<p>“if George Bush comes out and says we should teach the Judeo/Christian view of creationism in a science class and it is reported correctly, and people object, you have no problem with people objecting?”</p>
<p>If you don’t mind, I will give an answer. I would not hope to hear this from the President and can’t imagine anyone ever will.</p>
<p>I would hate to have learned science from the Bible and would have made my opinion known in class and elsewhere (even here, if it came up). It would be good for neither science nor religion.</p>
<p>I have no problem with people objecting about anything, dstark, although I may disagree with them. I don’t get your point. Or see its relevance.</p>
<p>Driver, I’m trying to understand your posts. Do you think ID should be taught in a science classroom? I’m getting from you that you don’t.</p>
<p>Bush made a comment and you believe that he has been misinterpreted. Correct? So what did Bush mean exactly? What exactly should be taught in a science classroom with regards to the beginning of the universe? What does Bush want that is not being taught today? </p>
<p>Would you object to this in a science classroom…a teacher says “We are going to study evolution, the science theory of the beginning of the universe. Some people believe that the earth was created by an intelligent designer, but we are not going to teach that in a science class because we can’t measure this scientifically. We are just going to teach science in a science classroom. Other theories about the creation of the universe can be discussed in a philosophy or religion class”.</p>
<p>notice how I shared the whole article, even if parts of it I don’t agree with…and yeah, I read them all, so cut and paste what you want to prove your points…and show that you think I didn’t read what I shared…</p>
<p>You can go all the way back to post #4 to see that I don’t think that ID should be “taught” as science. That’s never been the issue. The president said that if and when schools are teaching about “the creation of life”–and he did not specify a particular class–then intelligent design should be discussed along with the random accident theory. If people are uncomfortable with ID in discussions of “the creation of life,” perhaps they should steer clear of that subject until there is a significant body of scientific evidence supporting the alternative. Fair is fair.</p>
<p>If “teaching” intelligent design is believed to be so powerful a force that our poor, gullible secular teens will be seduced away from the study of serious hard science, why are so many opposed to teaching abstinence? The usual mantra is “oh, they’ll never believe such nonsense.” But apparently, many of you think they are that pliant.</p>
<p>Driver, evolution is a science theory, so it should be taught in science class. It doesn’t meant that the theory we have today is going to stay intact. If ID is not a science theory, why should it be taught in a science class? You actually don’t believe ID should, so we are in agreement on this point.</p>
<p>Driver, I actually don’t know why ID should be taught at all in school. Is there anybody in this country over 6 years old that hasn’t heard that there might me a GOD and some people think “some being” created the universe. I don’t get what we are going to be teaching when we teach ID in school. What are they going to teach in Kansas that people don’t know?</p>
<p>Evolution is science theory, but not creation theory. Something started the evolutionary process. And something started the process that started that. But, as I’ve said repeatedly, there’s no reason to clutter a science class with metaphysics on a constant basis. </p>
<p>However, as to your contention that ID shouldn’t be taught at all in school? Ridiculous. You do understand that “teaching” something doesn’t mean “preaching” something? Or maybe you don’t, because that’s been the tactic of the academic left for so long. I can “teach” Marxism as a historically important school of thought without advocating for it. Do you catch the distinction? I despise communism, and all it has wrought in our times, but I would certainly “teach” it, because it’s a concept that’s out there. I would “teach” all sorts of things, because students need to understand the history and process of human thought. They need to be exposed to lots of ideas, even if they don’t agree with them. Which is all the president said.</p>
<p>Driver, over and over you say you wouldn’t teach it as science, fine and dandy, but what about those that are intending to teach it as science…and comments?</p>
<p>Abstinance is fine by the way, but not alone. Yeah, don’t have sex. Okay we are done…what is that? And its not opposition to teaching abstinence, its the opposition to teaching it alone, without the rest of the story…</p>
<p>And it is different from teaching ID as science, very much so…</p>
<p>So first it was, well they don’t want to teach it as science, you are over reacting, then its, so what if they teach it in school, it won’t be in science, then its well, if its in science, okay…which is it…where do you draw the line, while claiming you would not teach it as science…suddenly, when its shown that its supporters want to teach it as science, which was denied earlier, its okay…slippery slope.</p>
<p>Driver, I have asked you over and over, when you teach ID, how are you going to teach it and what are you going to teach. I have no problem with a teacher saying some people believe a higher being created the universe.
That takes 5 seconds. Is that what we are talking about? 5 seconds? Teaching implies learning to me. What are the students going to learn that they don’t know.</p>
<p>Have you ever taken a philosophy course? Does “Cogito, ergo sum” ring a bell? These are old questions. Descartes would be a good place to start, but he was also an important mathematician and scientist. I’m not an educator, and long out of school myself, so I’m not exactly prepared to devise a specific curriculum. But the idea that you would relegate something like “Meditations on First Philosophy” to “five seconds” because everyone already knows that some people believe in a higher being is kind of depressing. Aristotle, Newton, Einstein. It’s no co-incidence that our greatest scientific minds have given great thought to the metaphysical. Perhaps that’s one of the greatest shortcomings in our educational system—we’ve thrown philosophy out with religion, along with Western Civ studies.</p>
<p>Driver, so you want philosophy taught in the public schools? And you want ID taught in that class? And if a school doesn’t have a philosophy or religion class then you don’t want ID taught in a science class, right?</p>
<p>Is Intelligent Design a possible real interpretation within cosmology (a branch of science) as has been held by many scientists for many years and as many do even now?</p>
<p>That is, could it be true?</p>
<p>If your answer is no, it cant be true, then I understand why you insist on it not being mentioned in a science class.</p>
<p>However if it could be, in the end, true, why would you exclude it as an explanation of the origins of the universe in a science text book?</p>
<p>Some will likely and cynically say, then we would have to teach every possible theory: sure, if it has been the dominant interpretation for the last millennium as design has been–scientifically.</p>
<p>I do not think it should be ‘taught’ because there is not currently that much to teach (as far as I know); however, it is a very real and lucid explanation of life, lucid enough to win over the minds of many incredible scientists. Does somebody here mean to imply that we only teach what has absolutely been established as a fact in science?</p>
<p>How about String Theory?</p>
<p>That was in our Physics text book and as I understand it, the orthodox opinion in physics does not support it. Should references to it be removed until it is the overwhelming orthodox theory?</p>