It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush Advocates Teaching ID in Schools

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 11:26 PM
link   
First off, I'll say that I believe that God created the world and everything on it. I will also say that I have no freakin' idea how He did it, or how long it took, or the mechanisms that He employed.

Separating light from darkness, the separation of the waters, the creation of plants, then animals, and then humans, seems to follow the general pattern of the Big Bang, cosmic formation, premordial ooze, and evolution theories. Some folks agree, some don't, and that's cool.

I also believe that the study of science does absolutely nothing to prove or disprove the existance of God - it's an endless argumentative loop.

I will say this however: part of studying science is not just memorizing a bunch of facts, but is an way of "learning how to learn." What I mean is that you learn how to observe a situation, ask yourself why it happens, and try to reproduce it under controlled situations. You learn how to use logic to come to reasonable conclusions.

I would consider it wise to teach evolution in a biology class. It is more important to explain the process of thinking that early biologists came to their conclusions and the methods they used to confirm their hypotheses. My college General Biology professor started on the first day of class saying pretty much exactly this. He said that no scientific theory disproves the existance of God, but not to take offense that he does not mention God during the course. The course was designed to teach what we have been able to figure out just by observation.

I think it would be great to also offer a World Religion class in high schools. An open environment where people would learn about what different religions believe, but not discuss their validities.




posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by trinitrotoluene
I think it would be great to also offer a World Religion class in high schools. An open environment where people would learn about what different religions believe, but not discuss their validities.


As long as such a class were taught as sociology, and as long as it were an elective, this would be fine. The problem is that it would be difficult for the teacher to teach nondogmatically unless the teacher held no firm religious beliefs.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I really don't understand what people's problem with teaching ID along side evolution in public schools is if it's done in a non denominational manner??? So many people seem to have a hard time trying to accept both evolution and ID. Why couldn't ID be what allows evolution to even take place??? Couldn't evolution be the intelligent designer’s way of changing or perfecting things?

Evolution doesn't exactly answer all the questions, and ID is another valid point of view which I think would help expand people's minds rather than hurt them.

Does evolution answer the question of what created everything in the first place which allows evolution to take place?



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by warpboost
I really don't understand what people's problem with teaching ID along side evolution in public schools is if it's done in a non denominational manner???


Because ID isn't science. It is not observed, it is not repeatable, there are no experiments that can be performed with it, and it isn't even an area of study. It's a thinly cloaked veil for Biblical creationism and everyone knows it.

Even if we all agreed this was a great idea to teach, what would you teach? Here's the entire ID course for you:

"Ok class, today we're going to talk about intelligent design. One explanation for the existence of life is that an unknown designer intelligently designed life and brought it forth by unknown means at some unknown time in the past. This theory takes as a given that things like the appendix are actually good rather than detrimental. There will be a test on Friday.

Next we'll be discussing the spaghetti monster theory of origins ... "

There simply isn't anything of substance to be taught even if we all agreed it was a great idea to teach ID.


Originally posted by warpboost
Does evolution answer the question of what created everything in the first place which allows evolution to take place?


No, nor should it attempt to. Evolution is merely about the observed variations we see in life. It doesn't address the origin of life nor the origin of the universe (assuming it has one).



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 03:24 PM
link   
There's nothing of substance
How about you??

You do know that science can't explain everything, and that not everything is observable right? After reading your signature I'm not even going to get into it. Good luck


[edit on 9-9-2005 by warpboost]

[edit on 9-9-2005 by warpboost]



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by warpboost

There's nothing of substance
How about you??


Why don't you try putting a course outline together for ID? What would it consist of other than what I stated in my last post? There's nothing to teach other than to simply impart the hypothesis itself. There are no experiments to be performed, there are no observations to be made, there are no sub-hypotheses to be tested. There are no journals to be researched. There isn't anything. What would you teach?



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   
I'm no ID expert or anything and I don't know that they need an entire class devoted it to it, but they should at least make people aware of the idea. I would cover the whole idea of ID and maybe touch on how it's taught in various religions with no emphasis at all on any single one. I would have group discussions or debates on it and compare ID vs evolution. I would talk about the statistical probability of life just forming here on earth. IIRC someone once said that the chances of intelligent life just happening bu chance is about the same odds as a tornado touching down in a scrap yard and forming a 747. I would investigate some of the unexplainable phenomenon in nature, life etc..

I would point out some of the flaws or weak spots in evolution and how ID "could" possibly explain them. The biggest thing I would focus on is to make people aware of the whole ID theory and give them the foundation and resources to investigate it further if they do choose.

www.discovery.org has more info about ID and how it could be taught next to evolution in schools than you could ever want so if you're really interested check it out.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by warpboost
I'm no ID expert or anything and I don't know that they need an entire class devoted it to it, but they should at least make people aware of the idea. I would cover the whole idea of ID and maybe touch on how it's taught in various religions with no emphasis at all on any single one. I would have group discussions or debates on it and compare ID vs evolution.


Other than the religion aspect, this would be acceptable. But, know that the flaws in ID will also be taught, such as obvious design flaws like the appendix of which there are dozens known in humans alone. The question will be asked, what kind of designer makes a design with such a large number of flaws. The obvious answer is, an imperfect designer.


