Intellegent Design?

[Mooseman]

Sorry,
The second question was pure sarcasm....... no need to answer....

 

[evan d]

No.
No.

 

[Istanbul]

1) Yes, but only if you include EVERY religion's version. (That should be enough to shove a banana into folks' tailpipes.) No Christianity-only.
2) No.

 

[train]

yes
no

and a maybe - just for good measure...

 

[Limited]

No
No

The first 'No' is a tough one. I kinda agree with Isty that ALL variations should be taught, but I also think this would become mightily confusing for kids. So, taken an All-Or-Nothing position, I would be content with no alternatives being taught. This way, education is not biased against any religion (but perhaps a bit in favor of no religion at all...)

 

[EricBess]

I agree that it would be impossible and impractical to teach all possible theories. However, my concern still stands that teaching theory as if it were fact isn't a great idea either. I personally don't see why any of it needs to be taught in public schools.

 

[Oversoul]

Yes, but only if you include EVERY religion's version. (That should be enough to shove a banana into folks' tailpipes.) No Christianity-only.

Why should theology have any place in a science class?

I personally don't see why any of it needs to be taught in public schools.

I'm not sure. Like I said earlier, scientific theories should only ever be considered tools (not something sacred). So, the question to answer would be, "Is evolutionary theory worth teaching in biology classes?"

My answer would be "no" because if the educational system were restructured in a more sensible manner, there would be little room for such a theory. The biology-based classes I went through in high school (general science I, biology I-II, and marine biology in a class that was supposed to be oceanography, but wasn't because the teacher liked marine biology) spent plenty of time on possible chains of evolution and explanations for how an organism might have developed, while virtually ignoring the anatomy/behavior/physiology/known history/etc. of the organism. This puts the priorities in the wrong places.

Edit: Now that I think about it, they usually did spend quite some time on anatomy. But the others were "virtually ignored" as I claimed earlier.

 

[Istanbul]

Because there is a valid argument, and that is that - while evolution makes a lot of sense - it hasn't been PROVEN. And never will be, really...the best we can do is extrapolate a very likely event, as it is in the past. That's why it's called the evolution theory. So while I'm okay with teaching a different viewpoint, it's important to me that we don't just stick with Judeo-Christian teachings and call it a day; if we're gonna show every viewpoint, let's show EVERY viewpoint. If not, let's just leave science to the science class, and theology to the places of worship. That would be my point.

 

[Gizmo]

Let's teach everything, then. I mean you can't prove anything, so in History teach that the holocaust may never have happened, and in Geography that the Earth might be flat, and in IT that Windows might be a great OS.

 

[Chaos Turtle]

SIgn me up for the alien abduction class!

 

[Mooseman]

Sign me up for astrology and Psychic friends network......

BTW - Einstien's work is only a theory, as is economics and the entire branch of mathematics..... let's not teach those in public schools.

 

[evan d]

Well, can we at least teach that shooting all your classmates is wrong, but wasting a bullet in the process is terrible.

 

[EricBess]

Let's teach everything, then. I mean you can't prove anything, so in History teach that the holocaust may never have happened, and in Geography that the Earth might be flat, and in IT that Windows might be a great OS.

A bit passive-aggressive there, Gizmo?

Are you arguing that we should only teach evolution, or that we shouldn't teach anything that isn't established?

I find your examples a bit extreme. We have plenty of evidence to show that the earth isn't flat, the holocaust wasn't a ruse, Windows is crap, etc. We don't have such evidence that there is no Supreme Creator.

However, if you are trying to argue that we should be careful to teach known facts, I'm in agreement. I don't think evolution necessarily measures up any better, though. My vote is to either be very clear that we are only teaching theories, or to leave it completely as a topic for the home and/or church.

 

[Oversoul]

We don't have such evidence that there is no Supreme Creator.

This should be of no concern whatsoever in a biology class. Biology is not metaphysics.

Now, in a metaphysics class...

 

[Mooseman]

We don't have such evidence that there is no Supreme Creator.

Nor do we have any evidence that there are no UFO's visting the Earth.......

Now, what evidence is there that either of these are fact and not "theory"?

How do we test these "theories"?

BTW - Evolution doen't exclude the existance of a Supreme Creator.

 

[Istanbul]

Actually, my whole point was in the next to last sentence of my last post. The rest of it was more to drive the point home.

 

[evan d]

We don't have such evidence that there is no Supreme Creator.

Nor is there any evidence that there is except our own excistence, if that is really true. In debate, I have learned that burden of proof is on the affirmitive, which says that they want there plan passed. Negative wan't the plan not to be passed. In this debate Theo is aff and atheism is neg. IF theology cannot prove that there is, then by default in a debate atheism would win the match.

 

[EricBess]

Wow, 3 people quoted me out of context...

I'm still not 100% sure that I understand Gizmo's point, but he could have been interpreted as comparing teaching about a Supreme Creator to teaching that the Earth is Flat.

My point was not to try to convince anyone that there must be a Supreme Creator based on lack of evidence against one. Personally, I think there is a significant amount of evidence for, but regardless, my point was that Gizmo's argument (if that was indeed his point, I'm still not sure) was flawed because we have specific evidence showing that "The earth is flat" is an incorrect statement. We have no suce evidence to prove false the statement "There is a Supreme Creator".

 

[EricBess]

Because there is a valid argument, and that is that - while evolution makes a lot of sense - it hasn't been PROVEN. And never will be, really...the best we can do is extrapolate a very likely event, as it is in the past. That's why it's called the evolution theory. So while I'm okay with teaching a different viewpoint, it's important to me that we don't just stick with Judeo-Christian teachings and call it a day; if we're gonna show every viewpoint, let's show EVERY viewpoint. If not, let's just leave science to the science class, and theology to the places of worship. That would be my point.

Actually, my whole point was in the next to last sentence of my last post. The rest of it was more to drive the point home.

This the post you were referring to Istanbul? I agree with your assesment. However, I'm not sure whether you are considering "evolution" to be a viewpoint. Are you arguing that we should teach anything else unless we teach everything else?

I consider the theory of evolution to be a viewpoint also...

I don't think its practical to teach every viewpoint, but if you are going to teach one, you should clearly make every effort to teach as many as possible.

 

[Oversoul]

I don't think its practical to teach every viewpoint, but if you are going to teach one, you should clearly make every effort to teach as many as possible.

What is meant by "viewpoints"?