Bush wants schools to teach intelligent design.

Parent Cafe
121

<p>People are gay, people are straight…its how they are made, I STILL can’t believe this conversation is still necessary is this age. JOIN THAT LIFESTYLE? What does that mean? Of ALL the gays I know, not one, has said, hey, come over to our side!! What I hear, is that being a gay oung person can be really hard because of certain kinds of people judging them, getting thrown out of their homes, getting beat up, but if they see gays and lesbians able to live lives free from fear and bigotry, the teens can be who they are? LIVE THAT LIFESTYLE? And just what is that lifestyle? </p>

<p>As for intelligent design, it just says, we don’t know, so it must be God</p>

<p>Well, we didn’t know about mental illness, we didn’t know about diabetes, we didn’t know about the Earth going around the sun, but we learned…its just a matter of time before everthing is fully understood…and science discovers new things everyday</p>

<p>Any one disagree with Cell Theory?</p>

122

<p>Sufism has no dogma as such about homosexuality, bisexuality, transexuality, polygamy etc., such things are dealt with in Sufism’s social counterparts: Islam and a unique reading of Christianity, which would be viewed by most in the West as neo-Platonic in character. </p>

<p>Sufis do however have very strong views on the selflessness and self-indulgence expressed amongst women and men. </p>

<p>Sufis believe that there is really only one sin before which all other potential sins pale in comparison (for the Sufis themselves, not society in general) and that is your attachment to your own individual existence in the face of the essence and cause of all life, God.</p>

<p>That is to say, your attachment to your individual and contingent existence is what prevents you from understanding the totality of existence and the essence of life as such, which is the self-subsistent and Living God. </p>

<p>Rumi once said we should be as candles burning before the bright light of the Sun—more or less unnoticed until someone ventures close enough to feel the heat from the candle’s flame.</p>

<p>At the same time, our parents raise us to be very moral beings which should, in theory, incline us to put all things ahead of ourselves and serve all humankind in the limited capacity of being contingent beings tightly wrapped up in our own ephemeral and passing desires.</p>

123

<p>Citygirlsmom,</p>

<p>You have, on occasion, alluded to your Catholicism; does your Catholicism include a God?</p>

<p>If so, does your God have more in common with a ‘babydaddy,” than a craftsman? Was God drunk when God conceived the universe and thus “unintelligently” designed the universe and woke up in the morning wondering what happened?</p>

<p>“As for intelligent design, it just says, we don’t know, so it must be God”</p>

<p>Is that what it says? How intriguing. Let’s take your statement piece by piece: </p>

<p>“As for intelligent design, it just says, we don’t know” </p>

<p>Ok, that sounds like skepticism. I am not aware of any skeptics who believe in Intelligent Design, or God for that matter…which brings us to the conclusion of your statement:</p>

<p>“so it must be God” </p>

<p>Intelligent Design reaches that conclusion, but not from your Skeptical premise. ID says that throughout the world, there is beauty and order—from the way different things relate to us within, and they way they relate to each other from without; in other words, there is a staggering amount of harmony in this world. Either this a product of design or blind chance; not blind chance, therefore design, which only comes from the intelligence of a designer. </p>

<p>Then you go on to imply that the orderliness on which ID is based will be later explained by science (“its just a matter of time before everthing is fully understood…and science discovers new things everyday”).</p>

<p>But science and evolution both presuppose the order and harmony which ID is based upon. Science will not explain the order and design we see in the world because we explain science using the order in the world around us. You see, you have the order reversed. </p>

<p>Darwinism and evolution—what scientism uses to refute ID—is based on Natural Selection and the idea of “the survival of the fittest.”</p>

<p>Now, “the survival of the fittest presupposes the arrival of the fit,” and the fit survive because of their order and harmony within their environment—and order is the central theme of intelligent design.</p>

<p>Now, to the issue of “chance” or “coincidence” causing one mutation after another which produced the vast array of order we see around us everyday: to say that something happens because of chance is to say that it happened unpredictably, or through accidental causes, or in a way in which we did not expect; in other words, that it defied the norm. </p>

<p>Yet, the norm, the background against which we judge how we expect things to happen, is order itself. Without order there would be no chance because we would never think that anything is out of the order, or more precisely, out of the ordinary.</p>

