WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Headlines 'Intelligent design' taught in Pennsylvania

Woodreaux

Original Dicksman
2,429
0
0
#1
This following text is copied from
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/01/19/evolution.debate.ap/index.html

Begin Text:

Administrators in the Dover Area School District read a statement to three biology classes Tuesday and were expected to read it to other classes on Wednesday, according to a statement from the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which was speaking on the district's behalf.

The district is believed to be the only one in the nation to require students to hear about intelligent design -- a concept that holds that the universe is so complex, it had to be created by an unspecified guiding force.

"The revolution in evolution has begun," said Richard Thompson, the law center's president and chief counsel. "This is the first step in which students will be given an honest scientific evaluation of the theory of evolution and its problems."

The case represents the newest chapter in a history of evolution lawsuits dating back to the Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee nearly 80 years ago. In Georgia, a suburban Atlanta school district plans to challenge a federal judge's order to remove stickers in science textbooks that call evolution "a theory, not a fact."

The law center is defending the Dover district against a federal lawsuit filed on behalf of eight families by two civil-liberties groups that alleged intelligent design is merely a secular variation of creationism, the biblical-based view that regards God as the creator of life. They maintain that the Dover district's curriculum mandate may violate the constitutional separation of church and state.

"Students who sat in the classroom were taught material which is religious in content, not scientific, and I think it's unfortunate that has occurred," said Eric Rothschild, a Philadelphia attorney representing the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit.

Biology teacher Jennifer Miller said although she was able to make a smooth transition to her evolution lesson after the statement was read, some students were upset that administrators would not entertain any questions about intelligent design.

"They were told that if you have any questions, to take it home," Miller said.

The district allowed students whose parents objected to the policy to be excused from hearing the statement at the beginning of class and science teachers who opposed the requirement to be exempted from reading the statement. About 15 of 170 ninth-graders asked to be excused from class, Thompson said.

A federal judge has scheduled a trial in the lawsuit for September 26.

End Message Text.
All I can say is,WTF?!?
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,993
1,401
487
#2
I could've swore that I posted something similar a few months ago, but I couldn't find the thread. Here is the previous discussion about creationism though, if you're interested.

I think it's completely retarded. Why can't we just teach science in science class? More and more people try to legislate their religion as science. Why? Because they need to validate their views. Children should learn about science with out being confused by relative opinions and faiths. That's what churches are for.

:(
 

Woodreaux

Original Dicksman
2,429
0
0
#3
You probably did, Junglizm. This kind of crap of is always going on. I think religion certainly has a write to exist, as long it stays within its bounds. Religion in academia needs to be resticted to philiphosy and relevant metaphysics. When the last time you heard a genetic engineer or astrophysist interfering with the sacraments or ramahdan? Asking a theologist about the origin of our species is like asking a dentist about interior design.
 

voiceofreason

Seeker of Truth
1,329
0
0
#4
Anyone who believes in intelligent design is no doubt under-educated, simple, and has no life, except for the one at the church, which they pay for...
 

_Kitana_

Angel of Death
4,674
16
0
#5
You can not judge people like that VOR. I mean if you want them to understand you then you need to understand them. All of this is a theory that can neither be proven nor disprove. Both should be explained and let it be. I mean Gezz, give one side then the other. Both groups should be happy.

I don't think they need to read a damn statement about it but couldn't something as simple as

"Today class we are going to study the theory of evolution which differs greatly from Intelligent design. Intelligent design is greatly embraced by the religious community. Neither of these can truly be proven nor disprove and are both theories. Evelution revolves around the "Big bang theroy"... blah blah blah.... "

I mean it is really that simple.
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,993
1,401
487
#6
_Kitana_ said:
All of this is a theory that can neither be proven nor disprove. Both should be explained and let it be.
No, only one is related to science; only science should be taught in science class. Bottom line and cut and dry. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

I already said this in a previous thread, but I'll say it again...

The study of evolution sprung from science. The very fact that it is largely still a 'theory' suggests that science still investigates the "what, when, where, why and how" of the matter.Creationism on the other hand... you either have faith that it is the truth, or you do not. To my knowledge, no evidence exists suggesting even the possibility of this occurring.
Besides, the theory of evolution does not denounce the existence of a supreme being. For all we know, "s/he" set up the process.
I mean Gezz, give one side then the other.
Either teach science or teach religion, but don't try and justify religion with sciece. At least not in public school. If parents want their children to learn about their faith, it's up to them to teach them and expose them to the church.
Both groups should be happy.
What about Wiccans, Buddhist, Taoist? Somewhere along the lines, someone will get left out. Then what? Repeat the entire process for them too? At what point do we draw the line on what is science and what is opinion/faith? Furthermore, how much of this science class will be devoted to keeping the religious groups happy, and how much will be devoted to teaching useful information?

