Pixies Place Forums - The Evolution Revolution

Lilith

10-30-2005, 09:51 PM

Do you believe in Intelligent Design? Or perhaps in Evolution?

And what do you think your kids should be taught in school?

One specific notion, or several?

Are you opposed to mentioning evolution?

Or creationism?

I personally believe in a combination of the two.

That we don't know truly how we happened but that there are people who are working on proving their hypothesis. I believe they should be taught about natural selection.

Several main hypothesis should be discussed. This is a great opportunity for critical thinking and helping students to form their own ideas into beliefs.

Evolution should be mentioned, as it is a belief of many in the scientific/education community.

Creationism should be mentioned, as it is a belief of many in the student's communities.

I think that it is critical to offer students a variety of views regarding many topics. It's not the topics, it's how the participants in the discussions respond and formulate ideas that makes or breaks the lesson. There are ways to conduct these types of discussions/lessons that do not cause alienation or a lack of respect for either view/vantage point.

gekkogecko

10-30-2005, 10:12 PM

Do you believe in Intelligent Design?

Well, since so-called "Intelligent design" is nothing more than crapola christain dogma dressed up in fancy clothes, no, I don't. I'm not a christain.

Or perhaps in Evolution?

Define "believe in". Do you mean, is this good science, backed up y observations and hard evidence? If so, then "belief" is irrelevant

And what do you think your kids should be taught in school?

We're talking about teaching science. Not religious dogma, whatever the excuse it is. If you wish to teach "intelligent design", the teach the "theory" of the origin of the universe as explained by the doctrine of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. In a comparative religions course, not in a science course.

Are you opposed to mentioning evolution? Or creationism?

You can't avoid mentioning evolution. And for those who say it's "only" a theory, WAKE THE FUCK UP YOU MORONIC SHITHEADS! Evolution, as scientific phenomenon, is an OBSERVED FACT. Speciation events have been witnessed by humans, and the continued denial and willful ignorance of this is shit that should be shoved back up the asses of religious fundamentalists where it belongs.

osuche

10-30-2005, 10:53 PM

This seems to be a serious topic regarding the real world. Since I have no directive as to what answer will be acceptable here, I have no opinion to state.

The pumpkin in top of your head seems *much* too big to completely lack thought....on this topic, or any other. :)

As for me, I do believe in Evolution. I've read Darwin's, and several other scientists', research on this topic. The logic is sound and I do believe in the science behind evolution.

However, I also respect others' religious beliefs and if that requires mitigating discussion of evolution with a caveat regarding "this is a scientific theory" I am OK with that. I do not believe, however, that much bandwidth should be spent on creationism. Mention that it exists and allow the students to get that education at home, or from other classes.

I would, however, advocate a comparative religions class in school. COMPARATIVE religions -- taught as a social science -- might bring alot of understanding about others' beliefs (including Creationism) to the young. When I took such a class in college, it was one of the most thought provoking topics I've ever studied.

As for Intelligent Design....I don't yet se emuch science in the theory. I will suspend disbelief until I know more, or the theory emerges more fully.

Still interested in others' thoughts....

Cheyanne

10-30-2005, 10:53 PM

I agree with Lilith. Personal beliefs aside (and yes, I believe in both), there are ways to present all theories whether it be in comparative religion classes, sociology or science. All of these theories, beliefs, scientific fact have a place in student learning as they have a place in our society in one form or another.

Lilith

10-30-2005, 11:23 PM

I would, however, advocate a comparative religions class in school. COMPARATIVE religions -- taught as a social science -- might bring alot of understanding about others' beliefs (including Creationism) to the young. When I took such a class in college, it was one of the most thought provoking topics I've ever studied.

Now days they offer a variety of classes even in high school that provide students with an opportunity to explore a wide selection of faiths. Often the classes are set up in a compare/contrast type model. I know the one my son is taking currently also explores those faiths through the historical writings of followers. Their summer reading was The Adventures of Ibn Battuta : A Muslim Traveller of the 14th Century (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0520067436/104-7829234-3211133?v=glance) Typically they are counted as either a Science or History course in order to allow the students who would most be interested in the class to receive proper credit. There is no Social Science in highschool.

I understand people having strong feelings about their beliefs however encourage dialogue and understanding not further the divide. People who feel contrary to the views emotively expressed may be insulted and proceed to shut you out instead of listening to your views. Becareful that you do not become that which you despise. Closemindedness can be a two way street. It is possible to state your views without slamming the views of others.

Oldfart

10-31-2005, 02:01 AM

Do you believe in Intelligent Design?

Are we the product of direct and minute engineering by a vast and powerful extra-universal force who dictated the force and direction of absolutely every sub-atomic particle in the universe? I suspect not, because if it were so, my own independence and self-will becomes void and my ego will not allow that.

Or perhaps in Evolution?

Creation theories of all faiths, theist and animist, are a small window towards gaining understanding of people who come from other cultures.

And what do you think your kids should be taught in school? One specific notion, or several?

Show them the lot so they have some basis for comparison.

Are you opposed to mentioning evolution?

Evolution is a fascinating theory which probably explains much of modern diversity, but most of what is perceived as (and was interpreted by Darwin as being) evolution is not evolution but genetic drift within defined populations. True evolution is claimed to be when a gene sequence buggers up in division, and the organism benefits. Most evolution is either survival neutral or downright bad for it. Yes, they can mention it.

Or creationism?

See above.

The core of the whole question seems to be this "Intelligent Designer" thing. A need to intrude to this level seems a very un-omnipotent thing to do. My God just set a few rules at the beginning and let creation roll. Anyone who still believes in the "physical form of man in God's image" also demeans the absolute majesty of the deity. It is the mind of man which we are told to strive to be more like God.

(Puts up special Oldfart umbrella and waits for rocks to fall.)

Fangtasia

10-31-2005, 03:46 AM

I believe in both and believe both should be discussed with children

PantyFanatic

10-31-2005, 11:12 AM

Science is information about what IS, philosophy is what you DO with it.

Shadows of forgotten ancestors / 1992 Carl Sagan and Ann Deuyan
ISBN 0-394-53481-6

The power of myth / 1988 Joseph Campbell, with Bill Moyers
ISBN 0-385-24773-7

I do not take a course in Aircraft Mechanics with hopes of learning Fine Cake Decorating.

jseal

10-31-2005, 01:12 PM

osuche,

Do you believe in Intelligent Design? Or perhaps in Evolution? I prefer the descriptive abilities of the theory first published by Charles Darwin in The Origin Of Species. I do so primarily because a pre-existing belief is not needed for it to function effectively.

And what do you think your kids should be taught in school? That mutation/variation together with natural selection is the most widely accepted theory that explains evolution.

One specific notion, or several? In any scientific domain, there is usually only one principle paradigm. All others should be referred to as alternatives, and the reasons why they are not the principle should be reviewed.

Are you opposed to mentioning evolution? Or creationism? Not at all. However, creationism, as it is not falsifiable, is by definition unscientific. It should not be presented as such.

Scarecrow

10-31-2005, 07:13 PM

So the beings of Alpha Centari who munipulated the atoms on Earth to create life is not a form of Intelligent Design? Why leave out this whole area that has not been disproven.

PantyFanatic

10-31-2005, 09:01 PM

^^^ SC :thumb:

and don’t forget the universe could really be riding on the back of a turtle. ;)

maddy

10-31-2005, 09:18 PM

Now days they offer a variety of classes even in high school that provide students with an opportunity to explore a wide selection of faiths. Often the classes are set up in a compare/contrast type model. I know the one my son is taking currently also explores those faiths through the historical writings of followers. Their summer reading was The Adventures of Ibn Battuta : A Muslim Traveller of the 14th Century (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0520067436/104-7829234-3211133?v=glance) Typically they are counted as either a Science or History course in order to allow the students who would most be interested in the class to receive proper credit. There is no Social Science in highschool.

:thumb: Glad to hear it Lilith! I have regrets now for not taking the course osuche mentions. My only concern to introducing it in high school is that some people might not be ready to absorb the information (I certainly wasn't).

Lilith

10-31-2005, 09:46 PM

:thumb: Glad to hear it Lilith! I have regrets now for not taking the course osuche mentions. My only concern to introducing it in high school is that some people might not be ready to absorb the information (I certainly wasn't).

