronous, it will become clear at some point, but until that point comes. Anyone who says that this theory or that theory is correct at the expense of another theory is just hiding behind ignorance and prejudice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you may want to consider finding a dictionary or a science textbook and reviewing what a theory is.

You apparently still don't know what scientific theory is (here’s a hint: scientific theory (which evolution is) is a logically self-consistent model or framework describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon which originates from observable facts or is supported by observable facts); as opposed to yours and the Christian Right’s definition of a theory, which is something like "some stuff I kind of made up and can't really prove."

As someone who often sympathizes will the left, I’ll take responsibility for donkey’s like Michael Moore and Whoopi Goldberg if the right will take responsibility for donkey's like creationism advocates (at least the advocates who try to include it as a viable theory alongside evolution in public school; I'm more than willing to allow people to believe whatever they want, and teach their kids whatever they want in their own homes or in private school).

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Some Native American religions which are on par with this theory are taught in History and Socialogy classes for information sake

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to schoolchildren and not with an authority of 'this is a reasonable explanation of the way things are'. This is the difference with the Intelligence design/religious crowd.

[ QUOTE ]
So you think it is your job or the governments to protect people from their own ignorance? When has that been anybodies business. That is a scary place to live in. You want to live under thought police?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with anyone saying anything they want. I have a problem with with baseless theories being taught to impressonable minds. Lets be clear about this, Intelligent design has no basis in fact, has no physical evidense to build on and cannot be tested at even the most rudimentary level. It is not a theory it is a philosophy. This to me is a scary place where opinion is taught as fact, where evidence that doesn't hold up to scrutiny is routinely ignored.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. I mispoke. I think there needs to be evidence and some evidence is more compelling than others. I just think that it is ignorant to not hear varying theories. Crime was never perpetuated by the free airing of ideas\theories. It has always been at behest of a few who believed it was their gift to humanity to police thoughts and pervade ignorance at the expense of information. Tell me who is doing that in this instance?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree no one should be muzzled at all. Freedom of speech is probably the most important freedom there is but that doesn't mean unscientific opinions should be taught as science, this really would be thought police tactic.

[ QUOTE ]
Theories are just that theories. We are a smart species. Let people decide what to believe no matter how old or if your are worried so much trust their parents ability/right to raise their children.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a lot more faith in humankind that I do, maybe its an age thing [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[FishHooks]

heck we are taught what communism is in Middle School.

[CollinEstes]

What if God designed evolution? Then we would be in a pickle wouldn't we.

[BeerGolfPoker]

The issue is whether or not Intelligent Design should be taught alongside Darwinian evolution in science class.

The problem is that Intelligent Design, at least to this point, does not constitute a scientific theory. It is neither testifiable nor falsifiable - two of the hallmarks of a scientific theory.

So go ahead and teach kids about Intelligent Design in a Sociology or World Religion class, but keep the non-science out of science classrooms.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a problem with with baseless theories being taught to impressonable minds.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lefties in here seem to be up in arms that "impressionable" (and persumeably young) minds could be taught intelligent design.

So I propose a compromise. Don't teach any creation theories (evolution included) until high school. That way, these people can think for themselves and decide what to believe.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Lefties in here seem to be up in arms that "impressionable" (and persumeably young) minds could be taught intelligent design.

[/ QUOTE ]

This comment is irrelevant, except that I think just you wanted to say 'leftists' and 'up in arms' in the same sentence to make leftists sound alarmist, despite the fact that your comment wasn't particularly cogent to the discussion at hand. A silly red herring, to be sure.

[ QUOTE ]
So I propose a compromise. Don't teach any creation theories (evolution included) until high school. That way, these people can think for themselves and decide what to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Evolution isn't a creation theory. I suggest you consider further study into what the theory of evolution actually is.
2) That's not a compromise, it's just giving creationists exactly what they want - which is putting creationism (not a scientific theory, or a theory at all) alongside actual science (in other words, the study of observable facts about the world and theories which test demonstrable phenomena, like evolution).

Your 'compromise' is ridiculous (and as I said, not a compromise at all).

[adios]

What might be interesting and educational is a comparison of how the scientific method has been applied to develop the theories of evolution and how it would need to be applied in order to develop "intelligent design" theory. To be honest though, not sure that schools really have all that much time to get that deeply into it. Perhaps if some breakthroughs in the development of "intelligent design" theory are forthcoming it can become a subject in school at that point (I almost wrote this with a straight face but not quite btw). Anyway this site claims that "Intelligent Design" is a product of the Scientific Method:

FAQ: Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method?

[tolbiny]

The problem is that there is a push to include "creationism" in a science class- giving it equal weight to scientific thoeries- when it really belongs in a religion class. Putting it in the science classroom gives it an amount of weight that it shouldn't have as a "thoery".