Also: http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,1394049,00.html ;)
 

_Kitana_

Angel of Death
4,674
16
0
#7
junglizm said:
No, only one is related to science; only science should be taught in science class. Bottom line and cut and dry. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

I already said this in a previous thread, but I'll say it again...

The study of evolution sprung from science. The very fact that it is largely still a 'theory' suggests that science still investigates the "what, when, where, why and how" of the matter.Creationism on the other hand... you either have faith that it is the truth, or you do not. To my knowledge, no evidence exists suggesting even the possibility of this occurring.
Besides, the theory of evolution does not denounce the existence of a supreme being. For all we know, "s/he" set up the process.

Either teach science or teach religion, but don't try and justify religion with sciece. At least not in public school. If parents want their children to learn about their faith, it's up to them to teach them and expose them to the church.

What about Wiccans, Buddhist, Taoist? Somewhere along the lines, someone will get left out. Then what? Repeat the entire process for them too? At what point do we draw the line on what is science and what is opinion/faith? Furthermore, how much of this science class will be devoted to keeping the religious groups happy, and how much will be devoted to teaching useful information?

Also: http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,1394049,00.html ;)

Is the theory of evolution useful? I mean how much in your daily life do you use it. How does once classify Science. When do we draw the line of opening our children’s minds instead of closing them. Science is the study of how the world around us works. From start to finish. I believe that religion has a place in science as well and as much a part of it as anything… You can not study one theory with out the other.

Maybe they should make a class called the different religions of the world. From Buddhism, Christianity, Islamic, Judaism, Taoist, Wicca and all the way down the line. Promote diversity and understanding. Then who cares what they study in science class. But then that violates the rule of religion separated from school. I don’t believe in forcing someone else religious views down your throat, but I don’t believe we have to close our children’s mind to them, just because someone may get offend by someone else views. Through learning and understanding children can come to terms of accepting people who are different and understanding that why they may disagree with their views it does not make them evil…. However we will never be able to do this become someone, somewhere will be OFFEND BY SOMEONE ELSE VIEWS. Do you not see the irony in that and yet you want peace and understand… but can not understand someone else views.

What a Sad world.
 

bigck3000

The Iron Lung
1,684
1
0
#8
Tsk, Tsk

In reference to the "Theory not Fact" bullshit.

As far a "Science" is concerned a 'theory' is the equivalent of what we call 'fact'. A 'hypothesis' is an "Educated guess that is either proven or disproven" if it is proven it becomes a theory.

Evolution is still a hypothesis, based on the information available, it is the best explanation we can come up with. It is by far the most respected hypothesis concerning our origins and was taught without incident my entire grade school career. Although its horrible to think so, our childrens educations are subjected to various slants and spins as the result of over-zealous PTA moms and the like. Religious Ideas are touched on in history class and if you wish you can surround yourself with religious studies when you hit college (some of the most interesting classes) I dont see what the big deal is....people need to relax. Your kids wont become brainwashed religious freaks for hearing an opinion that differs from the norm. And sorry to be the one to break it to everyone, but very few of the classes given in grade school go entirely without the instructors opinion. That being said...these people are idiots.
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,993
1,401
487
#9
_Kitana_ said:
Is the theory of evolution useful? I mean how much in your daily life do you use it.
Touche'. My fault for using such a poor choice of words.
When do we draw the line of opening our children’s minds instead of closing them.
Nobody's stopping them from learning anything. Religious education isn't the job of the public education system though. However, science is.
Science is the study of how the world around us works. From start to finish.
True, but evolution is based on sciene, "intelligent" design is not. It should be an obvious choice what gets taught in science class.
I believe that religion has a place in science as well and as much a part of it as anything…
Well a lot of scientist would disagree.
You can not study one theory with out the other.
Sure you can. God or god has nothing to do with atoms, quarks or molecules. Learning about him will not change the states, nor the factual information about them. Buddist can understand and grasp those concepts with out knowing about other's religious beliefs

