Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

[melon]

Originally posted by Bluer White
I think the origin of names of the planets and moons should be addressed in philosophy class. The same goes for the intelligent design theory, which I subscribe to somewhat.

But in science class, in public schools.......not so much.

You know, I hate to say it, but I read your post here as if you were being sarcastic. My apologies.

(I think it was the )

I guess this place has put me on edge a bit lately, which means it's probably a good time for me to back off a bit and let others chime in for a while. I've enjoyed mostly lurking here over the past year, rather than writing.

[Vincent Vega]

Originally posted by indra


Or when studying literature/mythology. Or ancient history. It fits very well in several subjects...just not science.

Physics would be the subject where the topic of the solar system would be likely to come up, I guess, and I don't see why there the origin of the names shouldn't be discussed.
It's not promoting believing in Roman mythology.

[INDY500]

Originally posted by Vincent Vega


Physics would be the subject where the topic of the solar system would be likely to come up, I guess, and I don't see why there the origin of the names shouldn't be discussed.
It's not promoting believing in Roman mythology.

The ancients themselves gave the 5 visible planets their names. We have referred to them as such ever since, certainly well after the worship of their namesakes has ceased. So obviously teaching this history is not going to usher in a new wave of polytheistic paganism.
However, pantheistic paganism is alive & well and in fact has recently been seen canoodling in the corner with the SCIENCE of climate change.
Will those who now stand guard to keep "nature's God" out of our classrooms be as vigilant in keeping "God is Nature" out?

[yolland]

Re: 'Judeo-Christian' ... that term is used to describe certain specific ideas, values, and metaphors perceived as shared by both religions; it might be applied to a nation or a people insofar as said ideas are part of their cultural milieu, but it's never correct usage to apply it to individuals--that makes it sound as if there's some delimitedly 'Judeo-Christian' sect or ancestral group they might belong to, when it fact it refers only to areas of ideological overlap. Sometimes the term is used narrowly and with reference to concepts drawn from a shared scriptural basis (like the Genesis creation narrative); other times it's used in a far looser sense where 'Western' ideas that aren't really inherent in either religion, but have historically been articulated using monotheistic language, are deemed 'Judeo-Christian'--for example, the idea of divinely endowed (inalienable) rights for all men.

This use of the term originated in the US during WWII, as an attempt to build solidarity among the non-Communist member nations of the Allies by invoking a cultural legacy they all shared in common--in such a way that not only the USSR, but also Germany, would be pointedly excluded from the definition. 'European,' 'democratic,' and so on would thus have been problematic; 'Judeo-Christian' worked because it identified a shared cultural legacy in Christianity (in contrast to the USSR's state atheism) while at the same time symbolically including those countries' Jewish citizens in that legacy (in contrast to Germany). So, it was a politicized term from the beginning and unfortunately is still often used as such.



Ummm, I feel like I should also say something constructive on the actual thread topic, but I'm afraid I've got nothing to add to what's already been said at the moment.

[A_Wanderer]

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

[the iron horse]

The film is about censorship.

It's about free speech.

It's about allowing peple to question.

It's about allowing free and open debate.

It's about taking time to think.

It's about freedom.


The film does not even try to prove intelligent design or the existence of God.

[melon]

Originally posted by the iron horse
The film is about censorship.

It's about free speech.

It's about allowing peple to question.

It's about allowing free and open debate.

It's about taking time to think.

It's about freedom.

The thing is, science is not about these things. There is a specific method to science, which we call the scientific method. And that doesn't mean that you're not allowed to question science; but it does mean that you have to ask yourself a question in the process:

Is my question in the realm of science or in the realm of philosophy?

If it's in the realm of philosophy, then that's where you should go to ask it. If it's in the realm of science, then you have to follow the scientific method, or otherwise, you're not doing a service for either science or for the general public. 2+2 is not 5, no matter how hard you want it to be so.

Leave the political posturing to the politicians.