The course my son is taking required that you have signed forms by previous teachers stating that you were capable of managing that sort of material.

PantyFanatic

10-31-2005, 11:17 PM

..... My only concern to introducing it in high school is that some people might not be ready to absorb the information (I certainly wasn't).
Funny! Most organized religions require a life pledge by the age of 13 or 14. Wonder why that would be? :confused:

Oldfart

10-31-2005, 11:44 PM

The theory of the Earth riding on the turtle's back was disproven when Apollo 18 missed the Moon and lodged in the Celestial crystal hemisphere. Shortly before they were eaten by Hermes horses they sent back several photos which proved conclusively that it was indeed a tortoise, not a turtle we are balanced on.

Such arrant mythconceptions are the bane of all true seekers of knowledge.

PantyFanatic

11-01-2005, 12:07 AM

Apollo 18

mythconceptions

Now THAT'S intelligent design! :grin:

WildIrish

11-01-2005, 07:51 AM

Funny! Most organized religions require a life pledge by the age of 13 or 14. Wonder why that would be? :confused:

Don't go there PF.

Pita

11-01-2005, 09:41 AM

I believe in intelligent design and that it should be taught just as much as evolution should be.

PantyFanatic

11-01-2005, 10:19 AM

Don't go there PF.
yes master
sorry master :o

I knew I should waite for the directive from on high. :bang:

WildIrish

11-01-2005, 10:46 AM

yes master
sorry master :o

I knew I should waite for the directive from on high. :bang:

Oh, I'm sorry...were you NOT intending to offend everyone that follows a religion of faith? So sorry. I didn't mean to misinterpret. I'm kind of simple...been that way since 13.

osuche

11-01-2005, 11:03 AM

WildIrish

11-01-2005, 11:12 AM

How can one have a discussion with someone (on either side of an arguement like this) that refuses to acknowledge your opinion? Or worse, dismisses the reason behind your having that opinion as the byproduct of an inability to grasp the concepts that might disprove it?

jseal

11-01-2005, 11:24 AM

WildIrish

You put your finger on one of the principle difficulties about this subject. Thank you.

On occassion, one of the participants will adopt a position to the effect “I disagree with what you say, but rather than engage you in debate, I will deny your legitimacy to debate the subject.”

This technique is a most regrettable position for anyone to adopt, and one which must be worked around for any useful resolution to what are often important issues.

PantyFanatic

11-01-2005, 11:44 AM

Oh, I'm sorry...were you NOT intending to offend everyone that follows a religion of faith? So sorry. I didn't mean to misinterpret. I'm kind of simple...been that way since 13.
That’s CORRECT! You DID misinterpret! I was NOT intending to offend everyone that follows a religion of faith. I was responding to someone that also considered the possibility of people having additional thought and opinions after puberty.

I’m not going to contribute to redirecting the intent of this thread. I have learned the lesson I was taught there. You state your opinion and I’ll get to read it. See. I’m still learning how things work. :)

WildIrish

11-01-2005, 01:31 PM

Funny! Most organized religions require a life pledge by the age of 13 or 14. Wonder why that would be? :confused:

I'm reacting, dude...not lashing out. You throw a line like that out and expect nobody to be offended? Then you play the victim when they are?

I quoted your original post because there's no way to misconstrue it's meaning. You're stating that religion indoctrinates it's followers while they are young because anyone "intelligent and able to absorb information" wouldn't follow.

As to my opinion, I'm a believer of evolution with a twist. I don't know how life began, but something beyond my comprehension occurred, and I think that from that...there's been a series of changes throughout existence that's led us to where we are today. What that initial something was...don't know. Could've been scientific or it could've been an act of divine intervention. Point is there's people that believe either, or, both or neither.

I think that for the chapter on "How life began...", concepts should be taught as such. Concepts. Start out the discussion with "Today we will be discussing the most common theories surrounding the beginning of life. We will not be attempting to decide which one is correct by discrediting the rest, but merely discussing the differences between the principals of each." Is that wrong?

wyndhy

11-01-2005, 02:10 PM

osuche, i think this is a fascinating topic, hence the following treatise :p

imo, world religion classes should be offered in high school with at least three credits required for graduation. it should be taught in the most factual way it can be. even…especially… the major modern religions should be taught with the same adherence to strict fact. there should never be any judgement attached…ever; any information we have or have surmised should be taught with the ultimate goal of enlightenment in intellectual, historic and world cultural capacities. the same goes for science.

should creationism be taught in a science class? no. should intelligent design? yes… however small the difference twixt the two.

creationism needs to be kept with religions. it is defined, basically, as the book of genesis and, to my mind, only applies when discussing christanity..

intelligent design is a budding idea, and ,yes, scientific in nature, which hypothesizes that someone/thing/things have manipulated—in some way, at some time—our journey from the primordial ooze to space. whether they be gods, aliens or our own future selves is a missing piece that some supply according to their own faith base and, i believe, has sparked the controversy that unnecessarily clouds this hypothesis. but it is undeniable that many scientists have wondered, for millennia they have wondered, at the essential coincidence of it all and are seeking to explain it. as many scientists will tell you they believe: there is no such thing as coincidence.

and if you think i implied that the whole of science is lumped in with faith-based belief systems in that previous paragraph, you’re right. i am neither a scientist nor a religionist but i look at it this way: all individual beliefs are centered on information that, for them at least, is considered to be true but in reality has always eluded true comprehension. for those who believe in a higher power worthy of their worship and love, their data is books, songs, and fables. their hypotheses are laws, practices and rituals. their theory is faith. for those who cannot give their faith or love to an intangible god, their scripture is also much that cannot be proved beyond doubt or even understood completely. their commandments are that which they can see, touch or measure. their rituals are to record it all for future generations—much as religions have a guide book, so does science.

to be a scientist requires faith in the natural order of things; there are always surprises yet they do not give up.

to be one of the faithful requires an on-going examination of the most complicated things known to man—the mind, or at least the part of it we refer to as sentience or self awareness…the soul.

furthermore, for all that history has taught us regarding the censure, ridicule and even execution of our free-thinking ancestors (many of whom were later proved to be exactly right or at least on the right track), we certainly haven’t altered our approach to accommodate the evidence. perhaps that is why this issue is such a dilemma…as a whole, we are not a very scientifically minded society; we are so much more geared toward emotion and gut—so hard to remain scientifically curious and open, and still stay deeply rooted by the important traditions and the (mostly)universal and totally essential morality that keeps us from devolving into cave men with the capacity for nuclear war.
what has been done in the name of science and what has been done in the name of religion do not differ much. whether it was the doctors of nazi medicine and their demented experiments or the insane horror of the rwandan massacre; the invention of something as simple as plastic which has improved countless lives, or as simple as a woman like mother theresa who cared for even more.

do not lower a man for his beliefs, do lower a belief for its men.

now that i’m feeling maudlin…on a personal level, i have not ruled out anything. nor have i prepared for anything—i do not own a foil hat or a ray gun. although i could make the hat, the ray gun is completely beyond my capabilities. nor do i go to any church. although i do invoke the lord’s name quite often…especially during sex so perhaps i’m covered in that regard after all. if it is our future selves i must worry about, then i shall have to rent timecop again but i’m pretty sure the good guys won.

WildIrish

11-01-2005, 02:51 PM

Yes...that's exactly what I meant. :D

As for the foil hats, Aqua's making them for all of us.

wyndhy

11-01-2005, 03:31 PM

too samll...i could use two for my nipples i suppose. :D

i have an edit to my other post: along with the numeropus typos that are obvious there is one that sends the wrong message. i typed do lower a belief for its men but i left out the not... i reapeat...do not! :D
probably obvious but i had to clarify.

dicksbro

11-01-2005, 04:33 PM

Do not lower a man for his beliefs, do lower a belief for its men.

Wow! That's pretty profound. I like that, Wyndhy.

For myself, I accept evolution as a logical path for creation to have followed,
but, by no means does that exclude intelligent design.

Most of modern thought is based on the "intelligent" application of what has
been learned from the past. I see no reason why a "Supreme Being" could
not have used the same technique for "evolving" life. (Besides, it'd give
his "kids" something to argue about.)

And, if what one really means by "mankind" is the life form that has a soul ...
then life prior to man could very easily have physical similarities but not be
man. So the transformation would be when that "soul" was introduced.

Voila. Evolution ... with creation.

