Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

libitina

Intelligent Design, God And Darwin.

Recommended Posts

'Intelligent Design' Banned From School

In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution in 80 years, a US judge has barred a state public school district from teaching so-called "intelligent design'' in biology class, saying the concept violated the constitutional separation of church and state.

District jJdge John Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, the first in the nation to insert intelligent design into its science curriculum in October 2004.

The ruling was a major setback to the intelligent design movement, which is also waging battles in Georgia and Kansas.

Intelligent design holds that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by some kind of higher force.

Judge Jones decried the "breathtaking inanity'' of the Dover policy and accused several board members of lying to conceal their true motive, which he said was to promote religion.

A six-week trial over the issue yielded "overwhelming evidence'' establishing that intelligent design "is a religious view, a mere relabelling of creationism, and not a scientific theory'', said the judge, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago.

The school system said it will probably not appeal the ruling, because the members who backed intelligent design were ousted in November's elections and replaced with a new team opposed to the policy.

During the trial, the board argued that it was trying to improve science education by exposing students to alternatives to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection.

The policy required students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade lessons on evolution.

The statement said Darwin's theory is "not a fact'' and has inexplicable "gaps''. It referred students to an intelligent design textbook.

But the judge said: "We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom.''

In 1987, the US Supreme Court ruled that states cannot require public schools to balance evolution lessons by teaching creationism.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Centre in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which represented the school district and describes its mission as defending the religious freedom of Christians, said: ''What this really looks like is an ad hominem attack on scientists who happen to believe in God.''

http://channels.aolsvc.co.uk/news/article....221050209990001 (link will only work for aol subscribers)

Whats your view?

I'm an atheist, so I'm in agreement with the judge. Stuff like that should be saved for R.E lessons imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://channels.aolsvc.co.uk/news/article....221050209990001 (link will only work for aol subscribers)

Whats your view?

I'm an atheist, so I'm in agreement with the judge. Stuff like that should be saved for R.E lessons imo.

I'm not an atheist. I believe God did make the world/life as we know it.

I also believe God did this via evolution. He is the All Mighty after all. He can create life anyway He wants. He also gave us brains, so we could understand science.

I fail to understand why some people feel the need to put limits on the All Mighty.

I agree, it need to be tought in religion class or the home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This god right...just run it past me one more time, this all powerful god he oversees religions that have slaughtered millions in his name. He oversees the hunger and suffering of the poor in Africa, he is the devine head of religious orders that employ and protect pedophiles.

Jeez an you reckon He's the good guy :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baron D'Holbach (1723)

http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/1208c-almanac.htm

If we go back to the beginning we shall find that ignorance and fear created the gods; that fancy, enthusiasm, or deceit adorned or disfigured them; that weakness worships them; that credulity preserves them, and that custom, respect and tyranny support them in order to make the blindness of men serve its own interests."[3]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im with libi , science in science lessons, religion in religous lessons.

Personally i want schools to teach the evilness of god, satans the good guy you know where ya stand with him he just gets a bad rap.

Of course in reality (my reality) neither exist but what i do know is that more evil has been done in the name of god than could ever be imagined, hardly any evil has been done in the name of the devil, so which one is the bad one.

Salem witch hunts

spanish inquisition

crusades

blowing stuff up

in the name of god.

Psionics is where its at but normal folks cant get into it because you dont have to worship or sacrafice your lives to it - so it wouldnt seem worthwhile.

I could talk for hours on religion and why we need it as a society but today i just cannot be botherd.

Good bad, right wrong, just social conceptions of what is acceptable at the time. 100 years ago the morality would be different, today we think we're better than them. Society ... aint it grand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had no idea saying you believed in God would be a huge issue.

My beliefs are just that....MINE! I don't expect others to agree wth me.

Prostletizing atheist, just what the world needs. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is really serious, you cannot throw science out of the water, unless you think the sun revolves around the world and earth is a turtle-back.

Let's acknowledge what we do know, and progress, but we must not have a back door religious fundamentalist movement in our schools. Christian or whatever.

Unless of course they speak out and say war and killing is bad, as is money changing. Interestingly Jesus was physically aggressive to only one type of person, yes the money changers or Banks as we would say today.

'The purportrators of these crimes are wrong and goverment and finance institutions need to change to a more moral standing.' Now that's a more relevant topic these days.