"There is an appointed time for everything, and a time for every affair under the heavens." - Ecclesiastes 3:1

[BVS]

Originally posted by the iron horse
The film is about censorship.

It's about free speech.

It's about allowing peple to question.

It's about allowing free and open debate.

It's about taking time to think.

It's about freedom.


The film does not even try to prove intelligent design or the existence of God.

No, it really isn't. It's about trying to force certain subjects into fields where they don't belong.

You don't teach subjects you can't mathmatically prove in math.

You don't teach math in philosophy classes.

You don't teach history in computer science classes.

If you can't use any scientific methods to explain the theory, then it doesn't belong in a science class, it belongs somewhere else.

Period.

Teach about God in a church not a science room. Just because God isn't taught in a science room does not mean God doesn't exists or took part in creating the things we learn in a science class.

[A_Wanderer]

Originally posted by the iron horse
The film is about censorship.

It's about free speech.

It's about allowing peple to question.

It's about allowing free and open debate.

It's about taking time to think.

It's about freedom.


The film does not even try to prove intelligent design or the existence of God.

ID in public school is unconstitutional, the spirit of free inquiry is alive and well with science and creationists are as always acting as sore losers.

[the iron horse]

Have we forgotten that words do have definitions
and sentences do have meaning?

Or do we accept that any response we make is a truth?

[A_Wanderer]

Is that supposed to make sense? ID is religion, it has no place in public school, and besides that it is bad science and doesn't hold a candle against the power of evolutionary biology.

[the iron horse]

"Is that supposed to make sense?"


What do you mean?

A sentence is a group of words that does not expresses a complete thought?

[indra]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
besides that it is bad science

I think this is the crux of the matter. Teaching ID as actual science is akin to teaching incorrect grammar and sentence structure in English and expecting students to be at all prepared to use the language correctly.

[the iron horse]

Originally posted by indra


I think this is the crux of the matter. Teaching ID as actual science is akin to teaching incorrect grammar and sentence structure in English and expecting students to be at all prepared to use the language correctly.

What crux of the matter?

That is not what the film is about.

[melon]

Originally posted by the iron horse
Have we forgotten that words do have definitions
and sentences do have meaning?

Or do we accept that any response we make is a truth?

You've made a great argument here against intelligent design being introduced into science.

Science has a clear definition and a clear meaning. To accept any old response like "intelligent design" is to make science ridiculous and meaningless.

[BVS]

Originally posted by the iron horse
Have we forgotten that words do have definitions
and sentences do have meaning?

Or do we accept that any response we make is a truth?

[popsadie]

Actually, I do think that students should be free to intermingle disciplines. Although it shouldn't take up the majority of instruction time, I don't see anything wrong with engaging discussion over the philosophical and cultural impact of science. Likewise, I believe that literature classes should read texts that encourage students to think creatively about science and math. Although specialization has it's place, I believe that more inter-disciplinary dialogue and instruction would be beneficial in our schools.

[diamond]

I feel bad for Iron Horse in this thread.
He is the ID peoples' own Samson and he's getting ransacked by the masses in FYM.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=n08tlBsljUc&feature=related

<>

[BVS]

No one's gotten ransacked here...

[Irvine511]

i feel like i've read this thread already.

it's always the same -- those who know what science is calmly defend their positions, those who don't know what science is act like spoiled children trying to push for one more inch because it just isn't fair that other people aren't taught their beliefs and that their own belief system isn't reinforced by the state. they get very sentimental, too, and they seem to think of themselves in an inspirational made-for-TV movie about a little boy who dares to believe and stands up in front of the class and with his words he leads a mass movement for Jesus, but he's also scientifically brilliant, and in the science fair at the end of the year, after working really hard on his project, he creates something that so challenges everything we've ever thought about science that suddenly the mean old science teacher sees the light, and the light streams in across the school gym, because that's god's light, you know, and then the music swells and as the camera pulls out we get a good glimpse of the American flag, one nation under Jesus and we all know, deep down, that I AIN'T A-COME FROM NO MONKEY!!!