Originally posted by warpboost
I would talk about the statistical probability of life just forming here on earth. IIRC someone once said that the chances of intelligent life just happening bu chance is about the same odds as a tornado touching down in a scrap yard and forming a 747.


It would be acceptable to discuss the probability of a single cell forming spontaneously from base elements to be rediculously small, as long as we also explain that no-one proposes such a mechanism. This would provide a much needed eductation in recognizing logical fallacies such as the strawman.

The proposed mechanism involves simple self relicating organic molecules forming from organic molecules that exist naturally in space within an environment similar to the environment seen on moons within our own solar system (only warmer and brighter since the earth is closer to the sun). Computer models show the probability to be almost identically 1 under such assumptions.

If this is not already being taught, it should be.


Originally posted by warpboost
I would point out some of the flaws or weak spots in evolution and how ID "could" possibly explain them.


Pointing out the weaknesses of evolution (or any set of scientific theories) should already be happening if it isn't. How else do we motivate the next generation to explore with the humility of knowing we don't know it all?


Originally posted by warpboost
www.discovery.org has more info about ID and how it could be taught next to evolution in schools than you could ever want so if you're really interested check it out.


I searched a bit and didn't see a proposed silibus, but perhaps it burried in that site somewhere.

One last thing. According to ID, the life we see presently (plus the fossil record life) were all designed together right? Otherwise, you would need an explanation for how life gets created from time to time. This would either be something like evolution, or you must propose the designer returns to the design process from time to time to wipe out old stuff and create new stuff, right?

So, could the life we see today+fossil record exist on an earth with chemical conditions consisting of what earth would look like before life?

Could the life we see in the fossil record all thrive within the current earth environment (such as dragonflies with 6 foot wingspans)?

Could modern life all thrive within the environments that would have been required for all the lifeforms we see in the fossil record?

These questions will be both asked and answered in your ID class using geoloical evidence for what the earth looked like at various times.

Be carefull what you ask for. Evil atheist conspirators such as myself will make sure you do not have the free reign to indoctrinate that is your real agenda.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 11:38 PM
link   
It's ok Riley. No problem. If you don't see it then you don't. But again I want to comment on this painting you mention. I'm willing to bet you still had the idea and made the decision to start the painting, before you even started, bottom line. You might have said to yourself, "I feel like painting today." And that's what I'm trying to get at, without a consciousness of some sort, call it god, the creator, whatever you like, to drive the creation of things, then I don't see how matter is going to spontaneously form and stand up and and say "hey, how ya doin'?" The odds against it are staggering.

Honestly, I don't have a problem with there being an evolutionary type path, as long as it is the truth. But evolution would not have started anyway without an initial "push."

And honestly, with this incredible universe around us, what is so unbelievable about there being a creator anyway? I ask why not a creator? Why not?

Troy



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 11:51 PM
link   
I think it should be taught as well, next to evolution so people could see different possibilities....



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
And honestly, with this incredible universe around us, what is so unbelievable about there being a creator anyway? I ask why not a creator? Why not?

Troy


Explain the role of this creator and we can discuss whether it is consistently defined or not.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Hey spamandham,

The role of the creator - let's look at the definition 1 of the word "create" from dictionary.com: "To cause to exist; bring into being."

As far as I understand it, the role of the creator is much like the definition above says.

Troy

[edit on 11-9-2005 by cybertroy]



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
Hey spamandham,

The role of the creator - let's look at the definition 1 of the word "create" from dictionary.com: "To cause to exist; bring into being."

As far as I understand it, the role of the creator is much like the definition above says.

Troy

[edit on 11-9-2005 by cybertroy]


Did the creator crete time and space?



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
It's ok Riley. No problem. If you don't see it then you don't. But again I want to comment on this painting you mention. I'm willing to bet you still had the idea and made the decision to start the painting, before you even started, bottom line.

You expect me to answer this a FOURTH time?


Your reasoning is flawed as for an artist to have an idea to create.. they first need paint to work with [matter]- the painting cannot exist without a canvas existing beforehand [space]. This is not a sentient being. Of course the painting could not exist without the artist.. but without time and space neither could the artist. For a sentient being to exist it needs to be somewhere.. and for it to have a concept of space and time [obviously your god does has as it counted 7 days/ages.. when did it know to start counting?] it would need to exist within it as time cannot exist without space.



Again [in brief].. How does a sentient being exist outside of space and time?



Your 'challenge' isn't even relevent. It does not prove a creator.. it only proves that PEOPLE can sometimes create things subconciously. How does that disprove metaphysical reactions [the big bang]?

Alternatively.. you could have gone back a page and re-read my previous statements and just pretended that I repeated myself.
You've been told why that challenge was not applicable.. try using actual logic to debate instead of meaningless comparisons.


without a consciousness of some sort, call it god, the creator, whatever you like, to drive the creation of things, then I don't see how matter is going to spontaneously form and stand up and and say "hey, how ya doin'?" The odds against it are staggering.

