Proper Education Standards Prevail - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-03-2006, 01:20 PM   #61
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
The Bible is a nice book.

To discuss in a philosophy or religion class. Along with its various translations and so on.

I don't understand why ID/creationism proponents insist it be mentioned or taught or discussed in biology class. It's laughable and embarrassing.
I agree.
__________________

__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 01:26 PM   #62
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by silja


I meant I've never understood why so many Christians treat evolution so differently that say...learning about a cell mebrane, studying the digestive system, memorizing the formula for photosynthesis, filling in chi squares. To me, science and religion can be complementary.
__________________

__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 01:32 PM   #63
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 220
Local Time: 04:55 AM
Sorry, I just didn't understand the sentence. I agree that science and religion can be complementary but as my religion does not emphasise a creator I've just never really had to reconcile the two views. Evolution makes perfect sense to me.

ETA: That might also be the reason why I react so strongly when some people (and Christians tend to be in majority among those) suggest that evolution is simple anti-religious.
__________________
silja is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 01:42 PM   #64
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 11:55 PM
I find the ID supporters to be very disingenuous. They always go on about how evolution is a theory and that ID should be mentioned as an alternate theory because their Bible supports it (there is absolutely NO empirical evidence to support it). But when have you ever seen them clamoring to have reincarnation introduced? Or the Hindu theories of the creation/destruction cycles of the world? Never, ever. This isn't about broadening the horizons of students to all possible alternatives, it's about trying to present the Christian theory as something worthy of discussion in a science class.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 08-03-2006, 01:58 PM   #65
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic



I'm glad a few posts on the Internet have got me labelled "most people" and "the Christians who". I don't recall ever saying one word in this thread on Adam (or Eve).
The Biblical account of Adam, the first man is that God created Adam in his own image from the clay of the earth. How do you reconcile the Biblical story of Adam with evolution?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 02:12 PM   #66
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic

science and religion can be complementary

yes they can

but often, religion contradicts science


and many other writings can complement science,
some Greek mythology, Shakespeare writings, and a whole host of various cultural writings,
because they complement science
that should make them part of a science curriculum?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 02:22 PM   #67
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
I find the ID supporters to be very disingenuous. They always go on about how evolution is a theory and that ID should be mentioned as an alternate theory because their Bible supports it (there is absolutely NO empirical evidence to support it).
What "empirical evidence" is there that supports the idea that there is no intelligent designer behind the Big Bang?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 02:23 PM   #68
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 220
Local Time: 04:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
I find the ID supporters to be very disingenuous. They always go on about how evolution is a theory and that ID should be mentioned as an alternate theory because their Bible supports it (there is absolutely NO empirical evidence to support it). But when have you ever seen them clamoring to have reincarnation introduced? Or the Hindu theories of the creation/destruction cycles of the world? Never, ever. This isn't about broadening the horizons of students to all possible alternatives, it's about trying to present the Christian theory as something worthy of discussion in a science class.
I won't say that I find ID supporters disingenuous as a whole. Many see ID as a way to reconcile their religion and the modern world and that is their own affair. However, 'disingenuous' does describe many of the outspoken supporters rather well. As I mentioned above, the claim that ID is non-denominational is simply a lie. It’s a front for Judeo-Christian religious teachings.

Quote:
Originally posted by deep
and many other writings can complement science,
some Greek mythology, Shakespeare writings, and a whole host of various cultural writings,
because they complement science
that should make them part of a science curriculum?
No, and this is one of my many problems with ID and creationism. If the principle of ID is taken to its natural conclusion if would have to include exceptions for every religious thought that has ever passed through anyones head... though I fail to see what Shakespeare has to do with anything.
__________________
silja is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 02:42 PM   #69
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
I find the ID supporters to be very disingenuous. They always go on about how evolution is a theory and that ID should be mentioned as an alternate theory because their Bible supports it (there is absolutely NO empirical evidence to support it). But when have you ever seen them clamoring to have reincarnation introduced? Or the Hindu theories of the creation/destruction cycles of the world? Never, ever. This isn't about broadening the horizons of students to all possible alternatives, it's about trying to present the Christian theory as something worthy of discussion in a science class.
I feel like it should be all, or evolution. The school I went to introduced several theories of creation, including those based solely on science and those from other religions. I think we looked at one or two a day for just a few days, so on the scale of time spent, the whole lesson on creation and all its possibilities was marginal. I don't think that presenting exclusively evolution or ID is the proper way to go about it. Like you said, it's a science class so it's rather pointless to be having this debate. I didn't mind that my school went about it differently and considered many possibilities, but I wouldn't have cared if we only studied evolution. For public schools, just studying evolution obviously is the only option that makes sense. If kids want to learn about ID and other religious creation stories, they can get that in a history or religion course.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 02:45 PM   #70
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep



yes they can

but often, religion contradicts science


and many other writings can complement science,
some Greek mythology, Shakespeare writings, and a whole host of various cultural writings,
because they complement science
that should make them part of a science curriculum?
I'm not following your logic.....

I was responding to silja's question; I did not intend to say that theology belongs in the science curriculum.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 02:53 PM   #71
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by silja


..though I fail to see what Shakespeare has to do with anything.



there is wisdom, humanity and life lessons to be learned in his writings

if we had the people in the mid-eest studing these classics
they might get better life lessons than what they learn in their religious texts

just my opinion
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 02:55 PM   #72
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic


I'm not following your logic.....

I was responding to silja's question; I did not intend to say that theology belongs in the science curriculum.
sorry

re-reading your posts

i see that you went to a private (religious?) school.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 03:13 PM   #73
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 220
Local Time: 04:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
there is wisdom, humanity and life lessons to be learned in his writings

if we had the people in the mid-eest studing these classics
they might get better life lessons than what they learn in their religious texts

just my opinion
'We are such stuff
As dreams are made on; and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep. '?

I get what you mean but although Shakespeare surely was among the greatest writers that mankind has produced he wasn't a profet. I don't think that religion has any place in a science lesson. Why would I think that the Great Bard should be included? I hope that people in the Middle East - and the Midwest I might add - study the great classics but outside science classes.
__________________
silja is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 03:18 PM   #74
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep

sorry

re-reading your posts

i see that you went to a private (religious?) school.
Yes, all the schools I went to have been private and all have taught evolution in science class.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 08-03-2006, 03:20 PM   #75
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


What "empirical evidence" is there that supports the idea that there is no intelligent designer behind the Big Bang?


the question is backwards.

the burden of proof is on you to prove that there is an intelligent designer behind the Big Bang.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com