Anyway, that's my thought.

Oh, yeah, and on the question of being taught in school. I like Wyndhy's suggestion for a course on religious concepts presenting the fundamental concepts that provide a basis for the worlds major religions. I think that's a good concept and could help kids to understand how others have chosen to view life.

Aqua

11-01-2005, 04:37 PM

WAKE THE FUCK UP YOU MORONIC SHITHEADS!
That was seriously rude and uncalled for gg.

If you believe me to be a 'moronic shithead' you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but do not make inflammatory statements as such as they do nothing more than piss people off.

dicksbro

11-01-2005, 04:57 PM

I hadn't read gekkogecko's comment, but now that I have, I agree, it was terribly rude and uncalled for.

I think a quote from a scientist of some repute is in order: "After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated, they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge." Albert Einstein

Scarecrow

11-01-2005, 05:20 PM

Down boys! :spank:

I hoped we could keep this civil, and I was really curious about everyone's answers. Different strokes for different folks.....but we must all, as a country, come to a conclusion about what we want to teach our young ones in public school. I'm sure several other countries battle the same issues.

It's by discussing these kind of ideological conflicts that we move our thinking forward. Or at least I hope. :)

I'm sorry, I though that publics schools had become a baby sitting institution and had very little to do with education.
Today they are manstreaming Learning disabled children and the teacher can only teach to the slowest learning child in the class and every thing that is taught has to be plain vanilla. JMHO

wyndhy

11-01-2005, 05:21 PM

do not lower a man for his beliefs, do lower a belief for its men
Wow! That's pretty profound. I like that, Wyndhy.

you had to quote my typo. :mad: :spank:
;) thanks db, :x:

Kendall.

11-01-2005, 06:26 PM

It depends if it is a science class or a religion class. There is no concrete evidence for ID. ... it should not be discussed in a science class.

Lilith

11-01-2005, 06:55 PM

but we must all, as a country, come to a conclusion about what we want to teach our young ones in public school.

Unless I am mistaken, what to teach, is still decided state by state.

LixyChick

11-01-2005, 07:10 PM

Dunno how well this pertains to the topic, but I feel compelled to say this after reading this entire thread. I was going to pull the first person's quote that I read on this subject, but it seems that many of you have the same opinion. Let me throw this out there to see if I get a bite!

I keep reading what should and shouldn't be taught in school. Now...I am not a parent, but I am a product of a very open minded parent who physically showed me the many beliefs of the world, instead of having a virtual stranger (teachers) show me their personal interpretation of the many ways that I could be taught!

Reread that ^^^ and absorb my meaning. I'll wait...

*hears the Jeopardy song playing in the background*

Back in my day (oh gawdddddddd...did I say that?) some teachers inflicted their personal beliefs and interpretations into their lessons. It probably still happens today. Recognizing this, my mother gave me (us...all her children) an opportunity that most children don't get from their parents...and I feel as though ALL parents could learn a lesson from my mother. I know some of you had heard me say this before, but I'll say it again here for those who may have not.

We went church hopping when I was a child. And, I don't mean from one Methodist church (I was raised as a Methodist) to another. I mean from one denomination to another...and everything in-between! I've visited Pentecostal "holy rollers" one week and a Rabbi the next. I've been to High Mass and heard scientists speak on evolution all in the same weekend. My mother wouldn't pick and choose what she'd show me...she showed me it all and she told me her views and gave me the respect to decypher all the knowledge I was absorbing and decide for myself. She told me that fear is at the root of a closed minded person. It's more comfortable to "know" one way and one way only. She said interpretation is just that...interpretation. If I read the King James version of the bible and assume I understand it, then that is my interpretation of the parables written by many a man "for God". If I read the King James version of the Bible and live it word for word...than I did not understand it at all...because the King James version of the Bible is an interpretation/conversion as best it could be related to the English language, and if told from one language to another it will surely change from man to man. BTW...in the Methodist church, the King James version of the Bible is the only Bible I ever knew till I started "church hopping".

All in all...what she was telling me is that I am the only one who can decide what I believe. If I know the choices and understand and respect that everyone else has a rightful claim to their own belief, I will be a good person! If I know good from bad...if I understand that what I do and say will show on my life's record...if I respect others and still take my own stand when a stand needs to be taken, I will be a good person. If I help when help is needed...if I do my best, even if my best isn't THE BEST...if I challenge "it" when I know I have a platform, and admit it when I know I am wrong...if I turn the other cheek when the fire is too hot for reasonable discussion (<---working on that!)...and if I can look back on my day and know I've learned something or made a difference, no matter how big or small...than I know who I am and I can rest assured that no matter how I got here...I AM WORTHY!

She also added..."If the world could do this for their children, the world would be a better place. Not because I said so...just because it is so!"

Don't get me wrong! I have flaws...major flaws...I know that I do! But, I am a better person than I might have been in just trying to interpret what my mother was trying to show me. She showed me the world from our tiny little neighborhood!

:x: Mommy! (all 4 of us...and my brother, till he died...still call her Mommy...23 years after her death.)

THE END!

Carry On!

gekkogecko

11-01-2005, 07:16 PM

That was seriously rude and uncalled for gg.

Rude? Yes! But: No, I repeat NO, more rude & offensive than the bullshit of "Intelligent Design" beign pushed on the rest of us by christain fundamentalists.

Uncalled for? Entirely called for.

If you believe me to be a 'moronic shithead' you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but do not make inflammatory statements as such as they do nothing more than piss people off.

When the christain fundamentalistts stop it, I will as well. And as far as this being aimed at you personally: perhaps. I honestly don't know if you are one of the christain fundamentalists who dump this SHIT on people, but if you actualy are, then yes, it was aimed at you. Personally.

I repeat, if you, speaking for the christain fundamentalists (and yes, I recognize that you may indeed be speaking for them, and this may have nothing with your personal relitgious beliefs), do expect me to be polite and non-inflammatory about this, then it is incumbant upon them/you from doing the same IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Lilith

11-01-2005, 07:20 PM

GG~ Regardless of your personal beliefs, this is a no flame forum. Be respectful in expressing your views.

gekkogecko

11-01-2005, 07:24 PM

should creationism be taught in a science class? no. should intelligent design? yes… however small the difference twixt the two.

(snip)
intelligent design is a budding idea, and ,yes, scientific in nature

The 'small difference twixt' creationism & intelligent design is nothing but window dressing. Despite the claim, there is nothing scientific about the idea of intelligent design being the explanation for the origin of the universe.

Yeah, if you want to teach intelligent design and/or creationism, then go ahead...in a class on comparative religions, not in a science class. And yes, it's a great idea to teach this in an explanatory and factual manner as possible. "This" is what some people believe, "This other" is what other people believe, "and this over here is what still others believe", etc.

wyndhy

11-01-2005, 07:40 PM

The 'small difference twixt' creationism & intelligent deesign is nothing but window dressing.....

only if you consider window dressing as the introduction of new possibilities that reflect our current understanding of the universe. if intelligent design was actually proved into law, or at the very least enough to be theory, and the “intelligent interference" turned out to be something tangible, such as another sentient species or some bizarre loophole in our fundamental laws of physics, then it would instantly, by the very definition of science, be forever and irrevocably be linked to some sort of science. hell, it would probably get its own –ology.

africandan

11-01-2005, 10:11 PM

There are numerous admirable philosophies expressed by the good Pixie people here but few, if any, seem to have a firm grasp of just what the reality of applying these ideas in schools would be.

As the somewhat farcical and, in my opinion somewhat unhelpful (though nonetheless true), example of the Spaghetti Monster gives, as soon as you start advocating the teaching of numerous possibilities (whether in science classes, religion classes or something inbetween) it becomes impossible to draw a line.

'Intelligent Design' in its many guises is so resoundingly ambiguous as to make any claim for it to be a science obsolete. Strictly speaking the many formulations of it include all sorts of possibilities, from genuine theistic evolution, to Spaghetti Monsters. It would even be easy to argue that Evolutionary Theory is a case of Intelligent Design if you classed the 'Laws of Nature' which might be said to govern it as 'intelligent'.

People talk of the fairest way being of teaching the 'major' beliefs. But how are we to define 'major'? There will always be someone who if offended at having their beliefs rejected as not worthy for teaching.

