That would be terrible. I am not forcing anyone to see God as I do. I just want the option to be there for the child if the decide to explore it. Stop being so simple minded and read my post before attacking blindly.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Intelligent Design...........?
- Thread starter Im an Atheist
- Start date
That would be terrible. I am not forcing anyone to see God as I do. I just want the option to be there for the child if the decide to explore it. Stop being so simple minded and read my post before attacking blindly.
Beaudreaux
Well-Known Member
Straw man argument. The option IS there. Any high school aged kid can learn ALL THEY WANT about ID at a free church. Why are you against that?
Not against that necessarily. But not all churches are free, like they should be. Some people do not have the option of going to a church. I have tattoos from my teen years. Even though I do not agree with some of those tattoos anymore alot of churches would not allow me to even set foot there. There are many reasons that some of the false churches deny people. Its horrible but true. There is nothing I can do about that though. But I can hope to give our children options through other means. IF see the caps IF they choose to want to study that.
Beaudreaux
Well-Known Member
So...you are telling me that there is not one single Christian church within a reasonable distance from you that will let you in for free?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Can you please summarize what an education in ID would consist of? How much time does it take to fully study?
Yeah, my tax dollars are not going to fund that.
Not that I know of. 3 years ago I was homeless. Jobless. And only $100 to my name. I called every church/halfway house/homeless shelter within a 20 mile radius. Not a single one would put me up for a short time because I was
A: Not a Convict
B: Because I was white male
C: Have no children.
I realize that maybe this is just a isolated event, but it is still the world I lived in at that time.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
I am reading your posts. I am not attacking blindly. I know exactly what I am saying.
You (and all proponents of ID) have only one goal - and that is to substitute your religious beliefs for solid scientific knowledge.
Ain't gonna happen.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
You should move to the Bible Belt. That way, you wouldn't have to
a) commit a crime
b) undergo a sex change operation
c) adopt a child
Plenty of churches in my neighborhood. I'm sure that at least 98% of them would gladly teach any of our area youth all they could stomach, regarding ID.
You see it as we are trying to replace scientific knowledge. That is not the case. Science has brought us many great and useful things. There is no denying that. I just ask that you give a non-scientific option to people who know they are not going to need scientific knowledge. If I know that I want to grow up and be an auto mechanic because I love cars, why do I need to fill my head with useless info of biology? Why not give me the option of learning something I can use in my everyday life? Heck maybe I would take biology and skip ID just for giggles who cares atleast that option would be open to me. Thats all I am asking for.
Oddly enough I do live in the Bible belt. Right smack dab in the heart of it.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Great. Then you can see why the children have no need to learn religious mythology. No possible application for that under the hood of a car.
A set of metric sockets?
Isn't that odd? Many people consider rational thought and the ability to reason to be quite useful in life. Like it or not, that's all your getting.
Then you'll have to excuse me, when I strongly question the honesty of your answer, regarding the 20 mile radius.
I too, live in the Bible Belt, and have all of my life. You can't swing a dead cat in this part of the country without hitting at least 3 churches.
I didnt say I could not find any churches. I said I could not find any that would help me. I can throw a rock right now and hit 5 churches without even having to put any stank on it. Are they practicing Christianity the way it should be practiced? IMO no.
If you cant see the value of christian morals in everyday life then there is no point continuing this conversation. Yes you can live a honest decent life without being a Christian. But why do you want to deny anyone the chance to learn something they are interested in?
Halcyon
Lord of the Badgers
School science classes teach only the most widely accepted and up to date knowledge, thus they teach evolution instead of spontaneous generation in biology lessons and the big bang theory over the steady state theory in physics.
ID should not be taught in science classes for the same reason geocentrism isn't, there are better theories with more evidence and those are the ones that should automatically get precedence.
Anyway, any parent who would want their child to learn ID has undoubtedly already exposed him or her to the theory countless times in church, sunday school and at home. Having them teach it in school would only be repeating the same information to the fundamentalist Christian children, and would be a waste of time for all the other kids.
I agree with you somewhat that people should be taught about alternative theories, and when I was at university studying biology we did get a short lecture on alternatives (after all, it doesn't take all that long to say "God did it"), but we were there to learn current scientific understanding, not less well supported alternatives.
Something that does disturb me is the idea of giving kids a choice, as in an either or scenario. All children should be taught evolution as it is the prevailing theory, if they want to learn ID in more depth as well then I don't have a problem, so long as its taught in the appropriate classroom, the R.E one. At least that way the kids will have an understanding of evolution and can compare it to their religious theories.
ID should not be taught in science classes for the same reason geocentrism isn't, there are better theories with more evidence and those are the ones that should automatically get precedence.
