News:

if there were no need for 'engineers from the quantum plenum' then we should not have any unanswered scientific questions.

Main Menu

Why Creationism Shouldn't Be Taught in Schools

Started by Squid, January 21, 2010, 01:28:00 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Kylyssa

Um, Tank, I know that some people arouse these emotions through their blinkered words and aggressive resistance to reason but it's better not to get emotionally involved.  I go and hit my roommate's punching bag a few times if those emotions start to build too much.

pinkocommie

Great point, Kylyssa, the redefinition that would have to occur to integrate ID into science would completely change what science is.  If you think ID is science then you're effectively arguing that creationism is science and if you honestly believe creationism is in any way a scientific concept, then I'm afraid you don't know very much about science.

Scientists are just like any other group of people - there are good scientists and there are poor scientists.  There are even exceptional scientists that make mistakes once in a while.  Getting a degree which allows a person the title of scientist does not make them a GOOD scientist.

FYI - here is the decision rendered by the judge in the Dover case concerning ID being taught in schools -

QuoteOn December 20, 2005 Federal Judge John E. Jones, a Republican jurist appointed by President George W. Bush rendered this decision:

"The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

Emphasis mine.
Ubi dubium ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom.
http://alliedatheistalliance.blogspot.com/

Davin

#62
Quote from: "Filanthropod"You say that ID is creationism in disguise.
It is.
QuoteIn fact, a comparison of an early draft of Of Pandas and People to a later 1987 copy showed how in hundreds of instances the word "creationism" had been replaced by "intelligent design", and "creationist" simply replaced by "intelligent design proponent".

Quote from: "Filanthropod"I say that wanting ID to be taught only as though it is a religion is a disguise, a disguise for attempting to discredit by association.
Well then let's compare the merits of both our statements and see who has the logic that is more sound?

Quote from: "Filanthropod"Are there scientists who write about ID? The answer is yes. So, like it or not, it belongs in the realm of science. By all means disagree and debate with those scientists.
Not everything produced by a scientist is science, just like not everything produce by a science fiction writer is always science fiction. The point here is that just because someone with an occupation and credentials for subject X, not everything produced by this person belongs in category X. This is especially true in science. The scientific method removes those claims that cannot be supported by reality.

Quote from: "Filanthropod"There was a time when anyone who had a view that went against the norms of the time was ridiculed, and much worse.
Yes, we all remember the Spanish Inquisition and what the religious did to Galileo. I could right now go around proclaiming that Gremlins are the cause of all earthquakes and airplane crashes, get ridiculed to no end, and still be wrong. It's not whether things go against the norms or not, it's how well theory Z describes reality. ID/Creationism don't describe reality very well at all.

Quote from: "Filanthropod"What you are suggesting is not much different.
What I'm suggesting is that only scientific theories be taught in a science class. That is much different.

Quote from: "Filanthropod"Besides, we knowthat the chances of your wish ever coming true are practically nil.
Just wait for the economy in the U.S. to recover, then all this recent religious revival will go back down and sanity will begin to pick up lost ground. Because statistically speaking, religious activity increases as the quality of life drops and decreases as the quality of life increases. Of course statistically speaking, better education also leads to less religiousness, which is probably the real reason why ID/Creationists want to teach bad science in a science class.

Quote from: "Filanthropod"Scientists who talk and write about ID will always do so in their capacity as scientists, and I can't really see anything that you can do about that.
Nope nothing, it wouldn't matter if Einstein wrote in his capacity as a scientist that fairies kissing caused nuclear explosions, it wouldn't make it any more true. This just seems like a good old appeal to authority.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Filanthropod

Quote from: "Kylyssa"
Quote from: "Filanthropod"You say that ID is creationism in disguise. I say that wanting ID to be taught only as though it is a religion is a disguise, a disguise for attempting to discredit by association. Are there scientists who write about ID? The answer is yes. So, like it or not, it belongs in the realm of science. By all means disagree and debate with those scientists. There was a time when anyone who had a view that went against the norms of the time was ridiculed, and much worse. What you are suggesting is not much different. Besides, we knowthat the chances of your wish ever coming true are practically nil. Scientists who talk and write about ID will always do so in their capacity as scientists, and I can't really see anything that you can do about that.

The people behind the ID movement have written to others in the movement stating that ID is creationism in disguise.  They have stated that their plan is to use ID to insert Christian creationism into schools.  Their stated aims are to insert Christian creationism into public schools by using ID as a wedge to get in the door.  The people behind the ID movement, themselves, communicated that it is merely a tactic to squeeze creationism into schools eventually, a foot in the door for religion.  But if you'd bother to read that link provided by Thumpalumpacus, you'd know that.  

The same people trying to get Intelligent Design into schools failed to get creationism into schools. The very same people.  Why, pray tell, would people who got defeated in trying to get creationism taught in schools suddenly switch to trying to get ID taught in schools?