And then act and use influence for a better good.

By the way, if god gave us free will why would he then punish us for making mistakes and send us to hell forever. Get the philosophy right as there is so much good in religion, we all need some guidance.

Hey I believe in something but I do not want science messed up, Darwin has some very valid points and if his theory needs to be updated then saying Duh! god did it will serve no purpose. Even if he did, which would be quite a cool feat, and still get a break in for Sunday lunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had no idea saying you believed in God would be a huge issue.

My beliefs are just that....MINE! I don't expect others to agree wth me.

Prostletizing atheist, just what the world needs. :blink:

You'll have to educate me i dont know what prostletizing means :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll have to educate me i dont know what prostletizing means :)

Definitions of 'proselytizing' (prŏsə-lĭ-tīz) - 3 definitions - American Heritage Dictionary

proselytize (v.) To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.

proselytize (v.) To induce someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrine.

proselytize (v.) To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another.

http://www.ask.com/web?o=0&qsrc=19&q=defin...f+proselytizing

I had to look it up too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitions of 'proselytizing' (prŏsə-lĭ-tīz) - 3 definitions - American Heritage Dictionary

proselytize (v.) To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.

proselytize (v.) To induce someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrine.

proselytize (v.) To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another.

http://www.ask.com/web?o=0&qsrc=19&q=defin...f+proselytizing

I had to look it up too.

*looks around the room*

You guys must not have enough fundies telling you the only right belief is their belief.

Must be nice. *said with zero sarcasm, and a hint of jealousy*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Karen,

Yup, you're right. Pretty much all our Christians are nice, moderate people who don't bother the rest of us infidels :D

I don't believe in Intelligent Design but I don't see the problem in teaching it as a theory in science... as long as it's put up as a subject for debate alongside more credible theories. That's all they are at the end of the day - theories.

I must admit I wish my kids' school didn't teach them Christian doctrine as fact though!

Rachel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Karen,

Yup, you're right. Pretty much all our Christians are nice, moderate people who don't bother the rest of us infidels :D

I don't believe in Intelligent Design but I don't see the problem in teaching it as a theory in science... as long as it's put up as a subject for debate alongside more credible theories. That's all they are at the end of the day - theories.

I must admit I wish my kids' school didn't teach them Christian doctrine as fact though!

Rachel

The problem with intelligent design is that it is not a scientific theory. It is a ploy by fundamentalist christians to have creationism taught in schools. They believe that the bible is literally true and any questioning can be resolved with the answer 'God did it'. It is an unprovable hypothesis and does not belong in science classes.

Discussions of Christian faith belong in religious studies classes. Proponents of ID attempt to sound reasonable, but the teaching of ID is akin to teaching children that thunder may be produced by Thor and his big hammer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but the teaching of ID is akin to teaching children that thunder may be produced by Thor and his big hammer.

Pah, you'll be saying Santa and the tooth fairy aren't real next ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pah, you'll be saying Santa and the tooth fairy aren't real next ;)

EEEEK just what are you trying to say Lib, this thread is on the verge entering the realms of fantasy :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion = Superstitious nonsense

Intelligent Design = Propaganda

Institutionalised faith groups = Devices to give a few people power over large groups of the population.

These would not survive without the legalised brain washing and indoctrination of children.

All schools should be totally free of religion, religious symbols and kids should leave the fancy dress to the christmas parties.

Furthermore religion in general should be reduced in status to the level of any other wierdo type hobby

e.g. Palmistry, Astrology, Phrenology etc.

Don`t get me wrong, I still maintain anybody should be allowed to believe in whatever they want to.

As long as they make a free decision as an adult, and they don`t bother anyone else with it.

I may come across as a person who has no faith, but that would be incorrect. I have an enormous faith in the greed, stupidity, and gullibilty of people.

Exactly the kind of gullibilty that religion thrives upon.

Limpet <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All schools should be totally free of religion, religious symbols and kids should leave the fancy dress to the christmas parties.

I would agree with that, there is no place for it in school.

If anyone is interested in this stuff there are a few good sites out there. I think I might dust off my Dawkins books again.

http://www.talkdesign.org/

Trying to spin this stuff as science is funny, I love their Irreducible Complexity stuff, it is difficult to be that wrong.

