Posted on 01/30/2006 10:27:35 PM PST by Sweetjustusnow
The two scariest words in the English language? Intelligent Design! That phrase tends to produce a nasty rash and night sweats among our elitist class.
Should some impressionable teenager ever hear those words from a public school teacher, we are led to believe, that student may embrace a secular heresy: that some intelligent force or energy, maybe even a god, rather than Darwinian blind chance, has been responsible for the gazillions of magnificently designed life forms that populate our privileged planet.
No, the real issue is religion being taught as science in public schools.
That being said, exactly which religion should we teach in public schools?
Judaism & the Torah?
Hinduism, hundreds of Gods & reincarnation?
Islam, martyrs and 72 virgins?
Wiccanism & Goddess Mother Earth?
Buddhism & nirvana?
Shintoism & God-like Emperor?
Confucianism & social virtue?
Taoism & natural spirits?
Sikhism & the Shri Guru Granth?
Voodoo?
Exactly which religion's beliefs should we teach in public schools as science?
All methods of doing science are continually in need of challenge and fresh debate. Doing science from a non-thesistic perspective is as "normal" as doing science with the understanding that the universe is the product of intelligent design. If I had a hand in directing a public school cirriculum I would welcome the scientific disciplines I currently hold suspect in terms of accuracy, and I would push heartily for spiritual rain dances both in gym and math classes provided they were attended by properly crafted totem poles.
A similar view: Intelligent Design belittles God, Vatican director says.
Excerpts:
Intelligent Design reduces and belittles God’s power and might, according to the director of the Vatican Observatory.[...]
He criticizes Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna for instigating a “tragic” episode “in the relationship of the Catholic Church to science” through the prelate’s July 7, 2005, article he wrote for the New York Times that “neo-Darwinian evolution is not compatible with Catholic doctrine,” while the Intelligent Design theory is. Cardinal Schonborn “is in error,” the Vatican observatory director says, on “at least five fundamental issues.”
[...]
“To need God would be a very denial of God. God is not a response to a need,” the Jesuit says, adding that some religious believers act as if they “fondly hope for the durability of certain gaps in our scientific knowledge of evolution, so that they can fill them with God.” Yet, he adds, this is the opposite of what human intelligence should be working toward. “We should be seeking for the fullness of God in creation.”
[...]
“God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world which reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity,” he said. “God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution. He does not intervene, but rather allows, participates, loves.”
He concludes his prepared remarks noting that science challenges believers’ traditional understanding of God and the universe to look beyond “crude creationism” to a view that preserves the special character of both.
You lost me on that one.
I have some work to get finished. I'll check back later and see if this has evolved or not.
Exactly.
Do you sense any "starting assumption" in your statement above? It's right there on the surface. I'm not going to pass judgment on whether that assumption is empirically right or wrong, or even morally right or wrong. Every observer has to start somewhere. Every observer should be free to start in whatever manner he wishes. But to deny any place for starting assumptions in science is as absurd as denying humans the art of doing science altogether.
Or did you think your three examples would make all of it suddenly go away?
Evidently you missed the point of the entire thread. Or maybe you just decided to pick one thing out, make it a straw man and jump on it. Oh, wait, you're an evolutionist. Only creationists do that. My apologies.
You see, these were quotes showing that (at least some) evolutionists have an agenda. They have a "faith" and they "defend" it. The quote you picked out illustrates this perfectly. The part you want to pay particular attention to is: "The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone."
There. That wasn't too hard, was it?
Which of your specific points did this-is-your-brain-on-itching-powder answer in his response, I wonder?
P.S. I think the ID movement should rename itself, a fitting name would be "The Simon Peter Brigade."
He's faking it. I want only genuine madness.
In general, the Priesthood of Science is getting nervous because the peons aren't singing along anymore...
well Ichneumon.......One can easily post tons of links about a rather broad topic and yet not be on point. If you had just a little bit of intellectual honesty, you would acknowledge that the topic is broad and I believe I was quite specific in my responses. You prefer posting links which would not be specific to the claim of the schizophrenic way in which evolutionists use terms such as "intermediate".
So rather than respond, you claim your worthless list of links answered my post. You then call me stupid?
Please, you've shown yourself over and over again to be a person of , how do I say this, equivocal thinking?
Obviously, you are incapable of minor comprehension.
Judaism & the Torah?
Hinduism, hundreds of Gods & reincarnation?
Islam, martyrs and 72 virgins?
Wiccanism & Goddess Mother Earth?
Buddhism & nirvana?
Shintoism & God-like Emperor?
Confucianism & social virtue?
Taoism & natural spirits?
Sikhism & the Shri Guru Granth?
Voodoo?
To the best of my knowledge, none of the followers of the above religions are pushing for their belief systems to be taught in public school as science.
Look, communities should get to teach the kids what they think the kids should learn. The interesting thing is this: they can't come back later complaining that they're kids can't get into college, etc. property values have dropped or that businesses won't move into the area. You pays your money and you takes your chances.
Sir or Madame:
I have seen the post you addressed to me. My response is as follows:
Your information is: [__] wrong, [__] incomprehensible, [__] copied from an idiot, [__] all of the foregoing
You are obviously: [__] ignorant, [__] dishonest, [__] insane, [__] all of the foregoing
I recommend that you: [__] finish high school, [__] seek help, [__] STFU, [__] all of the foregoing
From now on: [__] stop trolling, [__] stop drinking Sterno, [__] never post to me, [__] all of the foregoing
they're = their
Bingo! What does that tell us?
Look, communities should get to teach the kids what they think the kids should learn. The interesting thing is this: they can't come back later complaining that they're kids can't get into college, etc. property values have dropped or that businesses won't move into the area. You pays your money and you takes your chances.
They can. That's why God invented private schools.
Hey Dimensio...did you evolve from a monkey?
Damn, dude, get a life! Or at least an education!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.