Scientists who talk about ID as if it were reality are speaking in their capacity as men of faith.  If ID is the one and only truth, then why is there no physical evidence in support of it and why do more than 99% of biologists think it's religion, not science?  Redefining science to not require any empirical evidence does not make it so.  Things believed without evidence are examples of faith, not science.

Intelligent Design is not in itself a movement. I believe in it but I'm not part of that or any movement. There's a difference between a view and a movement centred on that view, would you not agree? Anyway, teaching creationsism, atheism, or anything in betwen is fine by me.

The Black Jester

Just out of curiosity, Filanthropod, did you read Squid's OP?
The Black Jester

"Religion is institutionalised superstition, science is institutionalised curiosity." - Tank

"Confederation of the dispossessed,
Fearing neither god nor master." - Killing Joke

http://theblackjester.wordpress.com

Cecilie

In Norway we have a seperate religion and ethics class, don't they have it elsewhere?
The world's what you create.

Filanthropod

Quote from: "Tank"
Quote from: "Filanthropod"You're not calling me a moron, are you Tank? I suppose you're not. There are rules here, after all.
In for a penny in for a pound as they say. No. I'm calling you a Moron, you walk like a Moron, talk like a Moron and quack like a Moron. Can I be more explicit? No I don't think so. I'll take my strips, but you'll still be a Moron spouting moronic ideas provided to you by other morons who think that using long words will make them sound smart through their dullard mindless and delusional maundering. People like you who hold ideas like you are singularly dangerous to humanity. You despoil all that is good about humanity. You deny real science and attempt to insert your own strawman in its place. Your behaviour and attitude are truly despicable, I have nothing but contempt for people like you and the ideas you spout from the pulpit of selfish insanity. I'm not scared of calling a moron a moron and you sir, are a moron.

That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time, Tank. I'm going to make a comparison and I don't want you to get the wrong idea, just take my point. There are people out there designing weapons for killing other people, there are religious nuts out there saying that they're better than other people and saying let's kill them, and every day someone somewhere rapes or kills or tortures another person. But you in your infinite wisodm and judgment have decided to choose me as the ultimate bogeyman.

What do you know about me? That I believe in god. And from that you've figured out that I'm dangerous to humanity? However did you manage that? What I think is that people who go around so readily accusing others of being dangerous just because of a point of view are themselves potentially dangerous given half a chance. Honestly your post is hilarious in the extreme. You actually believe that I'm dangerous because I believe in god. Have you been drinking? You're hysterical, in every sense of the word. Pull yourself together and don't be so paranoid about people who are no danger to you or anyone else. You're like a religious nut, pointing and screaming "danger, danger, stop him!" You're like a cartoon character, a pantomime. Go on, tell me exactly how I'm a danger to humanity, sherlock.

Whitney

Quote from: "Tank"
Quote from: "Filanthropod"You say that ID is creationism in disguise. I say that wanting ID to be taught only as though it is a religion is a disguise, a disguise for attempting to discredit by association. Are there scientists who write about ID? The answer is yes. So, like it or not, it belongs in the realm of science. By all means disagree and debate with those scientists. There was a time when anyone who had a view that went against the norms of the time was ridiculed, and much worse. What you are suggesting is not much different. Besides, we knowthat the chances of your wish ever coming true are practically nil. Scientists who talk and write about ID will always do so in their capacity as scientists, and I can't really see anything that you can do about that.

I know you don't like people who disagree with you but ID will always be taught as science.
I love people who disagree with me, it's morons I have difficulty with  :D

Tank, please remember that name calling isn't in line with the forum guidelines.  But you are free to point ou how wrong he is and the flaws in his comments as there are many.

Filant...you have A LOT of learning to do.  Fortunately we have thoroughly covered why ID is not science on this forum multiple times...just search through our creationism board.

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "Filanthropod"You say that ID is creationism in disguise. I say that wanting ID to be taught only as though it is a religion is a disguise, a disguise for attempting to discredit by association. Are there scientists who write about ID? The answer is yes. So, like it or not, it belongs in the realm of science. By all means disagree and debate with those scientists. There was a time when anyone who had a view that went against the norms of the time was ridiculed, and much worse. What you are suggesting is not much different. Besides, we knowthat the chances of your wish ever coming true are practically nil. Scientists who talk and write about ID will always do so in their capacity as scientists, and I can't really see anything that you can do about that.

Quote from: "Filanthropod"I know you don't like people who disagree with you but ID will always be taught as science.

Quote from: "Tank"I love people who disagree with me, it's morons I have difficulty with  :D

I completely agree with your assessment, but I've been called a moron plenty of times.  Take it for what it's worth.

And, Fila, I don't think anyone here wants ID taught in school at all, except, of course, you.  I think Tank was just saying that if it must be done, do it in a religion class, where it obviously belongs.  That is certainly my opinion.