<p>For example, if you step into a crowded high school cafeteria and all the students are yelling, throwing food, running around etc, you will make some sort of intuitive judgment like “wow, what chaos,”—but you say something is chaotic by judging it against the backdrop of order, by knowing what a calm and quiet cafeteria should actually be, in order.</p>

124

<p>FountainSiren, how old do you think the universe is?</p>

<p>We are going to die out as a species someday. How does that affect your thinking? Why did God make our lives so short? Redwood trees live longer than us.</p>

125

<p>dstark,</p>

<p>Though you may or may not be a good dancer, it’s quite clear you believe you have no soul;)…two left–eternal–feet?</p>

126

<p>I knew when I wrote that you were going to come up with something about soul. Just wanted to see what you would write. My dancing ability depends on how desperate the woman wants to dance. :)</p>

127

<p>dstark says:

No, I wasn’t even thinking that MC would come into the classroom and try to “convert” the students. There are really two issues here that you are lumping into one. One is prejudicial behavior against someone because of who they are. The other is acceptance of another’s lifestyle as morally equivalant to your belief system. These are two very different issues. While I agree that prejudicial behavior against “different” people is something that we should all work on to minimize (to hope that we can eliminate it would be futile), I don’t think it is society’s role to mess around with a person’s view on morality. </p>

<p>So, by bringing Mary Cheney into a classroom you might be primarily targeting the first issue, but at the same time you would also be dealing with the second issue which is, in my mind a slippery slope that I think that even you would want to avoid. I think the “morals” issue is more appropriately dealt with on the “weekends” as you would say.</p>

<p>But, with respect to acceptance of other people and getting away from prejudicial behavior, what do you suggest be done to have people be less prejudicial toward conservative Christians? If you look at the various threads on CC, they are filled with animosity/hate toward the “religious right”, but I haven’t seen a single entry that could be viewed as hate speech directed at a homosexual. Even you have danced close to that flame of religious bigotry; what are you doing to be more accepting of people whose religious beliefs are different from your own?</p>

<p>It was interesting last night on the MSNBC show with Tucker Carlson who had liberal Air America host (Rachel Madow??) and Jerry Falwell on as guest panelists. When the topic of homosexuality came up (as related to John Roberts doing pro bono work in favor of gay rights) Rachel (who is a lesbian) was ready to pounce on Falwell. However, Falwell took a position that Rachel was clearly dumfounded with because it was totally a 180 from her stereotype of Falwell. Falwell basically said that gays deserve basic rights just like everyone else. Perhaps Rachel and the rest of the left need to have conservative Christians come to the classroom to break down anti-Christian stereotypes and prejudicial behavior.</p>

128

<p>Not all church going, God fearing people believe Intelligent Design should be taught in school; from todays news: “Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, a possible 2008 presidential contender who faces a tough re-election fight next year in Pennsylvania, said intelligent design, which is backed by many religious conservatives, lacked scientific credibility and should not be taught in science classes.”
Some responses to posts:</p>

<p>Post 95 “As long as you DENY that there are some moral absolutes of right and wrong, who are you to judge what goes on between two consenting animals?” </p>

<p>I believe there are moral absolutes, I am quite sure it is wrong to kill someone, especially if you can avoid it. There are a whole lot of moral absolutes that people can believe in without believing in God…Read “Plowing my own Furrow” by Howard Moore about an agnostics struggle with American morality.</p>

<p>Post 103 “God also specified that one man should be married to one woman.” </p>

<p>There are numerous listings of who a man may not have sex with…mom, dad, your sister or step sister on your fathers side, and your aunt. God is also quoted as saying sex with animals and the dead or men with men are wrong. </p>

<p>I remember God’s objection to homosexuality is found in Leviticus 19.22 “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.” That should be enough for some people but then Leviticus also tells us “Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations.” 25, 44. I am not sure we are all ready to go on a buying splurge in Mexico and Canada for slaves anytime soon.</p>

<p>This of course is a problem for many Christians, which rules to follow. However you feel, I would hope that this type of discussion would not be part of the science curriculum. So I find myself agreeing with Senator Rick Santorum on this issue. For the record, I believe in God, I just don’t think my religious views, or anyone elses, should be presented in a science class .</p>