Quite apart from this dilemma I think it's genuinely impossible to teach these sorts of things to young people - certainly without a major restructuring of the education system. The issues involved are just too complex. When the majority of adults who enter into the debate haven't considered issues such as where any deity might exist, how disembodied souls are supposed to exist and how biblical interpretation makes even 'Creationism' hard to define how are we supposed to expect those in high school to do it?

I would much rather see the emphasis of education be put on teaching children how to critically analyse, how to respect matters of opinion and letting them decide the rest for themselves. Unfortunately this only works in a world where parents can abide by the same rules - but that's a different issue.

Fangtasia

11-01-2005, 10:51 PM

Rude? Yes! But: No, I repeat NO, more rude & offensive than the bullshit of "Intelligent Design" beign pushed on the rest of us by christain fundamentalists.
Oh i think i got it now....

It's ok for you to push your ideas and be rude and abusive...but they can't

I dont care what religeon, race, colour or any other stuff you are...if you want respect then first you must give it

FallenAngel5

11-01-2005, 11:43 PM

As a few here know, I'm currently in a Master's Program for seconday ed, and this topic came up today in my Teaching in Context class. I was the first to post to this, and after reading everyone's replies, I feel the need to post again. - and here's hoping that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was taken as it was meant, as a comic foil -

Firstly, there's a few comment that I feel the need to make, and I don't remember quite who they all apply to. But yes, Lilith, what to teach is decided state to state. And someone else mentioned that Creationism and the book of Genesis was only relevant to Christianity... has Judaism gotten lost in the mix? :) Just a comment.

OK. As I stated before, I do ascribe to evolution. However, a few people have made reference to ID as more than a mere twist away from creationism, and here I feel a bit lost. Because as I understood it, intelligent design says that there was a designer - deity or not - that created all of the earth out of nothingness. The book of Genesis says - though in several different ways - that G-d created the heavens and the earth, and all that is upon it, in 6 days. Now, as far as I can tell, the only difference between the two ideas is the timeline of the occurence; i.e. ID is taking creationism and fitting to the scientific facts of the fossil record and carbon-dating. Again, if I'm wrong, someone please correct me.

Now, if this is the only difference... this is not a scientific theory. Genetic mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection are proven aspects related to evolution, that, as far as I know, are not accounted for in intelligent design. Therefore, I think that intelligent design belongs in a philosophy of religion and/or social science course, not biology.

Booger

11-02-2005, 12:22 AM

Unless I am mistaken, what to teach, is still decided state by state.

True Lilith but sence the feds hold the purse string to a lot of funding they tend to get there way.

Booger

11-02-2005, 12:27 AM

Quite apart from this dilemma I think it's genuinely impossible to teach these sorts of things to young people - certainly without a major restructuring of the education system. The issues involved are just too complex.

I have to disagree with this I think it's one of the best time to teach something like this when they are young and still open to new ideas.

osuche

11-02-2005, 12:47 AM

I am not an educator, nor am I a parent. However, I think that sometimes we don't give our kids enough credit for being able to understand ambiguity and different points of view. By the time kids reach high school, I think they should be able to understand the debate.

I believe the issue of seperating creationism from evolution -- into 2 seperate classes -- is that we'd be fundamentally calling one idea "science" and the other one "religion." Not sure everyone believes in this black and white difference. Especially when it comes to creationism.

I like Lixy's idea....and my mom exposed me to several Christian religions...but I hesitate to count on all parents to show this much concern for their kids' development of faith. Plus....many areas don't have access to the scope of religions I'd advocate covering in class. I spent a few months in NE Tennessee recently, and I saw no non-Christian "churces" in the neighborhood. Hard to expose one to Buddhism, Hinduism, Judiasm, Islam, and others when there are no local faithful. These "gaps" make an academic approach all that more crucial.

I'm enjoying hearing everyone's views. Thanks for contributing to the discussion!

Oldfart

11-02-2005, 02:14 AM

I would dearly love to hear that we are socially mature enough to teach the basic tenets of all religions to our kids aimed at giving them a social flexibility and tolerance we struggle to achieve.

It's not going to happen, as I cannot imagine ardent followers of any of the major religions teaching the good things about the competition.

We are flawed and jaded, but the fact we still care gives just a smidgin of hope.

Lilith

11-02-2005, 06:02 AM

OK. As I stated before, I do ascribe to evolution. However, a few people have made reference to ID as more than a mere twist away from creationism, and here I feel a bit lost. Because as I understood it, intelligent design says that there was a designer - deity or not - that created all of the earth out of nothingness. The book of Genesis says - though in several different ways - that G-d created the heavens and the earth, and all that is upon it, in 6 days. Now, as far as I can tell, the only difference between the two ideas is the timeline of the occurence; i.e. ID is taking creationism and fitting to the scientific facts of the fossil record and carbon-dating. Again, if I'm wrong, someone please correct me.

When I was in highschool our teacher discussed evolution at length. Because it was a rural southern bible belt town she offerred a workshop by a theologian to accompany the evolution unit of study. He was a very sweet man who spoke openly of the Bible as an interpretive piece and asked me a question that has stuck with me all this time. " Do you think that a day could have meant 24 hours?" Knowing what we know about the way our species has come to be, did we honestly think the Bible meant 6 days. To me personally this became a way to gel the Science that I knew was correct and had observed for myself and my faith. I no longer saw the reference in the Bible as concrete but rather as the description of 6 evolutionary phases.

That was my introduction to the theory of Intelligent Design. It was probably back in 84.

To me, teaching evolution via the concepts of natural selection and gene mutation are vital. Especially now days when medical science is attempting to create those mutations in labs to cure diseases and illnesses. Students have to understand this because at some point they may be personally affected by the processess being developed.

For me the only difference in a wide variety of the theories comes from how the original process began.

africandan

11-02-2005, 08:59 AM

I have to disagree with this I think it's one of the best time to teach something like this when they are young and still open to new ideas.

I'd have to agree with you it would be a great time to teach them such things - before they've developed and misconceptions or personal bias.

But I wasn't saying it was a bad time to teach them. I was saying that it's impossible to teach them everything at that age. Just because it's theoretically a good time doesn't mean that we should do it.

Quite apart from issues of complexity (and I don't think that Osuche is right that children should understand - these are deep issues and require not only some life experience but also some incredibly complex philosophy) I think there is simply too much to teach them.

Much rather have grounded individuals who are literate and numerate even if they've still much to learn about these things. Are we really proposing to teach them a good understanding of all the world's major religions (again, how many of them exactly? 5? 10? 25? - the number of possible religions in this world is, after all, infinite), a firm grasp of the numerous different theories about how the world came into being, the skills to be able to properly compare what they are told AND everything else they are supposed to learn at school?!

It takes some people most of their lives to understand one religion properly and we're advocating teaching the most influential ones to children in a few years? As well as everything else?

africandan

11-02-2005, 09:13 AM

"Do you think that a day could have meant 24 hours?"

This is a very standard line used equally by those who lean towards theistic evolutionism and those trying to defend creationism. But as soon as you start arguing for 'biblical interpretation' you can can interpret all sorts of things.

For me the only difference in a wide variety of the theories comes from how the original process began.

As a side philosophical point I'll have to agree with this but question how sensible that makes the arguments between the theories. An argument often given by the religious who are prepared to discuss their beliefs is that there 'had to be' a creator.

This is where a key attitude towards evolutionary theory needs to change. From a philosophical perspective it really doesn't matter that much whether it's true or not. It just has to be possible. If evolution is possible - and the theory is possible, if not fully justified - then the argument that there 'had to be' a creator cannot be used to justify religious belief as it's not true.

But quite aside from that. Saying that God created the earth doesn't solve the problem. People seem reluctant to accept that at some point something just has to exist - without being created. Whether this is an omnipotent deity or some cosmic goo from whence we came... is by the by. There's no more reason for it to be one than to be the other.

africandan

11-02-2005, 09:17 AM

Scarecrow

11-02-2005, 05:46 PM

I still think it was the women from Mars who mess up the human race.

Oldfart

11-02-2005, 09:47 PM

I've heard that one before. Has merit.

Belial

11-03-2005, 06:53 AM

I am very much a disbeliever in Intelligent Design.

