Rah!

[Msterbeau]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061011/ap_on_...higan_science_3

"Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who is Roman Catholic, said Michigan schools need to teach evolution in science classes and not include intelligent design. She said school districts can explore intelligent design in current events or comparative religions classes."

Exactly.

[HipsterDufus]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061011/ap_on_...higan_science_3

"Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who is Roman Catholic, said Michigan schools need to teach evolution in science classes and not include intelligent design. She said school districts can explore intelligent design in current events or comparative religions classes."

Exactly.

I hope she wins. I hate that DeVoss is basically running on the platform of "It's Jennifer Granholm's fault that the auto industry is failing." Sounds logical to me...

[Msterbeau]

I hope she wins. I hate that DeVoss is basically running on the platform of "It's Jennifer Granholm's fault that the auto industry is failing." Sounds logical to me...

Yeah. I just agree with her opinion here... If you want to introduce the idea of ID in school... put it in the appropriate place. I didn't even know schools taught a comparitive religion class. I think that's a great idea.

[HipsterDufus]

Yeah. I just agree with her opinion here... If you want to introduce the idea of ID in school... put it in the appropriate place. I didn't even know schools taught a comparitive religion class. I think that's a great idea.

Agreed. It seems like Christians would want them to offer a class on religion where things like that can be discussed. I have no idea why they think it should be taught in a science class. Of course, a lot of the hardcore evangelicals are so insecure that they fear that their children will turn to other religions if they happen to learn anything about them.

[kellygrrrrrl]

Personally, I think Creation AND Evolution Should be taught together!

Hmmmm....

Thats just me though.

[HipsterDufus]

Personally, I think Creation AND Evolution Should be taught together!

Hmmmm....

Thats just me though.

And why is that?

[Msterbeau]

Personally, I think Creation AND Evolution Should be taught together!

Hmmmm....

Thats just me though.

Creation is NOT science though. It's a spiritual/religious view and thus should be taught in an appropriate forum/class. You can argue that evolution is only a theory... but it's a scientific theory.

[pharoh]

Creation is NOT science though. It's a spiritual/religious view and thus should be taught in an appropriate forum/class. You can argue that evolution is only a theory... but it's a scientific theory.

Yes, but if you do one without the other, then that teaches the kids one side of the story, in my opinion if your gonna teach them one side, teach the other (or discuss it to get them intrested) and have them do there own research on it, compare and contrast, and then debate.

[kellygrrrrrl]

No, I know...you are correct!

BUT! When getting down to the REAL technical...Science is ALWAYS inconclusive even with the evolution theory.

Leaving the 'possibility' of creation.

I think yes...evolution is fact. Which should be taught....absolutely.

But it should conclude with knowing that it is inconclusive leaving it open to creationism.

Creation CAN be science. It is unfolding HOW the creation evolved!

Perhaps I misunderstand?

So you are just saying they should teach Evolution in one class, and creation in another?

I can dig that....

As long as it is still an option.

I really do think the 2 go together hand in hand....

BUT! Yes...thats just me. *shrug*

Majority usually rules...so....

[pharoh]

Ha ha Kelly I beat you to it ^

[HipsterDufus]

Yes, but if you do one without the other, then that teaches the kids one side of the story, in my opinion if your gonna teach them one side, teach the other (or discuss it to get them intrested) and have them do there own research on it, compare and contrast, and then debate.

To argue this way is to argue philosophically though. And science is not the same as philosophy. What Ms. Granholm is saying is that Creationism/ID should be kept in comparitive religion courses and not taught in science because ID is not an accepted scientific theory. If we were to really do the all sides thing, then why don't we teach every religion's belief of how the world was created? Then, we'd have to teach that the Native Americans believe in a giant tortoise, Odinists believe that it was created by the realms of fire and ice meeting and forming the universe and giants, etc.

[Shade Everdark]

Yes, but if you do one without the other, then that teaches the kids one side of the story, in my opinion if your gonna teach them one side, teach the other (or discuss it to get them intrested) and have them do there own research on it, compare and contrast, and then debate.

As far as science is concerned, there is no other side to the story, though. Darwinian evolution is the only scientifically accepted explanation; intelligent design is not a scientifically proven or even provable theory. What everyone seems to lose sight of is that intelligent design, or creationism, is not science, and thus does not belong in science. Along with that, a second important point is that the idea of creationism is not mutually exclusive with Darwinian evolution. Evolution theory does not attempt to prove whether or not a creator was behind the scenes, it merely seeks to explain the mechanism by which the myriad and varied forms of life developed on Earth. Indeed, trying to prove whether or not an ultimate creator exists is rather outside the purview of science. That is closer to philosophy, at best.

[pharoh]

I am keeping them both seperate here guys, I just think that this would be a good class, Scientific Theory vs Theology. I was not trying to use just christianity, but now thinking about it, it probably would get religious nuts in an uproar and they wouldn't allow it anyways. Meh, maybee that should be something on a college level instead.

[BrassFusion]

I learned in anthropology that evolution is a tested fact. People don't really like to hear that or admit to it, however. There are some periods in the evolutionary history of the earth that we don't have enough information for, and we learned where those periods were. We of course were NOT taught that god doesn't exist and we should "worship" science- our teacher was born christian and a convert to judaism.

In my biology class, we only learned about reproductive genetics and shet like that, at least from what I remember. That was almost 10 years ago.

