I'm not against the idea of Creationism being taught, Yeti. I just object to it being taught in a Science classroom. In England, we have a compulsory Religious Education class, where children are taught the principles of all religions. I think, personally, that that's the best way to do it.

My personal objection to Intelligent Design is that it's trying to force Religion into the curriculum masquerading as Science. That's completely the wrong route to take.

haha how about stay out of my church mister!!! I do fear the day the government will attempt to tell us what can be taught in church and what cannot. There is that case of charges being filed against a pastor in the UK because of some passages he read straight out of the Bible. A scary thought.

Sad how education has declined but I solely blame that on our own government and part of it is the silliness over standardized testing. Let teachers teach is my motto. Not sure if you are up to speed on the detriment that standardized testing has caused and how many educators are opposed to it.

Either way props to you Tiggs for in my estimation being the most knowledgable person within this forum about the while ID vs evolution debate and its history.



Good points as usual. I can only add that any parent who leaves it to the school system to be the sole source of education to their children has failed. Of course as I am sure you would also agree.

Sadly we have none of that in America. The education system is in shambles. We do not even have tea and crumpets here >_<

Another scary thought is when the religious are trying to forcefully convert the population to Christianity. I am, of course, referring to the infamous Wedge Strategy, which, for some strange reason or another, no one seems to want to address.

It's a shame. I strongly suspect that if Religious Education was compulsory, then the entire Intelligent Design movement would never have started. Even as an Atheist, I have absolutely no issue with Children being taught the basic principles and tenets of all the major religions. Just not in the Science lab.

Mmmmm........tea and crumpets
*sigh* Yes i wish our education system was a bit...err...better.That's why i decided to home-school You get alot more done in alot less time


I noticed that alot of us(including myself) have been wrongly arguing about evolution when really this is a debate between Intelligent Design and Accidental Design(or chance existence or whatever you wanna call it).So really we should be debating how life and/or the universe started.Unless we wanna continue the current debate

Well Abiogenesis has supporting evidence where as ID doesn't.
Stuff being complex is not evidence.

lolz accidental design just made me laugh



As I understand abiogenesis is more a field of science that inquires about the origin of life. There are several models. You do know when the question of abiogensis is finally answered with certainty that those who espouse ID as part of their worldview will only say that is how the designer works....you do know that yes? As far as many are concerned abiogenis and ID are not competing with each other.

I would agree with that!

Yes, but all the proposed models for abiogenesis have evidence. With out any evidence ID is not science and merely conjecture. Unless it can show evidence of a creator it is not science.

And the wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round~

Here is another article somewhat related to the documentary, well not really but the theme is similar.



http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/04/expelle...ng-allowed.html

Sensationalist nonsense that article. ID has no evidence none what so ever, its proponents where spending there time saying attacking evolution and acting like that was supporting their idea, so why should it be considered?

Just to show the bias of the article man made global warming pre-dates Al Gores film by over 2 decades but facts like that are conveniently ignored (shocking for Fox "news" I know).

Do you know what is such a hard task at life training uncomplete.
State of Readiness. Required since the terrorists' activity noted on 9-11-01.

Where if you should be required to even show your I.D. for a beer, they can chuckle.

I agree ....I have no issue with the idea of god , i do have great issue with the explaination ...

Thank you. Its nice to know that I'm not the only one that feels this way. Now I know I'm not crazy... or well, I'm not the only crazy person

I think everyone with any sense would agree with that. No offense to you. Unfortunately, like Tiggs said, that is not what ID is trying to do. So if you agree with Tiggs, do you disagree with and/or have a problem with ID proponents for trying to force their views into science classes?

Why would you say no offense to me? You just said that anyone with any sense would agree with that. I don't know if you were trying to insult me, compliment me, or you confused yourself? To answer your question - I don't know off the top of my head I've never really thought about it. No I don't have a problem with people wishing to teach Creationism in schools even as a pseudo-science if need be. I like Tiggs suggestion of having a separate class for it if need be. I also have a problem with the idea of trying to take "God" out of America. That's the subject of another thread, maybe; but suffice it to say that there's no harm in honoring America's foundation and the will of the majority of its people. No atheist is going to convert because of a manger scene on the courthouse lawn at Christmas time or should I say Festivus?

