Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

[The13thMan]

[FONT="Tahoma"]Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

I just started classes yesterday at the University of Tennessee. This is my third year and I?ve decided to move back into the dorms for a year, for various irrelevant reasons. I?ve got a brand new roommate who happens to be a freshman. So here I am, college man, with this fresh blood, young-gilled, first year. The first real discussion we have involves evolution vs. intelligent design. I take the side of science and reason (evolution), where as he takes the side of faith and religion (intelligent design). I?d say it was a pretty good discussion, though I think if a third party were to listen in they?d say I somewhat blind sided him, as I?ve been following the topic relatively closely for over a year. And thus I decided to bring the discussion over to OB! ?Partly because there?s nothing interesting going on in the lounge right now.

As usual I don?t want to get too deeply into the subject on the introductory post. I much prefer that somebody else jumps into the shallow end before I do. But I will start it out.

Firstly I?d like to briefly explain what intelligent design is. I may not do a great job, as I don?t support it. If anybody here wants to expand on my definition of intelligent design I welcome them to. Intelligent design makes the assumption that the world as it is is too complex to have been created by an undirected process such as natural selection. Instead they claim that the world must have been created with an initial design in mind by some vague and unnamed supernatural force (god?). Intelligent designers claim that it is a scientific theory and should be taught as one.

My main beef with intelligent design (which will be henceforth abbreviated as ?ID?) is that it tries very hard to disguise itself as science. This is because it wants to be taught alongside evolution in the high school science classrooms. IDers complain that ID should be taught with evolution as a counter-theory for fairness, after all why shouldn?t both theories be taught? They say that students should be presented with ?both sides of the story? so that they can make up their own minds on the issue. And I happen to agree that both sides should be presented to a young person so that they can think on their own and come to their own conclusion, the problem with what the IDers want is that they want it taught in the science classrooms. ID is not science, therefore it has no place in the science classroom. It has no testable hypothesis and cannot be disproven, therefore it is not a true scientific theory. Instead it is simply creationist propaganda.

I want to also provide some links for you guys to check out:
This first one is the wikipedia definition of intelligent design. I've only read the first bit of it but it already seemed a bit biased against it.
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design[/URL]

This link is paper written by Steven Novella MD. It's anti-ID and a good read if you're interested on the subject.
[URL="http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=31"]http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=31[/URL]

This last link is a link to the Discovery Institute's main page. This is the headquarters of intelligent design and a website i'm not very familiar with.
[URL="http://www.discovery.org/"]http://www.discovery.org/[/URL]

[/FONT]

[Drizzt Do'urden]

Though I do fully believe there should be high school theology classes that teach ID. I do agree with the constitution of the United States. Though we don't do a good job keeping "seperation of church and state" it should be upheld. In CONTRAST the United States is a Country founded on religion.

I'm going to hold up there or I'm going to turn this into a different discussion. I do have to agree with 13th man when he says that it should be taught so younger children can make their own choices in life. Truth of the matter is, MOST high schoolers, I say most because I know several high school students (most of them from OB) who would jump at the chance to take theology in high school. But MOST high school students only want to do their 4 years and get through college along the path of least resistance, which I find to be really sad.

Now quickly summing up, I am an "IDer", I believe it should be mentioned as a theory since it's not viable to have a theology class in high school, support the constitutional rights of seperation of church and state, most high school students dissapoint me.

[DeathKnight]

[color=crimson]If I'm not mistaken, theories undergo very rigorous processes of scientific observation and testing that makes them "theories" in the first place.

I'm not sure how the above, if true, could apply at all to intelligent design. Perhaps his noodley appendage did touch all upon the Earth, but I don't think that meets the criteria to be called a theory.

