Sex Ed For Kindergartners

[ravergirl]

For the last time...that's NOT what the bill Obama supported calls for. It calls for teaching kindergarten kids where it is and isn't appropriate for an adult to touch them.

Will the flood of gullible ignorance never staunch?

Have you read it baby-honey?

SB99: Course material and instruction shall discuss and provide

for the development of positive communication skills to maintain healthy relationships and avoid unwanted sexual activity. ... Course material and instruction shall teach pupils ... how to say no to unwanted sexual advances ... and shall include information about verbal, physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one's judgment.

This is still to advanced for kindergarten. the reason that I say that is because adults are always in a kids potty business. They wet their pants (i p***ed in the library and had to be removed from my clothes and put in a medical gown," They poop accidentally. They are just learning appropriate hygene. They don't need to be THAT aware of the evil targeted at their tee-tees and too-too's. The extent is that they should be made aware of strangers. Kindergarteners are still babies, and slamming them with the immorality is as mentally abusive as actually being abused. They will not be able to comprehend and it will send mixed messages. Innocuous things like baths, potty help, and spankings will sent "bad-touch" into the heads of kids that aren't getting bad touches.

There are counselors at schools looking for signs of abuse and at this age these teachings should happen at home, the counselors are there for a reason.

Privates are private, and no one will be telling my kids anything about their privates except me and the pediatrician.

[Raptor]

Have you read it baby-honey?

SB99: Course material and instruction shall discuss and provide

for the development of positive communication skills to maintain healthy relationships and avoid unwanted sexual activity. ... Course material and instruction shall teach pupils ... how to say no to unwanted sexual advances ... and shall include information about verbal, physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one's judgment.

This is still to advanced for kindergarten.

Something tells me that's not the curriculum for kindergartners...

[ravergirl]

Something tells me that's not the curriculum for kindergartners...

Ahh but it is. It is all the dirty disgusting scary things in life dished out with cold medical terminology matched with words babies can understand. i mean seriously KINDERGARTEN, half of them are in precausionary pull-ups.

[Neognosis]

Well sugar lips, I have read it, and what you quoted breaks down to teaching kindergarteners the differnce between being molested and changed, and how to tell another adult if someone is molesting them. GASP! HORRIRBLE!

If I were to launch a Karl rove type campaign against you, I would say that Ravergirl opposes a measure to prevent child rape. Ravergirl...wrong for Unexplained mysteries...wrong for america, wrong for kids who don't want to get molested.

[eqgumby]

Ahh but it is. It is all the dirty disgusting scary things in life dished out with cold medical terminology matched with words babies can understand. i mean seriously KINDERGARTEN, half of them are in precausionary pull-ups.

I suppose it would be POSSIBLE to develop an age-appropriate curriculum, and unfortunately it is necessary in this crappy world we live in. I taught my kids at about this age about "...your privates are yours, only Mommy, the Doctor, or *insert Aunt/Uncle or whoever was baby-sitting* may see/touch them when at the doctors office or taking a bath..."

I still would maintain, that I do NOTwant the state to teach them.

[Neognosis]

Gee, look at the first paragraph:

a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate in

9 any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the

10 pupil's his parent or guardian submits written objection

11 thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or

12 program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of

13 such pupil.

[ifisurvive]

I never said it was convincing, but it was interesting nonetheless. I was glad, having read it completely, that the lady left it for me. There is absolutely nothing wrong with offering teenagers another viewpoint. If the true nature of school is ensure our citizens are well-rounded, then what could possibly be wrong with presenting the evidence, theories, and general idea of I.D.? It seems to me the only individuals against I.D. being taught in schools are people who are afraid their children may not have them same spiritual mindset as them. You said it all when you said "an invitation to faith." It seems like you don't think children can be trusted to make an informed decision on there own. We have to keep all the "bad propaganda" away from them.

That's not giving your children a great deal of credit, in my view. We teach young adults that babies suck their thumbs to achieve some type of sexual pleasure (Infantile Sexuality, Sigmund Freud), but we won't even consider teaching them that evolution may not be the only explanation for all of this. I think that's rather sad, and unbecoming of a true liberal.

Remember I come from somewhere where religion is in the education system. At school I was taught about various religions including their creation beliefs. I have nothing against that (in fact remembering it being reasonably interesting at school), but there's a difference between that and presenting ID as an alternative to evolution. Incidentally - how many fundamentalist Christians do you think would be happy with their children having Religious Education classes where they are taught all about Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism etc - given reports to read and investigate the Qu'ran, have tests on Buddhist philosophy etc, just to give them a 'well-rounded knowledge' of faith? The same number calling for ID to be taught in schools?

