Controversial notion could be making its way into public schools

This is simply too ludicrous to get passed... ::yawn::

 

If I understand correctly, isn't ID similar to evolutionary creationism? In other words, the idea that evolution and all of that did happen, but it was guided by God?

It will be an interesting argument. If they want it presented as a theory, they might be able to get it in - it's something that makes sense to a lot of people who find some things lacking in the idea of pure evolution. For example, if you believe in God, and you believe that God has a relationship with humans, then the existence of humans can't be pure chance - in others, evolution couldn't be purely random.

I could see the idea of "here is evolution ... here is the science behind it, but many people believe other things such as ID" passing muster with Texas schools, as long as it's not taught as fact.

 

When we look at human behavior over the last 3000 years, can that designer really be labled intelligent?

I think we are a badly flawed group that is evolving sloooooooowly.

 

Intelligent Design is creationism repackaged to appear more scientific so as to get around seperation of church and state. And I fear that if it gets adopted by some schools, it's "scientific" exterior will slowly dissappear leaving the Christian creation story being taught in schools, among other things.

And things like this really irk me:

"The overwhelming evidence in many areas of science are pointing to a designer over something happening by chance."

Oh really? And the overwhelming evidence would be...? Additionally, from what I've heard about ID, it's basically the watchmaker argument, and would belong more in a philosophy course than a biology one.

Another thing, why don't the supporters of ID discuss what is taught in universities? Surely the universities are closest to the scientific community and what they teach would be the best representation of current theories and knowledge?

 

Leave it to Montgomery County. They actually required an Italian restaurant to place cover a Greek statue that had a fig leaf on it and remove paintings it called obscene - re-prints of renaissance period artwork.

 

When I hear stuff like this, it makes me start to wonder..

Are we evolving backwards now?

 

I am really curious about what context these proposed classes will be taught in. Will they say God or will they say something like a possible higher being that may or may not exist. Somehow I think that the group pushing for this is thinking of the former which doesn't belong in public education.

 

To paraphrase Jimmy James, "What is this? I came here looking for ultimate fighting, and you're giving me synchronized swimming!"

I just wanted to throw out a couple of URLs that would be handy if there were actually any debate on the subject: http://www.talkorigins.org and http://www.talkdesign.org.

 

Theres a school district in Michigan which despite protests from parent will introduce a class called "International Affairs". This class will examine why people hate and conflict with the United States. Much of the literature for this class comes from radical leftist websites like Alternet, Indymedia and other anti-bush sites. Those who support this course claim that kids should be "critical thinkers" and should be exposed to many points of view.

With that said, isn't this a viable case to make for this class? This class isn't going to make the core credits. An elective which introduces an alternative to the concept of evolution. It doesn't suggest that Christianity, Islam, or what have you is the one true religion but that theres an alternative idea for the beginning.

 

Please let me teach faith to my son on my own. I do not want public school teachers attempting to teach about God. That's my job with my children. My wife worked as a first grade teacher for 5 years...she had another teacher who despised Christianity...who made it a point to pick on kids who brought books about Jesus to class...and when a little kid would be talking about what he did the previous weekend and include church, she'd say, "well, we don't all go to church!" ummmm...yeah...ok...so what? you asked me what I did this weekend! I do not want this for my son.

As a Christian, I see God's work in everything...why stop at teaching it only for creation/big bang/the beginning, etc.?? Why not point it out when describing the ability of plants to convert sunlight into energy...or when teaching about the length of their seasons and that correlation to life as we know it on this planet?? What I'm saying is, if you go down this road, it never stops...to the believer, like myself, God has created everything...so why limit it to merely creation? Ultimately, that's unworkable in a public school where kids come from many different faith traditions and backgrounds.

 

I think the "one single being" part is the clue to what this is really about. Although alot of scientists think that their was intelligent design behind the creation fo the universe, I've never read anything that empirically demonstrates that creation was the result of one being. To me, this is simply religious thinking in camoflage.

If it is so important to expose students to religious theory, why don't they set up a Religion class at the school where they learn about all religions?

 

If it is so important to expose students to religious theory, why don't they set up a Religion class at the school where they learn about all religions?

They want to teach their religion as they are convinced it is the only true one.

It would be interesting to see if they would oppose a comparative religion class with all beliefs, including atheism. I would suspect so. Many prefer to sort of push Christianity to be the quasi-state religion without equal time for other beliefs.

 

Good points.

 

I think the solution lies in the opposite direction, that religion is too excluded from public life, especially schools. I don't really mean the opposite, because issues of faith are not in the realm of public education, but I think theology is overly neglected in education. I grew up being inexcusably ignorant of the beliefs of many religions. I've since made up for it with Christianity and I recently got a Koran to work on Islam. But, I'm still embarrassingly behind. And, most everyone else is too.

Is that a church/state problem to teach theology? Many would complain, but I don't think it should be a problem because the idea is not to teach faith, just the tenets of faith. And, it wouldn't cover one religion and one denomination, but as many as possible. Would it abused by Christians looking to propagandize? Yes, probably, just like English class was an excuse to talk about sex. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught, only that it should be policed. But that stupid amendment (or rather the ridiculous interpretation we've ended up with) has made the discipline so underdeveloped that insurgents can slip propaganda in.

Intelligent Design fits in with all this. I think people are right to insist it be taught, but they want the science teacher to teach it when it falls outside his profession. This is more of a philosophy/theology issue that should be taught by a philosophy or theology teacher. Problem is, we don't have any of those.

 

Although I would like philosophy and theology courses to work in a public school setting, I'm weary of the classes being dominated by the dominant religion/philosophies/etc of those in charge. I went to a private, Christian middle school and we studied Greek mythology. That was neat! I also took an intro philosophy course and a Judaism/Christianity/Islam course in college and I loved both. And learning about those sort of things enhanced my life. But I'm not sure if such courses could be taught in a responsible way without supporting a certain set of beliefs, faiths, or tenets over others. Additionally, the fundamentalist christians probably wouldn't like christianity being taught alongside other religions. Ultimately, it would be too completed to try to imlpement a good, well balanced course on religion without some religious group becoming upset or some religious groups being illigitimized. Philosophy would be easier to teach, as long as it avoided the parts of philosophy that dealt with religious matters. I think that would run into the same troubles as a course on religion.

 

History is probably as bad as religion in being taught with a bias. In my own experience (from middle and high school), most of the world was neglected for the sake of US, European and some Latin American history. That's not much different from neglecting Hinduism for Christianity. The history I was taught also carried a political taint from my teachers who had their interpretations of history they could not help but convey, which is similar to a Christian being less than even-handed in interpreting tenets of faith. But, we don't shy away from teaching history, nor should we.

 

I do NOT believe this ID stuff should be taught. How much scientific backing does it have anyways?

However, if a school wants a 10 foot 10 Commandments monument, I have no problem with it. As long as it does not constitute an "establisment of religion" it is cool.

 

White trash is everywhere! RUN!

 

I wholeheartedly agree. Faith is best taught at home. BTW, we found out that our child will be a boy (unless that was the umbilical). I plan to teach him about God on my own, and would be very upset if some teacher tried to undo those teachings because of personal bias.

Again, agreed. As a child of God, I see His hand in everything, and I take it as my responsibility to show these things to my son in my own way.

Well said, Max.