I wasn't trying to insult you at all. I said no offense because my first sentence implied that even the most senseless people would agree with what Tiggs said. I didn't want you to think I was implying you had very little sense. Make sense? lol.

Anyways, I am not sure if I understand what you are saying. Are you saying you are okay with pseudo science in a formal science class? I meant specifically, do you have a problem with ID trying to pass itself off as legitimate science, and forcing it's way into a science text book, right after the chapter of skeletal anatomy? I think most people would definitely be okay with ID in some other class such as history or whatever class it fits.

And actually many courthouses do infuriate Festivus followers when they run the flags up their sacred symbol.

A Festivus for the rest of us!

I used to have problems with them trying to take God out of America. It is a losing battle they keep gaining ground. Not only in America but within the world. It matters not they cannot take God out of our hearts. Lot's wife looked back and turned into a pillar of salt. I am planning my citizenship to be in Heaven so who cares what happens to a godless nation or world. All we can be concerned about is ourselves and our family. God might love the world and I do too but my love for the world, agape, stops at being courteous to strangers and not wishing to make enemies of others, my love for my family, philia, is the same love I have for my brothers and sisters in Christ, my love for my wife, eros, is the most important of all.

No worries Bball! I don't think there's a problem with teaching Creation Research as an alternative to the theory of evolution under that classification even if it be with a caveat that the entire subject is rejected by mainstream science. I also would see a problem with it being presented in some other forum. It is a legitimate alternative view IMO.

I have no problem with ID, so far a non-scientific based worldview, being taught in science class. After all students are taught that once the world, mainly because of religious belief, used to believe the world was the center of the universe, but then science showed us the Sun is the center. There is no difference in that and simply saying some people believe God is the designer of evolution and that they also believe that the Designer made everything fit perfectly to work as it does by choice and not chance.

Though it is a foolish battle to try and force it into science class and a waste of resources. I will not feel bad or some giant emotional loss if eventually ID is never taught in class. Honestly though I believe people are just hating on God who do not want it in science class. That is the heart of the matter. Science is not going to go the way of the dingo if you simplay say some people believe God works through evolution. On the other hand for the few who do believe in God and make it such an emotional issue they need to just stop. God does not need them to defend Him in a science class.

But to me it seems a little like teaching astrology in an astronomy class, or faith healing in an emergency services course. There will always be alternative viewpoints - but where do you draw the line in what to teach? If you have the caveat that it is rejected by mainstream science there seems little point in teaching it at all.

When you teach you can't spend all day teaching 'alternative viewpoints'. It has a tendency to portray viewpoints as having equal evidence, which they do not.

Draw the line when a majority no longer considers it as a valid world view. Notice in Dover how many parents actually had issue with ID. Not many yet they cried and whined and made it an issue for the courts. ID should not be compared to astrology or faith healing for ID is a worldview that is supported by a majority and those others are not.



This viewpoint is unfounded. If ID is every introduced we can trust it will not take away much time from the current curriculum. Students will not be fooled into thinking it has equal evidence, since many claim ID has no evidence at all, how long would it take? In Dover it was one small statement that was to be read in science class that caused the uproar. It would have not been a pandora's box to where in the end all these alternative views would also have needed to been taught. In fact ID is not an alternative view since the majority of the world believes in God.

That's a really good point Belle and it's well taken. When you're dealing with the concept of science, I guess it is right to stick with the well established principals. So maybe there's a better forum for teaching Intelligent Design, or Creation Research. How about offering it as an alternative elective course, or an alternative to the curriculum of origins specifically? That way both camps are happy.

Here's something interesting. I know a born-again Christian who is a science teacher at a middle school. He's a really good guy. He's smart and good with kids. Can you imagine the turmoil that he must go through when he is forced to teach something like evolution (specifically the origins part) to a bunch of impressionable children?