Science exists separate from religion. Science is a given, a constant; aside from creation/evolution there are very few scientific facts or theories that are dependant upon culture. (honestly NO others come to mind) Science is not a relative construct. However, religion depends explicitly upon culture. It's a completely relative ideal.
But then that violates the rule of religion separated from school
And intelligent design doesn't? They both do, and neither should even be entertained as scientific curriculum.
I don’t believe in forcing someone else religious views down your throat, but I don’t believe we have to close our children’s mind to them, just because someone may get offend by someone else views.
Therein lies one of the problems; if you teach this in schools, someone will be offended and someone will feel like they're being taught contrary to their beliefs. Science class shouldn't start controversy, it should enlighten.
Through learning and understanding children can come to terms of accepting people who are different and understanding that why they may disagree with their views it does not make them evil….
Does it really take religion to teach understanding and tolerance? Should these values be taught at school in science class, or at home?
Do you not see the irony in that and yet you want peace and understand… but can not understand someone else views.
I see no irony, because that isn't my intention. You're missing my point. We don't need to confuse children and start controversy in science class, we need to teach our children about the world around them. Let the people properly suited to teach religion do their jobs. Leave those in the classrooms do theirs.

If we're supposed to have separation of church and state, then leave it be. I'm tired of religious groups trying to undermine that and sneak their "intelligent" or "scientific" ideals in. It's counter productive and it'll go tit for tat forever, until science class involves 786987690 religions and that much less science. The parents that are so worried about their child's religious education should go to church. I'd be interest to see how many of the people pushing this even go to church on Sundays. I'd be willing to bet that's it's probably less than you'd expect.
What a Sad world.
Indeed!

My :twocents: at least.
 

_Kitana_

Angel of Death
4,674
16
0
#10
junglizm said:
Does it really take religion to teach understanding and tolerance? Should these values be taught at school in science class, or at home?
Hmm... Out of everything you said. I am going to touch on this one. Ask yourself what is Religion, the beliefs and faith of another. Right? So does religion not in away define the culture of a people. Does religion not help but establish the laws of those people. So you can not learn about a group of people with out study their religion. It is as much a part of the world around us as anything else. Define almost everything…

Holidays, celebrations, pray and yes even war….
 

_Kitana_

Angel of Death
4,674
16
0
#11
bigck3000 said:
Tsk, Tsk

In reference to the "Theory not Fact" bullshit.

As far a "Science" is concerned a 'theory' is the equivalent of what we call 'fact'. A 'hypothesis' is an "Educated guess that is either proven or disproven" if it is proven it becomes a theory.

Evolution is still a hypothesis, based on the information available, it is the best explanation we can come up with. It is by far the most respected hypothesis concerning our origins and was taught without incident my entire grade school career. Although its horrible to think so, our childrens educations are subjected to various slants and spins as the result of over-zealous PTA moms and the like. Religious Ideas are touched on in history class and if you wish you can surround yourself with religious studies when you hit college (some of the most interesting classes) I dont see what the big deal is....people need to relax. Your kids wont become brainwashed religious freaks for hearing an opinion that differs from the norm. And sorry to be the one to break it to everyone, but very few of the classes given in grade school go entirely without the instructors opinion. That being said...these people are idiots.
Theory is not a fact.

A fact can proven wrong or right with out a doubt.

Such as my hair is red. Is a fact.

theory (n.) A doctrine, or scheme of things, which terminates in speculation or contemplation, without a view to practice;

hypothesis (n.) A supposition; a proposition or principle which is supposed or taken for granted, in order to draw a conclusion or inference for proof of the point in question; something not proved, but assumed for the purpose of argument, or to account
 

ferengi

Yay fire!
2,089
2
102
#12
Evolution is essentially a religion. It can't be proven 100% without a doubt. All we have are different beliefs about how the world came to be as it is. I say if we leave the possibility of intelligent design out of schools, leave evolution out as well. You don't want my beliefs shoved down your throat any more than I want yours shoved down mine. You wanna believe in evolution, fine. You wanna believe in Jesus Christ, fine. You wanna believe magical pixies shot out of your ass and sprinkled magic dust on a piece of bacon to create the world, fine. Believe whatever the hell you want to believe, keep it out of the school system, and SHUT THE HELL UP about it.

Just my :twocents:
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,993
1,401
487
#13
_Kitana_ said:
Hmm... Out of everything you said. I am going to touch on this one. Ask yourself what is Religion, the beliefs and faith of another. Right? So does religion not in away define the culture of a people. Does religion not help but establish the laws of those people. So you can not learn about a group of people with out study their religion. It is as much a part of the world around us as anything else. Define almost everything…

Holidays, celebrations, pray and yes even war….
Ok, that's all fine and well and I DO see your point, BUT that's not what I asked.
Does it really take religion to teach understanding and tolerance? Should these values be taught at school in science class, or at home?
Atheist can be tolerant and understanding, agnostics can be tolerant and understanding, etc, etc. Those values do not require religion to exist, nor to be instilled. X religion is neither above, nor below these values, nor does it predicate their consummation.
 