What odds? The odds for a creator IMO are nill.. a sentient being cannot create the space it depends upon to exist in the first place.

But evolution would not have started anyway without an initial "push."

Why not? Thats just wishful thinking.. science has not proved this impossible.
Again perhaps you would like to address the valid points you have chosen to ignore. It's only fair considering how patient we have all been.

[edit on 11-9-2005 by riley]



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
Be carefull what you ask for. Evil atheist conspirators such as myself will make sure you do not have the free reign to indoctrinate that is your real agenda.


Spamandham I have to ask you, how can you be Athesit vs. being an Agonstic? Isn't that jumping to the same conclusions as a religous person?
I guess it depends on the definition of God. What if God is just a set of laws that govern the Universe?



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
Spamandham I have to ask you, how can you be Athesit vs. being an Agonstic? Isn't that jumping to the same conclusions as a religous person?


I am both. According to common definitions of god, his "existence" (whatever that means for nonnatural entities) is beyond the realm of knowledge. So that makes me an agnostic.

But, I also judge him as nonexistent, which makes me an atheist. It is perfectly reasonable to make such a judgement, since the assumption of falseness for all claims is part of the process of reason. Everything is disbelieved unless there is some rationale (not to be confused with motivation) to believe it, not the other way around.

Even those who believe in god operate that way in most other aspects of life.


Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
I guess it depends on the definition of God. What if God is just a set of laws that govern the Universe?


You win a cookie for recognizing that it's silly to even discuss whether god exists without first establishing what the word 'god' means.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Riley, why can it "not" be logical to have a creator? The fact that we are here is amazing in itself, so why not a "god" or "creator?" Why is this a difficult thing to see as a possibility? I don't understand why anyone can say there isn't a creator and be certain about it, yet say dirt formed spontaneously and somehow became conscious over billions of years? Both explanations are quite incredible, so why not a creator?

Science with all it's volumes of books still doesn't explain ghosts to any satisfactory degree. And science still doesn't explain, in a satisfactory way, why people have past life recollection. And as sure as I stand here, people do recall past lives. Science gives us much, but it does not answer everything.

Troy



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
Riley, why can it "not" be logical to have a creator?

Because nothing can exist outside time and space [especially a sentient being].. oh wait.. I think I've answered that five times already.. why haven't you responded to this?

I don't understand why anyone can say there isn't a creator and be certain about it, yet say dirt formed spontaneously and somehow became conscious over billions of years? Both explanations are quite incredible, so why not a creator?

The difference is one of the 'incredible' explanations [evolution] has proof to back it up.. the other does not.

Science with all it's volumes of books still doesn't explain ghosts to any satisfactory degree. And science still doesn't explain, in a satisfactory way, why people have past life recollection.

Exactly why ghosts and past lives are not taught as fact in science class. It's also a bit hard to establish the existence of such things scientifically when some of those who claim they exist are suffering from hallucinations.

[edit on 18-9-2005 by riley]



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
Riley, why can it "not" be logical to have a creator? The fact that we are here is amazing in itself, so why not a "god" or "creator?" Why is this a difficult thing to see as a possibility?


To have a creator implies the universe was created. The act of creation implies that the universe has not always existed. But the nonexistence of the universe followed by the existence of the universe implies the passage of time. Yet time is part of the universe. Furthermore, time is not independent of space and energy, so the existence of time implies the existence of space and energy as well.

In order that the universe be created, spacetime and energy had to exist prior to such creation in order to give context to the creation. This is a clear contradiction, and so it is impossible for the universe to have been created.

If it is impossible that the universe was created, then it is also impossible for there to be a creator.


Originally posted by cybertroy
I don't understand why anyone can say there isn't a creator and be certain about it,


We can be certain about it because the premise that the universe was created is fraught with linguistic inconsistency.


Originally posted by cybertroy
yet say dirt formed spontaneously and somehow became conscious over billions of years? Both explanations are quite incredible, so why not a creator?


No-one posits that dirt formed spontaneously or that life formed spontaneously. The current hypothesis is that life evolved from self replicating organic molecules. The simplest form of such molecules are hypothesized to have formed spontaneoulsy from naturally existing organic molecules that do not self replicate. This has already been demonstrated in a lab environment, and we have a grasp on the order of magnitude of the odds of this in nature - it's a near certainty under the right conditions.


Originally posted by cybertroy
Science with all it's volumes of books still doesn't explain ghosts to any satisfactory degree. And science still doesn't explain, in a satisfactory way, why people have past life recollection.


Whether or not you are satisfied with the explanations isn't relevant, natural explanations do exist. Ghosts, aliens, past lives, and gods can all be manufactured in controlled environments within the minds of subjects.

There's a thin line separating our perspective of reality from fantasy, and it can easily be crossed.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Past lives and ghosts are not hallucinations in every case. I have met some very sane people who recall lives of the past. You guys don't have to believe me, sometimes it takes the person actually seeing things like this for themselves. It's a reality that I can't really force on you.

spamandham and riley, with all your well thought out arguments, you still haven't provided any evidence that creation didn't happen.

Take care guys,

Troy

[edit on 24-9-2005 by cybertroy]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join