ID requires an intelligent designer. However, how is this possible? If the universe, by definition, contains everything that exists, then that includes the intelligent designer. Where did they come from? Create themselves out of nothing (which apparently could not have possibly applied to the universe, necessarily a less-complex entity than the designer)? Are they eternal beings (again, eternity couldn't apply to the universe)?

ID proponents throw out ludicrous-sounding figures about the probability of certain occurrances happening without design. Yet, improbable things happen. How probable was my birth? That my parents should happen to meet, that their parents should meet, etc? Consider the possibility that the universe is eternal. If time is infinite, then the probability of a given occurance at any point in time is 1. In that case, not only do apparently improbable things happen - they MUST happen, no matter how improbable they seem. That's only one idea, of course.

But most of all, I don't believe in ID because I've never seen objective evidence for it. All I've seen is alleged lack of evidence for other theories used in lieu.

Also, see The watchmaker argument refuted (http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm) and I've found reading transcripts of Victor Stenger's talks to be interesting also.

What should we teach in schools? ID is too socially significant to ignore. As far as giving it equal time goes, I'm not too sure about that. Teachers should be able to point out (perceived) advantages and deficiencies of ID and evolution.

gekkogecko

11-03-2005, 11:44 AM

Oh i think i got it now....

It's ok for you to push your ideas and be rude and abusive...but they can't

I dont care what religeon, race, colour or any other stuff you are...if you want respect then first you must give it

GG~ Regardless of your personal beliefs, this is a no flame forum. Be respectful in expressing your views.

Ah, Alasse, you have not at all got it now. And Lilith, you missed the point as well. Alasse's point the giving respect in order to get it is closer to the mark.

You see, if this is truly a no-flame forum, then the attempts to push "Intelligent design" in science classes would be made in the first place. It is this crap which is inherently disrespectful, offensive, rude and abusive. Under those conditions, I feel no compuction about replying in kind.

Alasse-therfore, I am not saying that it is OK for me to be rude & abusive, but not "them". "They" have already been rude & abusive. And therefore, if "they" wish to receive respect from me, then they should stop being rude & abusive.

Lilith: note that I flame under very rare circumstances. In fact, as I recall, of the by now over 1900 "official" posts I have made to the Pixies forums, I can recall flaming someone only in two different threads.

Amazingly enough, both were in situations where the hate-filled, mind-control forces in our society had performed actions, or made statements, which themselves were not only offensive, but also themselves inflammatory.

Further, I understand that what you said isn't, and can't be true in the strictes senst of the phrase. Specifically, these are a flame-free set of forums. However, I recognize your statement as an attempt to keep them as flame-free as possible.

I insist that the degree of respect I gave to the other side in my expression of my views was exactly the degree of respect I have received from them in their expression of their views, and exactly the degree of respect their issues deserve.

When they stop flaming, I will.

Aqua

11-03-2005, 12:54 PM

When they stop flaming, I will.
Specifically, who is flaming you GG?

wyndhy

11-03-2005, 02:18 PM

this is just a philosophical debate, not a congressional session. nothing is going to get pushed, shoved or hammered down anyones throat or even made into law.

i had thought my understanding of intelligent design was kinda accurate--that although the are more than a few zealots attached to the idea, there are several objective scientists who do have a hunch and would like to explore it in a scientific manner and see where it leads them. i’m getting the idea there's a few folks who think it’s all zealots and psuedo-science. here’s where I got my info, and I tell you why I think it was fairly….um fair….i was listening to the local npr station do a piece on intelligent design--if i had known i would need them here, i would have paid more attention to the names-- part of the show was history, part was investigative and another part devoted time to outlining intelligent design, with the help of two well spoken scientists who never descended into the least bit of emotional debate even though they held opposing views. nor was any specific religion’s god menioned...perhaps carefully so, i don't know, but there was only the brief mention the possibility that the designer is so far advanced of us as to be considered god-like. but still, that doesn't quite jive with me as any christian fundamentalist trying to force their religion into science class. for a couple reasons: one, without actually linking his ideas with any religion, in fact going out of his way to distance himself from it, i was left with more of an imression that the guy beleived that (a true god) to be the least likely of all possible 'intelligent designers'. and two, i may be stereo-typing too much here, but i don't think the npr host would have given the man the same respect and time she gave the woman debating him had she (the host) believed him to be from the christian right.

he said the science he was interested in was something along the lines of reverse engineering. i think he called it design recognition. and i am of the opinion that if one is using scientific methods to uncover data, as opposed to just saying it must be so, it must be considered science, no matter how green and wet behind the ears and weird.

what’s the harm of a mention somewhere during the theorized history of evolution section of h/s earth sciences? perhaps even an entire class offered at the university level? oh oppression! how you stalk my every thought!

i see it as a natural byproduct of the idea itself that compells religious organizations support this science. it would after all, put a very capital G at the beginning of god if god was proved real. different denominations have been accused of suppressing knowledge for ages, not the least of the accused being the catholic church and the city of rome, and a lot of those accusations are true--an example: it took over 1800 years for it to be acknowledged that aristarchus was right and we do actually revolve around the sun, in the beginning because of fear and ignorance and at the end because of outright censorship—so is it tit for tat, then? how does anything ever get learned when we were all too busy plugging our ears and mentally planning our verbal rejection of the idea we refuse to listen to.

jseal

11-03-2005, 03:00 PM

wyndhy,

In support of some, and hopefully without enraging others, I’d like to revisit two sticking points in this debate.

The first is that I am under the impression that school boards have directed teachers to present Intelligent Design and Creationism as scientific theories. The second is that the Theory of Evolution, as initially popularized by Charles Darwin, is “only” a theory.

I get a general sense from the other posts in the thread, that here at Pixies people generally support the presentation of as wide a range of views as possible. Another post alluded to the context issue. I’m pretty comfortable that everyone would agree that it would be silly to present theories of fluid dynamics in a Poetry course. No one would think of introducing the principles of the calculus in a History class. It is foolish to suggest that a discussion on optics lends value to a Physical Education curriculum. Why then present “alternative theories” which are not scientific in a Science class? Permit me to emphasize that I have no problem with – indeed, I think it useful to pursue for the reasons you list – a discussion of the subject. But I also suggest that the domain lies outside of that of Science.

The noun “theory”, when used to describe the measurable phenomena using formal scientific techniques, is a pretty robust word. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution has withstood a great deal of careful scrutiny for more than a hundred years. This isn’t “jseal’s personal belief about Evolution”, nor is it “osuche’s private musings about Evolution”. There is a large amount of corroborating evidence to support the principles.

Keep in mind that the base descriptions of Physics, from the largest, Einstein’s Special and General Relativity Theories, down to the smallest, Quantum Theory, all contain the same word. These theories predict unintuitive phenomena, from the trivial time dilation of Special Relativity, through the singularities of Black Holes, and the spontaneous creation (and destruction) of matter predicted by Quantum Mechanics. Interestingly, these theories are granted legitimacy not extended to Evolution.

wyndhy

11-03-2005, 03:16 PM

jseal, my apologies but i am having trouble recalling where i ever referred to it as a theory. i even thought i had taken pains to avoid the use and clarify i believed it to be more of an idea of fantastical proportions being evaluated by some in a scientific manner.

furthermore, if i am to keep a totally open mind, i can even see a way that evolution(a thoery, btw i would definitely agree has abundant and compelling evidence to support it)and intelligent design could be synergistic, or tributaries that feed a single end. and after all, how has so much evidence been collected in the quest for proof of evolution? it was denied, suppressed, re-thunk, slowly studied, accepted by some and then accepted by many.

gekkogecko

11-03-2005, 05:09 PM

Specifically, who is flaming you GG?

Already answered.

jseal

11-03-2005, 05:09 PM

wyndhy,

Your criticism that those who agree with the tenets of modern science are not wholly open minded is not only reasonable, but correct.

Science is a domain with limits. Modern science seeks to explain the universe in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Quantum Mechanics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Particles – mesons for example – are accepted into the theory only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. Because they must fit within the existing framework of physics, new particles can not have arbitrary properties.

To be scientific, theories must be falsifiable.

Due to the enormous success that the scientific method has had, I find the limits it imposes a reasonable trade off.

Oldfart

11-03-2005, 05:42 PM

Perhaps I can throw a little cold water on this.

Creationism, ID and the Dreamtime are all attempts to explain how the Universe came to be, because we simply do not know for sure.