129

<p>Mr. B, you forgot post 102 in your list of replies. Not that I blame you.
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=1109638&postcount=102[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=1109638&postcount=102&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>As to the rest of your post, nothing in the president’s reply to the reporter’s question indicated that he thought ID should be “taught,” let alone “taught in science classes.” Read it again…and again, if necessary.</p>

130

<p>The Bible is full of contradictions, so it is easy to pick and choose what we want to justify anything we do…yet this book is taken as literal…if you really believe in all the bible says, than you should be kosher, you should beat your children, you should not grow two kinds of crops next to each other, you should not shop or work on the Sabbath, how many of you drive cars, go to work, mow your lawns, on the Sabbath…</p>

<p>So, to pick and choose what suit you to me is hypocracy if you take some parts of the bible literally and other parts symbolically</p>

<p>And, once again, when a question is asked, it is ignored…how old is our planet?</p>

<p>How old is the Grand Canyon?</p>

<p>How old is a diamond?</p>

<p>How old is the moon?</p>

131

<p>“And, once again, when a question is asked, it is ignored…how old is our planet?”</p>

<p>I’m not sure, but I think this question is directed at me via dsartk’s question, “FountainSiren, how old do you think the universe is?”</p>

<p>I don’t suppose it matters to anyone, but the Koran makes no claims, one way or another, about the age of the earth, it has no bearing on the fact of God to any Muslim I know of.</p>

<p>Moreover, as I understand these things (I, on regular occasion, attend Catholic Mass) Catholics—the largest denomination of Christianity—take no issue with the age of the planet, or the universe well on into the subtleties of the theory of evolution, it remains a divine mystery, theologically.</p>

<p>As to my belief about the age of the universe, I have done no independent study myself (though I’m sure most of the opponents of ID have;)) but as I understand, astronomers place the age of the universe within a range of 11.2 to 20 billion years (an inexact science to say the least). I personally have no idea. As to the age of the Earth, the latest estimates suggest about 5 billion years. </p>

<p>How these dates bear on the veracity of ID, I must say, escapes me.</p>

<p>The question is: is there and order to the universe and does that organization suggest an organizer or designer. If you believe in God, you have already answered this question; if you don’t you have a lot to answer for (cosmologically speaking). </p>

<p>If only one religion is correct and all the others are wrong to the core (I don’t believe this), ID is still true: ID only requires a single designer.</p>

<p>I have asked a number of questions myself that have remained unanswered; yet, mums the word (how does one claim Catholicism and deny design?).</p>

<p>If there is no God, how do we explain?

  1. free-will
  2. love
  3. art
  4. ‘the good’
  5. morality
  6. hope
  7. faith
  8. choice
    They all go away, without design and a designer.</p>
132

<p>We explain the same way ants explain. </p>

<p>Your list looks really important to the human race. The human race doesn’t look all that important to the universe at large.</p>

133

<p>I feel this would be solved most simply by examining the purpose of science.</p>

<p>Science explains ‘how’, not ‘why’. In no way does science attempt to extrapolate to something that cannot be explained with theory and logic. I believe God exists, but it is certainly an illogical and faith-based idea.</p>

<p>As such it and ID have no place in science education. ID is fine, in a theology class along with every other religion. But please stop trying to impress some blind faith based system onto a logic-oriented one. Otherwise I can say oranges are green because I ‘believe’ them to be so by some idea or another.</p>

134

<p>“Your list looks really important to the human race. The human race doesn’t look all that important to the universe at large.”</p>

<p>It must be overwhelming to know what the universe at large is “looking at” at all;)</p>

<p>I don’t know how anyone could bear the burden; You are a better [wo]man than I Gunga din.</p>

135

<p>No burden.</p>

136

<p>fundingfather, the problem I have with conservative Christians is they feel their way of life is the best way and they try to convert me.</p>

<p>Homosexuals, just say, “this is the way we are”.</p>

<p>Also conservative Christians keep supporting politicians that aren’t conservative economically. :)</p>