Public school districts should not offer ID. Government entities ideally do not have much of a religious taint on them, although, honestly, in practice I'm not certain why we even preach secularization when it is almost a dirty word to be an atheist running for office. [/color]

[The13thMan]

[quote name='Drizzt Do'urden']Though I do fully believe there should be high school theology classes that teach ID.[/QUOTE][FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I don't agree with the idea of a high school theology class. This is because i believe religion should be taught more at home or should be persued by the individual. But i wouldn't fight it too much if it were, say, an optional and well structured and fair class. If it were to study theology objectively from more of a historical standpoint i'd be ok with that. But i think this is all besides the point of this thread.[/FONT]

[quote name='Drizzt Do'urden']I do have to agree with 13th man when he says that it should be taught so younger children can make their own choices in life. [/quote]
[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]It's still a very dangerous thing to teach stuff like this to young people because of how impressionable they are. It would be a tough job to teach them fairly and unbiased, but if it can be done i think it should be. I'm not rock solid on this point, but it's where i stand now.[/FONT]
[QUOTE=Drizzt Do'urden]
Now quickly summing up, I am an "IDer", I believe it should be mentioned as a theory since it's not viable to have a theology class in high school, support the constitutional rights of seperation of church and state, most high school students dissapoint me.[/QUOTE]
[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]You think it should be mentioned as theory in a science class because there are no theology classes in high schools? That logic seems flawed to me. Why teach something in a science class that's not science just because it's not taught in theology or any other class? And are you saying that ID is a theory? If you are you should say why. [/FONT]
[quote name='DeathKnight']I'm not certain why we even preach secularization when it is almost a dirty word to be an atheist running for office. [/quote]
[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]It's based on a number of dirty misconceptions people have on atheists and nonreligious types in general. It really is frustrating...[/FONT]

[DBZgirl88]

[color="#004a6f"]I believe in intelligent design. Species may or may not have evolved, but either way, nothing that exists today is possible without God. This is based on faith.

If people want to leave religion out of the classroom, that is fine by me, since belief in God requires faith.

However, I don't think the theory of evolution has proven to be fact yet. Yes, there is a lot of evidence to support it, but we don't know for sure, so I do have problems when it is presented as though it is fact.

It has been proven that species can evolve, so at least that part is a fact. But it has not been proven that all species came from one common ancestor, so I don't think that concept should be presented a a fact, just as a theory.[/color]

[The13thMan]

[quote name='Chabichou'][color="#004a6f"]
However, I don't think the theory of evolution has proven to be fact yet. Yes, there is a lot of evidence to support it, but we don't know for sure, so I do have problems when it is presented as though it is fact.

It has been proven that species can evolve, so at least that part is a fact. But it has not been proven that all species came from one common ancestor, so I don't think that concept should be presented a a fact, just as a theory.[/color][/QUOTE]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I've heard this before, and i can understand how a person would feel this way, but i think most people feel this way unjustly so. I'm going to say "most people" here because i don't want to single you out. I don't know what you think beyond what you told me. But most people i'd say have this same sentiment often times because of a misunderstanding of the word theory. When people say theory in everyday use it usually is held to mean something that a person is unsure of to a fair degree. My theory on the disappearance of my pinky finger while i was asleep last night is finger gnomes. Something like that. But when the word is used in the context of science it has a different meaning. Theory isn't a word so easily thrown around. The theory of evolution is such a highly tested and successful theory that most people would state it as fact because it almost certainly is fact. Evolution has been so thoroughly tested it's ridiculous. And all it would take to break down the theory of evolution is one weird little fossil or maybe piece of genetical evidence that contradicts it. To this date, ever since the theory of evolution was first brought about by Darwin and his peers, the theory has proved successful.

Let me ask you this, would you consider gravity to be a theory or a fact? Most people would consider this to be a fact. But technically speaking, and within the world of science, it is still a theory, just like evolution. It would still only take one apple mysteriously floating back up into the apple tree to completely debunk the "theory" of gravity.

And as for the common ancestor deal. You're right, it hasn't been PROVEN. But there have been a number of experiments dealing with the supposed condition of the earth before life that has produced the remnants of life. There is an episode in Carl Sagan's Cosmos that goes into this deeper than i can or will. I believe it's the 2nd episode... not sure. [/FONT]

[DeathKnight]

[quote name='Chabichou'][color="#004a6f"]However, I don't think the theory of evolution has proven to be fact yet. Yes, there is a lot of evidence to support it, but we don't know for sure, so I do have problems when it is presented as though it is fact. [/color][/QUOTE]

[color=crimson]It's a damn sight better than throwing around faith as if that is an equivalent to the scientific process.