It is an alternative viewpoint to mainstream researchers. Most people I know believe to varying degrees in astrology. In fact if you took a world-wide poll I suggest that most people believe in it (in some sense at least). Is that a good enough reason to teach it? Or bother mentioning it? I mentioned this on another thread recently as it comes up quite a bit, since we revolutionised farming and hence had surplus food we were able to put down permanent settlements and divisions of labour appeared. Experts. They, by way of accreditation systems, do usually have more knowledge about a subject than a layperson and should NOT pander to majority rules concepts.

There are many things a majority thinks that are baseless, or based on misconception/unreliable media reporting. When I started my first degree in archaeology you would be amazed how many people think that there is tons of evidence for "X-files archaeology" as I call it. There isn't - and you end up realising that it would be a mistake for teachers to pander to this type of thing and teach it as an alternative, no matter how many people believe it. There are enough squabbles about how to interpret evidence without pandering to majority rules teaching. It weakens the knowledge base of society - that gives humans our competitive advantage IMO.

A majority of who? We trust the sciences to extend our lives, to provide us with communication, more efficient power, travel, and all the areas that science works, but when it comes to life sciences or evolution, we are supposed to take our lead from the public? Why? Science, as has been pointed out before, is not a popularity contest.
And despite what you seem to think, religious belief is on the increase worldwide -> Source: The Economist. America used to be a leading light of secular advancement. In no other country was there a codified seperation of Church and state. Now, however, The U.S. is slipping towards a fundemental Christian state. You cannot become leader of that country unless you state your allegiance to god. tThis is absurd.

And that is where the difference between you and I lie. The "one small statement" you refer to is the giant wedge that I and others see. You think it is a harmless comparison between to equal ideas; that everyone is capable of making up thier own minds, I see minds that are as open to lies as to truth, and to allow that "one small statement" is to invite disaster.
Why is it not enough to keep religion where it belongs, in the Church.

While I agree with you on this I do not see how it pertains to schooling. The divide I assume is between those who believe that schools should only teach science and those who believe schools should teach science but also socialization. Teaching ID is not going to get in the way of the 'experts'. Neither is teaching mythology in high school or reading Johnny Red Fire Engine to lower levels going to get in the way of the experts. School should not be Orwellian or darwinian. It should be a place of learning and expanding minds and part of that is socialization.

Socialization

school as an agent of Socialization

That is what is truly at the heart of this battle and the culture wars in general. Socialization and the best manner to go about it.

OK. Time to catch up!


Talking about the Crazies, no?


But you see, THAT ISN'T HOW SCIENCE WORKS.
Scientists do not go out there and say: "OK everybody, we are going to try and find as much evidence as possible for some Crackpot theory. Whoever gets the most evidence wins!"
NO. Scientists INDEPENDENTLY perform experiments, and hunt for evidence. THIS drives Evolution and the Age of the Earth, and the possibility of Abiogenesis in Science.
If you actually read this Post, please reply in your next one starting with 'I actually Read your post, SQL'. Creationism is driven by the 'Whoever finds the most wins!!!'. Of course, there is none, so many people lie, lie, and lie again to pretend they've got something.
List of Creationist Lies:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/List_of_cr...onist_arguments





WRONG. It showed it could happen. That's all it needed to do, after you claimed that somehow the Evolution of the Eye is impossible.


EXCEPT WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF YEARS OF SCIENCE, THE MAJORITY OF THE WORLD, THE MAJORITY OF THE SMARTER PEOPLE, ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, AND SEVERAL YEARS OF OBSERVATION AND EXPERIMENTATION ON OUR SIDE.
On the other side? ALL, EVERYTHING Creationism has got is a 2,000 year old book of myths. Yes, MYTHS. If the Illiad is a 'Myth', the Bible is a Myth.


OK PEOPLE WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS FAIR AND SQUARE.

People on the Creationist side of this.
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
SEE THIS?

GOT IT?
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS BELOW
OK?
Because usually you miss them.
ANSWER ALL OF THEM.
THIS MEANS YOU YETIHUNTER.

