painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Not to mention Astrology, Homeopathy, Flat Earth and Geocentrism, demons causing illness and Alchemy.
wa:do
wa:do
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If we included ID in our textbooks, even to dismiss it, we might as well include the Hittite, Hopi, Ainu, Zulu and Inuit creation myths as well. They certainly have equal merit.
this thread is really long and I don't know if it has been mentioned or not but ANY DECISION on our education system should be made with the idea of opportunity cost in mind. Keep in mind that a child has a finite day to learn a finite number of topics that will have varying impacts on his or her post schooling life. It is important to note that most people will have very little or perhaps no education after their high school days and that their ability to function in society had the possibility of being impacted by the course-work chosen in grades 9-12.
With that in mind if a kid is taking say 6 classes per year year for 4 years, for a total of 24 classes any inclusion, factoring in opportunity cost should and could only be justified as the detriment of other courses that would be bumped to include it.
If we included ID in our textbooks, even to dismiss it, we might as well include the Hittite, Hopi, Ainu, Zulu and Inuit creation myths as well. They certainly have equal merit.
Intelligent design in its purest form doesn't specify who the designer was; therefore intelligent design includes those creation myths. Intelligent design is to Christian creationism as theism is to Christianity.
A textbook need not address the Christian-specific elements of ID in its most common form in order to reject it. In fact, I would strongly oppose specifically attacking Christianity in a public school textbook. Doing so would limit freedom of religion. There's a key difference between attacking an erroneous scientific hypothesis and attacking an erroneous religion in a governmental capacity.
Really?Intelligent design in its purest form doesn't specify who the designer was; therefore intelligent design includes those creation myths. Intelligent design is to Christian creationism as theism is to Christianity.
Your comment goes to the heart of the Flying Spaghetti Monster parody: the intelligent design movement presents a specific religious claim about the origins of life, and it's a claim that has no more merit than any other specific religious claim about the origins of life, whether it's God's hand a la Genesis, the golden egg of the celesial bird Nyx, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster's Noodly Appendage. Because of this, ID should be treated identically to all these other claims that have just as much support - IOW, the only defensible positions on the matter are to include all of them in the science class or to include none of them.Even if they were offended, we have to accept the fact that we can't possibly include every religion; there are simply too many to include any more than the most commonly practiced religions in most discussions. Many discussions overrepresent monotheism, but that's another issue.
Personally, I think that if you ensure that students have a thorough understanding of evolutionary science, then the fundamental flaws of ID become apparent.Education isn't just to improve post-schooling life. I think that high school graduates should be able to speak and vote intelligently based on political issues. Intelligent design is, unfortunately, a political issue right now, and failure to show students its fundamental flaws leaves a gap in those students' education.
Seeing how ID has much less merit than, for example, the phlogiston theory of combustion, I think somewhat less time and effort is warranted for ID than for phlogiston.I don't think that anyone is arguing that a full class on intelligent design be added. Personally I am arguing that a brief section on the flaws of intelligent design be included in biology curriculum, no more than one or two lessons.
The problem is that it's the Christians that want it added. I'm not sure it should be added either way, but it really is just a ploy to push Christianity. Even if it's claimed that it's not supporting or rejecting Christianity, the fact is that it would be used to specifically support it. It's like a pervert putting a camera in someone's bedroom, claiming that it will only be used in case of emergency, when we all know it'll be used for a lot more than that.
The inclusion for ID that I'm supporting is in the form of a disproof. Christians don't want that more than other people, they want it less than others.
OK, so then it's not part of this discussion. That's not what's being pushed, so it's not going to happen.
We should teach about religion. ID might be unscientific, but if folk believe it I'd rather know what it is. Likewise I'd I'm glad I know about Ramadan (and Eid) and Hanukkah.Teaching ID is simply teaching religion, something that should not be done in public schools.
At this point, I think that any introduction of ID into the curriculum of any subject in a public school would end up being used as a foot in the door for the state sanction of religion. Because of that, I think the harm associated with ID would outweigh the benefit of learning about other people's beliefs... at least for now.We should teach about religion. ID might be unscientific, but if folk believe it I'd rather know what it is. Likewise I'd I'm glad I know about Ramadan (and Eid) and Hanukkah.
We should teach about religion. ID might be unscientific, but if folk believe it I'd rather know what it is. Likewise I'd I'm glad I know about Ramadan (and Eid) and Hanukkah.