_Kitana_

Angel of Death
4,674
16
0
#14
junglizm said:
Ok, that's all fine and well and I DO see your point, BUT that's not what I asked.

Atheist can be tolerant and understanding, agnostics can be tolerant and understanding, etc, etc. Those values do not require religion to exist, nor to be instilled. X religion is neither above, nor below these values, nor does it predicate their consummation.
So tell me how does a Wicca person feel and react to a certain situation. Do you truly understand the real working of their religion and beliefs. Do you understand it enough to disagree with it? Are you just tolerant of it cause you are ignorant and don't know anything about it?

Not calling you ignorant by the way.... just saying would you know of it's exist and what it was about if you never read nor heard anything about it? I can say I am tolerant of all religion but I do not understand it and I find people who practice in Wicca to be kind of nuts. Perhaps if I study it. I would feel and think different.
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,993
1,401
487
#15
_Kitana_ said:
So tell me how does a Wicca person feel and react to a certain situation.
Good question, but on what level? I'd assume they'd react similar to anyone else. I mean Christian's reactions often aren't much different from that of a Jewish person, or Baptist. It'd just depend on the stimuli.
Do you truly understand the real working of their religion and beliefs. Do you understand it enough to disagree with it? Are you just tolerant of it cause you are ignorant and don't know anything about it?
Admittedly, I am some what ignorant to that particular religion. And yes I do think it's a little weird and "out there," but that's not to say that I hate wiccans. They're still humans beings and still deserve the same treatment as everyone else. I wouldn't feel any different about them whether or not I learned about them in school or not.
Not calling you ignorant by the way....just saying would you know of it's exist and what it was about if you never read nor heard anything about it? I can say I am tolerant of all religion but I do not understand it and I find people who practice in Wicca to be kind of nuts. Perhaps if I study it. I would feel and think different.
Yeah, I got you. I don't think I'd feel much differently about them regardless of how much or little I knew about their religion. To other's religion is usually the last thing they notice about a person. Anyway, I don't have to respect their religion to treat them as an equal.

Ok, I get where you're going with all of this, at least I think I do. But can't tolerance be taught with out the need to teach religious specific tolerance? Furthermore, where does this fit into creationism vs. evolution?


Perhaps I'm way off on what you meant though.
 

Woodreaux

Original Dicksman
2,429
0
0
#17
Creationism is ludicrous. If creationists are correct, then dinosaurs didn't exist and a bunch of fields of science (physics, chemistry, geology, biology) are invalid.
Intelligent Design appears to be a way allow for as many of the established sciences to exist in the absence of evolution, especially that of man. My problem with ID is that it doesn't offer answers to questions the way evolution does. Many fields of research can build upon Evolution as viable logical basis: anthropologists, biologists, geologists, even theological historians who are open minded enough.
A good reason many scientists are very suspicious of religious infiltration is the Church's track record. Galileo was one example, but not the only one. Our founding fathers were also privy to this information. That's why the First Amendment is so sacred.
I doubt we have to worry about mobs of zealots assaulting laboratories today, but religious meddling in science is still very dangerous. If schools compromise with fundamentalists on Evolution, they'll likely bend in future controversies. And if American scientists have to satisfy both to rigor of their peers AND appease the fanatics, we'll be back to the flat earth, leeches at hospitals and witchburning in no time.
 

DanGeo23

Resident Conservative
1,218
0
0
#18
the idea of a creator... takes blind faith... I personally don't have it... it is also a convenient answer for tough questions... Q ¿why this? ¿why that?...A because (God, Budda, Vishnu, Allah, Alanis Morsette... etc) said so...

but... just caue I don't personally believe in religion or a creator ... doesn't mean I believe the "Big Bang" theory... there are some things we haven't figured out yet... and for those things I don't fall back on the easy answer... God
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,993
1,401
487
#19
_Kitana_ said:
it all helpts to explain the world and how it works.
Not really. All it explains are different cultures and their beliefs. According to current scientific facts, religion has no bearing on how our world works. On the contrary, many people believe that religion is just a way to explain science to those who need something more to believe in.

Different religious groups can belief anything they want, and that's fine. But we don't need to teach everyone's take on our science. It confuses students and undermines widely accepted information. Let the children learn the widely accepted facts and theories. Let the teachers and scientist add information to that as it becomes widely accepted. We don't need to teach our children the what if's and why's of every culture, just to teach them science. That's absurd.