Creationism carries with it an act of faith of a pre-existing God and a plan. The existence of the Universe is taken as evidence of the existence of God. Faith is not arguable.

ID is as above, but substitute Intelligent Designer for God. The Designer is a God of complexity.

The Evolutionists haven't the faintest idea where the Universe came from. Anything evolved requires a prior state, so again we are in a recursive which recedes beyond our ability to know.

Where philosophies become required teaching, be they Christian, Muslim, BaH'ai or Marxism, you need to teach them all or it's just an exercise in indoctrination.

Finally, it's OK for people to have different beliefs.

Scarecrow

11-03-2005, 06:40 PM

If evolution is a proven theory, please explain to me who found the "Missing Link" in human devolopment.

Lilith

11-03-2005, 07:55 PM

Already answered.

No one in this forum showed you or your ideas any disrespect and I expect you to respond in kind GG.

osuche

11-03-2005, 09:43 PM

/me stirs the pot once more. :D

If we can't agree on what to teach...... (wait for it!!)

Why not just OMIT any teaching of evolution, intelligent design, creationism, or ANYTHING about how the world began from our curriculum.*

Kids can learn about this stuff at home. or on Wikipedia. Since we can't agree, why not just avoid the topic altogether? What do we gain....except heartache and debate???

* osuche does not advocate this position....she's just being devil's advocate. Carry on. :D

Belial

11-03-2005, 09:50 PM

I could accept the possibility of an intelligent designer of the earth, solar system, humans, etc - eg, aliens - but not of the whole universe.

Have any ID-ers put forward anything like this?

Oldfart

11-04-2005, 12:00 AM

Belial

Have you read "Ringworld"?

BIBI

11-04-2005, 07:13 AM

I think I'll stick to the Flying Spagetti Monster theory myself.....

Going to become a Pastafarian. At least I can wear some neat accessories. :rofl:

Oldfart

11-04-2005, 08:31 AM

Now that's scary.

PantyFanatic

11-04-2005, 10:02 AM

...Going to become a Pastafarian. At least I can wear some neat accessories. :rofl:
I’m a Frisbeterian.

We worship the frisbee and believe that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and stays there forever. The weather and number of pigeons that visit you is determined by how good you were.

We don’t get to wear neat stuff like that, so I may have to rethink possibly becoming a Pastafarian. (there’ll be two of us then :grin: )

BIBI

11-04-2005, 10:33 AM

Alas PF...there are many before us. ;)

osuche

11-04-2005, 10:55 AM

I’m a Frisbeterian.

PF.....Has it ever struck you how close the shape of a frisbee is to a UFO? :yikes:

I guess your religion allows idol worship? :D :p

PantyFanatic

11-04-2005, 11:12 AM

Define 'idol'. :D

Pita

11-04-2005, 11:54 AM

You see, if this is truly a no-flame forum, then the attempts to push "Intelligent design" in science classes would be made in the first place. It is this crap which is inherently disrespectful, offensive, rude and abusive. Under those conditions, I feel no compuction about replying in kind.:)

insist that the degree of respect I gave to the other side in my expression of my views was exactly the degree of respect I have received from them in their expression of their views, and exactly the degree of respect their issues deserve.

When they stop flaming, I will.

I still don't understand the big deal in presenting Intelligent Design in class. I had to sit through while they tried to tell me we evolved from monkeys. I did my homework and got my A. Why can't kids also be told there just might be another possibility? I'm all for presenting different opinions and views to our kids. Then she can home and learn the truth according to mama.

I am sorry you were so wronged by Christians and have so much animosity for them. I do admit we on occasion don't do ourselves justice when trying to deal with the world and get our message out. But really, some of us are pretty nice and capable of playing well with others. ;)

You're not going to flame me are you? :x:

wyndhy

11-04-2005, 11:57 AM

or on Wikipedia.

great idea, osuche! but we should also eliminate literature, writting, and debate classes, any sort of theory class, economics classes, politics classes, and culture classes. they are all open to too much speculation and individual interpretation as well. we still have foreign language amd math...well, except for mathematical theory. oh! and gym is left too. art and music, except for maybe just the documented histoy of it peresented in time-line fashion, are definately out. hmmm...can't think of anything else, but i'm sure if we put our heads to it we can come up with a few more things we shouldn't teach. but pick something besides wikipedia. their info isn't always accurate. once i looked up shakespeare and all it said was this:

SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!...and wrote good poems.

now that's some good info right there, but i was disappointed at the shocking lack of it. they should have at least listed the year he died.

:D:D

PantyFanatic

11-04-2005, 12:28 PM

..... I do admit we on occasion don't do ourselves justice when trying to deal with the world and get our message out. But really, some of us are pretty nice and capable of playing well with others. ;) ......:x:
Thank you very much Tess. :thumb:

This intelligent design topic is a hot button thread that I was afraid of from the start and still surprised at the flash point level of from both prospective. Your statement actually makes this resemble a discussion instead of a pissing contest.

My understanding of the initial question was what should be taught in science class and not the validity of either concept. The bottom line for me is that the new subject label of ‘Intelligent Design’ just isn’t science and has no more place in a science topic than astrophysics has being injected into the Establishments of the Sacraments.

*carry on:D* ………. (ax handles available at the door :rolleyes2 )

BIBI

11-04-2005, 12:42 PM

Thank you very much Tess. :thumb:

This intelligent design topic is a hot button thread that I was afraid of from the start and still surprised at the flash point level of from both prospective. Your statement actually makes this resemble a discussion instead of a pissing contest.

My understanding of the initial question was what should be taught in science class and not the validity of either concept. The bottom line for me is that the new subject label of ‘Intelligent Design’ just isn’t science and has no more place in a science topic than astrophysics has being injected into the Establishments of the Sacraments.

*carry on:D* ………. (ax handles available at the door :rolleyes2 )

Ramen PF Ramen ;)

WildIrish

11-04-2005, 03:42 PM

Interesting press conference... click here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051104/ap_on_sc/vatican_science)

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."

Like I said...Evolution with a twist. :D

OK? Now can we go back to taking our clothes off?

jseal

11-04-2005, 03:54 PM

WildIrish,

Good stuff! Thank you. :)

WildIrish

11-04-2005, 03:54 PM

WildIrish,

Good stuff! Thank you. :)

Take your clothes off! :grin:

jseal

11-04-2005, 03:57 PM

WildIrish,

I presume that there is no one around here with a camera with a wide angle lens? :yikes:

Fangtasia

11-04-2005, 03:58 PM

Ooooooo a naked WildIrish!! :slurp:

WildIrish

11-04-2005, 04:01 PM

Quite naked. :hot:

Belial

11-04-2005, 07:17 PM

great idea, osuche! but we should also eliminate literature, writting, and debate classes, any sort of theory class, economics classes, politics classes, and culture classes. they are all open to too much speculation and individual interpretation as well. we still have foreign language amd math...well, except for mathematical theory. oh! and gym is left too. art and music, except for maybe just the documented histoy of it peresented in time-line fashion, are definately out. hmmm...can't think of anything else, but i'm sure if we put our heads to it we can come up with a few more things we shouldn't teach. but pick something besides wikipedia. their info isn't always accurate. once i looked up shakespeare and all it said was this:

SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!SHAKESPEARE IS GAY!!!...and wrote good poems.

now that's some good info right there, but i was disappointed at the shocking lack of it. they should have at least listed the year he died.

:D:D

Well no, wikipedia isn't always accurate, but vandalism is usually quite easy to spot. Their article on Intelligent Design, in fact, is of high quality (IMO).

WildIrish

11-04-2005, 07:24 PM

You're naked, right Belial?

Fangtasia

11-04-2005, 07:27 PM

*LOL*...Wooohoooo another naked guy!!

jseal

11-04-2005, 07:55 PM

WildIrish,

Is this how you see the thread evolving? :D

wyndhy

11-04-2005, 09:39 PM

i think it may have been by design, jseal :p

;)

Lilith

11-04-2005, 09:45 PM

intelligent? or better yet goofball :D

BIGbad

11-04-2005, 09:50 PM

Nope, it was just set of randomly submitted comments that evolved into a complex thread of discussion. Formed from the 95 out of 822 viewers that chose to respond at all. The random nature of what would inspire or not inspire each of the viewers to comment is freaking mind boggling!

wyndhy

11-04-2005, 09:50 PM

that depends, lil. he might be smarter with his pecker hangin out like that...gettin some fresh air an all.
is it smart to be naked?

jseal

11-04-2005, 09:52 PM

Lilith,

Hmmmm. Is that assertion falsifiable? Hmmmm. Hmmmmm.