Faith is a shady way to say you have an opinion, one that cannot be shown to be factual beyond emotions and belief. This opinion may or may not involve Jesus, Ahura Mazda, YHWH, Allah, Brahma, and other deities mixed and matched with eschatology and dogma to produce a highly organized system of, still, having an opinion that, depending on the religion, defines who/what God is, God's intentions, God's history, God's personality, and criteria for God accepting you and possibly rewarding you with paradise/heaven/blessings.[/color]

[Morpheus]

Intelligent Design is not science, so it should stay out of science classrooms.

Evolution has been studied and observed. A scientific theory is a well tested hypothesis that has proven to be consistently accurate. It's not a guess.

Ideally children would not be taught about religion until their teenage years. I've seen too many people that teach their own beliefs to their children as fact and it tends to screw with their developing sense of logic

[The13thMan]

[quote name='DeathKnight'][color=crimson]This opinion may or may not involve Jesus, Ahura Mazda, YHWH, Allah, Brahma, and other deities mixed and matched with eschatology and dogma to produce a highly organized system of, still, having an opinion that, depending on the religion, defines who/what God is, God's intentions, God's history, God's personality, and criteria for God accepting you and possibly rewarding you with paradise/heaven/blessings.[/color][/QUOTE]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Is that all one sentence? My my, what a mouthful!

I think perhaps you're being a bit too harsh on those with faith. It's based on more than you're leading on. But perhaps i misunderstood you and it just came off as mean to me. [/FONT]

[DeathKnight]

[quote name='The13thMan'][FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Is that all one sentence? My my, what a mouthful![/quote][/font]

[color=crimson]Yeah, most of it is options. Call it a create-your-own religion. Buy now and I'll throw in a free holy text.[/color]

[quote name='The 13thMan][font="trebuchet MS"']I think perhaps you're being a bit too harsh on those with faith. It's based on more than you're leading on. But perhaps i misunderstood you and it just came off as mean to me. [/FONT][/quote]

[color=crimson]I am very critical of religion but people have the right to believe in what they wish - however, government and tax-funded entities are, to me, supposed to be secular organizations.[/color]

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='Morpheus']Intelligent Design is not science, so it should stay out of science classrooms.

Evolution has been studied and observed. A scientific theory is a well tested hypothesis that has proven to be consistently accurate. It's not a guess.

Ideally children would not be taught about religion until their teenage years. I've seen too many people that teach their own beliefs to their children as fact and it tends to screw with their developing sense of logic[/QUOTE]I agree, with all of this actually. It's not a science so it has no place in the classroom.

And the last bit... I've seen that all too often. Like you said, it tends to mess up their sense of logic. I've always understood that religion is more about faith than science. So to try and teach something as fact when it's not... big mistake in my opinion.

[The13thMan]

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']I agree, with all of this actually. It's not a science so it has no place in the classroom.

And the last bit... I've seen that all too often. Like you said, it tends to mess up their sense of logic. I've always understood that religion is more about faith than science. So to try and teach something as fact when it's not... big mistake in my opinion.[/QUOTE]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]It's no fun when people agree... or when the few that disagree are too afraid to respond.

I don't think it's right to accuse the material being taught for hindering a person's sense of logic. It should be the person doing the teaching that is held responsible. The parent or religious figure in the child's life. I do believe you can teach religion while enforcing critical thinking and logical skills. Should i ever kids i fully intend on teaching religion to them while enforcing these abilities alongside with the possibility of no gods existing or even the sort of agnostic nuetrality.

Well, what do you consider to be fact? If i were to ask if any one religion were fact i wouldn't be able to say. Perhaps one is, perhaps they all are, and maybe none are. There's no way of knowing. And what of science? There are so many "theories" in science that you could very easily not consider any of it "fact" without injecting some small portion of doubt. My point is it's not whether something is fact or not that makes it valueable. It's the methods we as a people used to gain the information. The theory of evolution came about through very rigourous testing by thousands if not millions of scientists. It's tested almost constantly. Whereas religion, depending on which one, isn't up to that sort of scrutiny. Certainly people may argue about religion, but there's no methods of proving your point through any sort of experimentation. That, in my opinion, is why science is so valueable. [/FONT]

[Drizzt Do'urden]

I do have a question on the note of "theory" of evolution. Maybe someone can answer this question because it's always bugged me. IF it takes millions of years for a species to evolve. WHY did it take so many years after man evolved into man to discover so much. And how have we discovered so much in so little time. And also, HOW is it possible for evolution to be tested and treated as a science, and HOW does that make it any different than religon. When we can't test for CERTAIN how things evolve (I know their are theories to this, but again if there's no way of testing it) how/why should it be treated any differently than intelligent design/divine intervention (Theory that god causes his creations to change)