If you believe I don't think children should be able to make an informed decision then you missed the point of my last post. Evolution and ID are not equal, trying to promote them as such is damaging - it is not allowing the child to make an informed decision, it provides them with mis-information. ID is not a stand-alone theory, it's very core is finding what they believe is a hole in evolution, saying we can't explain it (let's not try to, let's not investigate it further) - God did it. One problem is often ID claims that something cannot be explained by evolution but in fact it can be - that is immediately teaching that child false information and damaging a researched, proven evolutionary argument (which is not presented to the student). How is that allowing them to make an informed decision? Secondly ID just says 'x cannot be explained by evolution'. What happens if further research is done which allows x to be explained? Is a teacher just meant to cross things out in a book as they are explained until the book is all crossed out then they stop teaching ID?

Evolution (like every scientific area) is a very complex thing and the level of complexity cannot be covered in high school. Often something that ID says evolution does not explain actually is explained, but the explanation is complex. Too complex to go into in high school, but the false claim sounds good enough for ID to teach it at high school. That's not balanced. The difference is if a child wants to inform themselves about evolution they can further their education - learn the details, not just believe what is in a text book, but actually perform experiments themselves, do research, prove things or disprove things. What can a student do with ID - believe or not believe and that's it. That's not education.

Again, I'm critical of religion. But when over 90% of the people in this country believe in a creator, I think offering something other than evolution, even as a non-science course, is appropriate.

I'm surprised how someone who repeatedly states he's critical of religion actively supports something that's been created by religious fundamentalists in order to force their beliefs into school class rooms. It doesn't matter if 90% of the people in the US believe in a creator because evolution does not deny a creator, it's science, it does not make religious, moral or philosophical judgements. God can exist with evolution - just not to those with an absolutely literal bible interpretation, those who are pushing ID.

You completely ignored in my last post where I explained that 'holes' are not unique to evolution and occur in every area of science taught in schools. You're not annoyed that these are taught as facts are you? No, probably like you wouldn't care about evolution if you hadn't had ID introduced to you. But it doesn't matter about those other sciences because they've not annoyed religious fundamentalists enough to push them at you. By your own logic if enough people believed the Qu'ran said things fall because angels push things down you think it should be taught as a completely valid alternative to gravity. If enough people believe spinning pixies create hurricanes you think it should be taught alongside meteorology. It sounds more like you are more concerned with being 'truly liberal' than actually providing the right education.

[Raptor]

Ahh but it is. It is all the dirty disgusting scary things in life dished out with cold medical terminology matched with words babies can understand. i mean seriously KINDERGARTEN, half of them are in precausionary pull-ups.

Teaching them how to recognize sexual assault is disgusting and scary? What I find scary is that any one would think that.

Just wondering, the bill outlines the education planned for kids between kindergarten and twelfth grade, how can you tell which grade that paragraph you quoted was intended for?

I still would maintain, that I do NOTwant the state to teach them.

Then withdraw them from the class, where's the problem?

[danielost]

All a Kindergartner needs to know is that no one should touch them and if someone does they should tell an adult other than the one that did it if it was an adult.

As for preventing it a kindeergartner couldn't stop an 8 year old let alone an adult. If they decide to scream for help they will end up being hurt, the 8 year old, or killed, the adult.

As for knowing where their body parts are. They should already know that. If they don't, no amount of sex ed is going to help them I don't think.

Edited September 12, 2008 by danielost

[ravergirl]

Well sugar lips, I have read it, and what you quoted breaks down to teaching kindergarteners the differnce between being molested and changed, and how to tell another adult if someone is molesting them. GASP! HORRIRBLE!

If I were to launch a Karl rove type campaign against you, I would say that Ravergirl opposes a measure to prevent child rape. Ravergirl...wrong for Unexplained mysteries...wrong for america, wrong for kids who don't want to get molested.

That's fine. Smear away.

I was molested several times. My best friend was kidnapped when we were in GASP Kindergarten. and I spent quite a bit of my childhood in the "projects" and also a small time in a battered womans shelter, so im sure I could counter that with the sympathetics, and maybe assert some real world experiance, and possible de-rail you due to my personal ability to relate to the topic. (But that is all hypothetical.)

It is not a schools place to horrify children. They should be ushered in and protected 'to the death' by they adults around them. and eased into the horrors that are beyond the doors of home and school.

I suppose it would be POSSIBLE to develop an age-appropriate curriculum, and unfortunately it is necessary in this crappy world we live in. I taught my kids at about this age about "...your privates are yours, only Mommy, the Doctor, or *insert Aunt/Uncle or whoever was baby-sitting* may see/touch them when at the doctors office or taking a bath..."

I still would maintain, that I do NOTwant the state to teach them.

I firmly feel that if the state wants to become involved in making sure children should know about these things they should provide the schools with literature to give to the PARENTS on the topic, as well as the website that allows you to see the number of registered sex offenders in your community as well as the specificity of the crimes. and that the TEACHERS should have to also study this site for the faces that belong to the houses in a 2 mile radius of their school zone.

