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!

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.



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.

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

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.

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.

What To Teach?
 

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.

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

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.

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

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 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!

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.

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.

Best Time... Doesn't Make It Any Easier
 

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?

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.



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.

Despite all that, I still think this about as spot on as one can get when it comes to religious education.

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

I've heard that one before. Has merit.

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 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.

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.

Specifically, who is flaming you GG?

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.

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.

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.

Already answered.

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.

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.

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

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

/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

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?

Belial

Have you read "Ringworld"?

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:

Now that's scary.

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: )

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

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

Define 'idol'. :D

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:

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