Hope that's disagreement enough for ya 13th man :)

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='The13thMan;820137][FONT="Trebuchet MS"]It's no fun when people agree... or when the few that disagree are too afraid to respond. [/FONT][/QUOTE]It's no fun to change your opinion just to create an argument. =P[quote name='The13thMan;820137][FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I don't think it's right to accuse the material being taught for hindering a person's sense of logic. It should be the person doing the teaching that is held responsible. The parent or religious figure in the child's life. I do believe you can teach religion while enforcing critical thinking and logical skills. Should i ever kids i fully intend on teaching religion to them while enforcing these abilities alongside with the possibility of no gods existing or even the sort of agnostic nuetrality. [/FONT][/QUOTE]Why? If the material is wrong, then why teach it or be politically correct and not fault it? We use to believe that the world was flat. Was it right to blame the material? Of course it was, since it was wrong. The whole issue debunking ID in the first place is that the religious aspect of it isn't fact. I could just blame the parents, but that leaves no room to scrutinize the actual material that is being presented as if it were a fact. That's just passing the buck in my opinion.[QUOTE=The13thMan'][FONT="Trebuchet MS"']Well, what do you consider to be fact? If i were to ask if any one religion were fact i wouldn't be able to say. Perhaps one is, perhaps they all are, and maybe none are. There's no way of knowing. And what of science? There are so many "theories" in science that you could very easily not consider any of it "fact" without injecting some small portion of doubt. My point is it's not whether something is fact or not that makes it valueable. It's the methods we as a people used to gain the information. The theory of evolution came about through very rigourous testing by thousands if not millions of scientists. It's tested almost constantly. Whereas religion, depending on which one, isn't up to that sort of scrutiny. Certainly people may argue about religion, but there's no methods of proving your point through any sort of experimentation. That, in my opinion, is why science is so valueable. [/FONT][/quote]I'm sure you understand the concept behind science, theory and testing theories and so forth. So I don't see a need to go into[I] if a religion was a fact[/I] side of the argument. And you're kind of going in circles as well so I'm pretty much done. I already stated what I think.

[Aaryanna_Mom]

I'm fine with Intelligent Design, within reason. It's one thing to present it on a religious basis and yet another to attempt to stuff it into science classes. It has no business being taught there. I also have no issues with evolution either. But then I've always been of the mind that if someone like God really does exist... they would be smart enough to take advantage of how things work instead of wasting their time by "mirco-managing" everything.

[Boo]

[size=1]Schools should just have religion class where they discuss all the major religions and learn about them from an objective point of view. One needs to learn about all these things to have a right perspective of things. One shouldn't go about teaching one theory/belief more than any others at school, but they [i]should[/i] teach about them anyway.

In the same line, Inteligent Design [i]nor[/i] Evolution should be pressed upon students in any way whatsoever. The students should just be taught about such things, explaining what those theories/beliefs are about, and then just be given resources or whatever to go look for more about it themselves if they feel like it.[/size]

[Kenso]

[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=1]And here I thought I was going to stay out of this conversation, as I do so many.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=1]With all due respect, Boo, I think the idea of "teaching" religion in school is completely insane. School courses should do one of three things: educate them on skills they can use later in life (which requires facts), inspire creativity (hence art and music classes), or better the student physically (phys. ed., though I believe some kind of martial arts should be a requirement).[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=1]A religious class cannot accomplish any of these, at least not regularly enough to allow. Religions are not supported by fact, making it nearly impossible to properly educate on them, especially since inquisitive minds are absolutely guaranteed to stumble upon one of the many, many questions that cannot be answered in any way. You cannot truly teach students, especially children, a subject in which half of the questions that will come up have no real answers, and no concrete way to explain them.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=1]In addition, having a religious class would require an absolutely unbiased teacher, and that is a near-impossibility of its own. You cannot expect a Christian teacher to give another religion a fair look in comparison to their own, or a teacher of any other religion for that matter. Even an atheist wouldn't work so well. After all, how do you meaninfully educate anyone on a subject you don't actually believe in to begin with?[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=1]I for one would be straight up insulted if I was told a non-religious school was attempting to teach my child various religions, and I would seriously question what was going on.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=1]Now I'm sure that my answer to the question originally presented in this thread can be surmised from what I just said. If you can't support it with facts, then you can't teach it. As has been stated, Intelligent Design has no factual basis to run off, so it doesn't belong in schools.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[The13thMan]