[TygerLili]

The high school I attended in Germany taught evolution in science class, and had another class called religion. I don't know specifically what they taught in the religion class, whether it covered the entire spectrum of religious beliefs and their history or whether it was basically classroom sanctioned Sunday school, because in the short time I was there I never observed a religion class.

I don't think it's a bad idea though, having a class, or separate classes, where both sides are covered. Kids are going to grow up to believe whatever they want, or whatever their parents drilled into their brains, anyway, why not at least provide them with both sides of the story so they can make an educated decision.

[BrassFusion]

We did discuss other religions in anthropology class, and how they related to what we already know about the history of life on earth. We talked about how Genesis could be seen as metaphorical, having "days" that stretched millenia, and we talked about other creation theories too, though I forget those, because they aren't pounded in my damn head every day by some insecure nutjobs.

Like I needed another reason to vote for granholm, btw.

[kellygrrrrrl]

Al....you SNEAK

[pharoh]

Al....you SNEAK

Muah hahaha :fear

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Couple of points...

Point the First:

Creationism and ID are NOT the same thing. ID is evolution with a "guiding hand", so to speak.

Point the Second:

Science is a Religion. Science, specially the really hard core sciences like physics, take a great deal of faith.

[HipsterDufus]

Couple of points...

Point the First:

Creationism and ID are NOT the same thing. ID is evolution with a "guiding hand", so to speak.

Point the Second:

Science is a Religion. Science, specially the really hard core sciences like physics, take a great deal of faith.

On #1, that may be true, but it is still not a widely accepted theory by the scientific community and, as such, should not be taught in a science class.

On #2, I understand that more abstract things such as physics can be considered a belief system, but according to most definitions of science that I've seen, it is restricted to natural phenomena. Since ID contains a supernatural entity added into the theory, it can not be considered science.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

It does? ID never says who or what is the guided hand. Could be aliens. Currently I am reading a rather good book on Astro Physics... how the Universe works and how it was created... but the main point of the book is not the physics... it's an excorsise in explaining how the Universe works while trying to not mention God. The author is a devote athiest.. and he is still having a hard time not bringing up God.

BTW... Darwinism hasn't always been a widely accepted theroy... but it was taught in schools... in science class.

[HipsterDufus]

It does? ID never says who or what is the guided hand. Could be aliens. Currently I am reading a rather good book on Astro Physics... how the Universe works and how it was created... but the main point of the book is not the physics... it's an excorsise in explaining how the Universe works while trying to not mention God. The author is a devote athiest.. and he is still having a hard time not bringing up God.

BTW... Darwinism hasn't always been a widely accepted theroy... but it was taught in schools... in science class.

I understand the point that you're making. I guess I don't understand why ID should get special treatment when it comes to exploring alternative theories in science classes. I'm sure there are alternate theories out there for virtually every aspect of every science. If we were to take the time to explore each of those theories, I think we'd have to double the amount of time that high school takes.

[Shade Everdark]

Couple of points...

Point the First:

Creationism and ID are NOT the same thing. ID is evolution with a "guiding hand", so to speak.

Point the Second:

Science is a Religion. Science, specially the really hard core sciences like physics, take a great deal of faith.

Creationism and intelligent design may not be the same thing, per se, but to me they are about as far apart as classical evolutionary theory and punctuated equilibrium.

Science does not take faith. Science takes empirical observation, experimentation, and imagination. Faith is not a part of science. Science does not seek to take the place of faith. Science simply seeks to exlain how the world works. I'm not exactly sure where you are coming from with the assertion that science requires faith. The closest I can come to seeing that is that sometimes certain assumptions must be made to test hypotheses and observe empirical experiments. Assumptions are considered bad things in science, and a necessary evil at best. In no way do I see that even approaching faith.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Shade.. perhaps you should talk to some astrophysisits. Or perhaps some astronomers. Faith is a major part of the hard core sciences. Some even refer to Science as their religion.

A good example of Faith in science... Dark Matter. Not one person on the planet knows what it is. Why is the Universe have 90% more mass than we can "see"? There are many ideas. People are trying every day to find out what that 90% is. Faith that they will infact discover the truth of the matter is what drives them.

btw... I need to do some major searching... you were one of the people.. in another thread.. perhaps the old board.. who argued that Science is it's own religion.. it's own Faith.

[BrassFusion]

Shade.. perhaps you should talk to some astrophysisits. Or perhaps some astronomers. Faith is a major part of the hard core sciences. Some even refer to Science as their religion.

A good example of Faith in science... Dark Matter. Not one person on the planet knows what it is. Why is the Universe have 90% more mass than we can "see"? There are many ideas. People are trying every day to find out what that 90% is. Faith that they will infact discover the truth of the matter is what drives them.

btw... I need to do some major searching... you were one of the people.. in another thread.. perhaps the old board.. who argued that Science is it's own religion.. it's own Faith.

Not every scientist has faith in the same things. Most of the researchers don't have strong faith in what they're researching: that's why they RESEARCH it.

The foundation of science is that nothing is fact until it's found to have repeatable results under controlled experimentation. Scientific theories exist to hold us over with a general assumption that makes sense until we can prove it later.

Religion is believing something that may or may not have been proven and tested thousands of years ago and can never be proven or tested again.

And I don't understand why so many religious people hate science so much. If they had strong faith in their religion, they would believe that all science, when properly conducted, would eventually prove out that their beliefs are true. It's insecurity that makes them hate and fear the scientific method- deep down, they must know they're wrong.