I'll try to sum it up with this; I believe for informational purposes the reason why there is so much opposition to these scientific theories should be mentioned in science class. You say it should be addressed in social studies classes; I haven't been in a classroom in quite some time (I'm assuming you are referring to the 8th - 12th grade level), but I wasn't aware religious theory could be taught in a public education setting. I know religious texts can be studied in a literature class or from a historical point of view, but I didn't realize the actual doctrine could be openly discussed. Therefore, unless we open a whole new can of worms and start this thing again from a "social studies" standpoint, the most logical approach is to address it in the science class and move on, regardless of whether you buy into the doctrine behind the belief or not. And I think I understand the approach you prefer, possibly teaching creationism in the classroom much the same way as Greek mythology is taught. But, the difference is, Greek mythology is a dead concept, creationism is very much alive in our society today. This distinction must be made. Unless of course, it is your goal to kill all religion, which would then warrant a "Hitler-youth" reference.
I think, despite marcmc's best efforts at being argumentative, his solution is the best compromise - simply mentioning in a science classroom while discussing evolution that some people believe in intelligent design takes all of 5 seconds & there's no harm done "corrupting" anybody's children. Not teaching it, MENTIONING it; which is a very key distinction here. Also, I would warrant a guess that martin does in deed wish to kill all religion.
i similarly argue that we should mention that the spaghetti monster may have created earth. my point is that what society thinks is not a factor and not a question for science classes. if there was a theory that said rain was god's tears would we mention that? would we mention that if 60% of people believed it? what percentage of the popluation should believe a mindless myth before you deem it worthy of "mention" in a science class? teachers can waste small amounts of time whatever they want of course, and not every single second of class time needs to be for science. and if a teacher wants to waste time talking about myths or lsu football or movies for a few minutes occasionally, that is fine. but official textbooks and curriculums should not mention intelligent design any more than they mention spaghetti monsters. thats what is misleading. there is no opposition to evolution among the actual science community. there is only debate about the specifics of the process evolution. like red and i have mentioned before, evolution is a theory in the same sense as gravity. scientists have argued how exactly gravity works for a long time. but that doesnt mean you should mention in class that some people might deny that gravity exists. who cares what lunatics think?
You can't please everybody all the time. Marcmc's solution is easily the best. Intelligent Design folks get their theory mentioned in class & allows the students to draw their own conclusion. And be honest, you really wouldn't care if teachers spent 5 seconds mentioning Intelligent Design. I do think, for the sake of hilarity, they should mention the flying spaghetti monster as well. But it's still 5 seconds, and who really gives a ****.
if you are gonna have a compromise solution of "mentioniing" intelligent design, then i am serious when i say that the spaghetti monster should also be "mentioned". ans also any other wacky theory i can invent. and others i have not invented, including: * Bokononism * Church of Beavis Christ * Church of Emacs * Church of Dolcett * Church of Maradona, an Argentinian group of fans of the top football player Diego Armando Maradona. * Church of the SubGenius (though some members deny the "parody" and insist they are a true religion) * Discordianism (some Discordians maintain that their religion is not wholly without an element of seriousness) * First Church of Jesus Christ, Elvis * The First Church of the Last Laugh * Invisible Pink Unicorn * Kibology * Landover Baptist Church * Last Thursdayism * Rintellism * Roshambo * Shatnerology * Tapism (from wikipedia) jedi isnt on that list but it is worthy of mention as well. you shouldnt give any respect to nonsense. or you should respect all nonsense.
This thread speaks volumes on the state of our country today. If an election were held based solely on this issue and I ran on my platform, I'd be like the third guy in a city council election who gets 1% of the vote, even though I offer a pretty fair solution to the issue. However, we live in a world where everyone wants it 100% their way. I'm assuming Red doesn't want religion destroyed, although I am beginning to wonder a bit. I think his views are based on his desire to protect science, thus his willingness to pass the buck to social studies in public education. folks like martin, on the other hand, compound the problem by giving credibility to Christian's belief these issues today are stepping stones in the eventual revoking of our right to worship and believe as we choose. therefore, the religious push back and we wind up where we are today. Guess I'll leave it at that.
Perhaps, but as even you have admitted - you didn't come off in the beginning as if you were compromising. You began with an argument & then compromised. So it's hard to say that this is the same situation. Makes sense to me. Protect science = don't teach non-science in a science class room. I'm not seeing the problem. Well, obviously I'm not martin but I do share a few views with him so I'll reply until he does. I don't, and I don't believe martin does, ever want to revoke any one's right to worship & believe as they chose. In fact, martin believes in the flying spaghetti monster and I'm pretty sure he'd like being able to believe how he choses. It's not a question of whether people should be allowed to worship & believe as they chose, but rather whether it is best to have the government favor & use those views. Even as a vehement flying spaghetti monster supporter, I doubt that martin would condone the government supporting it & forcing kids to pray to him.
Religion and its role in society can be and is studied all of the time in social studies environments in public schools. Religion cannot be practised, of course. No prayers, devotionals, or sermons. But there is no censorship in mentioning religious beliefs in historical, literary, cultural, or geographical contexts. It would be impossible to discuss most cultures without a religious context. Temporal distinctions are indeed made and are discussed in such classes. The fact that a certain cultural phenomenon is contemporary in no way negates the essential fact that it is a cultural study, rather than a scientific investigation. My goal is to kill all psuedo-science. I have no problems with religions at all, they offer a valuable moral compass to millions. My problem is with certain endeavors to influence science and politics with religious doctrines. Ve haff vays of making you, cooperate, Ja? :grin:
Not hardly. Better they hear it in history or english, in its proper context. Not in science classes. I give a chit. Where would it end? Then you'd have to give 5 seconds to each of about 100 Native American creation myths including one where the earth sits on the back of a giant turtle swimming in a vast ocean. Not to mention Hindu, Chinese, Norse, Greek, Frisbetarianism, a thousand African tribal tales, et cetera, et cetera. After taking 45 minutes to do all of that, then you'd say, "Now forget all of that and we will talk about the actual scientific evidence of our origins". Why not just forget it before you start and leave it to Mrs. Beasleys social studies class down the hall, where she will do a much better job than the bored Mr. Wizard who believes none of it anyway, but is ordered by his school board to "mention" these things. How absurd the situation becomes when bible zealots try to drive education.
i agree wholeheartedly with red. allowing intelligent design to be "mentioned" as part of the curriculum is hardly a compromise. its a total loss for the good guys. also allowing "mentions" is too vague and weird. government always comes up with weird compromises. thats is why baton rouge can have casinos, but only if they float. again, i am not saying that teachers shouldnt talk about whatever they want in spare moments in class. but textbooks and lesson plans should not waste time and mislead students with myths. goerge bush is dead wrong about intelligent design. there is no debate among scientists. there is a debate of science vs religion. and a science vs religion debate is a terrific topic for a social studies class. even i would pay attenton to that, and i am the worst student ever. why give any time to any myths? this is the point of the spaghetti monser parody. how do you draw a line on what deserves mention if you are going to allow intelligent design? the only reason we dont realize how intensely absurd intelligent design is that we have all been constantly exposed to it since birth. if we had never heard of it before and somebody introduced it as a theory, we would all have a good laugh. and i agree with red that religion provides a moral compass for people who need it. but at the same time sometimes that compass points them to craziness and murder. i have seen it happen with my own eyes.