[quote name='Drizzt Do'urden']IF it takes millions of years for a species to evolve. WHY did it take so many years after man evolved into man to discover so much. And how have we discovered so much in so little time. And also, HOW is it possible for evolution to be tested and treated as a science, and HOW does that make it any different than religon. When we can't test for CERTAIN how things evolve (I know their are theories to this, but again if there's no way of testing it) how/why should it be treated any differently than intelligent design/divine intervention (Theory that god causes his creations to change)

Hope that's disagreement enough for ya 13th man :)[/QUOTE]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I'll try my best to answer your questions. First allow me to isolate them.

1. Why is man so "far behind" evolutionarily speaking?
2. How has man developed so quickly in such short time?
3. How is evolution treated as a science and tested in science?
4. How does the previous question qualify evolution as science and not religion?
5. Why should it be treated differently from intelligent design.

Those are your main questions, as i see them. If you feel i misunderstood any of them feel free to say so. I'll try my best to answer these.

1. I would not say man is far behind. I would say we're either right on track or ahead of the curve. Obviously we are the dominant species of the planet, i think that should count for something. You also compared the evolution of man to the evolution of some things taking millions of years. I think you need to be more specific as to what took millions of years.

2. I'm not sure whether you mean how have we devoloped so much physically and evolutionarily speaking or if you meant in the sense of technology and the improvement of the human condition. For the former i would say we haven't devoloped too much, we aren't too horribly different from the first man. Though i do think we are taller, better built, and live longer. But i would say technology has played a huge role in that. Have you ever seen one of those population graphs over the course of human history? Here's one i found via google:
[IMG]http://ldolphin.org/poprecent.gif[/IMG]
EDIT: In case the graph doesn't work here's a link to the page i took it from: [URL="http://ldolphin.org/popul.html"]http://ldolphin.org/popul.html[/URL]
It's the 3rd graph down labeled "Recent-History Population Growth."

If you look at the graph it's very obvious that the rate at which our population grew has really took off in the last 100-200 years. So, obviously, the more people we have the more people we have working on ways to improve the quality of life.

3. It's treated as a science because it is one. It's tested in many different ways. They can test it by observing fossil records. They can test it by observing DNA between different species. Have you ever heard that only a percent of our DNA differs from chimpanzees? That's certainly a point for evolution. If you really want to know more then you can always google it or whatever search engine you prefer.

4. One qualification for science and probably the most pertinent one in this situation is the ability to test a theory to confirm or disprove it. Well, not really confirm it. You can never confirm a theory with 100% certainty. You can add evidence too a theory, and in the case of evolution there is a whole lot of evidence, but it only takes one piece of contradicting evidence to completely disprove it. I think i've said this all already in a previous post. Anyways, ID does not have a testable hypothesis, evolution does. Whamo bammo, evolution is science ID is not.

