Teacher Excused from 'Intelligent Design'

Page 7 of 8 [ 126 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

eamonn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,301
Location: Scotland

27 Oct 2005, 6:02 am

ghotistix wrote:
People have the right to learn anything they want -- that includes both the right to go to a private school if they want to learn the teachings of their religion and the right to go to a public school if they want to learn facts.


Unfortunately that really means the parents decise they go to a religious school. Schools shouldnt be allowed to be any denomination. The parents can send the kids to sunday school for religious education or do the brainwashing themselves as a lot of them already do anyway.



vetivert
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,768

27 Oct 2005, 6:13 am

state schools shouldn't be denominational, i agree, eamonn. if you're going to teach religion, teach all of 'em, cos they're interesting and it's about learning others' culture.



kevv729
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: SOUTH DAKOTA

27 Oct 2005, 6:14 am

ghotistix

Maybe not everybody can afford private or religious schools. In the town I went to High School it was the only School in town. South Dakota is very small in population it only has 754,844 people in the state and it has a lot of small towns. Not all parents can home school their children. Many towns in South Dakota only have one school. So it can be very limited in ops-ions.

We are already on the yellow brick road to thought control. The Scientific community especially in the schools are putting us on this yellow brick road of thought control. That needs to stop.

Just something to think about.


_________________
Come on My children lets All get Along Okay.


vetivert
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,768

27 Oct 2005, 6:15 am

kevv729 wrote:
We are already on the yellow brick road to thought control. The Scientific community especially in the schools are putting us on this yellow brick road of thought control. That needs to stop.

Just something to think about.


you what?



kevv729
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: SOUTH DAKOTA

27 Oct 2005, 6:19 am

vetivert

What do You want me to explained now?


_________________
Come on My children lets All get Along Okay.


vetivert
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,768

27 Oct 2005, 6:31 am

what you meant by the quotation i used (quoting your post) in my post above.



kevv729
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: SOUTH DAKOTA

27 Oct 2005, 6:37 am

vetivert

After You quoted me.

You said (you what?)

I guess I didn't understand.

there was a lot of posting lately.


_________________
Come on My children lets All get Along Okay.


ghotistix
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Feb 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,186
Location: Massachusetts

27 Oct 2005, 12:12 pm

eamonn wrote:
Unfortunately that really means the parents decise they go to a religious school. Schools shouldnt be allowed to be any denomination. The parents can send the kids to sunday school for religious education or do the brainwashing themselves as a lot of them already do anyway.

Very true. But the problem of bad parents is one that we have no idea how to fix. :(

kevv729 wrote:
Maybe not everybody can afford private or religious schools. In the town I went to High School it was the only School in town. South Dakota is very small in population it only has 754,844 people in the state and it has a lot of small towns. Not all parents can home school their children. Many towns in South Dakota only have one school. So it can be very limited in ops-ions.

The US government has an obligation to give everyone a fair shot at making a living, which is why we have the mandatory twelve years of education. That's the beauty of the public school system -- every single child, no matter who they are or how much money they have, is entitled to a free education to prepare them for the world. Public schools continue to do a great job teaching children how the world works, and doing it in an impersonal, scientific manner that is fair to everyone by not preaching any specific religious beliefs. For the rest of that education, such as religious study, society lets you do whatever grunt work you feel is necessary. The last time I checked, it wasn't very expensive to get into church.

kevv729 wrote:
We are already on the yellow brick road to thought control. The Scientific community especially in the schools are putting us on this yellow brick road of thought control. That needs to stop.

Just something to think about.

You seem to have something against the entire scientific establishment. You know, you're not the first person to think there are "one too many theories" out there. Your desire for a simpler, more understandable, religion-influenced version of science has been attempted once before. On a very wide scale, even! Know what it was called?

The Dark Ages.



ascan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,194
Location: Taunton/Aberdeen

27 Oct 2005, 2:39 pm

kevv729 wrote:
Just something to think about.

It makes me think. Think that because people are capable of ignoring rational argument, even when supplemented by firm evidence, and can cling to some irrational concept that is analagous to a kid's belief in the tooth fairy, the man-in-the-moon or Santa Claus, that we are doomed as a species to war and tyranny for millenia to come.

Think about that.



lenny77
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 6 Oct 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 74
Location: Hamburg, Germany, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Universe, ???

27 Oct 2005, 3:08 pm

Grievous wrote:
The problem is that too many people presume that evolution is scientifically valid. It isn't. Intelligent design is a far more valid theory. Just becasue it does not have Humanistic Naturalism as it's basis don't be so quick to dismiss it. :roll:


please: dont claim something you cannot ever prove! in what way the intelligent design hypothesis is more scientifically valid? if you are talking about the validity of theories you shold USE scientific methods. if you want to believe in god, do so. but leave the children in peace with biblical myths, mmmkay?



kevv729
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: SOUTH DAKOTA

27 Oct 2005, 9:54 pm

ghotistix

I went to high school from 1978 to 1982 when states did not have all the programs like school vouchers that they have today. You have to remember it is the states that educate their the students not the Federal Government truly in the end. Massachusetts and South Dakota have two different types of economies, each state decides it selves how to spend its resources it selves. Not every state spends the same amount of money on education of its students. Not every state get the same amount of Federal Assistance from the Federal Government. You have to remember that in the United States of America we do not have a nationalized School system like in some other countries.