Gee, look at the first paragraph:

a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate in

9 any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the

10 pupil's his parent or guardian submits written objection

11 thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or

12 program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of

13 such pupil.

And what happens to the kids that don't take the class? They get told what is out there by the kid that does take the class? and then we have the hamburgler and boogieman running about, mixed vaiations of right and wrong, and a bunch of kids getting mad at their parents and saying they got molestered.

TEACHING kids where to point is a bad idea. If something happens they need to trust their parents to raise and protect them.

actually, this bill is total B.S. it is putting way to much responsibility on kids. They shouldn't have to know these things.

[eqgumby]

Teaching them how to recognize sexual assault is disgusting and scary? What I find scary is that any one would think that.

Just wondering, the bill outlines the education planned for kids between kindergarten and twelfth grade, how can you tell which grade that paragraph you quoted was intended for?

Then withdraw them from the class, where's the problem?

I think you should be required to sign a statement allowing your child to attend the class, after you review the curriculum. It worked for me. The reason it worked for me, was because it was nearly identical to what I taught them, and I had a 2 minute talk with them before and after the class (the day of school). I think it was first grade though, not kindergarten. I'm almost sure of it.

[eqgumby]

I firmly feel that if the state wants to become involved in making sure children should know about these things they should provide the schools with literature to give to the PARENTS on the topic, as well as the website that allows you to see the number of registered sex offenders in your community as well as the specificity of the crimes. and that the TEACHERS should have to also study this site for the faces that belong to the houses in a 2 mile radius of their school zone.

And what happens to the kids that don't take the class? They get told what is out there by the kid that does take the class? and then we have the hamburgler and boogieman running about, mixed vaiations of right and wrong, and a bunch of kids getting mad at their parents and saying they got molestered.

TEACHING kids where to point is a bad idea. If something happens they need to trust their parents to raise and protect them.

actually, this bill is total B.S. it is putting way to much responsibility on kids. They shouldn't have to know these things.

The state can protect, as that is what they are supposed to do (since it is law that children be educated here) and that's fine. As I said, I just don't want them teaching my kids morality.

I agree with MOST of what you say.

[ravergirl]

I think you should be required to sign a statement allowing your child to attend the class, after you review the curriculum. It worked for me. The reason it worked for me, was because it was nearly identical to what I taught them, and I had a 2 minute talk with them before and after the class (the day of school). I think it was first grade though, not kindergarten. I'm almost sure of it.

a lot of maturing occurs in a year or 2.

I would say 3rd grade is appropriate.

[Harte]

I firmly feel that if the state wants to become involved in making sure children should know about these things they should provide the schools with literature to give to the PARENTS on the topic, as well as the website that allows you to see the number of registered sex offenders in your community as well as the specificity of the crimes. and that the TEACHERS should have to also study this site for the faces that belong to the houses in a 2 mile radius of their school zone.

Jesus defecated a nail, girl!

Leave me out of it.

The public has already piled enough on us without making us "study the faces of " people within a 2 mile radius of the school.

I barely have time to talk to my own little ones now as it is!

Harte

[ravergirl]

Jesus defecated a nail, girl!

Leave me out of it.

The public has already piled enough on us without making us "study the faces of " people within a 2 mile radius of the school.

I barely have time to talk to my own little ones now as it is!

Harte

What?

I am going to go ahead and assume you are a teacher???

I am also going to assume that as a teacher the safety of the children in your care is of the utmost importance to you.

I know where the 20 closest registered sex offenders live in reference to my house I also know what they look like, and whether or not the crimes involved minors. I know who to be cautious of. I would expect the same level of attention from the other authorities in ch.....No your right, too much work for the grown ups, lets just take the kids to their houses and drop them off.

[danielost]

I don't have kids but I did help raise one of my nieces. She know at 3 years old that if someone should grab her in a public place that she should shout as loud as she could. This is not my mom. This is not my dad. It still might get her hurt but the person would let her go and/or get caught.

[Harte]

What?

I am going to go ahead and assume you are a teacher???

I am also going to assume that as a teacher the safety of the children in your care is of the utmost importance to you.

I know where the 20 closest registered sex offenders live in reference to my house I also know what they look like, and whether or not the crimes involved minors. I know who to be cautious of. I would expect the same level of attention from the other authorities in ch.....No your right, too much work for the grown ups, lets just take the kids to their houses and drop them off.

Yes, I teach, but high school.

I'm telling you, I never, ever see people from the neighborhood where I teach.

Most teachers won't.

Teachers don't walk the kids home - positive ID is required to even enter most schools these days and nobody picks up any kid that's not on that child's "pick up" list.

You may think you know all the sex offenders that live close to your home, but apparently you didn't know that the majority of these registered offenders don't live where they claim, they don't keep up with the authorities when they change addresses.

Also, what about unregistered ones?

Why is it my duty to ensure each of the 1800 students at my school makes it home without ruunning into their perverted neighbor?

