Controversial notion could be making its way into public schools

congrats on the kid-o, andy! do you have a name yet??

 

The real problem with teaching ID is that they want it to be taught in a science course. If it were a theology or philosophy class that would be one thing, but science?

 

I spent nearly 6 years of my life doing little other than researching different faiths and beliefs. I went through everything from Islam to Christianity to Buddhism to metaphysics. After all of that, I did get a sense of what I believe, but as far as understanding every religion and sect, there is still a HUGE gap.

If there is to be more education on theology, I believe it belongs at the college level or in specific theology courses in high school, not high school science.

 

This could create quite a quagmire for students in Alabama.

 

particularly after Halliburton takes over the schools.

 

A lack of conclusive evidence has never stopped Darwinian Evolution from being taught in a science course, so I don't see why other theories which are also lacking in evidence should be excluded.

 

Do the believers in ID think the "creator "constantly intervenes with the development of man, or was it just a one time thing at the beginning of "time"? If the later is true, then could they really have that big a problem with the theory of evolution? If they do believe the "creator" does constantly intervene with development of man, then that is a religious notion, and should be nerped.

 

because they are scientific theories and not religious ones, and it is science class and not religion class.

simple.

 

BINGO!!!!

By the way...I think that it is intellectually cheap for people to call it "Christian creationism," as Jews believe in the exact same creationism. Many other religions believe in creation by God as well.

I guess it just sounds more sinister to just make it all about those wacky Christians.

Before you all jump on the fact that it is Christians starting this movement, think about where we are talking about. I'm willing to bet that the handful of Jews in Conroe don't care either way.

 

Uh, I haven't met a creationist jew, as in, five thousand years and seven days creationist, ever, and I've lived in Manhattan for five years. That's not proof, that's just an anectdote.

In fact, I've met more atheist jews than anything else. I've also met agnostic and buddhist jews, but never a creationist jews.

I suppose a few ultra orthodox jews may endorse biblical creationism here and there. But most of the time, it always seems like christians are the ones inserting judeo- into the prefix judeo-christian, and there's nary an isrealite to be found.

I don't know much about Conroe Jews, but I think they'd rather keep this stuff out of the educational system if they could.

 

I think he was refering to the religion of Judeaism, and not the jewish race(?), in which case, there could not be a buddhist jew, etc.

I don't see how Darwinian evolution is any more scientific a theory than ID. Both are largely based on conjecture. In fact, there are more things that are not explained by DE (abiogenesis, transition to sexual reproduction, increasingly complex organisms) than there are not explained by ID. It is funny that many of the tactics that DEists accuse those that support ID of using (arguing from ignorance, negative argument) are the same tactics they use against ID.

 

lemme get this straight...

are you disputing HOW evolution works or you disputing that evolution happens at all?

 

"Now, the origin of life is certainly an interesting topic, but it is not a part of evolutionary theory. The study of the naturalistic origins of life is called abiogenesis, and while scientists have not developed a clear explanation of how life might have developed from nonliving material, that has no impact on evolution. Even if life did not begin naturally but was started due to the intervention of some divine power, evolution would still stand on the evidence as our best explanation so far for how that life has developed.

Now, it is true that biological evolution and molecular evolution (the basis of naturalistic explanations of abiogenesis) do have some relation and overlap in the sense that molecular change (in genes) is what drives biological evolution. So, it is not necessarily invalid to join the two - especially when you consider that it is hard to draw a definitive line between life and non-life.

The important thing to remember is that evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life has developed - this means that it begins with the premise that life already exists. It makes no claims as to how that life got here. It could have developed naturally through abiogenesis. It could have been started by a divine power. It could have been started by aliens. Whatever the explanation, evolutionary explanations begin to apply once life appears and begins to reproduce. "

link

 

How it works. Intelligent Design is an explanation for how life evolves. It basically says that random mutation, coupled with natural selection, has such a low probability of evolving all of the complex life that exists on earth that it is doubtful that those were the driving forces behind evolution.

 

Incidentally...I have. In addition, I read a apologetic piece for the seven "days" as seven eras theory written by a rabbi.

 

"Pepsi Presents Arithmetic"
Troy McClure: If you have three Pepsis and drink one, how much more refreshed are you? You, the redhead in the Chicago school system?
Girl: Pepsi?
Troy: Partial credit!

 

ID is not science. That's why it can explain everything.

 

There are lots of holes in Darwin's "Theory". It is a theory and should be presented as that not as fact.

I also believe that faith should be taught at home (the middle east is a great example of what happens when goverments make decisions and claim to base them on faith) but teaching evolution and big bang as a "fact" is also wrong. It is a theory not a proven scientific fact.

 

That's fine to say they are just theories. Sh-t, gravity is still a theory that has yet to be fullly explained.

But to put evolution and the big bang alongside biblical creationism, or even ID, and to say that they are competing "theories" is ridiculous.

One is science, the other is not.

 

ok, lets assume for a sec that ID is actually how and why organism evolved over the past 4 Billion years of Earth's history..

Now ID says that some devine power, i.e. Chrstian God, is behind the design and changes that animals and plants have undergone...

now why would any animal need to change over time if it was designed by God? Did God make mistakes that needed to be corrected? You can't say that God needed his creatures to change over time to meet the challenges of living in new environments because, according to you, God is behind the changes in the environment as well. And wouldn't an "Intelligent Designer" be able to design a biosphere that wouldnt require change?