I have nothing against the entire scientific establishment. You must remember science is philosophy itself. I have had many scientific friends over the years in scientific community that they see science as their religion, and that is their rights to do so. I take science at face value for what it is. Science will never explain or understand everything that there is to know. Science limited by our knowledge and understanding. We do the science not science does itself. We in the end make science to fit what we know, we limit science to what we want it to be. We make theories and need more theories then we need more theories to explain them. This is the type of science we have. We must remember that we do not do perfect science at all. We are the ones that are interpreting what we think is important in science. I do not what to go back to the Dark Ages. Science will in the end never have all the answers, by the time you answer one there are more questions in the end than answers.

Darwin's Galapagos finches just we adapting through adaptations to their environment only. That is what Darwin saw the finches just remained finches they became nothing else. That is how I will always see it. The same with the horses too.

ascan

That is how HUMANS are.


_________________
Come on My children lets All get Along Okay.


kevv729
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: SOUTH DAKOTA

30 Oct 2005, 6:40 am

Maybe I am more right than wrong in this. I see nothing in whatever anybody says yet, am I wrong show me if You can.


_________________
Come on My children lets All get Along Okay.


Jetson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,220
Location: Vancouver, Canada

30 Oct 2005, 2:10 pm

aspergian_mutant wrote:
Under a policy approved by the school board in October 2004, students must hear a brief statement about intelligent design before classes on evolution. The statement says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact,'' has inexplicable "gaps,'' and refers students to a textbook called "Of Pandas and People'' for more information.
This is just plain stupid. When I was in grade 11 (in Canada) and was picking my optional courses for grade 12, one of my choices had a caveat that "parental permission is required". The school gave me a form letter that basically said "GEO12 (Geology) contains course material on the formation of the Earth that is not consistent with some religious views. Please sign and return the attached consent form so that we may enroll your son in this course." I think this arrangement (weeding out the easily offended in advance) makes a lot more sense than embedding religious beliefs in the curriculum.

If I was a teacher I would refuse to discuss religion in the classroom. And as far as I'm concerned, issuing a disclaimer invalidating the course material in this way is a government attempt to promote a specific religion and should be declared unconstitutional.


_________________
What would Flying Spaghetti Monster do?


Jetson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,220
Location: Vancouver, Canada

30 Oct 2005, 2:42 pm

kevv729 wrote:
Many learned men of old thought the earth was flat, today we know the earth is not flat, but it is round. This theory was believed for many centuries on the earth was it not. It could still be flat and held up by Atlas. Some theories may be around for years or decades or even centuries to come, and yet maybe debunked one day. Who really knows what tomorrows Science will see.
I hope this explains how I see Science and Theory

Around that same time, people also believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and the sun and planets all revolved around it. When Galileo used science to prove a different model existed, it was the religious establishment that threatened him because it upset their strongly held beliefs.

I have no problem with the idea that someone might come along and disprove Darwinism the same way they disproved the flat-earth theory. If they did so using observable facts and rational arguments then I'd be the first to stand behind them. That's the difference between science and religion. A scientist has no need to resort to belief because the foundation of theory is observation and testing, whereas the religious people have no desire to observe or test anything because it's considered a sin to doubt and a virtue to have faith. Religion is all about peer pressure and memes.


_________________
What would Flying Spaghetti Monster do?


Jetson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,220
Location: Vancouver, Canada

30 Oct 2005, 3:05 pm

vetivert wrote:
7. a question - why do people need to "prove" that their stance is the "correct" one?

Because creationism or ID are the thin edge of the wedge. The Christian right wants to go back to the dark ages when they had the authority to tell everyone what to think. It's much easier to burn heretics than debate them.... I don't like debating with religious zealots because they can't be persueded by logic. They don't like debating with people like me because we don't respond favourably to "because I [or God or the Bible] said so". I would be quite happy to "live and let live" if only they would go to church and pray and do whatever it is they want to do without placing demands on my liberty. Unfortunately the religious people are not willing to "live and let live" with the non-religious people around them. They fight constantly to have their beliefs enshrined in law, and that means we much fight constantly to maintain a secular government that treats everyone equally.


_________________
What would Flying Spaghetti Monster do?


vetivert
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,768

30 Oct 2005, 3:09 pm

Jetson wrote:
It's much easier to burn heretics than debate them....


don't i know it, cackle, cackle, wart, wart. :roll:

but please - not [memes[! aaaargh!