<p>D school didn’t have AP classes.
So anyway- what do you do when you wonder about something that they don’t cover in class?
Go to the library I guess.
I think if we have good teachers, that teachers should be able to decide what to teach in class. I think a good teacher will want to supplement the district textbooks with appropriate material, but frankly often classrooms are not often set up for a lot of discussion.
With the emphasis on high stakes testing, much of what doesn’t “count” on the test may fall by the wayside.</p>
<p>CTGM,</p>
<p>I asked you earlier whether or not you as a Catholic (as you mentioned in another thread) do, or do not, believe that the God of Catholicism or Christianity, or any God or intelligence, designed the facts of the universe?</p>
<p>I’m simply curious how the logic works on this one.</p>
<p>a.) By definition, if you are a Catholic, you believe in God.
b.) By definition, if you believe in God, you believe in ID.
c.) Therefore, Catholics believe in ID.</p>
<p>You got a bit concerned, in an earlier post, about people not addressing your questions, so I thought I might give it another shot.</p>
<p>If you dont want to answer and thats why you havent, thats cool.</p>
<p>Intelligent Design (ID) is a form of creationism.</p>
<p>Science is about what is testable; it can be disproven with a single demonstration; faith is fundamentally untestable (as is the hypothesis that something/someone designed life) and therefore cannot be disproven. Faith doesn’t belong in the science classroom.</p>
<p>EK4,</p>
<p>What about a teacher who believes that those who are fascinated by ID are really cynical ringers, tricking those around them into getting the Bible in the classroom (as many here do), whether the student is or is not? Could it be they actually are interested.</p>
<p>I wasn’t raised with the Bible, but I believe ID is a good logical explanation of the universe and its origin based on logic and science (or am I a ringer too, in your eyes?).</p>
<p>This Noble nominated Chemist thinks the same thingis it because hes a religious lug-head, or because he believes it is good science?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.origins.org/articles/schaefer_bigbangandgod.html[/url]”>http://www.origins.org/articles/schaefer_bigbangandgod.html</a></p>
<p>FountainSiren, why do you want ID taught in the classroom?
If you are a Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish, you already believe so what is the point? Unless you are in the converting, brainwashing business? Are you?</p>
<p>I am so lost
I thought that the Pope has said in a speech that evolution does not contradict what the Bible teaches- also stated is that the Church is not in the business of teaching scientific theories-
Faith and science are seperate - at least according to the Pope- ( well this was John Paul - perhaps the latest Pope has a different theory)</p>
<p>“Intelligent Design is based on Faith.”</p>
<p>Someone please, prove this statement. And don’t forget to apply it to </p>
<ol>
<li> “String Theory” </li>
<li> Steady State Theory</li>
<li> Big Bang Theory (w/ Theory of Big Bang Ripples)</li>
</ol>
<p>There are more, but at 17 these are the only ones of studied.</p>
<p>No, I can believe in God, and believe in Evolution…I do not read the bible as literal fact. I do not believe the world was created in 6 days. I do not believe in beating my children. I do not believe my H is the boss of me. And my religion is not of any consequence as I believe in SCIENCE. But I don’t believe that my religion is any better than anyone elses and religion and science don’t belong together. ID is not science and should not be represented as such.</p>
<p>And, study your Catholocism. </p>
<p>And you logic does not follow. It is very flawed, but then you must know that. Believing in God does not mean that you must believe in ID, that is your mistake.</p>
<p>People drink coffee.
People have car accidents
Therefore coffee cause car accidents.</p>
<p>Do some religous study beyond your own. You will be very suprised. </p>
<p>Logic based on FAITH. That is an interesting link. </p>
<p>Here is a question, when someone is born blind or with autism, is that’s God’s design?</p>
<p>“Unless you are in the converting, brainwashing business? Are you?”</p>
<p>Know I’m into the free flow of knowledge business ;)</p>
<p>What are you afraid of…truth is truth, unless it isn’t then people start worrying about protecting their dogmas and their implications.</p>
<p>For instance, dstark, you clearly believe that Evolution and or the big and disprove the existence of God (by the way, I don’t) and I’m guessing that you believe that the teaching these two theories (which I for the most part, subscribe to) will undermine the superstitiousness of religion and god in the minds of young students, as you say “you need to get them while they are young”. </p>
<p>Let’s face it…this is much more of a political issue to the GENERAL opponents of ID (those not in these specific scientific fields as a profession) than an issue of science.</p>
<p>I accept the theory of evolution, and the Big Bang has great explanatory power so does ID.</p>
<p>FountainSiren, why does ID have to be taught in the classroom if the believers already believe?</p>
<p>Citgirlsmom, you need to check it. </p>
<p>ID has no bearing on evolution. Most of the vocal proponents of ID are also proponents of evolution and the Big Bang…like me.</p>
<p>You are tarring everyone, rather than someone.</p>
<p>Please click on the link I posted for a non-political/hate-filled explanation of ID.</p>
<p>By definition, if you believe in God you believe in ID. </p>
<p>There is no logical way around it; few if any could disagree.