1. Please explain why Creationism should be taught in a SCIENCE, SCIENCE classroom(Not Religion, Social Studies, etc.) if Creationism has absolutely no evidence on its side, and Evolution is basically fact.(With the theory being the exact details behind the FACT that things evolve)

2. Please offer ANY scientific EVIDENCE(Not Proof) for Creationism. ANY.

3. Please explain what problems you have with the provided diagram and links on the Evolution of the Eye.

GET IT?
YETIHUNTER-
THIS MEANS YOU

4. Please explain any 'problems' with Evolution.


5. There were billions of years for Abiogenesis to occur. And billions of planets. Therefore, there is almost a 100% chance abiogenesis would occur somewhere.(In our case, Earth). PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY you claim abiogenesis is near impossible mathematically.

6. Do you want more evidence for Evolution? I'll be happy to give you a nice long post.


Cheers,
SQLServer

How can you end your posts with "Cheers?" I actually read your post SQServer!

Why, I don't know? I answered your THREE questions from before - so I guess that makes us tied!

I'm sorry but I have a hard time communicating with you because your words are like acidic, poisonous, venomous dripping issues of angst. Cheers.

But creationism is not a science and it is not a legitimate alternative scientific view. If you want theology fine, but not as a science, that would be sending America's scientific education further back than it is already.
You are advocating teaching a religious belief as a science, that is just making the world more ignorant than it already is.
It is your BELIEF, it is not a scientific one and its not mine, if we teach creation we by the same token should have to that Ra masturbated the universe into existence but that is just as valid, if we teach there is a creator then we have to be fair and address the whole pantheon of Gods that have been suggested. We won't have time for science since we'll be looking at the way Zeus created the world over the way Jupiter did.

Cheers Yeti. Hmmm - really it can get beyond complex where things like this best fit in, even issues of public funding for types of courses should be looked at. I would say probably best in a simple comparative religions elective. But then I would say that wouldn't lol? You should never corrupt the truth to keep people happy. That is a perversion of the education system and will weaken it in the long run.



Maybe the turmoil will lead him to finding alternative employment. How does he reconcile being a science teacher when there is no credible evidence for his view? I probably couldn't do the reverse, to be honest. I used to teach online research skills at a Catholic University, which lead to 0% turmoil, but if I had to teach ID - that would make me MENTAL!!!!!

Congrats! First of the 7 Creationists I've ever runs(all the others were in 1 on 1 debates, too!) to have passed it.


That acid is called frustration.

I'm not trying to be too mean, it is just a lack of communication(Which we have here) frustrates me. It is hard to understand your position on anything.
That's why I try and simplify it with Questions.
Here they are again. Don't seem too virulent to me.


1. Please explain why Creationism should be taught in a SCIENCE, SCIENCE classroom(Not Religion, Social Studies, etc.) if Creationism has no evidence on its side, and Evolution is considered a biological fact.(With the theory being the exact details behind the FACT that things evolve)

2. Please offer ANY scientific EVIDENCE(Not Proof) for Creationism. ANY.

3. Please explain what problems you have with the provided diagram and links on the Evolution of the Eye.

4. Please explain any 'problems' with Evolution.


5. There were billions of years for Abiogenesis to occur. And billions of planets. Therefore, there is almost a 100% chance abiogenesis would occur somewhere.(In our case, Earth). PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY you claim abiogenesis is near impossible mathematically.

6. Do you want more evidence for Evolution? I'll be happy to give you a nice long post.

Cheers is polite. I see no reason to not be polite. Usually, by the time I'm at the end of my post, all the frustration has oozed out via the words, so I'm calmer again.

Cheers,
SQLserver

(sigh) have you guys learned nothing about creationists? why do you bother with trying to get them to answer to the cold hard facts? you know they are brainwashed and deluded. they will always try and find some way to slither there way out of it no matter how hard you try and pin them down. there just slimy and slippery that way. all you need do is point out there lies and fallacies put in some real science references and call it a day. being dragged into a long and pointless debate is just what they want. so why give it to them? look we all know these people are deluded, brainwashed, dishonest and spout nothing but BS. the only thing this move will most likely do is exemplify that and make them even more of a laughing stock then they already are.<-- and thats saying something!

