"It all should be taught in science class"
Posted on: November 29, 2006 - 4:34pm
Offline
"It all should be taught in science class"
Well, this is what a well-meaning mother of a friend told me over Thanksgiving. She is a school nurse. I respect her very much. She follows all religions and none. Very confusing for me, but she seems happy with her philosophy. We got into a semi-heated debate over what should be taught in school. She thinks Intelligent Design should be taught right along with evolution and let the students have all necessary information in order to decide for themselves. I argued that intelligent design has already been beaten and should definitely not be taught in school. If they need to mention it at all it should only be made an example of in history class. Any variation of opinion would be greatly appreciated.
- Login to post comments
Ask her what specific things about ID ought to be taught... watch as she sits there, silently, unable to respond.
This is the best question to ask most any ID supporter...what is it, precisely, that you wan't taught? If all they can do is say 'teaching that evolution ain't true' then they aren't advocating teaching anything about "ID"
To teach a 'science' you tell me something about a method.. a rational/empircal approach to some specified phenomena. The key question is: how does it work?
This kills nearly 99% of ID supporters... seeing as they 1) have no fucking clue as to what science is and 2) Have no fucking clue that there' s NOTHING TO TEACH ABOUT ID.
Seriously, what are kids to do? Sit in a class every day for 45 minutes saying 'goddidit'?
meanwhile, the parents don't have any information.
There's nothing to teach... I'd love to see it taught to some children who are first taught 1) basic logic 2) critical thinking and 3) the scientific method.....
Then, by all means, "teach" ID and watch how it goes....
It would be kinder to toss a puppy to hungry alligators...
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I wonder if she wouldn't mind all the other creation stories of all the other religions should be told along side evolution, and ID too.
And if not, why not?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Oh, yes indeed. That is exactly what she means. Schools should supply all information and let the students weed out what's good info or bad info (for them to live their life for what makes sense for each individual). For me, this doesn't cut it. I want to know the truth. She even argued that scientists, like Dawkins, have an opinion that contradicts what other scientists teach. I told her that was because new information is always unfolding.
It's not that she is an ID supporter really, it's more like she thinks students should be taught EVERYTHING. Which includes the para normal.
I think it was a loss cause trying to debate her in the end because she started talking about red-haired shape-shifters and giants. Skeletons of 8-9' giants that she witnessed previously unearthed from the mountains of Honduras with teeth as thick as horses. She actually saw these skeletons in a tomb so she doesn't believe it was a hoax when I asked her. I just left it at that at that point and the rest of my convo with her was a head shakes and uh-huhs.
I just want to add to this, that "truth" to me isn't "my truth" for a happy existence. I want "THE truth"
Only Science should be taught in a science class. The other failed "theory of Creationism" is not science.There is not enough time to teach every failed idea in the alloted class time. If the school offered a class in critical thinking then introduced conflicting ideas for the students to figure out that would be OK with me but not with those that wish to use the public schools to promote their religious agendas as that would make them look foolish.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca
When ID becomes science, I won't have any problem with it being taught in the science classroom.
I'm not holding my breath.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
On a similiar note, I was talking to a friend of mine from London a few years back about the whole evolution or intelligent design in the classroom issue. He told me that this kind of thing is pretty much exclusive to the west and is considered pretty ridiculous throughout most of the Uk and Europe. Apparently, stories about this debate in the states and canada are regular aired on those "believe it or not - wacky shit that goes on in other countries" runs that play as filler on the local news channels there.
It seems most of the world is of the mindset that ID doesn't belong in schools. It's pretty embarassing that this is a very serious issue over on our side of the globe. Personally, it seems to me that things are rapidly changing; this site being a prime example.
Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine
As a British citizen myself I can vouch for the fact that ID is not considered to be a viable alternative to evolution, and it has not (as far as I know) even been attempted in this country to suggest it as a subject to be taught in science classrooms. We are a much more secular society as far as I can guage from what I see and read of things across the ocean. Although there are a fair amount of establishmentized practices that linger, such as hymns in the morning assembly, I always considered them optional when I was at school and no-one really cared if I joined in or not. It seems to become more and more disestablishmentized as the years go by.
Generally, people who go around ranting about god are regarded as antiquated throwbacks to the past, or somewhat eccentric these days (and I generalise widely). It is still, however, a source of enormous irritation that the clergy are treated with kid gloves, and that religious 'authorities' are still considered to have some kind of untouchable moral authority.
Let me reassure you that it is considered by athiests over here to be a deadly serious issue that this is going on in your country. The repercussions of the world's greatest superpower allowing fantasy to be mingled with fact within classrooms is a terrifying prospect. Writers of science fiction might find compelling inspiration in what appears to be a growing army of religiously loyal citizens for whom morality is black and white, and only black or white according to authority. The rights of children to be taught trustworthy fact in centres of education are being eroded, minds are being corrupted, and it seems like a witch hunt for anyone who speaks out agains Christianity is imminent. Our beloved Dawkins is well aware of the dangers on your side of the ocean, and so are we. As an outspoken athiest your embarrassment is understandable, but pride and defiance should definitely enter in there somewhere too.
If ID should be taught in Biology classes, Alchemy should be taught in Chemistry classes and Astrology in Astronomy classes.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
I think we can all agree that ID should not be taught in any science class. Until of course, like yellow_number_five said, it becomes science. (Which we all know has about a 0.0000001% chance of happening)
I have no problem having it taught is public schools in a history class, whose other topics include many other religions and their beliefs, or an elective religious studies class.
I still can't get over the fact that people want this in the science classroom.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan