Yeah, all those “other” creation stories should stay in the Mythology class, 'cause they’re so obviously not true. 
My question is, what does creationism do for us?
Does it make predictions that can be tested?
Does it help us understand the world that we live in?
It seems to me that by saying that evolution cannot explain the change in creatures over the centuries that they are looking for proof of a greater being. However, faith is not faith if there is proof, so that does nothing for the religion.
The only reason that I can see that this is even an issue is because it is a way to bring Religion into the classroom and indoctrinate children.
Considering that some teachers would not like this curriculum, I would wonder how they would teach it. Would you like an atheist teaching your bible class? I wonder why religious parrents think that this would be a good idea.
So what is the justification for teaching this philosophy? Am I missing something?
Really? I thought the whole point of intelligent design was not that the “Christian God” created the earth, but rather that some sort of “higher bieng” did. In other words it could have been Odin, Allah, God (ie the Christian one), or the Giant Winged Lizard of Screwutyich.
I think that it is rather stupid to say to kids “There are problems with the theory of Evolution. But we’re not going to tell you them here. Go across the hall to your Theology/Philosophy class to learn what the problems are.”
I think that if critical thinking is to be taught, if evolution is to be taught, and if science is to be taught, well, you have to distinguish between them.
This ID thing really disturbs me. I heard someone talking about it on the radio to a “science” commentator. I have a background in science and I actually at first thought it was some new idea about evolution—the language was tricky and pseudo-scientific. The commentator took it completely seriously, he thought it was a new field of science. I had to talk to several people about it before I found out it was a clever ploy to get creationism taught in schools in science classes.
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection – how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.
I would say that in a broader sense, Intelligent Design is the science of bamboozling the public into thinking that the search for the cause of a fire by forensic scientists has anything in commom with the search for the cause of life. Has anyone heard of forensic scientists concluding God set the fire? All of these fields are searching for physical causes.
Science does not attempt to answer the question of whether or not God exists----it deals with physical phenomena only. It does not say God does not exist nor that God does exist. It is not a question that science can answer. It can put forth a convincing theory about the evolution of species based on the fossil record, DNA evidence, observation of rapidly reproducing species of fruit flies and bacteria, etc. And there have always been discussions and new ways of looking at and interpreting this physical evidence----the ID criticism that no one dares to question Darwin is ridiculous. Just put forth the physical evidence.
You can add God into whatever you want. Many, if not most, scientists do believe in a god. But that part is not something that science can address. It is a personal belief, not science.
I don’t understand that last sentence, but I agree with the first paragraph. Only that the problem with evolution (or any scientific theory) is not that there is bible-story parallel to it. The problems with the theory of evolution are epistemological and empirical. (How can we understand? What are we trying to understand? How can we observe? What are we trying to observe?)
Well said, Cynth (and Bloom).
Evolution has nothing to say about what or who created the earth.
~~
However, intelligent design seriously misrepresents probability. Once an event has occurred, it’s probability is 1–a sure thing. Any argument which claims that life existing as it does is unlikely is false. Life existing as it does is certain; there’s nothing unlikely about it.
Simon, great post!
–James
I don’t think this is entirely fair. After all, it is proponents of creationism or intelligent design who, because they believe in it, want to introduce it into scientific discourse (which is not about beliefs). The problem is not disagreement, the problem is people are demanding to participate in a discourse that they at the same time don’t want to participate in (by accepting the premises of scientific discourse).
I love it
Learning from jsluder’s wisdom
Uh… Nope, I ain’t touchin’ that one.
You left out the bit about the secular state.
“Was founded on” is not constitutionally or legally significant in this debate. It’s a red herring.
And your argument about Islam is ignorant and bigotted.
It’s just one’s opinion, its no argument…
Oh my! You’re in trouble now!
Walden, I’ll presume this was levelled at me. Perhaps my dig was uncalled for in some eyes. Nevertheless, I find Bush’s public stance on this issue to be disturbing. I would have no problem at all if I.D. were to be taught outside of science classes. It is certainly one option of thinking open to us, but I dare say education would be better served if philosophy remains philosophy, religion religion, and science science. To combine a direction of religious thought with scientific studies, is, I am convinced, a mistake, at odds with our culture, and quite unnecessary at best.
Also I think it should be pointed out that not only is keeping Church and State good for State, it’s good for Church as well.
Nothing corrupts religion faster than government funding–and nothing makes a denomination shrink faster than government approval. Check out the stats for some of the countries that have a state-sponsored church, you’ll see what I mean.
–James
texasbagpiper, I could agree with your first statement.
As for the rest, if you are having us on then I suggest you examine your sense of humor which is offensive and hurtful, and apologize to those you have offended which would include just about everyone.
If you are serious, I suggest you think about what you said and apologize to those you have offended which would include just about everyone.
If you need help figuring out why your statement was offensive, please let me know.
Beats me. The editor must have deleted it. (That’s a reporter’s standard defense, and it’s true often enough to be plausable.)