Posted on 05/08/2006 2:04:49 PM PDT by balrog666
"A day may come when the promoters of Intelligent Design wish they had left well enough alone."
I doubt it, but the evos ALREADY wish that IDers would have left "well enough alone" (aka silence IDers).
You may not want to acknowedge it, but there are credentialed scientists who believe in I.D. They are a minority to be sure. Even the article acknowledges that there are many scientists who believe in guided evolution. But again that's not permitted in the schools at this time. But there are a lot more scientists who believe in I.D. than those that are willing to be vocal about it, because of the prevailing bias in scientific circles against I.D..
"You realize, of course, that this would require devoting a significant portion of history curricula to various popular conspiracy theories, physics curricula to various common misunderstandings, etc. etc. etc.?"
You mean grade school kids would be taught the original teaching that Thanksgiving was to give thanks to the Lord in addition to the now politically correct thanks to the Indians revisionist history? Or that Muslims were actually the ones that sacked and burned western libraries before they "saved western civiliation" by keeping some of the books?
I don't it would require every crackpot theory to be taught, because frankly most crackpot theories never gather much of a following.
Christianity is estimated to have more than 2 billion followers, Islam more than 1 billion. Hindus and buddists are far below those numbers.
But we don't have to consider what people believe in third world countries, we only need consider what American's believe and we are primarily Christian. There probably should be a threshold. Something like 5% sounds good to me, but since that would exclude any other groups other than Christians, perhaps we should go with 1 or 2%. But they shouldn't get equal time. That would pick up Muslims and Jews, but then they basically believe in intelligent design and/or guided evolution too. So you really aren't picking up any additional theories.
I'm confident enough that Christian teachings can stand up to any other theories...bring them on. It's better than the kids being taught only one view and not to think critically for themselves.
"The Bible was not written by God."
The Bible was inspired by God. The first five books were written by Moses, and they record that God told Moses to record certain historical facts. So God apparently oversaw the writing of at least a portion of those first 5 books. Moses was confirmed my many miracles in the sight of all of Israel and other nations. SO he had major credibility as a prophet of God.
What's important about those first 5 books is that they lay the foundation for all of the other works of the Bible. It is in those 5 books that you find the tests of a prophet. And it is in reference to those first five books that Israel knew which people were actually prophets and who to listen to and who to include in their canon.
Both the first 5 books and then the following prophets all told us about Jesus. Jesus was not only confirmed by the fulfillment of the prophecies foretold but was also confirmed by many miracles.
His disciples were well known and thus their writings have credibility. The apostles were also confirmed by miracles.
So while God didn't personally write down the words, I'd be real hesitant about discounting His influence. The fact is those words in the Bible hold up a standard that is far better than any other religion or code of ethics that man has come up with. It's readers and followers may not be perfect in implementation, but that doesn't mean the standard isn't the right standard.
"The message in the Bible is: Be HAppy. Mind your own business. Here's a decent set of rules which, if followed, can make a viable, decent society. "
You need to go back and read the Bible again, because that's not the message.
The message is "Be Holy for I am Holy". That doesn't always equate to happiness. God sometimes calls us to do things that make us decidely unhappy. He's our creator and He has that right.
Instead of "Mind your own business" the Bible actually tells us to "Rebuke your neighbor frankly so that you do not share in his sin." Or didn't you read that part? Did you know that God told one of the prophets that if God said that the wicked man will die in his sins, and that if the prophet didn't open his mouth to warn the wicked man, that God would hold the prophet responsible for the man's death? God doesn't tell us to mind our own business, rather he calls us to an active Love for others. We aren't responsible for other's decisions, but sometimes we have a responsibility to speak out of Love. And we have a societal responsibility because God gave dominion of the earth to man. Nowhere do I see God telling us to "mind our own business".
The closest he comes is telling us to get the board out of our own eyes so that we could see clearly before we try to get the splinter out of our neighbor's eye. But even then he didn't say it was wrong to help the neighbor, just to make sure that we were properly prepared to help.