Oldfart

11-04-2005, 09:56 PM

is it smart to be naked?

Only sometimes, wyndhy.

Being naked in the middle of an anabaptist service may not be the smartest thing to do.

wyndhy

11-04-2005, 10:22 PM

yeah bit sure would turn the men on right

Oldfart

11-04-2005, 10:29 PM

I'm getting some very disturbing images here, wyndhy.

Is it the house of the Lord or the "Oh Lord"?

wyndhy

11-04-2005, 10:36 PM

likr they say, of - o cum all ye faithful

Oldfart

11-04-2005, 10:54 PM

If it'll get my rocks off, I'll wander round whistling "I'm a believer".

PantyFanatic

11-04-2005, 11:39 PM

Oh great!:eek: Now it’s about geology and pangea. :faint:

jseal

11-05-2005, 08:04 AM

PantyFanatic,

It can be difficult to predict how things will evolve over time.

gekkogecko

11-05-2005, 11:26 AM

I still don't understand the big deal in presenting Intelligent Design in class.

Notice that I never argued against the teaching of ID "in class". I argued against the labelling of Intelligent Design as some sort of science, and teaching it in a *science* class. I have, three times now, stated that there's nothing wrong with labelling it for what it is...a thinly-disguised religious dogma, and teaching it in a class on comparative religions.

The teaching of ID as a science (Kansas state school board, several local Pennsylvania school boards, Georgia state school board, and several others who escape my memory at the moment):

constitutes a deliberately-formed, premeditated lie.

The numerous attempts at deliberately omitting the definition of science from school courses in general (Kansas school board):

trivializes the beliefs of others, and allows no room for an opposing viewpoint.

The REQUIREMENT that "Intelligent Design" be taught as a valid, coherent, science-based explanation of the origin of the universe (Pennsylvania, again):

is nothing more than attempt to deny US citizens of their rights supposedly guarranteed to them by the first amendment to the constitution of the United States.

The "quote mining" commonly employed by christain fundamentalists (this is a tactic whereby, parts of writings, presentations, and speeches are taken out of context, and then used to seemingly support the positions of the christain fundamentalists themselves):

is directly offensive, and constitutes a series of ad-hominem attacks.

And together, these acts embody a dogma which is based on personal enslavement, is intolerant of other points of view, is hatefully exploitative and is inherently inflammatory when pushed on people who might disagree with them.

Why can't kids also be told there just might be another possibility?

Because I'm so against a form of mind-control that constitutes an attmept at maintaining the exploitative status quo of our society.

I am sorry you were so wronged by Christians and have so much animosity for them.

Three notes on this last comment:
1. I haven't been wrong by *all* christains, nor do I have a lot of animosity for *most* christains. There is a certain group of christains that have wronged me personally, and more importantly, continally wrong me. My extreme animosity towards fundamentalists christains is the product of this wrong.

2. The same principle applies to religious fundamentalists of other sects, as well, I just haven't brought up in this thread yet, because that's pretty much irrelevant to this thread.

3. TinglingTess, it is not *your* job to apologize for *them*. *You* don't control *their* actions.

Edited note: BTW, it's warm today, so I'm naked atm.

Pita

11-05-2005, 12:24 PM

Edited note: BTW, it's warm today, so I'm naked atm.

Well naked it good! :thumb:

Hmm, it's warm here today too. Should I??? :wingang:

Oldfart

11-05-2005, 07:26 PM

Tess, can you think of 67 good reasons why you shouldn't?

PF, I've often been accused of having rocks on my head, or was that head among the rocks?

Pangaea was an interesting notion, but if you want to get picky there was once a supercontinent called Earth.

There were no oceans, lakes or rivers 'cos it was too bloody hot, just rock, therefore only one continent taking up the whole patch.

Do you know the pan-spermia theory? IDs probably wouldn't like it.

rabbit

11-05-2005, 07:42 PM

Creationism: Yes, I firmly believe God created the heavens and the Earth and everything in the Universe. However, I do not think that the book of Genesis should be taken literally...which leads me to....

Evolutionism: Yes, I believe this is the SCIENCE behind how things really happened, through God's will. Genesis talks about a 7 day process...What's a "day"? A billion years?

Intelligent Design: No sale here. Interesting theory, though.

jseal

11-05-2005, 08:12 PM

...Do you know the pan-spermia theory? IDs probably wouldn't like it.

Oldfart,

Interesting. There is an article on just that in the November issue (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00073A97-5745-1359-94FF83414B7F0000) of Scientific American.

Oldfart

11-05-2005, 09:03 PM

jseal,

November issue's not hit the news-stand here. It's the price I pay for living so far from civilisation.

PantyFanatic

11-05-2005, 11:12 PM

.....Do you know the pan-spermia theory? IDs probably wouldn't like it.
I believe the ID's refer to it as Pizza-Pan-Supreme. …….. or are you talking about why I feel the need to shoot my seed EVERYWHERE? :boink:

:grin:

Oldfart

11-06-2005, 12:38 AM

Nah, that's just you, PF.

jseal

11-08-2005, 08:07 PM

Kansas’s Board of Education, by a 6-4 vote, has approved science standards for public schools that cast doubt on evolution.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/08/tech/main1026220.shtml?CMP=OTC-RSSFeed&source=RSS&attr=HOME_1026220

Not surprisingly, the National Academy of Sciences has refused to grant copyright permission to the Kansas State Board of Education to make use of NAS publications in the state's science education standards.

http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer

osuche

11-08-2005, 09:06 PM

/me shivers over the thought of being TESTED on Intelligent Design in science class.

:yikes:

Oldfart

11-10-2005, 12:33 AM

Ouch!! I just had a lucid moment.

See if you can spot a flaw in this logic, please.

1. Anything with the power and scope to intelligently design and create a whole universe must fulfill our definition of a God.

2. The Intelligent Design advocates who refuse to state that Mr ID is God must either believe that he is not God or are deliberately with-holding their belief.

3. The first Commandment of the Old Testament ( shared by the Jews, Christians and Islam) only allows for the existence of one God, placing the above with-holders in breach of the Commandment.

4. ID includes us and our behaviour patterns in this created world, removing our free will and thus our ability to sin. Without sin we are all on our way to heaven, regardless of actions, because it is not us who have sinned, but the Designer who made us thus. If all action is as a result of Mr ID, there can have been no input by God, thus no divine Christ, no Christianity and thus no valid Christian Right.

5. If there is no valid Christian Right, there is no-one to legitimately push ID and it must go the way of all fallacies.

God (or Designer) I like a good rant.

PantyFanatic

11-10-2005, 01:20 AM

Ouch!! I just had a lucid moment.

See if you can spot a flaw in this logic, please........
That is FAR too logical and borders on 'thinking'.

There will be NONE of THAT allowed!!!!:mad:

Oldfart

11-10-2005, 04:32 AM

Sorry PF, I'll do worse next time.

wyndhy

11-10-2005, 09:00 AM

uh...that's MRS. ID!

Scarecrow

11-10-2005, 05:18 PM

uh...that's MRS. ID!

And she is from the 5th Dimension and just plays the part of God.

Oldfart

11-10-2005, 08:51 PM

5th Dimension?

Is she from Up Up and Away?

Scarecrow

11-11-2005, 02:57 PM

Does that have something to do with Aquarius?

Lilith

11-11-2005, 03:33 PM

It dawned on me that it might

BIBI

11-11-2005, 03:33 PM

Yep I think the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius......

BUT...Was that before or after her "Wedding Bell Blues"

Oldfart

11-11-2005, 05:52 PM

It has dawned on me!!

I have just worked out Mrs IT's name.

If she is in this Aquarius stuff, then . . . .she lives at Number 7 because

Wendy Moon is in the seventh house.

wyndhy

11-11-2005, 10:59 PM

:o ... caught me

just waiting for a bot named mars.

scotzoidman

11-12-2005, 12:51 AM

It has dawned on me!!

I have just worked out Mrs IT's name.

If she is in this Aquarius stuff, then . . . .she lives at Number 7 because

Wendy Moon is in the seventh house.Reminds me that I used the think God's first name was Andy, because of the old hymn we sang in church...

you know, "Andy walks with me, Andy talks with me..."

