226 replies to this topic

[PhillyB]

I don't see how it's inappropriate to simply acknowledge that there are widely held beliefs other than evolution.

How is it intellectually honest to deny that alternate theories even exist?

in a science class, if a fact-based, empirically-testable alternative was raised and cited, I would have a problem with the class or teacher shunning it because it was an alternate theory.

currently, every major theory is based on a religious or philosophical argument that attempts to poke holes in current theories to elevate its position. that's not science. keep it out of a science class.

[Zod]

So if you disagree with it, you can just dismiss it as an invalid option, regardless of how many other people might believe it.

Convenient.

If it has zero evidence to support it, damn right.

[g5jamz]

currently, every major theory is based on a religious or philosophical argument that attempts to poke holes in current theories to elevate its position. that's not science. keep it out of a science class.

Aristotle would tell you that you don't know wtf you're talking about, in so many words.

[cookinwithgas]

In fact, it's not hard for people that think to actually do. Why waste time on nonsense because "someone else believes it"?

Tomorrow some new scientific evidence could come along and blow modern evolution theory apart. And as long is it stood up to the testing and prodding of the scientific community - using the scientific method - I would be fine with that.

Can you, just perhaps, vaguely see the difference now?

[cookinwithgas]

And as far as me "getting carried away" or whatever -

this is a central issue to me because I am a geek who loves science, and understands that the scientific method has literally created the world we live in today. The idea that it's OK to usurp it with magical stories because science has consistently pushed back the dark ages of religious explanations of things, and some people want to change that, is something that should have been discarded completely a hundred years ago.

[BBQ&Beer]

Again, this is the whole debate.

You can assert that as much as you want but until you back it up its just your assertion & I'm giving it the merit it deserves.

People want evolution to be taught as absolute, unquestionable fact, no other options even possible. No possibility of any creator or any other interpretation of how we claim to be. Any suggestion that creation is even possible is "not science" and needs to be dismissed.

Its been explained to you multiple times why creationism isn't science & you've replaced those explanations with straw men.

I say that's cowardice.

If that were happening I'd agree, as it stands, you're the one displaying cowardice here.

[BBQ&Beer]

Aristotle would tell you that you don't know wtf you're talking about, in so many words.

Can you explain why?

[Panthro]

Creationism should be kept far far far a way from science class. I have no issues with it being taught in a philosophy or religion class but not science.

<<<Christian

[Bronn]

lol g5 trying to get all philosophical... Don't make me bring in Plato's Allegory of the Cave and talk about how people see what they want to see and what they are told things are until the moment they see the true way ot things...

I suppose that allegory could hold merit for both sides of this discussion in that people of faith will claim that you'll never know god or faith until you actually see/feel/etc...

But, the way I see it is that you are going to believe what you are told until you find reason not to... I see enough in the world around us every day that leads me to not have any faith in an intelligent/omnipotent creator that gives to shits about humanity... Sure, that is the pessimistic view, but it is also a realist view...

That said, private schools can teach whatever they want as far as I am concerned... But, they should receive no assistance or funds or whatever from the government... Public school should be about the facts, and faith does not equate to fact. Science is a different animal in that it constantly seeks proof or falsity, while faith seeks nothing but adherence.

[Bronn]

Creationism should be kept far far far a way from science class. I have no issues with it being taught in a philosophy or religion class but not science.

<<<Christian

Rep to you, good chap, should our old reputation system once again return to its glory...

[Cat]

You do have semblences of math in english classes to teach some basic grammar rules...and you do have basic economics in chemistry..as in to balance equations. To say we can't bridge critical thought across multiple curricula is ignorant and short-sighted.

I'd like to think you get my point and are just being nit picky.

[Panthro]

And does this mean we have to teach every religions creation theory or just our own Christian one

[PhillyB]

Aristotle would tell you that you don't know wtf you're talking about, in so many words.

while I am far from an expert, I dedicated over a full year of evenings in libraries and bookstores doing nothing but researching issues like this one to find out concretely where I stand. I read every apologetics book I could get my hand on, old and new, philosophy, science, astronomy, physics, you name it, and I was never able to find an argument for prime-mover origin that was entirely empirical (read: scientific [read: relevant to a science class.]) I would be incredibly interested in hearing your take on this in a manner other than snide trenchant sniping in the style that you so boisterously accuse cwg of doing.

[mav1234]

Because we have the whole notion that even acknowledging the existence of intelligent design theories is somehow unscientific. In other words, it's only "real science" if it agrees with a certain viewpoint.

It's intellectually dishonest, smacks of fear and quite frankly, intolerance.

It amazes me that people think having a science teacher simply say "some people believe that a higher power exists, and that higher power created everything" is such a big deal to people.

Not everyone interprets the "evidence" the same way you guys do. But you're not willing to accept the idea that an alternate interpretation is even possible.

That's just intellectual cowardice.

At this point I do not think you have any idea what you are talking about.

There are very few biologists that do not acknowledge that there are people who believe in intelligent design... but why the heck would you teach philosophy in a science class? And how do you decide which philsophy to teach?

Why is YOUR creation story better than the Indian creation story? Why is it better than the Japanese? Or the Hopi? Or the ...

When I was introduced to a bit of depth on evolution in high school, it was definitely preceded with, "There are many religious stories about how life came into being. We aren't going to discuss those, because this is a science class. We're going to be learning about observed explanations for life and how it has evolved on this planet."

The problem is that people that advocate "intelligent design" aren't content with things like that. They want to "teach the controversy" or some bullshit. There is no controversy here. There is philosophy, and there is science.

[mav1234]

Had a class years ago that went over a lot of stuff, different interpretations of fossil evidence, geological stuff, etc. Remember about as much of it as I do my 7th grade biology.

If you want to look, there's plenty of stuff you can find online. Same as with Biscuit. I'm too lazy to look it up for just a message board debate.

My issue is more the notion that we can't even acknowledge that such theories exist. There are plenty of people, including scientists, who believe in one theory or another of intelligent design. But we can't allow that discussion to happen because somehow that harms the children's minds.

So again, it's only "science" if it agrees with your viewpoint and interpretation of the data. Have I got that right?

How exactly is that different from teaching orthodoxy?

I'm deeply disappointed in you, Mr. Scot.

There is no verifiable evidence of intelligent design. There are distortions and hoaxes. That is not to say it is impossible that some form of ID took place, but there is literally no evidence of it. I have looked into the evidence - and it isn't there. It's crap, total crap.

Science is about hypothesis testing. How do you test the existence of God? That is why you don't teach stuff about God in science class. This also goes for stuff like creationism/ID.