137

<p>“Otherwise I can say oranges are green because I ‘believe’ them to be so by some idea or another.”</p>

<p>Look, you can SAY whatever you want to say—put it to music and dance, but you can’t believe what you, in fact, don’t believe; do you really believe oranges are green? If so, read no further. But unless you’re color blind, I don’t think you really entertain the possibility that oranges, defying their own name-sake, are green. </p>

<p>This form of solipsism is dealt with and dismissed in an analysis of skepticism preformed by the American Pragmatists, W. James and C. Peirce: if we question or doubt whether or not there is a ground beneath us to accept and bear our step, how do we get the courage to take another step? </p>

<p>Obviously, we believe in the physical fact of terra firma, the hard ground; in the same sense, few (if any) actually believe a juicy Florida Orange is green in color, but the majority of the people living on this planet (along with the majority of the greatest thinkers throughout the history of Western and Eastern civilizations) believe that there is a reason for and behind our existence, a cause to our effect, a meaning to existence. </p>

<p>Wouldn’t it seem irrational to discount such profound beliefs as being somehow equivalent to believing a Florida Orange is green in color, or there is no ground beneath our walking feet?</p>

<p>Shouldn’t we be a little more candid and to the point in our analysis and critique of philosophical tradition and belief; rather than being facetious and facile when confronting such weighty matters of existence, life and humanity?</p>

138

<p>FountainSiren, you can believe with every ounce of your being that there is a God. You can believe with every ounce of your being that one of the religions is correct in the way it sees God. </p>

<p>You can not prove it.</p>

<p>So go on believing and let other people believe whatever it is they want to believe. Don’t ask them for proof when you have no proof yourself.</p>

139

<p>Are we talking about the pulp of the orange or the skin?
Because if it is the skin then I have seen oranges that are green :slight_smile:

</p>

140

<p><a href=“utdailybeacon.com | The editorially independent student newspaper at the University of Tennessee, since 1906.”>http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/issues/v76/n72/moon.73n.html&lt;/a&gt;
Moons age estimated within 20 million years 4.5 - 4.52 billion years</p>

<p>Is this accurate, I don’t know. I am not sure of it’s relevance to this argument. </p>

<p>As to post 102, which I guess I missed before: Barney Frank might tell they students that there is more to life than procreation. That single people, including priests, nuns and people who for other natural reasons including sexual predelictions do not yield children are as valuable to this world as anyone else. We all know childless couples who are perfectly wonderful people and deserving of respect. Did George Washington impact evolution…? </p>

<p>I don’t want to be accused of failing to respond to polygamy issues so here is my take…I object to children being forced, coerced or brainwashed into marrying adults…as some tales of polygamy are reported. If adults want to establish a working committment, I don’t object to it at all. </p>

<p>Driver, I understand that the President did not say teach this in science. It is implied in the science classes because that is where the supporters of this concept want it taught with evolution. </p>

<p>Fountain Siren, all oranges are green before they turn yellow/orange. I see them on the trees outside. Some people think that all good must stem from a universal source of good (GOD) others believe that good is a more efficient way of living. If we all are pleasant to each other, help each other…the world becomes more pleasant for us as individuals (some times) and as a civilization in general.</p>

<p>That is what agnostics who oppose war for concience have been saying for centuries. That they oppose killing people because they think it is wrong and not because they think it is the law of God. During WWI they were not allowed the CO status and several were sentenced to Levenworth, Kansas for extreme sentences, by WWII this status was accepted albiet unpopular with many others. At the time of the Vietnam War there were numerous COs, inpart because a more educated body of people were able to assemble the documentation and evidence required. </p>

<p>I believe Descartes tried to prove God by arguing our vision of perfect shapes (circles, triangles, squares) must come from a perfect source since non exist in nature. Others argue that our imperfect minds interpret inperfect shapes to their simplest version…hence a circle drawn may appear perfect to us…even if it is .0000005 mm off in some direction.</p>

<p>As I have said before, I believe in God. I don’t know if God has a detailed plan for everything or if God established a few rules and then let the games begin…or if there is some other model that escapes my limited mortal understanding. I do believe that each of us should try our best and that separating religion from science in the classroom is as important as integrating ethics with science. How curious.</p>