And when they say that evolution is a theory and not fact i feel like beating my head against a wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crikey, proselytizing atheists indeed.

I'm an atheist (or more correctly, agnostic). I believe that ID should not be taught as a science. All of science is a theory, and that's exactly what should be taught in school: "This is our best guess - at the moment - as to how the world works". If next week we discover dinosaurs on the moon then a truck load of scientific theory will be overturned... but the replacement will be a new scientific theory. If god pops up and says "Hi, I'm God" then we'll have to think again.

I also believe in a "live and let live" attitude. If people want to follow religion X then that's their prerogative.

It's attitudes like this:

This god right...just run it past me one more time, this all powerful god he oversees religions that have slaughtered millions in his name. He oversees the hunger and suffering of the poor in Africa, he is the devine head of religious orders that employ and protect pedophiles.

Jeez an you reckon He's the good guy :ph34r:

...attitudes like this that cause wars. It's an immature, hot-headed response that says "My viewpoint is infinitely superior to yours" and that's where the problem lies: in fundamentalists, whatever their flavour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution is FACT, the contribution of different factors in evoution are under debate, and are theory.

People can believe in god, that is fine, but dressing it up as a scientific theory is not.

Science is made up of facts AND theories to explain those facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution is FACT, the contribution of different factors in evoution are under debate, and are theory.

People can believe in god, that is fine, but dressing it up as a scientific theory is not.

Science is made up of facts AND theories to explain those facts.

Science is made up of theories based on empirical evidence. Stating that something is a FACT (in caps no less) without any consideration of alternatives smacks of dogmatic belief - the very thing I thought you were trying to get away from.

What you mean by "fact", should instead be replaced by "observation". This is not science.

Wikipedia puts it well:

The word theory is misunderstood particularly often by laymen. The common usage of the word "theory" refers to ideas that have no firm proof or support; in contrast, scientists usually use this word to refer to bodies of ideas that make specific predictions. To say "the apple fell" is to state a fact, whereas Newton's theory of universal gravitation is a body of ideas that explain why the apple fell. Thus a multitude of falling objects are reduced to a few concepts or abstractions interacting according to a small set of laws, allowing a scientist to make predictions about the behaviour of falling objects in general.

An especially fruitful theory that has withstood the test of time and has an overwhelming quantity of evidence supporting it is considered to be "proven" in the scientific sense. Some universally accepted models such as heliocentric theory, biological evolution, and atomic theory are so well-established that it is nearly impossible to imagine them ever being falsified. Others, such as relativity and electromagnetism have survived rigorous empirical testing without being contradicted, but it is nevertheless conceivable that they will some day be supplanted. Younger theories such as string theory may provide promising ideas, but have yet to receive the same level of scrutiny.

Scientists never claim absolute knowledge. Unlike a mathematical proof, a "proven" scientific theory is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them.

Newton's law of gravitation is a famous example of a law which was found not to hold in experiments involving motion at speeds close to the speed of light or in close proximity to strong gravitational fields. Outside those conditions, Newton's Laws remain an excellent model of motion and gravity. Because general relativity accounts for all of the phenomena that Newton's Laws do and more, general relativity is now regarded as a better theory.

Try not to be closed-minded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An opponent of intelligent design started "The church of the flying spaghetti monster'.

Followers of the FSM (known as Pastafarians) believe that he created the earth with his noodly appendage.

They also believe that global warming is caused by a lack of pirates.

More info here:

http://www.venganza.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

School is for your career and improving your chances of earning money ...... Church is for your soul and improving your chances of earning a place in heaven ...... and never the twain should meet !!

I can't believe how much is being taught in school and how much actaully isn't being taught !!

To me school is purely for career advancement - right from nursery through to university ..... but now it seems school is burdened with everything which should be taught by the parents and church ....... religion, sex education, skills etc etc ......

At the same time its seems things like manners, discipline, respect, which should be taught by the parents are in fact being undermined by the parents whenever (by accident or design) it is demonstarted in school ??

Most of all, I think schools exist as a means to keep our people and country dynamic, prosperous, competetive etc etc ..... instead of encouraging/providing more engineers, medics, entreprenaurs etc etc which the nation needs to thrive and maintain its strength ..... we are letting the "kids" decide to go for media studies courses and end up working in call centres which eventually end up being relocated to India ......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.