It's Friday afternoon and I'm still here inputting test grades I just completed grading - 2 and 1/2 hours after school let out. This is because I had to turn in lesson plans for next week for all three subjects I teach by today and I had about 14 parents to call today and I had to complete individual remediation plans for about 20 of the students that failed my tests and turn that in.

This does not include re-doing my gradebook, which I have to turn in in two weeks, to reflect the changes made here in my classes - two of which I only began to teach this week due to these changes - in the aftermath of the school board laying off 113 teachers and the accompanying melange of trickle-down job changes that come with a union layoff, updating my parent call-log, generating and emailing the list of (apparent) class cutters I had today, filling out and turning in the disciplinary referral forms and behavioralist referral forms for misbehavior in my classes today and finishing trying to get my printer working so I can do some of the above without going to some other teacher's room to use theirs (assuming they are still here.)

And it all starts over again next week, only it's one week closer to the end of the six weeks grading period (2 weeks away) when I have all kinds of stuff to complete and turn in - including copies (with the answers) of all my six-weeks exams.

It's very easy to add "and the teachers ought to do..." to something you saying.

Problem is, waaaay to much has been added already.

You know, I'd do some of this at home, but I have a 9 y.o. autistic son that has a penchant for completely destroying every computer I get. He's been through two in the last three years. His mom and I pretty much depend on each other for the support we need in raising this extremely high-needs child because our nearest family is five hours drive away.

Sorry for the rant. I'll go peacefully now!

Harte

[Neognosis]

I was molested several times. My best friend was kidnapped when we were in GASP Kindergarten. and I spent quite a bit of my childhood in the "projects" and also a small time in a battered womans shelter, so im sure I could counter that with the sympathetics, and maybe assert some real world experiance, and possible de-rail you due to my personal ability to relate to the topic.

Several times? Sounds like people failed you. Maybe if you had an authority figure in a safe place who explained to you what is not acceptable and how to tell someone about it who could help, it would not have happened like that. I don't know. There's nothing horrible about explaining to a child that it isn't OK for an adult to touch them in certain places in certain ways.

And what happens to the kids that don't take the class? They get told what is out there by the kid that does take the class?

I don't think that kindergarteners who have just learned that it isn't OK for adults to fondle their privates are going to be having indept conversations with the kids who's parents don't let them learn this from school. I'm curious, should teachers also not tell kindergarten kids to not go home with strangers? Or get into stranger's cars? Because that's pretty scary too. You can't protect your kids by putting your head in the sand and hoping. There's noting wrong with telling kids what is ok and what is not ok. And if you feel differently, your kid doesn't have to go to school that day, as the bill states you can opt out of that part.

and then we have the hamburgler and boogieman running about, mixed vaiations of right and wrong, and a bunch of kids getting mad at their parents and saying they got molestered.

A kindergarten kid isn't going to decide that because they had to go to bed at 7, they are going to now tell the teacher that their father is molesting them. I find it alarming that you think kids should not be told to be wary of strangers and should not be told that certain touches are inappropriate. But again, your kid doesn't have to learn that.

TEACHING kids where to point is a bad idea. If something happens they need to trust their parents to raise and protect them

Except when it's the parents and family that are molesting them. It's usually a family member, NOT a man in a dark van and a trenchcoat on the street.

You're right though, kids SHOULDN'T have to know that there are dangers out there, they should be allowed to feel safe for their entire lives. But the reality is that family members molest kids sometimes, kids get kidnapped sometimes, and they need to learn in AGE APPROPRIATE ways when that's happening and to tell someone.

[IrishAidan07]

Remember I come from somewhere where religion is in the education system. At school I was taught about various religions including their creation beliefs. I have nothing against that (in fact remembering it being reasonably interesting at school), but there's a difference between that and presenting ID as an alternative to evolution. Incidentally - how many fundamentalist Christians do you think would be happy with their children having Religious Education classes where they are taught all about Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism etc - given reports to read and investigate the Qu'ran, have tests on Buddhist philosophy etc, just to give them a 'well-rounded knowledge' of faith? The same number calling for ID to be taught in schools?

I am not talking about teaching religion - I.D. is not religion. It is another possible explanation for our existence.

In my opinion, infantile sexuality is not equal with Skinner and behaviorism, yet they are presented in high school psychology as equals. Intelligent Design has a lot more to it than simply disproving evolution. I think if you checked it out, you'd be surprised.

Evolution (like every scientific area) is a very complex thing and the level of complexity cannot be covered in high school. Often something that ID says evolution does not explain actually is explained, but the explanation is complex. Too complex to go into in high school, but the false claim sounds good enough for ID to teach it at high school. That's not balanced. The difference is if a child wants to inform themselves about evolution they can further their education - learn the details, not just believe what is in a text book, but actually perform experiments themselves, do research, prove things or disprove things. What can a student do with ID - believe or not believe and that's it. That's not education.

