Id Vs. Evolution In Public Schools

[BarneyGumble]

Agreed. We should snuff out all Science in public schools, creation or evolution. :thumbs-up:

[Aristotle]

Barney: Welcome to the Politics and Current Events forum. The place where ignorance is worshipped and knowledge beaten to death with the hoof of a magical, flying unicorn named "Princess". I've spent so much time correcting ID activists about the common misconceptions of Evolution; but they don't listen. I've just grown tired of correcting them. You probably will too eventually. I don't know what's worse from them, hearing that Evolution is wrong but Micro-Evolution is real or that fossil records prove nothing of Macro-Evolution <_<

 

I'm not for the teaching of ID in public schools as a Science because it is not a Science. If they wish to teach it, then they should instantiate a world religions or introductory philosophy class to cover the topic. ID is not a science. It is a philosophical meandering on the existence, meaning, and purpose of being.

 

In the end, this is what most Creationists want to pass off as Science: Kent Hovind and Creation Pseudoscience.

 

There is so much disinformation and widespread ignorance nowadays that I'm not expecting my religious freedoms to last much longer. Maybe I'll move to Japan...

[invidious]

ya lets teach kids about every single religion on earth just to be fair. thats just retarded, we teach evolution because its scientific and not based on fear and dilusions.

Edited September 26, 2005 by invidious

[BarneyGumble]

Thanks Aristotle, I'm glad to know I'm not alone in this winter of my discontent.

[Nerm]

I don't see what is wrong with teaching both. Again neither is an absolute proven fact. It isn't about religion. It is about freedom of choice. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this Country supposed to be based on freedom to choose for yourself? lol

[Aristotle]

......I'll bite...Where are you getting this idea that Evolution has no factual basis or evidentiary grounding? Where are you getting this idea that ID does?

[Nerm]

I didn't say ID does. I said NEITHER does. I do believe that it is proven life does evolve but how life started to begin with is what is not proven. My personally belief is the belief of a combination of both creationism and evolution but my personal belief has nothing to do with the subject. We are all intitled to our own personal opinion which is why I think it is important to teach both theories in school and let the students decide for themselves.

[shiznit]

Creationism is based on religion. This should not be taught in public schools. Pretty simple. The United States prides itself in the seperation of state and church. Teaching creationism in a government-sponsored school system is the same as the government placing religions based on the bible's book of genesis as a 'preferred' religion. That version of creationism does not encompass all possible religions of the children attending that school.

 

Currently there are privately-funded schools that have religion-based curriculums. If you want your kids to learn about creationism rather than evolution, enrol them in one of the religion-based schools. But keep the bible out of the public schools and in the church where it belongs.

[NCC10281982B]

I didn't say ID does. I said NEITHER does. I do believe that it is proven life does evolve but how life started to begin with is what is not proven. My personally belief is the belief of a combination of both creationism and evolution but my personal belief has nothing to do with the subject. We are all intitled to our own personal opinion which is why I think it is important to teach both theories in school and let the students decide for themselves.

550693[/snapback]

 

Thank you nerm!

 

I was gonna post a comparison between Genesis and the big bang. But I want to review my facts first. So that will come later. The point of which is "Can't we all just get along?"

 

shiznit: I understand your argument and think it is valid. If you remove one.But we are still faced with somebody, from either side, saying that "My views are not taught in school. This is not fair." So we'd be back where we started. How can U teach science with out discuss origins of life forms?

 

Side note: TYho here has bee to the misum of natural hsitory at the simthsioan? I walked through it thinking "Now how does that make sense?" This whole issue is at a stalemate. IMHO So I can't tell you who is right.

[wanksta]

I hope it goes through. How man was created is not 100% proven fact so it is not right that schools teach only evolution as if it were an absolute fact but at the same time they shouldn't teach creation as absolute fact either. They should teach both theories and let the students decide for themselves.

550650[/snapback]

 

 

that is why they DONT teach evolution, they teach it as the THEORY of evolution, that is how it was taught in my HS and it made perfect sense. it is the same thing as teaching a math theorem

[Aristotle]

Even math theorems have a fundamental empirical basis.

 

The whole trial is just absurd. Evolution happens--fact; how evolution happens--theory. It's not that difficult to understand. Science puts forth no idea concerning whether God does or does not exist. In fact, any branch that claims to be science and attempts to address the issue of the existence of a divine being is merely fooling itself; it is not a science at all. Science takes empirical observation and deduces or infers, with valid evidence, theories and hypotheses that explain observation. The more accurate the hypothesis, the more facts there are that support it. Eventually the reliability of the hypothesis proves well grounded and is thus promoted to a theory. As the theory is proven more stable and reliable it will eventually be promoted to a law.

 

Evolution differs from ID because it: explains observation; has been proven reliable in explaining observed phenomena (like why Penicillin gradually became less effective in fighting certain infectious bacteria); attempts to explain how the phenoma occured (like why old skeletons of primates have similarities); and has a factual basis (fossil structures).

 

ID fails to do any of this and merely presents philosophical posits that lack reliability and a factual basis. They also fail to actually explain any observable phenomenon. The entire premise of ID is that "Evolution is wrong" without actually stating why it is wrong, how it is wrong, or even providing theories that explain observed phenomena.

 

Example:

 

ID: A divine creator made everything. Nothing evolved.

 

Evolution: Similarities between genome structures from DNA samples show great similarities between two animals of the same family. Also, drawing from previous fossil records and what DNA was available, the changes in the DNA structure can be seen to gradually occur over time.

 

It's amazing that people want ID to be taught when it doesn't even account for, explain, or provide ANY evidence to prove a conflicting theory regarding extinction--which is a key event that takes place within Evolutionary theory.

[Iggy]

ID has no proof. It's simply a new word for creationism, since the word creationism itself contains many negative connotations with a good number of Americans.

 

Intelligent Design is not a theory. A theory is a broad and extensively tested or supported explanation for something. As far as I'm concerned there's as much evidence for Pastafarianism as there is for ID.

 

Intelligent Design is not science. One of the key components of the scientific method is observation. Anyone like to volunteer their observations of who or what created everything?

 

If we're going to teach ID, don't teach it as a theory and don't teach it as science. ID and Creationism are topics that belong in a Social Studies class, not Biology.