A Compromise about ID in Biology Classes

[Jeff V]

Good one.

I don't recall responding to posts of a technical nature this way. A theological issue-yes I'd probably defer to the Bible.

[ QUOTE ]
Good one.

I don't recall responding to posts of a technical nature this way. A theological issue-yes I'd probably defer to the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Because Aristotle is like soooo stupid" was your response to a thread about "the First Cause", which implies that the teachings of an ignorant (in terms of cosmology) man should be viewed as truth. That's how you respond to technical posts.

[Jeff V]

could you send a link?

[ QUOTE ]
could you send a link?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, mea culpa. That was Peter666. Easy to confuse the two of you.

[David Sklansky]

"Contrary to yours, and some others thoughts, this would be bad for evolutionists."

"So I whole heartedly agree. Let's discuss it all."

I am far from an expert on evolution. But I know a thing or two about smart people. And it is my understanding that the vast majority of smart people who have studied the subject, and listened to creationists points, are almost always able to demolish those points. In fact even those few scientists who think evolution can't account for everything, I am fairly sure, think that most creationist arguments are hogwash.

But you seem to be saying that if everything was out on the table, smart kids who understood the arguments would tend to believe in ID. Meaning that experts in evolution (whose average IQ is certainly higher than the average IQ of atheists, and who sometimes include Catholics,) have come to a flawed conclusion, based on evidence, while the creationists, who beyond doubt have a lower average IQ, somehow evaluated the evidence more accurately.

The farfetchedness of the above scenario, and not my knowledge of evolution, is why I am sure you are wrong.

PS Bringing up 50 year old evolutionary theories that were still in their infancy and didn't include DNA is wrong. Scientists were not nearly as sure of the particulars then as they are now.

[David Sklansky]

"This is fine as long as they also teach that if evolution by chance is true it's ok to murder people."

I am quite sure Not Ready means it's ok to murder people as long as you can get away with it and it doesn't make you feel bad (for whatever reason). He might be right. (He certainly is right about every other animal). So what? That is not a reason to avoid showing the flaws in creationist's viwepoints. If you philosophers want to argue about this do it on another thread.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

He might be right. (He certainly is right about every other animal). So what?


[/ QUOTE ]

Propose this to your local school board.

[bocablkr]

But you seem to be saying that if everything was out on the table, smart kids who understood the arguments would tend to believe in ID. Meaning that experts in evolution (whose average IQ is certainly higher than the average IQ of atheists , and who sometimes include Catholics,) have come to a flawed conclusion, based on evidence, while the creationists, who beyond doubt have a lower average IQ, somehow evaluated the evidence more accurately.

David,

Did you mean to say atheist or 'smart kids'??

[DVaut1]

I am more than willing to allow ID taught in schools, so long as the creationist theory I believe in can be taught along side of it.

Here is a picture of my God:



Of course, in the spirit of intellectual curiosity, I hope that other reputable theories are taught in physics classes, to provide the educational freedom our young students deserve.

Good idea. I've always been opposed to teaching creationism because I think it's so stupid. But if you included teaching the arguments of why it's so stupid, that would be very educational. Most of the students raised in very religious families have probably never been exposed to such arguments.

Maybe after a generation of this teaching we could cut by half or more the ranks of those who believe that every word in the Bible should be taken literally. It's nice to dream about at least.