5. Because ID is not science. ID is simply creationist propaganda in the guise of a scientific theory to try to integrate religion into the science classroom. [/FONT]
[quote name='Rachmaninoff']It's no fun to change your opinion just to create an argument. =P[/quote]
[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Sure it is!! ;D[/FONT]
[quote name='Rachmaninoff']Why? If the material is wrong, then why teach it or be politically correct and not fault it? We use to believe that the world was flat. Was it right to blame the material? Of course it was, since it was wrong. [/quote]
[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]A few things here that i need to explain/debate. First off when i had initially wrote what you replied to the material that i had in mind wasn't wrong, which isn't to say it was right. In the case of religion, i don't know. But i will say that even if the material is flat out wrong (such as your flat earth theory) i would still blame the teacher and not the material. Well, not exactly. I will place some blame on the material, but majority blame i would still place with the teacher. This is because i truly believe that the person receiving the information should use his critical thinking and logical skills to see the flaw in any material. And in the case of young and impressionable children the teacher should be held responsible for instilling these skills in the child. For instance, if i were to present the flat earth theory at the time in which it was believed i would emphasize that this is a theory based on speculation and has not been tested in any way. This theory is capable of being tested, obviously, but has not been. This sort of basic sentiment is important for presenting most ideas in science (and a lot in life), the difference being that science nowadays carries out those experiments a lot more often than before. [/FONT]
[quote name='Rachmaninoff']The whole issue debunking ID in the first place is that the religious aspect of it isn't fact. I could just blame the parents, but that leaves no room to scrutinize the actual material that is being presented as if it were a fact. [/quote]
[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I don't think that is the issue. I think the issue is that people don't see the real difference between ID and evolution since both of them could technically (but perhaps not correctly) be considered either a theory or a fact. You shouldn't straight up say that ID isn't fact, because it very well could be (although i would agree with you that it probably isn't). And evolution isn't technically a fact in the sense that it hasn't been proven absolutely. The difference here that people need to realize is the amount of evidence supporting either one. ID has no evidence, evolution has a whole crap-ton. Crap-ton is an actual unit of measurement, by the way. 1 crap ton=100 crap loads..... :animeblus[/FONT]
[quote name='Rachmaninoff']I'm sure you understand the concept behind science, theory and testing theories and so forth. So I don't see a need to go into if a religion was a fact side of the argument. And you're kind of going in circles as well so I'm pretty much done. I already stated what I think.[/quote]
[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I'm glad you didn't go into that. It's pretty irrelevant. Although... i think i did mention it back in the hooblah of my post.

Yeh, i guess i do go in circles... even though i don't entirely understand what you mean by it. In spite of my circular...ness i hope you don't cop out and stop arguing with me. I dislike that.

As for Kenso and Boo's posts i will say that i think i already touched on a number of the points they made and hope they go back and read my posts if they haven't already. I will ask Kenso though what he considers to be "factual basis." I'm guessing loads of scientific evidence gathered over numerous decades doesn't count as "factual basis" if he truly believes evolution has none. [/FONT]

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='The13thMan;820213][FONT="Trebuchet MS"]A few things here that i need to explain/debate. First off when i had initially wrote what you replied to the material that i had in mind wasn't wrong, which isn't to say it was right. In the case of religion, i don't know. But i will say that even if the material is flat out wrong (such as your flat earth theory) i would still blame the teacher and not the material. Well, not exactly. I will place some blame on the material, but majority blame i would still place with the teacher. This is because i truly believe that the person receiving the information should use his critical thinking and logical skills to see the flaw in any material. And in the case of young and impressionable children the teacher should be held responsible for instilling these skills in the child. For instance, if i were to present the flat earth theory at the time in which it was believed i would emphasize that this is a theory based on speculation and has not been tested in any way. This theory is capable of being tested, obviously, but has not been. This sort of basic sentiment is important for presenting most ideas in science (and a lot in life), the difference being that science nowadays carries out those experiments a lot more often than before. [/FONT][/QUOTE]What if the teacher doesn't know it's wrong? You're assuming that a person knows what they are teaching is wrong... You missed what I was getting at. Both need to be scrutinized, it's that simple. Placing blame in on only once side fails to take in account a person's upbringing and education and so forth. [quote name='The13thMan'][FONT="Trebuchet MS"']Yeh, i guess i do go in circles... even though i don't entirely understand what you mean by it. In spite of my circular...ness i hope you don't cop out and stop arguing with me. I dislike that. [/FONT][/quote]I'll say it again. =P I won't change my opinion just to argue. And I won't go in circles since like I said, it would be redundant. Don't assume it's a cop out, it's my way of saying, I see no point in discussing things or going much further with it.

[Kenso]

[quote name='The13thMan'][FONT=Trebuchet MS]As for Kenso and Boo's posts i will say that i think i already touched on a number of the points they made and hope they go back and read my posts if they haven't already. I will ask Kenso though what he considers to be "factual basis." I'm guessing loads of scientific evidence gathered over numerous decades doesn't count as "factual basis" if he truly believes evolution has none. [/FONT][/quote]

You may wish to re-read my post. I never even mention evolution. I really only discuss the idea of teaching ID in schools, which I believe is utterly lacking in merit. I am quite convinced that evolutionary theory is correct, and that the idea of some supernatural being waving his hand and making things as they are is ridiculous.