Anyway, any parent who would want their child to learn ID has undoubtedly already exposed him or her to the theory countless times in church, sunday school and at home. Having them teach it in school would only be repeating the same information to the fundamentalist Christian children, and would be a waste of time for all the other kids.
I agree with you somewhat that people should be taught about alternative theories, and when I was at university studying biology we did get a short lecture on alternatives (after all, it doesn't take all that long to say "God did it"), but we were there to learn current scientific understanding, not less well supported alternatives.
Something that does disturb me is the idea of giving kids a choice, as in an either or scenario. All children should be taught evolution as it is the prevailing theory, if they want to learn ID in more depth as well then I don't have a problem, so long as its taught in the appropriate classroom, the R.E one. At least that way the kids will have an understanding of evolution and can compare it to their religious theories.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Whew!! That was close!!
I don't want to deny anyone the opportunity to learn anything they are interested in. I just don't want to subsidize the study of religious mythology with my tax dollars. Can you understand why I would not want to do so?
Why are you not espousing the substitution of Gregorian chants for choir? Why not six daily prayers, facing East, rather than civics classes? Is it because these are not representative of your faith?
Because no one is debating that. We are debating why/if/should we teach ID or not. The fact is you are denying children the opportunity. Christians pay taxes to the same as everyone else our voice should be heard as well. For you to say otherwise is hypocritical. I understand why you don't want your tax dollars spent on it. But you are a minority this country is ruled by the majority. Each school district should put it to vote. If your a Christian in a atheist school district tough luck...And vice versa. Figure out other ways to go about it. But the majority (whether christian or non- christian) should have the say its anti-american to do it otherwise.
Last edited:
ayani
member
no, not necessarily.
at its most basic, intelligent design simply states that the universe and life forms therein are.... intelligently designed. that an intelligent, willful Creator caused the cosmos to come into being, formed them, and created life and its diversity.
it may or may not also be linked to a belief in the Biblical account of creation, as opposed to an atheistic evolutionary stance on how the universe, life, and human life came to be.
granted there are many people who believe that the universe was intelligently designed, and who also believe in evolution. yet there are many who do not.
No, whats being disputed is whether Id should be taught as science. Children are not being denied the opportunity. They have comparative religion courses in school. They have christian courses, too. If children want to learn about it, let them take one of those courses, but don't pollute the science classes.
GiantHouseKey
Well-Known Member
Actually, unfortunately for you, America is supposdely secular. Which means that even if everybody is a christian, it's still 'tough luck' as you put it.
What exactly do you propose be taught? Im pretty sure I know all there is to know about ID and i've never been taught it.
Ok, so what do you know about biology?
Fundementals? eg. Hearts beat
Basics? eg. Hearts pump blood
A little more? eg. Hearts pump blood around the whole body and then back to the heart?
More still? eg. Hearts pump deoxygenated blood through the lungs and where oxygen is picked up and then transported through the body?
More? eg. Ventricular Systole causes a contraction in the left ventricle of the heart to force blood through the aortic valve which then sends blood through arteries and capilleries to tissue where it the oxygen is needed
Or even more?
How long do you think it would take to teach what we currently know about the heart? That's just about the systole of the left ventricle in fairly basic terms. Just to learn about the heart we need to know about all the other heart chambers and the muscles, and then about how the heart beats, and why, and what causes it.
And that's just the heart.
There's so much more to learn just about the respiratory system...
And then about human anatomy...
Then there's other animal and plant anatomy...
And that's just damn anatomy!
How long does it take to say 'God made everything'? I can do it in less than a second. How long would it take me to teach you everything I know about anatomy from the basics of 'The hip bone's connected to the leg bone' to the working of the entire human body? Probably at least a year and that's if you're really intelligent (More intelligent than me, it's taken me about 12 excluding all else i've learned).
If you've read all of this then well done. What i'm trying to say is what's the point in paying for some RE teacher to go 'Well God made this'? It's much harder to teach about just anatomy. What can we do with a knowledge of anatomy? Surgery, Osteopathy, Internal medicine...Make people better.
With ID, it stops there. Nothing. Bang. It's very well for people who want to sit there in their world and have all the questions answered, but people who are actually going to do something for the advancement of the human race are going to want to learn just a bit more don't you think?
Out of interest, do you think we should learn evolution in school?
GhK.
I am not opposed to students being taught about I.D. I have no objection to them being told about this in a course on philosophy. But I.D. is not science. Students should not be lied to about this. I.D. is an excellent example of a pseudo-science and I am all for students being taught about this. But it is not science, and it is not a replacement for science. All students should be given a very basic understanding of science, especially those who are not going to pursue it in their adult life. This may be the only opportunity they have to be exposed to scientific concepts, and we should not allow this opportunity to be taken from them.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
That's not what he asked. I've never been to a church that charged admission.