You are assuming that I.D. will be taught this way or that way. So long as it is taught as nothing more than a theory, then it's fine. It is no different than schools presenting evolution as absolute fact - that's simply not the case. You said it yourself, there are holes in evolution - yet teenagers are not told about them. This, too, is not education.

I'm surprised how someone who repeatedly states he's critical of religion actively supports something that's been created by religious fundamentalists in order to force their beliefs into school class rooms. It doesn't matter if 90% of the people in the US believe in a creator because evolution does not deny a creator, it's science, it does not make religious, moral or philosophical judgements. God can exist with evolution - just not to those with an absolutely literal bible interpretation, those who are pushing ID.

You apparently don't read what I say. I am not saying I.D. should be taught as a science class, but it should be taught. If you want to make it apart of something else, fine. And if you think I.D. has anything to do with anyone religion, then you do not understand I.D. I.D. I don't advocate bringing religion into the classroom. I.D. is not religion.

You obviously no nothing about I.D. Furthermore, you obviously have no idea how many holes there are actually are with evolution.

When I have more time, I'll thoroughly explain the case of I.D. vs Evolution.

Edited September 13, 2008 by IrishAidan

[IrishAidan07]

Since when is identifying the flaws of any given theory a no-no when it comes to education? It is lucid to me that the only reason we are afraid of offering Intelligent Design as a possible explanation for our existence is because of an irrational fear. It's no secret that religion, morals, values and the like are deeply personal topics that we as a society prefer to stay within the walls of the church, temple, and house. But the problem, as I see it, is that individuals misunderstand exactly what Intelligent Design is all about. The focus of it is most certainly not to preach morals or values of any religion, but rather, to offer a scientific disagreement with Evolution. There are some scientists that believe some aspects of our existence are better explained by an intelligent cause rather than a random process; it is nothing more than a scientific disagreement, however marginalized. And anyone who says otherwise quite simply doesn't know what he or she is talking about.

Intelligent Design is not unlike certain areas of psychology, where the main focus is the art of scientific detection by determining probability rather than depending on cold, hard facts. In the case of I.D., it is the detection of certain arrangements and patterns within a living organism that would indicate an intelligent designer. We teach criminology and anthropology in our schools, do we not? Those subjects sometimes deal with the art of design. In criminology, for example, crime scenes, crimes, and tragic accidents are reconstructed on a constant basis. They use mathematics for the reconstruction.. Intelligent Design is just the reverse. They look at what is constructed, the intricacies of it, and then decide, mathematically, the probability of it being a random process. If I throw paint at a piece of canvas, it's highly unlikely a replica of the Mona Lisa will be the result. That is the basis of I.D. - nothing more. Intelligent Design should not be blamed for certain religions hijacking of it. Intelligent Design, as I stated earlier, bears stark resemblance to many scientific fields already being taught to teenagers. You gather evidence, look at all possible explanations, use the art of mathematics, then come to a conclusion.

We seem to be forgetting that Evolution rests heavily on the the Big Bang theory, which there is almost no evidence for whatsoever – yet it is taught in our schools. The mathematical probability of it is so low that if the idea of a Creator wasn't as wild, it would be thrown out of the science books entirely. So the point people should understand is that both Evolution and Creationism require some degree of faith; but one of them has mathematics working against it: Evolution.

Mathematics cannot be applied to the idea of a creator, because it has never been applied to something appearing from nothing or something always existing. That may sound odd, but think about it: I can say without doubt that the mathematical probability of a rabbit coming in my home and resting on top of my head is extremely low. We can deduce this by simply taking the number of rabbits in my area, which there are very few, and apply that, be it by multiplication or division, to the size of my area. Then further figuring in how many houses and people's heads the rabbit could sit on. We cannot apply this theory to God. We don't have the necessary information in order to deduce anything. By default, it's 50/50. Evolution, however, because it rests almost entirely on the Big Bang theory, is nowhere near 50/50. Now you can always use the argument that because time has no beginning and no end, that eventually all of this (look around) would have happened given enough time. But then you have to take the battle to the mathematics that Intelligent Design has in its corner, getting back to the probability of everything working as perfectly as it does. So, again, either one takes a certain amount of faith.

Evolution, too, cannot explain why human beings are freethinking entities. Longevity and the continuation of the species would be almost guaranteed, short some catastrophic event caused by the elements, that we would endure and live on. Because we are freethinking, we invent bombs, war, and various other forms of death that in any instant could destroy all of this; completely inconsistent with Darwin's theory of natural selection, whereby harmful traits begin to disappear from the gene pool. If we were machines, much like bacteria, are existence would be guaranteed so long as our environment allowed it.

Despite the above, I don't want anyone to get the idea that I do not believe in Evolution or feel it should not be taught. But mathematically, Evolution has just as much against it as Intelligent Design. I want all the mathematical probabilities and inconsistencies taught in high school biology. I also want Intelligent Design taught as a high school elective, presenting both the mathematics for it and the other evidence against it.