[Boo]

[quote name='Kenso'][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=1]I for one would be straight up insulted if I was told a non-religious school was attempting to teach my child various religions, and I would seriously question what was going on.[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]
[size=1]Then that's horribly shallow of you. Especially a non-religious school should teach about religion.

I don't know about you, but seeing as religion is one of the major cultural influences on pretty much everything, pretty much everywhere, I think it's pretty great basic information. Teaching about religion does not just mean that you tell them things that might have happened, but you also tell your pupils about why people behave in the way they do, their customs, their views. Seriously, if you fail to teach about religions in school, the children will have no clue what the hell is going on.

Besides I have never said "teach them religions", I said "teach them [i]about[/i] religions." How can anyone not see that this is basic information to understand anything of what goes on in the world, history and present?

On an other note: Beliefs are not facts. Religions are completely factual. You seem to fail to see that religions are man made and are completely historic, not prehistoric or anything. Religions are customs, culture, all that jazz. It is not very hard to find a teacher who would be able to tell about something. It's like saying that you can't talk about ice cream, just because you don't like it. What the hell, man?[/size]

[The13thMan]

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']What if the teacher doesn't know it's wrong? You're assuming that a person knows what they are teaching is wrong... You missed what I was getting at. Both need to be scrutinized, it's that simple. Placing blame in on only once side fails to take in account a person's upbringing and education and so forth. [/QUOTE]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I'm not assuming that they know what they are teaching is wrong. I'm assuming that they realize the possibility that it is wrong. This is an important thing for people to realize in science. There are many things in science that are taught that can be disproven. I don't know how it was in your highschool but in mine we had some older science texts and every now and then we would come across some out of date information. This is because science is dynamic. If you realize that then you can realize that whatever you're saying might be contingent upon science.

As for the placing of the blame, i did actually distribute it between the teacher and the material... and even the student, i think (maybe implicitly). Regardless of whether i said it before, i'll say it now, if the student is of age to have discovered independent thought then even the student should be held partially responsible.

As for what you were getting at, do you mind very bluntly saying it in case i missed it yet again?
^^^sincerity^^^

To Kenso: Yep, i went back and reread the part of the post that i had trouble with and you're right. I must've misread something. Unless of course you edited it! ::glare:: Just kidding. Sorry for the confusion. [/FONT]

[Kenso]

[quote name='Boo'][SIZE=1]Besides I have never said "teach them religions", I said "teach them [I]about[/I] religions." How can anyone not see that this is basic information to understand anything of what goes on in the world, history and present?[/SIZE][/quote]

[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=1]I fail to see the difference between the two. You can not teach about religions without teaching the religions' various mythologies and beliefs. The cultural impact of religions is covered in World Cultures (or Social Studies, whatever your schools happen to call it), or it's supposed to be, as was in all the schools I know of. But a whole class only about religions is wasted time and money.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=1]I don't believe religion has any basic information that I'd want my children being taught. Depending on the religion being discussed, we'll be teaching our children that women are second-rate and effectively the property of men, or perhaps that anyone who steps an inch out of line is doomed to eternal damnation.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=1]I do not deny the cultural impact of various religions. Indeed, it's one of the things in this world that depresses me the most, as I don't feel that religion has had many positive effects (hell, look at how many wars have been fought for religious reasons).[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=1]That said, I'm going to digress from the argument, since it's going to quickly spiral off-topic at this rate.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=1]EDIT: Since you added while I was posting: The existence and impact of religions as a whole is indeed fact. However, the belief systems of these religions is nowhere near fact, as not a single one of them can produce scientific evidence to support what they have to say. Just because it is man-made does not make it correct, and it's no longer fact if it's wrong. And a course on religions would have to go into these unsubstantiated and often outdated beliefs.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[Morpheus]

If you don't know at least the basics of major religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and counter movements such as atheism and agnosticism then your worldview must be at least marginally skewed towards your own thoughts of morality and other such ambiguous concepts when viewing those of another culture.

[Lunar]

[COLOR="Purple"]"The Separtion of Church and State," whatever. :animeangrIf you ask for my opinion, I would say Church and State should be together. Evolution, doesn't make sense......if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys now??? And as far as people trying to mix the Bible with Science, forget that, too. We come from Adam and Eve.[/COLOR]