By the way, did you look at the link I put up showing the provenance of ID?  Do you have any thoughts on the matter?  Do tell.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Tank

Quote from: "Whitney"Tank, please remember that name calling isn't in line with the forum guidelines.  But you are free to point ou how wrong he is and the flaws in his comments as there are many.
Understood.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

karadan

Quote from: "Filanthropod"You say that ID is creationism in disguise. I say that wanting ID to be taught only as though it is a religion is a disguise, a disguise for attempting to discredit by association. Are there scientists who write about ID? The answer is yes. So, like it or not, it belongs in the realm of science. By all means disagree and debate with those scientists. There was a time when anyone who had a view that went against the norms of the time was ridiculed, and much worse. What you are suggesting is not much different. Besides, we knowthat the chances of your wish ever coming true are practically nil. Scientists who talk and write about ID will always do so in their capacity as scientists, and I can't really see anything that you can do about that.


Davin, Thumpalumpacus, Tank, Kylyssa and Pinkocommie ripped your earlier points apart. Instead of addressing them, you spouted the same nonsense in a slightly different way. You've shown a disingenuous attitude and are obviously here to preach, not learn.

Creationism or ID is absurd and should not be taught in science class. It shouldn't really be taught anywhere, in my opinion.
QuoteI find it mistifying that in this age of information, some people still deny the scientific history of our existence.

Filanthropod

Fair enough but I think it's pretty self righteous to dictate what is and isn't taught. Just because you disagree with a point of view, that doesn't mean that others don't have a right to know about that point of view. It's censorship. I think you're getting confused, because this isn't even about what is true or not, it is about freedom to know what other people think, which is why you're missing the point. And that's my opinion, which of course I have a right to have. Unless of course you'd also like to see a world in which people only have the "right" thoughts.

Whitney

Quote from: "Filanthropod"Fair enough but I think it's pretty self righteous to dictate what is and isn't taught. Just because you disagree with a point of view, that doesn't mean that others don't have a right to know about that point of view. It's censorship. I think you're getting confused, because this isn't even about what is true or not, it is about freedom to know what other people think, which is why you're missing the point. And that's my opinion, which of course I have a right to have. Unless of course you'd also like to see a world in which people only have the "right" thoughts.

Let's teach the kids about intelligent falling, flat earth theory, leprechaunism, holocaust denial theory, fake moon landing theory all as if they are worth entertaining as possible just because some loud yet uneducated people think they are valid.  Grade school is for teaching objective fact to the best of our knowledge provided modern study, not wild conspiracies and fringe philosophies....and it certainly is not for teaching religion; keep that in the home where it belongs.  There isn't even time in the already over burdened school schedule to include a fair overview of religious beliefs anyway....we an alarminly high amount of have kids who don't even understand basic math and science.

Filanthropod

Quote from: "Whitney"
Quote from: "Filanthropod"Fair enough but I think it's pretty self righteous to dictate what is and isn't taught. Just because you disagree with a point of view, that doesn't mean that others don't have a right to know about that point of view. It's censorship. I think you're getting confused, because this isn't even about what is true or not, it is about freedom to know what other people think, which is why you're missing the point. And that's my opinion, which of course I have a right to have. Unless of course you'd also like to see a world in which people only have the "right" thoughts.

Let's teach the kids about intelligent falling, flat earth theory, leprechaunism, holocaust denial theory, fake moon landing theory all as if they are worth entertaining as possible just because some loud yet uneducated people think they are valid.  Grade school is for teaching objective fact to the best of our knowledge provided modern study, not wild conspiracies and fringe philosophies....and it certainly is not for teaching religion; keep that in the home where it belongs.  There isn't even time in the already over burdened school schedule to include a fair overview of religious beliefs anyway....we an alarminly high amount of have kids who don't even understand basic math and science.

Oh dear. Looks like there's an echo in here. I've already said that the most common views should be made available to people. So that they can make up their own mind, rather than be dictated to by a self righteous self proclaimed elite as to what is true and what isn't. And Whitney, I know what you're doing. You're going through all the threads in which I'm posting, making a comment here and there, and trying to stir up a little squabble between you and I, because you're just itching to get rid of another theist. Some people call that fishing, although there's another word for it. Go on, you know you want to ban me. You want to keep the masterforum "pure", don't you. Go on, finish the job, gas me.

karadan

Quote from: "Filanthropod"Oh dear. Looks like there's an echo in here. I've already said that the most common views should be made available to people. So that they can make up their own mind, rather than be dictated to by a self righteous self proclaimed elite as to what is true and what isn't. And Whitney, I know what you're doing. You're going through all the threads in which I'm posting, making a comment here and there, and trying to stir up a little squabble between you and I, because you're just itching to get rid of another theist. Some people call that fishing, although there's another word for it. Go on, you know you want to ban me. You want to keep the masterforum "pure", don't you. Go on, finish the job, gas me.


Creationism or ID isn't a common view. It is a fringe view, at best. If there's an echo in here, it's yours, by saying the same things over and over again even though we've ripped it apart several times.
QuoteI find it mistifying that in this age of information, some people still deny the scientific history of our existence.