If we want our children to be well-rounded, then nobody who knows what they are talking about can honestly be against Intelligent Design being offered as a possible explanation. It has mathematics on its side. The Muslims believing gravity is a hoax does not have mathematics on its side, so silly arguments like that only show how little you know about I.D.

I could have went on, too, explaining why Evolution is inconsistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but I think if you know what that law is, you'll see why it's inconsistent.

Here it is: 

The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to the universal tendency for things, on their own, to “mix” with their surrounding environment over time, becoming less ordered and eventually reaching a steady-state. A glass of hot water becomes room temperature, buildings decay into rubble, and the stars will eventually burn out leading to the “heat death” of the universe. However, the evolutionary scenario proposes that over time things, on their own, became more ordered and structured. Somehow the energy of a “Big Bang” structured itself into stars, galaxies, planets, and living things, contrary to the Second Law. It is sometimes said that the energy of the Sun was enough to overcome this tendency and allow for the formation of life on earth. However, application of energy alone is not enough to overcome this tendency; the energy must be channeled by a machine. A human must repair a building to keep it from decaying. Likewise, it is the machinery of photosynthesis which harnesses the energy of the Sun, allowing life to exist, and photosynthesis is itself a complex chemical process. The maturing of an acorn into a tree, or a zygote (the first cell resulting from fertilization) into a mature human being does not violate the Second Law as these processes are guided by the information already present in the acorn or zygote.

Anyway, that's my take on it. I simply think it is unbecoming of a true liberal to deny the teaching of something simply because they disagree with the implication it could make.

Edited September 13, 2008 by IrishAidan

[ifisurvive]

I am not talking about teaching religion - I.D. is not religion. It is another possible explanation for our existence.

What on earth do you think this 'Intelligent Designer' is other than a God? Aliens? (If so who designed them, and so on.) ID is just classic creationism with a hat on, it's religion.

In my opinion, infantile sexuality is not equal with Skinner and behaviorism, yet they are presented in high school psychology as equals. Intelligent Design has a lot more to it than simply disproving evolution. I think if you checked it out, you'd be surprised.

I have checked it out, I am not surprised.

You are assuming that I.D. will be taught this way or that way. So long as it is taught as nothing more than a theory, then it's fine. It is no different than schools presenting evolution as absolute fact - that's simply not the case. You said it yourself, there are holes in evolution - yet teenagers are not told about them. This, too, is not education.

Again, you don't seem to care about 'holes' being in every other scientific field at the level it's taught at high school. Teaching both as 'theories' is damaging. The common day use of 'theory' is something that's just a thought, not really sure about. In scientific terms a theory is NOT that - a theory is something that is build up with research - it is logical, testable and can be used to predict outcomes. ID's logic is debatable, it is certainly not testable nor predicts anything. ID falls under the common day term, evolution falls under the scientific term, so presenting them both as 'theories' is not appropriate.

You apparently don't read what I say. I am not saying I.D. should be taught as a science class, but it should be taught. If you want to make it apart of something else, fine. And if you think I.D. has anything to do with anyone religion, then you do not understand I.D. I.D. I don't advocate bringing religion into the classroom. I.D. is not religion.

You obviously no nothing about I.D. Furthermore, you obviously have no idea how many holes there are actually are with evolution.

You may not think it should be taught as science, but everyone else who's trying to push it into schools does. Additionally as it's directly against evolution, a science, even if it's taught outside the science class it still damages science. And yes, no matter how you wrap ID in philosophy or maths, Intelligent Designer still = a God = religion.

And yes, I have researched ID and listened to the pro-ID arguments, that is why I am against it being taught. You have no idea how many times I have been presented with 'holes' in evolution which are actually not holes at all, but understood and tested by evolution.

Despite the above, I don't want anyone to get the idea that I do not believe in Evolution or feel it should not be taught. But mathematically, Evolution has just as much against it as Intelligent Design. I want all the mathematical probabilities and inconsistencies taught in high school biology. I also want Intelligent Design taught as a high school elective, presenting both the mathematics for it and the other evidence against it.

Firstly, thank you for taking time to write the long post you did and apologies for not replying in more depth about it. There are plenty of points in there I can address individually but with limited time I'll try to summarise.

The problem with using maths and stats as a defence of ID is often a matter of scale which doesn't apply to such as your criminology examples. Knocking up a statistic and saying it's extremely unlikely to happen has to be put into a context of millions of years and trillions of organisms. A very simple analogy is the lottery - the odds of me winning the jackpot are tens of millions to one. I can buy a hundred tickets every week until the day I die and statistically I will still never win the jackpot. But somebody (occasionally more than one person) wins the jackpot pretty much every week. That winner had the same chances as me - I didn't win, but they did - the jackpot, even at those odds was won. You don't shout conspiracy every week because statistically it's virtually impossible for them to have won - you don't suggest their win was designed.

