stewie wrote:
I'm not saying that kids should be isolated from the creationism vs. evolution debate, but let's just do it in the proper arena: the sociology/religion classes.

Having it masquerade as science is bizarre, ridiculous and ultimately damaging to all involved.

amen. i'd say make kids aware of any 'different idea' that was big enough to have an effect on everyday life.

davesec wrote:i was just pointing out the contradiction, and probably being too literal. yes it is a 'real' debate if there are two sides.

That's just it: When it comes to giving equal time to irrational ideas, there are always going to be more than just two sides. If you really wanna stick to your equal-time-for-debatable-theories guns, rather than using limited class time to teach the best, most current available knowledge, you'd better be prepared for a pretty fucked up classroom. There are literally hundreds - if not thousands - of conflicting ideas about the origins of life, all with the same amount of super-flimsy, backwards evidence to be found in intelligent design. If you teach one, you have to teach them all. You can't just teach the fundamentalist Christian viewpoint of nonsense if you commit yourself to teaching nonsense.

davesec wrote:i am not talking about the people advocating creationism in general, i am talking about bush which is what i think the whole subject is about...

...and Bush IS advocating for the teaching of creationism! He IS one of those people! We ARE "talking about Bush"! Are you awake?

davesec wrote:i was saying for all we know bush just wants people to learn briefly about creationism in sociology or something...

Wrong! We know for a fact that Bush wants it taught in the science class! We know this! It is fact! Praise Allah!:

At the White House, where intelligent design has been discussed in a weekly Bible study group, Mr. Bush's science adviser, John H. Marburger 3rd, sought to play down the president's remarks as common sense and old news.

Mr. Marburger also said that Mr. Bush's remarks should be interpreted to mean that the president believes that intelligent design should be discussed as part of the "social context" in science classes.

You are being completely disingenuous to think that the debate isn't about what should be taught in the science class. That's the whole fucking point of this. No one said creationism can't be taught in other, more appropriate classes. You're defending a point that no one's attacking.

davesec wrote:then you lost your shit and got tangled up in your own crusade against creationism and seem to still be spouting little bits and pieces of it in your posts.

Yes! I'm fucking angry! I wish more people were! I will no longer be quietly fucked in the ass with a bible!

Salut!

i wasn't aware at all bush was pushing for teaching intelligent design in science classrooms, i was going entirely on the original article in this thread, my mistake. i honestly didn't even know bush believed in creationism. i mean i know he believes in god like most (all?) presidents, but i thought that was about it. i entirely, completely agree that intelligent design has no place at all in the scientific field.

where else has bush publicly advocated teaching intelligent design in the science classroom? i'd like to read up on this

As a side note: Am I the only person who has noticed that America, with it's 'separation of church and state' is actually one of the most religiously governed states of them all?

On the existence of God: This isn't really a scientific issue, more a philosophical one. This is therefore a separate issue to that of creationism and evolution. One can be a theist and still think the bible is a heap of shit. When you actually study it is easier to prove the existence of God than to disprove it (mainly with the Cosmological argument) but the God you end up with bares no resemblance to the God of the bible, except for name.

On 'Creationism': They say that the gaps that can be found in the theory of evolution 'prove' that it is wrong. These gaps do exists, for example there are huge time periods at the beginning of the timeline that scientists are yet to account for. This doesn't 'prove' anything, other than that there are lots of things the scientists don't really know about yet but until we do the currewnt model is a pretty good one to teach kids and if they're interested enough as they grow older they can always go learn it at Uni (unless they go to the Permian Basin branch of the University of Texas, in which case their learning will be ruined by a whole load of brainwashed victims of fundamentalism).

At school in England, I learned about evolution in Biology and Creationism in RE. For Creationism, however, we didn;'t just look at the Semitic version, we looked at the ideas of Islam, Buddhist, Hindu and several other major religions. I'd say that's the best way of doing it...

also, you talk about giving the most time to the most relevent, proved theory (evolution) in the science classroom - does that mean you think creationism is second in line for getting attention? i imagine it's probably right up there for most widely accepted theories.

eh em...

Sorry to interupt again, but isn't there a clear separation between church and state in the US? What the fuck is the state doing teaching any religion is public schools? You guys shouldn't even have classes saying anything about religion! Religious faith is private, the rational among you should start organising the way the Christians do. Otherwise you'll something similar to Nazi Germany soon and ya'll be saying, "fuck that happened so quietly I didn't even notice".

It hard enough here in Europe with Middle East on our doorstep, the last thing we need to the US going over to the darkside.

Get angry, put down the bong and organise!

Errr, here: http://www.natcenscied.org/

Now, give the nice fellows their bongs back.

Galileo Galilei: "Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, 1615"

"Some years ago, as Your Serene Highness well knows, I discovered in the heavens many things that had not been seen before our own age. The novelty of these things, as well as some consequences which followed from them in contradiction to the physical notions commonly held among academic philosophers, stirred up against me no small number of professors-as if I had placed these things in the sky with my own hands in order to upset nature and overturn the sciences. They seemed to forget that the increase of known truths stimulates the investigation, establishment, and growth of the arts; not their diminution or destruction.

Showing a greater fondness for their own opinions than for truth they sought to deny and disprove the new things which, if they had cared to look for themselves, their own senses would have demonstrated to them. To this end they hurled various charges and published numerous writings filled with vain arguments, and they made the grave mistake of sprinkling these with passages taken from places in the Bible which they had failed to understand properly, and which were ill-suited to their purposes."

davesec wrote:also, you talk about giving the most time to the most relevent, proved theory (evolution) in the science classroom - does that mean you think creationism is second in line for getting attention?

I don't think science works that way (not in a classroom setting, at least). You don't teach the best idea and then work your way down the ladder of ideas throughout history for every subject. It would be pointless, and you wouldn't have enough time to cover every hair-brained theory even if you wanted to. As better evidence is collected, science discards the old ideas and replaces them with new ones. I don't see the benefit to re-visiting what is no longer relevant. Not within a science classroom context, anyway.

And creationism as an explanation for origin has got to be waaaaaaay down on the list. Putting it second would be generous.

davesec wrote:i imagine it's probably right up there for most widely accepted theories.

Widely accepted by who? The fatbody Joe-moron who thought Fast and the Furious was a good movie? I don't want the average superstitious American teaching my kids, thanks.

Christopher wrote:

davesec wrote:i imagine it's probably right up there for most widely accepted theories.

Widely accepted by who? The fatbody Joe-moron who thought Fast and the Furious was a good movie? I don't want the average superstitious American teaching my kids, thanks.

Yes. "Widely accepted" is not necessarily "correct" or "proven."