once and for all - creationism , no matter how you wrap it up , is not science. nor do schools need religion unless it's a class on myths and culture. make it available on a Saturday and see how many kids attend.
What ? too much for the kids ? Our kids are falling behind first and foremost because of parents. evident of the kid who gets A's in the class by the same teacher everyone is blaming is the cause for little johnny failing.

now here are students -

Elite Korean schools, forging Ivy League skills
By Sam Dillon
Sunday, April 27, 2008

SEOUL, South Korea: It is 10:30 p.m. and students at the elite Daewon prep school here are cramming in a study hall that ends a 15-hour school day. A window is propped open so the evening chill can keep them awake. One teenager studies standing upright at his desk to keep from dozing.

Kim Hyun-kyung, who has accumulated nearly perfect scores on her SATs, is multitasking to prepare for physics, chemistry and history exams.

"I can't let myself waste even a second," said Kim, who dreams of attending Harvard, Yale or another brand-name American college. And she has a good shot. This spring, as in previous years, all but a few of the 133 graduates from Daewon Foreign Language High School who applied to selective American universities won admission.

It is a success rate that American parents may well envy, especially now, as many students are swallowing rejection from favorite universities at the close of an insanely selective college application season.

"Going to U.S. universities has become like a huge fad in Korean society, and the Ivy League names — Harvard, Yale, Princeton — have really struck a nerve," said Victoria Kim, who attended Daewon and graduated from Harvard last June.

Daewon has one major Korean rival, the Minjok Leadership Academy, three hours' drive east of Seoul, which also has a spectacular record of admission to Ivy League colleges.

How do they do it? Their formula is relatively simple. They take South Korea's top-scoring middle school students, put those who aspire to an American university in English-language classes, taught by Korean and highly paid American and other foreign teachers, emphasize composition and other skills crucial to success on the SATs and college admissions essays, and — especially this — urge them on to unceasing study.

Both schools seem to be rethinking their grueling regimen, at least a bit. Minjok, a boarding school, has turned off dormitory surveillance cameras previously used to ensure that students did not doze in late-night study sessions. Daewon is ending its school day earlier for freshmen. Its founder, Lee Won-hee, worried in an interview that while Daewon was turning out high-scoring students, it might be falling short in educating them as responsible citizens.

"American schools may do a better job at that," Lee said.

Still, the schools are highly rigorous. Both supplement South Korea's required, lecture-based national curriculum with Western-style discussion classes. Their academic year is more than a month longer than at American high schools. Daewon, which costs about $5,000 per year to attend, requires two foreign languages besides English. Minjok, where tuition, board and other expenses top $15,000, offers Advanced Placement courses and research projects.

And, oh yes. Both schools suppress teenage romance as a waste of time.

"What are you doing holding hands?" a Daewon administrator scolded an adolescent couple recently, according to his aides. "You should be studying!"

Students do not seem to complain. Park Yeshong, one of Kim Hyun-kyung's classmates, said attractions tended to fade during hundreds of hours of close-quarters study. "We know each other too well to fall in love," she said. Many American educators would kill to have such disciplined pupils.

Both schools reserve admission for highly motivated students; the application process resembles that at many American colleges, where students are judged on their grade-point averages, as well as their performance on special tests and in interviews.

"Even my worst students are great," said Joseph Foster, a Williams College graduate who teaches writing at Daewon. "They're professionals; if I teach them, they'll learn it. I get e-mails at 2 a.m. I'll respond and go to bed. When I get up, I'll find a follow-up question mailed at 5 a.m."

South Korea is not the only country sending more students to the United States, but it seems to be a special case. Some 103,000 Korean students study at American schools of all levels, more than from any other country, according to American government statistics. In higher education, only India and China, with populations more than 20 times that of South Korea's, send more students.

"Preparing to get to the best American universities has become something of a national obsession in Korea," said Alexander Vershbow, the American ambassador to South Korea.

Korean applications to Harvard alone have tripled, to 213 this spring, up from 66 in 2003, said William Fitzsimmons, Harvard's dean of admissions. Harvard has 37 Korean undergraduates, more than from any foreign country except Canada and Britain. Harvard, Yale and Princeton have a total of 103 Korean undergraduates; 34 graduated from Daewon or Minjok.

