TheFeniX

Here's where my point comes into play: to evangelists, it's Evolution vs Creationism. As if the two are even comparable.

In science class, they do. If they think evolution is a baseless theory even with monumental evidence supporting it, then they can still choose to ignore it.

ID belongs in a theology class, not a science class. It has no basis in science and it never should. There's no evidence to support it and they don't even bother using the scientific method. Hence, placing it along-side Evolution in a science class would be pointless as you're no longer teaching science.

ID is a "foot in the door" styled attack on that very issue. They want in and if they can't break the door down, they'll squeeze through the cracks.

Questioning your faith is accepted by the church? Try explaining that to Martin Luther. Evangelists don't like their faith questioned, it robs them of there power base. Which explains why they fight so hard against theories like evolution. They don't want their kids "tainted" by it.

Things have become much tamer over the years, but people's lives have been ruined in the past for questioning the church, whether through direct action or by pure accident.

And faith isn't questioning. I don't know how people can claim it is. I don't need to question life if the only answer I use is "God made it that way."

__________________

Trooper

i go to a christian college and grew up in the church...i have been taught and raised to question my faith, it means you want to know what is actually out there.

I dont think any student is going to be hurt by learning ID....any more then hearing they came from monkys and the earth is 10 ba-gillion years old.

i guess some people have security in not knowing all the answers and others need to know it "all"

__________________
that sounds like a good idea trooper.
-Vulcan

TheFeniX

Provided you're being honest about your claim, then your school is most likely a more moderate group to begin with. Fundamentalists only seem to question who they are going to hate on any given day.

I notice you leave the "learning" part for ID, and the "hearing" part for evolution and astronomy. There's nothing to "learn" about ID, I can sum it up in one sentence: "All the stuff scientists find about evolution of humans was put there by (a) God."

So we take definable atribute like A+B+C= ? And try to solve the equation.

ID takes A+B+C+ X = ? - X being a completely undefinable concept of God, hence we make the question unsolvable.

No, some people just want "security" in knowing that topic like ID belong in theologoy class, not science class.

I don't know of one Spanish class that makes their students study the origin and evolution of the Spanish language. That's better left for history class, not one in which you want to learn the language.

Hence, since you can't ever define God by using any rational or structured logic: he does not belong (in any shape or form) in science class.

__________________

leejo

I would have a lot more sympathy for your position if you refrained from making such sweeping generalizations about such a large group of people. If you substitute into your recent posts any minority group instead of "Christian" you would be booed out of the forums and your posts deleted.

It's crystal clear that you have a large chip on your shoulder when it comes to Christians and you seem to have made a decision that all Christians are fundamentalist evangelicals. That's fine, and your right, but please try to impose a little of your own logic to your statements and refrain from over-generalizations. It is certainly NOT true that Fundamentalists only seem to question who they are going to hate on any given day. In Texas after Katrina, for example, many churches and Christian individuals, a large number of whom may have been fundamentalists, were questioning how much of their time and money they could donate to housing, clothing, and feeding 250,000 people from New Orleans. That's a fact and you should honor it if you're a fair-minded person.

I agree. Intelligent Design is not science, does not fit within the scientific method, and should not be taught in science class.

Trooper

i dont think you would learn the the history of the spanish language in a history class you would learn it in a linguistic class...so your argument is totally wrong.....

okay i can agree with you that since we are talking about sceince and ID is not a science...it shouldnt be taught in a sceince class, but i do think it should be taught.

__________________
that sounds like a good idea trooper.
-Vulcan

Mateo

You know...looking over the thread, I'd say let's cut both out of the school system. We want our children to get the facts in school, right?

So anything that allows for a choice of theories shouldn't be taught: you don't get taught a theory of the History of the American Revolution, you get the facts. Ok, the facts are slanted with a US centric bias, but still, the events are incontrovertable, and necessary to social integration.

Can we say the same about evolution or ID? Surely there is a way to teach around the origins, and just go to the observable facts. Just get right to the Biology.

leejo

I don't have a problem with evolution being taught in schools but some people do. I bet if the school systems stopped trying to cram a decidely left-of-center social agenda down a lot of moderate and conservative throats, they'd see less objection to evolution, but maybe I'm seeing things in a rosy picture.

My child isn't in school yet but I see a ton of reports and hear a lot of stories from friends of arrogant school administrations. Private school all the way baby. Fact is, schools can talk about intelligent design and evolution all they want provided the teachers, parents, and students, and administrators are sharp. Add in the idiot factor and things get touchy.

Trooper

i went thru a school system that was full of arrogant admins....so much so that i could basicly get away with anything cuase they wouldnt dare to yell or speak to me...my mom called in so many times my jr high years that she made 4 teachers cry and apologize..it was great....im not sure why teachers think they need to be power hungry.....im with leejo im thinking about private schools too.

mateo has a good idea...but you know the evolutoinist would have a fit

__________________
that sounds like a good idea trooper.
-Vulcan

RandomGuy

What about the JFK assassination? That's a pretty important piece of American history but under the above logic it couldn't be taught. (And don't say "give equal time to different theories" because you don't want to hear my CIA spaghetti monster theory!)