Similarly so you can say the chance of an organism doing 'x' due to evolutionary means is 10 million to 1, so therefore evolution cannot be right, it has to be designed. But if there's a billion organisms then it will happen to 100. Over simplified yes, but the point is there. Also statistics can often be swayed - especially by lack of knowledge - to make things look more or less likely/impressive/believable than they are. Take for example your use of saying ID is mathematically 50/50 - of course this is because there is absolutely no possible way of ever testing that ID is correct, but that sounds pretty bad, but saying it's a 2 in 1 chance of bring right sounds good.

Additionally, this is intellectual laziness - look at the stats, if they're high just assume God did it with his magical, unexplainable ways. Don't investigate further, don't do more testing, don't try to figure out how it could possibly be done. History is littered with stuff we did not understand, theories which seemed impossible or where there was 'holes' in our knowledge that was often thought just to be part of God's great power. If we just left it at that we would still be in the dark ages.

If we want our children to be well-rounded, then nobody who knows what they are talking about can honestly be against Intelligent Design being offered as a possible explanation. It has mathematics on its side. The Muslims believing gravity is a hoax does not have mathematics on its side, so silly arguments like that only show how little you know about I.D.

Again, you talk about people being well rounded but only for ID, it's hypocritical (or at least inconsistent) that you don't shout for all other areas of science (and other subjects) to also explain their flaws or 'holes'. High school is not long enough (and it's not it's purpose), to discuss all the fringe ideas about everything and you're not interested in it doing so - but you're wanting to push the teaching of one fringe idea under the false banner of being 'well rounded' even though you yourself have said it has 'meagre' evidence. My Islam/gravity example was one sentence. But if the issues, the 'holes', with gravity were dragged up in detail (which is possible), religious texts were referenced (which highly likely they could be) and work done to statistically discuss the problems the result would be the same.

I could have went on, too, explaining why Evolution is inconsistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics

No it's not - link.

Anyway, that's my take on it. I simply think it is unbecoming of a true liberal to deny the teaching of something simply because they disagree with the implication it could make.

How something is taught is important. I'm sure you think we should recognise and teach the existence of racism and groups like the KKK in history, fine. But should we also have an elective where the student can round their knowledge by learning in-depth about all the 'scientific studies', biological arguments, statistical references that white supremesists use to prove that black people are an inferior race. Allow the scientific studies to be taught even if they are actually false or superceeded, say the biology is 'legitimate theory' (and not mention it's a tiny amount of fundamentalist only who support it), not discuss the purpose and use of stats and their stats particularly? Yeah, that would be the truly liberal thing to do there.

We have gone way off topic in this thread. Maybe you've already read it, but if not I would direct you to the Talk Origins website I linked above (yes, it's shamelessly pro-evolution, but no more so that the website you linked me to earlier is pro-ID). I would think you'll find answers to many if not all of the 'holes' you think are in evolution there. If you still think ID is valid and your holes are not filled then maybe we should start a new topic in the Science or Spirituality vs Skepticism forums to discuss so this thread is derailed no further.

[IrishAidan07]

Yeah, maybe we can start a thread about Intelligent Design: Science or Fiction. I don't know. I would like to respond to you, but not under this thread and not right now. It's Saturday - College Football. I am busy aaaaallll day.

Hey, it's not a vice!

[Copasetic]

Since when is identifying the flaws of any given theory a no-no when it comes to education? It is lucid to me that the only reason we are afraid of offering Intelligent Design as a possible explanation for our existence is because of an irrational fear. It's no secret that religion, morals, values and the like are deeply personal topics that we as a society prefer to stay within the walls of the church, temple, and house. But the problem, as I see it, is that individuals misunderstand exactly what Intelligent Design is all about. The focus of it is most certainly not to preach morals or values of any religion, but rather, to offer a scientific disagreement with Evolution. There are some scientists that believe some aspects of our existence are better explained by an intelligent cause rather than a random process; it is nothing more than a scientific disagreement, however marginalized. And anyone who says otherwise quite simply doesn't know what he or she is talking about.

Intelligent Design is not unlike certain areas of psychology, where the main focus is the art of scientific detection by determining probability rather than depending on cold, hard facts. In the case of I.D., it is the detection of certain arrangements and patterns within a living organism that would indicate an intelligent designer. We teach criminology and anthropology in our schools, do we not? Those subjects sometimes deal with the art of design. In criminology, for example, crime scenes, crimes, and tragic accidents are reconstructed on a constant basis. They use mathematics for the reconstruction.. Intelligent Design is just the reverse. They look at what is constructed, the intricacies of it, and then decide, mathematically, the probability of it being a random process. If I throw paint at a piece of canvas, it's highly unlikely a replica of the Mona Lisa will be the result. That is the basis of I.D. - nothing more. Intelligent Design should not be blamed for certain religions hijacking of it. Intelligent Design, as I stated earlier, bears stark resemblance to many scientific fields already being taught to teenagers. You gather evidence, look at all possible explanations, use the art of mathematics, then come to a conclusion.