Perhaps some of the other posters would like to address the logic of this.</p>
<p>Relax, but you are mistaken about which side of the debate youre on.</p>
<p>You may not want it taught in school, but that has to do with your politics, not your belief.</p>
<p>Who said it has to be…right now, it CAN’T BE.</p>
<p>FountainSiren, wow. You want me to be real precise.</p>
<p>Why do You want ID taught in the classroom if the believers already believe?</p>
<p>I don’t want it to be “taught” per se (though I think that ID’s explanatory power is equal to the big bang), I simply want it to be allowed as part of a discussion of the origins of the universe in the classroom like the “Big Bang” or “String Theory” are now, instead of its current verboten status as scientific pornography.</p>
<p>By the way, this has nothing to do with “believers” but a great deal to do with pathways to truth and reality. I don’t think ID should be taught to protect the beliefs of students against those of the State, but to protect the free exchange of legitimate ideas, theories and scientific explanations of the universe and its origin.</p>
<p>FountainSiren, I’m a little disappointed. I find that answer very weak. Why do you need ID to be part of the discussion if the believers already believe?</p>
<p>dstark, </p>
<p>I believe you are confusing parochial school with public school. </p>
<p>If ID has validity, and many believe it does–including a plethora of well known scientists (I’m betting you haven’t read anything about ID other than commentary by those who feel threatened by it–I posted a link)and philosophers–why would it only be taught to those with a predisposition for truth;)? If it has validity, as it does (not absolute truth, it is simply a valid theory) why would we keep it from some and offer it to others.</p>
<p>Dr. “Fritz” Schaefer is described as a nobel prize nominee, When and for what was he nominated…did it have anything to do with evolution or ID? Has anyone every been nominated for a Nobel Prize based on this type of study? How does one get nominated, can I nominate dstark or myself? I just don’t remember people being described as a nominee before, I have only met people who had won. I am not being faciecious, I am just questioning how reliable and valuable this credential is.</p>
<p>To answer this I googled the Nobel Prize nomination process and found the following under their rules.</p>
<p>"Any one of the following persons is entitled to submit proposals:</p>
<p>members of national assemblies and governments;</p>
<p>members of international courts of law;</p>
<p>university chancellors; university professors of social science, history, philosophy, law and theology;</p>
<p>leaders of peace research institutes and institutes of foreign affairs;</p>
<p>former Nobel Peace Prize laureates;</p>
<p>board members of organisations that have received the Nobel Peace Prize;</p>
<p>present and past members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; (committee members must present their nomination at the latest at the first committee meeting after February 1);</p>
<p>former advisers at the Norwegian Nobel Institute.
Observing the rules given in the statutes of the Nobel Foundation, the Committee does not publish the names of candidates."</p>
<p>It appears impossible to verify if he was actually a nominee beyond the someone wrote a letter stage. College applicants may want to take note!</p>
<p>If we were going to discuss ID would people object to the Kurt Vonnegut concept that the earth was created and populated to evolve for the purpose of providing an alien space ship with a needed part?
and my question.</p>
<p>Should students be told that when lightning hits a person or a place it is because God or an intelligent designer intended that person or place to be hit. Would the same be said about someone’s cancer. Or could an intelligent designer simply set the initial rules and then let the game play out?</p>
<p>MrB,</p>
<p>How about Steven Hawking…a nominee to be sure, though he didn’t leave with the gold.</p>
<p>“Or could an intelligent designer simply set the initial rules and then let the game play out?”</p>
<p>That’s what Aristotle thought…and Bill Gates;)</p>
<p>FountainSiren, I’m really disappointed again. Let’s see. We teach ID in public schools to people that already believe. That can’t be what this discussion is about. How about, we teach ID to people who don’t believe. Let’s teach ID to the non-believers. Let’s show them “the light”. Let’s show them “the truth”. Let’s convert them. CONVERT THEM!!!</p>
<p>The same old b*** sh****** in different markings.</p>
<p>I don’t see any list of nominees, including Steven Hawking, other than the current list of women for peace which is news worthy. I do see Schaefers name as a reference in a chemistry presentation… I am hoping that someone actually knows what the nominations were for…I just couldn’t find them with my initial search…which does not mean they don’t exist…</p>
<p>If can concede that something could set the rules and the game play out…why couldn’t the game just be set by the existance of rules with no designer?</p>