This year, Daewon and Minjok graduates are heading to universities like Stanford, Chicago, Duke and seven of the eight Ivy League universities — but not to Harvard. Instead, Harvard accepted four Korean students from three other prep schools.

"That was certainly not any statement" about the Daewon and Minjok schools, Fitzsimmons said. "We're alert to getting kids from schools where we haven't had them before, but we'd never reject an applicant simply because he or she came from a school with a history of sending students to Harvard."

South Korea's academic year starts in March, so the 2008 class of Daewon's Global Leadership Program, which prepares students for study at foreign universities, graduated in February.

One graduate was Kim Soo-yeon, 19, who was accepted by Princeton this month. Daewon parents tend to be wealthy doctors, lawyers or university professors. Kim's father is a top official in the Korean Olympic Committee.

Kim developed fierce study habits early, watching her mother scold her older sister for receiving any score less than 100 on tests. Even a 98 or a 99 brought a tongue-lashing.

"Most Korean mothers want their children to get 100 on all the tests in all the subjects," Kim's mother said.

Kim's highest aspiration was to attend a top Korean university, until she read a book by a Korean student at Harvard about American universities. Immediately she put up a sign in her bedroom: "I'm going to an Ivy League!"

Even while at Daewon, Kim, like thousands of Korean students, took weekend classes in English, physics and other subjects at private academies, raising her SAT scores by hundreds of points. "I just love to do well on the tests," she said.

As bright as she is, she was just one great student among many, said Eric Cho, Daewon's college counselor. Sitting at his computer terminal at the school, perched on a craggy eastern hilltop overlooking the Seoul skyline, Cho scrolled through the class of 2008's academic records.

Their average combined SAT score was 2203 out of 2400. By comparison, the average combined score at Phillips Exeter, the New Hampshire boarding school, is 2085. Sixty-seven Daewon graduates had perfect 800 math scores.

Kim Hyun-kyung, 17, scored perfect 800s on the SAT verbal and math tests, and 790 in writing. She is scheduled to take nine Advanced Placement tests next month, in calculus, physics, chemistry, European history and five other subjects. One challenge: she has taken none of these courses. Instead, she is teaching herself in between classes at Daewon, buying and devouring textbooks.

So she is busy. She rises at 6 a.m. and heads for her school bus at 6:50. Arriving at Daewon, she grabs a broom to help classmates clean her classroom. Between 8 and noon, she hears Korean instructors teach supply and demand in economics, Korean soils in geography and classical poets in Korean literature.

At lunch she joins other raucous students, all, like her, wearing blue blazers, in a chow line serving beans and rice, fried dumpling and pickled turnip, which she eats with girlfriends. Boys, who sit elsewhere, wolf their food and race to a dirt lot for a 10-minute pickup soccer game before afternoon classes.

Kim Hyun-kyung joins other girls at a hallway sink to brush her teeth before reporting to French literature, French culture and English grammar classes, taught by Korean instructors. At 3:20, her English language classes begin. This day, they include English literature, taught by Mani Tadayon, a polyglot graduate of the University of California at Berkeley who was born in Iran, and government and politics, taught by Hugh Quigley, a former Wall Street lawyer.

Evening study hall begins at 7:45. She piles up textbooks on an adjoining desk, where they glare at her like a to-do list. Classmates sling backpacks over seats, prop a window open and start cramming. Three hours later, the floor is littered with empty juice cartons and water bottles. One girl has nodded out, head on desk. At 10:50 a tone sounds, and Kim heads for a bus that will wend its way through Seoul's towering high-rise canyons to her home, south of the Han River.

"I feel proud that I've endured another day," she said.

The schedule at the Minjok academy, on a rural campus of tile-roofed buildings in forested hills, appears even more daunting. Students rise at 6 for martial arts, and thereafter, wearing full-sleeved, gray-and-black robes, plunge into a day of relentless study that ends just before midnight, when they may sleep.

But most keep cramming until 2 a.m., when dorm lights are switched off, said Gang Min-ho, a senior. Even then some students turn on lanterns and keep going, Gang said. "Basically we lead very tired lives," he said.