Steph

11-12-2005, 11:07 AM

you know, "Andy walks with me, Andy talks with me..."

:rofl:

A part of Newfoundland's anthem is "God guard thee, God guard thee, God guard thee Newfoundland."

When my uncle was a lad, he thought it was a song about a Toronto Maple Leafs player. "Doug Harvey, Doug Harvey, Doug Harvey Newfoundland." :)

Oldfart

11-12-2005, 07:37 PM

It's interesting how kids hear things.

"Australia's sons let us rejoice" became "Australian sunset ostriches".

Oldfart

11-12-2005, 07:43 PM

Bloody heck, I just realised I got her name wrong a few posts ago, Mrs IT instead of Mrs ID.

Sorry Missus.

Isn't this thread evolving well?

BIBI

11-12-2005, 11:13 PM

But....will we ever find out what came first?

The chicken or the egg!

PantyFanatic

11-13-2005, 01:02 AM

Don't you mean the ostriche or the egg? ;)

scotzoidman

11-13-2005, 01:21 AM

Isn't this thread evolving well?
Sadly, this thread seems to make the argument for Devolution...

...and certainly doesn't help the ID case either...

Oldfart

11-13-2005, 03:35 AM

Are you saying I'm not the man I once was?

BIBI

11-13-2005, 07:27 AM

Don't you mean the ostriche or the egg? ;)

LOL....I may mean EMU! I don't know anymore ;)

Scarecrow

11-13-2005, 02:04 PM

Are you saying I'm not the man I once was?

Are any of us? :dizzy:

Oldfart

11-13-2005, 06:13 PM

Let me count my marbles and get back to you on that, Scarecrow.

I used to have a cartoon (lost in one of my crashes) where a chicken and egg are in bed together. The chicken is having a cigarette and the caption was "Well I guess that answers that one".

FallenAngel5

11-13-2005, 10:52 PM

LOL - I love that cartoon Oldfart.

jseal

12-20-2005, 02:01 PM

Gentlefolk,

Pennsylvania Federal Judge John Jones has ruled that the Dover school board violated the constitutional ban on teaching religion in public schools.

WildIrish

12-20-2005, 02:26 PM

/me quickly replaces his Intelligent Design watch with one that's more "constitutional".

dicksbro

12-20-2005, 02:29 PM

/me quickly replaces his Intelligent Design watch with one that's more "constitutional".

That's terrific. :)

jseal

12-20-2005, 02:35 PM

LOL @ WildIrish!

lizzardbits

12-20-2005, 04:18 PM

as a *soon-to-be* high school Biology teacher, i should be very opinionated on what is required for me to teach, but i REALLY don't have much of an opinion either way.

I do like what my high school biology teacher did, somewhat similar to what Lilith's teacher did, is to explain how religion and evolution can tie into each other, and did this as an extra-curricular activity. at the time, i opted out of listening to it, but now as a future educator I wish i had heard what she had to say.

perhaps it is better that i be middle of the road??? more for impartial teaching????

sharper

12-21-2005, 12:16 PM

I wish I had been involved in this from the outset, if only to avoid reading ten pages in one sitting...

This is one of my favourite subjects, but much of what I had to say has already been said (many times), so I will limit myself to the following:

I believe the issue of separating creationism from evolution -- into 2 separate classes -- is that we'd be fundamentally calling one idea "science" and the other one "religion." Not sure everyone believes in this black and white difference. Especially when it comes to creationism.

This is a fundamental problem - the difference exists whether people believe in it or not. Everyone believes what they want to believe, often despite evidence to the contrary (not just in religion), and it is surprising how far individuals will bend things to fit those beliefs. I would include the length of creation "days" in that statement :)

Why can't kids also be told there just might be another possibility? I'm all for presenting different opinions and views to our kids. Then she can home and learn the truth according to mama.

Nothing is wrong with teaching kids different opinions - in fact, this is the ideal situation. The problem is that "different opinions" in such statements tend to mean the one that the speaker agrees with. Interesting that you end with "the truth according to mama" .

I note that the Intelligent Design idea fits conveniently with Christianity, and no supporter has advocated teaching about Hindu, Shinto and Dreamtime creation stories. I am all for teaching the alternatives (in an appropriate religious, not science, lesson), but that has to cover more than the one favoured option, otherwise it is just dogma.

If you haven't already guessed, I come from one of the most secular countries in the world. This story has had a lot of press over here. Talking of which, no-one has mentioned the judges comments:

"In his ruling, Judge Jones demolished assertions by members of Dover's former school board, or administrators, that the theory of intelligent design (ID) was based around scientific rather than religious belief.

He accused them of "breathtaking inanity", of lying under oath and of trying to introduce religion into schools through the back door.

The judge said he had determined that ID was not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". "

I had best stop now, before I upset anyone else :D
Sara

Lilith

12-21-2005, 12:37 PM

For me faith involves believing without the benefit of empirical data so truth be told, I will never see the religious beliefs surrounding creationism as anything other than religion and the science for me will always be evolving (no pun intended) science. I don't think religion should be taught as science but I certainly think it hurts no one to offer it as an elective. A course such as Religious Beliefs and Creationism that explored a variety of creation stories and the people who believe them, such as Osuche suggested may be a viable answer. I would list it as a Lit course or Social Studies.

jseal

12-21-2005, 12:46 PM

.. I would list it as a Lit course or Social Studies.
Lilith,

Sounds like a reasonable approach.

sharper

12-22-2005, 01:18 PM

Sounds like a reasonable approach.

Agreed - assuming it covers the world's major religions. A grasp of Islam would be of immense benefit to the western world in the current political climate (and, equally, understanding in the opposite direction).

bare4you

12-22-2005, 06:21 PM

Why do we have to give religion a new name in an attempt to pacify the agnostics in the crowd?

The days of teaching the "other side" to creation are long gone and we need to come to that realization. This was a sad day for those that believe in a higher being, regardless of the name of that higher power is called.

For those that do believe, there are other places to get the education. I've never had a doubt about my beliefs and don't need the courts to legislate my morality or understanding of where I came from. I know where I'm headed and feel sorry for those that haven't a clue.

jseal

12-22-2005, 06:34 PM

... A grasp of Islam would be of immense benefit to the western world in the current political climate ...
sharper,

Yes'm, it would.

sodaklostsoul

12-23-2005, 01:20 AM

Got this in an email, thought I would put it here.

> > > >>>>>>>>>SOMEBODY'S RAISING THEIR CHILD RIGHT!
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>One day, a 6 year old girl was sitting in a classroom.
The
> > > >>>>>>>>>Teacher was
> > > >>>>>>>>>explaining evolution to the children. The Teacher asked
a
> >little
> > > >>>>>>>>>boy:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>TEACHER: Tommy do you see the tree
> > > >>>>outside?
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>TOMMY: Yes.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>TEACHER: Tommy, do you see the grass outside?
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>TOMMY: Yes.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>TEACHER: Go outside and look up and see if you can
see
>the
> > > >>>>>>>>>sky.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>TOMMY: Okay. (He returned a few minutes later) Yes,
I
>saw
> > > >>>>>>>>>the sky.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>TEACHER: Did you see
> > > >>>>GOD?
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>TOMMY: No.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>TEACHER: That's my point. We can't see GOD because HE
>isn't
> > > >>>>>>>>>there. HE
> > > >>>>>>>>>just doesn't exist.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>A little girl spoke up wanting to ask the boy some
questions.
> > > >>>>>>>>>The Teacher
> > > >>>>>>>>>agreed.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>LITTLE GIRL: Tommy, do you see the tree outside?
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>TOMMY: Yes.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>LITTLE GIRL: Tommy do you see the grass
> > > >>>>outside?
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>TOMMY: Yessssss!
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>LITTLE GIRL: Did you see the sky?
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>TOMMY: Yessssss!
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>LITTLE GIRL; Tommy, do you see the Teacher?
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>TOMMY: Yes
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>LITTLE GIRL: Do you see her brain?
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>TOMMY: No
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>LITTLE GIRL: Then according to what we were taught
today,
>she
> > > >>>>>>>>>doesn't
> > > >>>>have
> > > >>>>>>>>>one...........

Hopefully it won't ruffle any feathers.