I think you are letting the word "theory" throw you. The fact is that evolutionary theories of various sorts are fundamental to biology and creationist theories are not. I agree that biology class should focus on the biological aspects of that statement relevant to the present and future and not the philosophical ones relevant to the past. In other words, teachers shouldn't be teaching that evolutionary theory disproves god (but I'm pretty sure that nobody is teaching that).

Steeler

This "academics are all lefties" blanket argument always bugs me. What exactly is a "left-of-center social agenda"?

__________________

leejo

I didn't say that academics are all lefties. I will say that I don't know a single academic who isn't a business professor who isn't DECIDEDLY left. I have several dear friends who are pinko commie academics, so it isn't as though I have a personal problem with their politics, but there's a reason why I left academics and got into business and they stayed put, and our current political orientation reflects that difference.

With regard to your question, can you honestly not think of a single example of what I mean? Ward Churchill, maybe? Boston School district teaching "What Is A Family" to 6-year-olds. UNC teaching the Koran. There is a host of issues if you look into them.

I may or may not have a problem with any of them but they are left of mainstream. I believe that any poll in the country would find that a majority of parents would prefer to hold off on teaching their 6 year olds about homosexuality.

TheFeniX

Your fundamentalists tend to be the most vocal and violent of the subsect. Notice the US isn't fighting against moderate Muslims. We're fighting against fundamentalists so far entrenched in their beliefs, they'll do anything to maintain the illusion. They thrive off of hate and ignorance.

Ever notice how the less educated and poor a person is the statistically more likely they are to hold fundamentalist beliefs? The only difference would be that Christian fundamentalists are a little less violent in their ways.

PS: Christians are not a minority in American. They've never been a minority in this country. Further, fundamentalists seem to make it a career point to public bash every minority they can. Listen to people like Fallwell bash gays and Muslims every chance they get. It's no longer acceptable for them to hammer on blacks and Jews, so they've moved onto other minorities they can badmouth. I even remember a televised rant Ann Coulter had where she said something to the effect of "we should just kill all those illegal immigrants."

Never said that.
Maybe I was being a bit harsh, but the average fundamentalist mindset focuses on a "fire and brimstone" approach.

"Remember, it was God working through us that saved you." - I'm not saying Christians (even the fundies) haven't done good things for society. But I would go as far to say, I'd rather just cut them (the fundamentalists) out completely because I'm tired of the bad that comes with the good.

I'm glad we agree. And I would be all for a "theology" elective in high schools. Hopefully something more than just Sunday School, but maybe more akin to a literary analysis of biblical texts about different religions.

__________________

Mateo

Well, I suppose you could tackle the question later in American History in High School, when the kids have formed some capacity to make distinctions.

The fact of the Assination does not require a detailed explanation of why: it happened, and had these effects on the country at the time.

Does a Elementary or Junior High Schooler need to know more than that?

As for Biology....look, there are observable processes that can be described by science. Those things should be taught.

The big questions "how we got here" or "why it works that way" for which their are competing theories can be handled in a required philosophical survey class.

leejo

So am I to understand how fundamentalist Christians think based on Jerry Fallwell or Ann Coulter? I thought she was a political commentator, not an evangelical Christian but I guess that's close enough?

So do we also seek to understand how black people think based on the words of Al Sharpton? Gay people based on Rupaul? Muslims based on Al-Zarqawi?

You think Christians are nuts about all sorts of issues, so you pick the nuttiest examples of "Christian" rhetoric and viola you have confirmation.

You acknowledge that many Chistians did many good things after Katrina and generally for this country, but chastise them for plugging their religion in the process. Do you credit the vast numbers of people who've done nothing for Katrina victims or this country but haven't shoved their beliefs down your throat?

Fed and mildly annoyed is worse than hungry but politically correct in some calculus. I think that bears a little thought.

Steeler

We can recall examples of whatever you want, but I am not Sherlock Holmes. I cannot infer an overall political philosophy from these relatively isolated and extreme examples. What, ideologically speaking, bothers you about the American educational system? If we are talking about pluralism, multi-cultural studies, the value of science and reason over superstition and fear, and a preference for diplomacy over military hostility, well, these are all pretty mainstream American values with a long cultural pedigree. If you want to assign these values to "the left" then fine, go ahead, but then you have to grant that the American public is pretty leftist.

Evolution is not a "liberal" philosophy any more than ID is a "conservative" philosophy. Evolution is a wide field of scientific inquiry that explores the mechanics of life on the genetic, population and evironmental levels. ID is a narrow logical hypothesis that uses the idea of irreducible biological complexity to argue for the existence of an intelligent creator.

They are just not on any kind of common ground. Pitting them against each other in schools would be like interrupting a football game for a single frame of bowling. Couching either of them in political terms weakens the signifigance of both and serves only those people who would like to score political points in the ensuing battle.

__________________