Students sometimes report for classes so exhausted that Alexander Ganse, a German who teaches European history, said he asked, "Did you go to bed at all last night?"

"But we're not only nerds!" interrupted Choi Jung-yun, who grew up in San Diego. Minjok students play sports, take part in many clubs and even have a rock band, she said. Ambassador Vershbow, who plays the drums, confirmed that with photographs that showed him jamming with Minjok's rockers during a visit to the school last year.

There are other hints of slackening. A banner once hung on a Minjok building. "This school is a paradise for those who want to study and a hell for those who do not," it read. But it was taken down after faculty members deemed it too harsh, said Son Eun-ju, director of counseling.

http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=12370003

it's not our teachers , it's what we expect from our kids - which isn't much really. and too many parents who ask ' have you done your homework' without ever checking it or getting involved. Most A students here in America have very involved parents. and introducing anything like Intelligent design and even remotely suggesting it's factual is a great example of the dumbing down of America.

Another agree to disagree, I suppose. Because ID is still faith based. I don't see a problem with it being taught in non-science class. For me the problem arises when ID proponents are attempting to force their faith based belief systems into fact based science courses. You seem willing to compromise at least but you see, those trying to get it into the system don't want the disclaimer that says ID is not supported by evidence or science. Because to them, it isn't simply faith, it is fact. That is where people really get frustrated.

.

No, I think that most people advocating ID not be taught in a science class are not against schools 'socializing' their students. I'm not. Fine mythology is taught as mythology. Literature is taught as literature. Sex ed is sex ed. ID wants something different - it wants to be represented on an equal footing with other concepts, which IMO it does not deserve. It can be taught in comparative religions."Getting in the way of experts" sounds a bit narky of you Clovis!

I just think that in some disciplines especially, there is no need to include every unfounded belief.

Comparative religions though is not a subject taught at most high schools or lower levels. Neither is philosophy. I do not see the danger of devoting 15 minutes out of the one year when evolution is discussed to also mention ID. I just do not see the great harm others are worrying about and think they are overreacting or being too rigid. But I do understand your points I just consider them rigid. It would not also have to include 'every unfounded belief'. This is just one belief and one believed by a majority of people within the region. As far as the experts lol I just meant that teaching high school kids about ID in a quick 15 minutes session for example will not stop the scientist in his respective field far away from that classroom to stumble.

narky is a cool word btw weee but maybe 6th grade social studies is a better place to mention ID it just makes much more sense to tack it onto evolution but oh well i have no strong vested interest in the topic as others might. if it never happens it never will if it does cool i see no harm...i just see the whole debate more akin to children playing king of the hill instead of just sharing it...

If you can't see the difference between religion and science ,then no amount of explaining is going to help


fullywired

It is not a science, it is a faith and the two things are very different. You should not teach non-scientific idea's in a science class. If ID is taught why not Ra masturbating the world into existence? That has the same amount of evidence as ID.

I think creationism should be taught in another class, which should be made more important than it currently is.

R.E. for the half hour a week I had it was worthless. And I never learned anything other than silly basics and symbolism. I was never shown alternative theories, different ways of thinking or encouraged to express or develop my understanding of the world. It should be a class of communication and expression.

Creationism should stay out of science, and it should be illegal for any child to "sit out" of classes because of their beliefs, ANY classes. If you don't learn other points of view, eugh, it's just stupid.

Because of a couple of Muslim students sitting out of science and R.E on several occasions at my school, I refused to go to R.E to make a point. I was nearly suspended.

More life skills are needed in schools. Learning to communicate, debate and expression opinions is FAR more important than most things I learned at school. It's even more important than half the things I used to learn in science, which were STUPID things to learn for a 15/16 year old. One should go on to learn things like the names of different parts of bloody cells if they pursue the subject.

You not supposed to sit out of science classes, they are compulsory.

Instead of the typical fascinated punishment of holding a sign, I can't wait for a judge to impose a college accredited Social Science course; 3 to 4 hours depending on lab.

With sentencing contingent on pass/fail system. Hard-heads might as well run...