"If you think the Bible is "the word of God" - you are a fool. All one has to do is calm ones mind and sit outdoors -and YOU will hear the word of God. "
I can tell you definitively based on what you said about "being happy and minding your own business", that is NOT God's voice you are hearing. Because that's not love and God calls us to Love Him and to Love others. Now the truth is that if you love others, you will be more joyful. But joyful is different than being happy and Love is NOT "live and let die - mind your own business".
If they are taught both sides, they can weight the evidence for themselves. I'm confident they will come to the right conclusion. They are going to hear that sometime in the real world anyway. You and I have. But again, whether that particular crackpot theory needs to be taught depends on the threshold you set. If you set it low enough to pick up Muslim beliefs, it might slip in past the threshold, but I doubt even most Muslims deny the Holocaust.
"That is true. Amongst historians, Holocaust denial is not very common. And amongst scientists, intelligent design has very little acceptance."
Well I think ID has more acceptance among scientists than Holocaust denial has among historians, but again you are forgetting "guided evolution" which the article admits has a much higher following. I say teach or at least acknowledge all three, instead of presenting one and only one side.
Well I disagree to an extent. Where Christian teachings do deal with scientific issues, such as creation, then a fair examination of the evidence is in order.
And there is evidence. There are scientists who point to the Cambrian explosion and the fossil record as evidence of something other than evolution. There are scientists who interpret geologic findings as supportive of a massive water catastrophe and pointing to something different than Old Earth. Both interpretations should be explored.
But I agree that a theory shouldn't be presented simply because it is Christian, but where there is evidence for and against a popular theory, then it should be examined.
The body of work in favor of evolution is larger than the body of work in favor of ID. And I'm o.k. with that influencing the amount of time ID has in the classroom, even though it means ID won't get as much time. Guided evolution being the more popular theory is likewise going to be limited to a discussion of what evidence scientists consider that causes them to conclude guided evolution and it shouldn't be simply that they believe in the Bible. But where the complexity of higher organisms causes them to doubt evolution then present that argument. And present along with it the evolutionist's claim that complexity is no barrier to evolution.
Again, the point is, if you are only presenting one side, you aren't teaching the kids to think critically. Or to keep an open mind. And I really think if science teaches us anything, it should include that we don't know everything and that we should keep questioning and testing, even when we think we know something.
Well I simply dissagree with you that they aren't scientific. And I think my post 153, clarifies that. What is presented should be evidenced based. But there are different interpretations of the same evidence.
Psst, psst "evolution".
You said that teaching facts is not a lie. I said, "So what do you have against teaching the Christian religion"? Evidently you don't want ID taught in schools even though it's based on facts. So which do you want? Facts or lies?
Yes you have, by default. As such your objections to ID are not scientific.
The starting axiom of science is that the fundamental properties of the universe do not change.
I reckon that shoots any notion of evolution square in the buns. Is this axiom subject to empirical proof? What makes it more scientific than the dearly beloved FSM?
Are you admitting that your claims are untestable?
No, I am not. I maintain that the presence of organized matter performing specific functions may reasonably be inferred as a product of intelligent design. My claims extend to organized matter, and to that extent they are testable. Further inferences and assumptions, like all inferences and assumptions, are not subject to empirical proof. That does not make them "unscientific."
You said that teaching facts is not a lie. I said, "So what do you have against teaching the Christian religion"? Evidently you don't want ID taught in schools even though it's based on facts. So which do you want? Facts or lies?
And you cannot stick to a subject. You've gone from 'teaching lies' to 'teaching the Christian religion' to teaching ID.
My original reply stated that saying that teaching facts and a scientific theory in school is 'teaching a lie' is not the truth.
I've not mentioned 'teaching the Christian Religion' or teaching ID. Get back to me if and when when you decide what exactly you want to discuss, if anything, instead of just making pronouncements and putting words in my mouth.
There are credentialed scientists that believe in crop circles. There are credentialed scientists that believe in UFOs. There are credentialed scientists that faithfully read their horoscopes. That doesn't make any of these things established science.
They are a minority to be sure.
I doubt it. I think there are probably a majority who, either because of unexplained anomolies, or the repeated success of the principle that there's nothing special about our little corner of the universe, entertain some form of ID, or panspermic notion.
Unlike creationists and other scientific cranks, however, scientists do not have any trouble differentiating these fancies from serious science.
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.