We seem to be forgetting that Evolution rests heavily on the the Big Bang theory, which there is almost no evidence for whatsoever – yet it is taught in our schools. The mathematical probability of it is so low that if the idea of a Creator wasn't as wild, it would be thrown out of the science books entirely. So the point people should understand is that both Evolution and Creationism require some degree of faith; but one of them has mathematics working against it: Evolution.

Mathematics cannot be applied to the idea of a creator, because it has never been applied to something appearing from nothing or something always existing. That may sound odd, but think about it: I can say without doubt that the mathematical probability of a rabbit coming in my home and resting on top of my head is extremely low. We can deduce this by simply taking the number of rabbits in my area, which there are very few, and apply that, be it by multiplication or division, to the size of my area. Then further figuring in how many houses and people's heads the rabbit could sit on. We cannot apply this theory to God. We don't have the necessary information in order to deduce anything. By default, it's 50/50. Evolution, however, because it rests almost entirely on the Big Bang theory, is nowhere near 50/50. Now you can always use the argument that because time has no beginning and no end, that eventually all of this (look around) would have happened given enough time. But then you have to take the battle to the mathematics that Intelligent Design has in its corner, getting back to the probability of everything working as perfectly as it does. So, again, either one takes a certain amount of faith.

Evolution, too, cannot explain why human beings are freethinking entities. Longevity and the continuation of the species would be almost guaranteed, short some catastrophic event caused by the elements, that we would endure and live on. Because we are freethinking, we invent bombs, war, and various other forms of death that in any instant could destroy all of this; completely inconsistent with Darwin's theory of natural selection, whereby harmful traits begin to disappear from the gene pool. If we were machines, much like bacteria, are existence would be guaranteed so long as our environment allowed it.

Despite the above, I don't want anyone to get the idea that I do not believe in Evolution or feel it should not be taught. But mathematically, Evolution has just as much against it as Intelligent Design. I want all the mathematical probabilities and inconsistencies taught in high school biology. I also want Intelligent Design taught as a high school elective, presenting both the mathematics for it and the other evidence against it.

If we want our children to be well-rounded, then nobody who knows what they are talking about can honestly be against Intelligent Design being offered as a possible explanation. It has mathematics on its side. The Muslims believing gravity is a hoax does not have mathematics on its side, so silly arguments like that only show how little you know about I.D.

I could have went on, too, explaining why Evolution is inconsistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but I think if you know what that law is, you'll see why it's inconsistent.

Here it is: 

The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to the universal tendency for things, on their own, to “mix” with their surrounding environment over time, becoming less ordered and eventually reaching a steady-state. A glass of hot water becomes room temperature, buildings decay into rubble, and the stars will eventually burn out leading to the “heat death” of the universe. However, the evolutionary scenario proposes that over time things, on their own, became more ordered and structured. Somehow the energy of a “Big Bang” structured itself into stars, galaxies, planets, and living things, contrary to the Second Law. It is sometimes said that the energy of the Sun was enough to overcome this tendency and allow for the formation of life on earth. However, application of energy alone is not enough to overcome this tendency; the energy must be channeled by a machine. A human must repair a building to keep it from decaying. Likewise, it is the machinery of photosynthesis which harnesses the energy of the Sun, allowing life to exist, and photosynthesis is itself a complex chemical process. The maturing of an acorn into a tree, or a zygote (the first cell resulting from fertilization) into a mature human being does not violate the Second Law as these processes are guided by the information already present in the acorn or zygote.

Anyway, that's my take on it. I simply think it is unbecoming of a true liberal to deny the teaching of something simply because they disagree with the implication it could make.

Hey IrishA,

There are a couple of other topics regarding intelligent design and why it is bad science and poor theology. Here's a couple of them.

Intelligent Design vs Science? Intermediate Species

A Mega-ID thread

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory

Stupid Design

Scientific evidence of creationism

So I don't take this topic off-topic or the sex-ed topic off-topic I'll address this in the scientific evidence for creationism (since proponents of ID claim it to be the "scientific study of detecting design" and since it is creationism in another form).

Give me a few minutes to post! See ya HERE

[eqgumby]

Yeah, maybe we can start a thread about Intelligent Design: Science or Fiction. I don't know. I would like to respond to you, but not under this thread and not right now. It's Saturday - College Football. I am busy aaaaallll day.

Hey, it's not a vice!

It's been done to death. Search for it here.

Bottom line seems to be, ID's proof is just holes in evolution. There is no smoking gun pointing to ID, there is no evidence that supports it, just evidence that does NOT support evolution.

Flaws is the science of evolution, does not equal proof of ID.