• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should Intelligent Design Be Taught In Schools?

H

hipsterdufus

The Dover trial has once again brought up this issue.
Do you think Intelligent Design should be taught in schools?

In my opinion the answer is a resounding no. The ID crowd is trying to bypass the normal order of how Science works and go straight from opinion to the classroom. They want to bypass peer reviews in scientific journals, which is the "Gold Standard" for the science community and take the fight into politics and the school boards.
 
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
100
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
An idea that is not accepted by the scientific community at large has no place in a basic science education.
 

knicksin2010

New member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Location
NJ, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Tax $'s shouldn't be used to promote relegious ideas. And If intelligent design can be taught then what's to stop other relegious beliefs about creation that havee no scientific basis from being taught? Where does it end?
 
H

hipsterdufus

knicksin2010 said:
Tax $'s shouldn't be used to promote relegious ideas. And If intelligent design can be taught then what's to stop other relegious beliefs about creation that havee no scientific basis from being taught? Where does it end?
Some of my friends insist that ID is based on Science and even go so far as to say that evolution itself is a religion. :roll:
 

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
hipsterdufus said:
Some of my friends insist that ID is based on Science and even go so far as to say that evolution itself is a religion. :roll:

Time to find new friends....unless you just keep them around for plucky comic relief
 
L

Liberal Because I Care

I'm a strong believer in not promoting religious views in public schools. As a Christian I want my daughter to be taught science in her science courses and religion in her sunday school.
 

CaliNORML

Active member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I view this issue as a states choice. If for example Texas wanted to teach it in their schools, and say the Pledge, and have the ten commandments in their courts, if a majority of the people agree with these ideas let them practice them. If I personally do not agree, I will not live in or move to Texas. How did every states choice get held hostage unable to practice what the people believe the laws governing them should be by the popular opinion of the nation?

George Washington said that no matter your personal beliefs, everyone has the right to practice theirs freely, as long as a majority of the state citizens votes to obey a law. This Law is not forced upon anyone outside the borders of that state. Texans will not storm California and force us to teach creationism if they decide they want to. All should be free to decide for themselves, not told it is a law. Do I agree with thier beliefs? I will decide by my vote if I want to adopt, adapt, or deny the same laws they chose, by free will and free choice, this right should not be mandated.

Decide for your own state and community, let others decide as well only this way can there be more than one right answer, that is democratic.

KMS
 

Technocratic_Utilitarian

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
670
Reaction score
0
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I view this issue as a states choice. If for example Texas wanted to teach it in their schools, and say the Pledge, and have the ten commandments in their courts, if a majority of the people agree with these ideas let them practice them. If I personally do not agree, I will not live in or move to Texas. How did every states choice get held hostage unable to practice what the people believe the laws governing them should be by the popular opinion of the nation?
There should be no choice. They should sit down, shut the hell up, and listen to their betters. Education and knowledge are not democratic affairs. Truth is not truth simply because the masses want to believe it. Having ill-educated citizens running around believing nonsense is intolerable. While we are at it, why don't we let schools teach whatever they feel like in schools! Instead of science, people can simply teach their children that the world is made of mooncheese and flat-candy.

George Washington said that no matter your personal beliefs, everyone has the right to practice theirs freely, as long as a majority of the state citizens votes to obey a law. This Law is not forced upon anyone outside the borders of that state.
The nation cannot function if eveyone is a moronic fool. Teaching creationism makes moronic fools. If we allowed everyone to learn whatever he felt like, society would not function. I don't really care what the majority of people desire. Utility is of concern when it comes to education. What you obectively need is more important than what you subjectively want.

Texans will not storm California and force us to teach creationism if they decide they want to.
No, they won't. THey will only spread their idiocy to other states via voting on social issues, interjecting their non-knowledge into the public sphere, and speaking in issue on which they have no training. Our education system is bad enough due to want of math and science. We don't need to make it worse by interjecting mythology into education.

All should be free to decide for themselves, not told it is a law.
They should not have the freedom to choose, since humans are generally stupid creatures who will choose the easiest, most slothful way of doing something. Education takes effort; knowledge takes dedication. Believing in faeritales is easy, and that's why 40% of our nation literally believes in nonsense fantasy. They need to be bitchslapped into reality and kicked in the arse with an iron boot.


Decide for your own state and community, let others decide as well only this way can there be more than one right answer, that is democratic.
As I stated: Democracy has no place in education. Let the technocrats do their jobs.
 
H

hipsterdufus

CaliNORML said:
I view this issue as a states choice. If for example Texas wanted to teach it in their schools, and say the Pledge, and have the ten commandments in their courts, if a majority of the people agree with these ideas let them practice them. If I personally do not agree, I will not live in or move to Texas. How did every states choice get held hostage unable to practice what the people believe the laws governing them should be by the popular opinion of the nation?

George Washington said that no matter your personal beliefs, everyone has the right to practice theirs freely, as long as a majority of the state citizens votes to obey a law. This Law is not forced upon anyone outside the borders of that state. Texans will not storm California and force us to teach creationism if they decide they want to. All should be free to decide for themselves, not told it is a law. Do I agree with thier beliefs? I will decide by my vote if I want to adopt, adapt, or deny the same laws they chose, by free will and free choice, this right should not be mandated.

Decide for your own state and community, let others decide as well only this way can there be more than one right answer, that is democratic.

KMS
So you'd move from state to state based on the political climate at the time?
I don't think most people could afford that. Also, right now, it's becoming a school district issue. Elect a few people to the school board that believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and voila! - the district is forced to eat pasta every day and be touched by his noodly appendage.
 

CaliNORML

Active member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Moving is not really all that huge a deal, People tend to gravitate toward others practicing like beliefs and values, sharing the same attitudes about life. Here in Cali we are Tree-Hugging Pot Smoking Hippies, right? So what if we like to live in LA LA land, is stupidity is contagious? Beside if you left them alone, being truly dumb they would finish off themselves for you. Then you may rule the nation your way unopposed.

For example the Pledge Law, this way it would have either been voted on per state as to say it or not, Possibly amended to forego the "under God" statement, the opportunity to sit quietly or take the attendance role to the office during the Pledge, perhaps not practiced anymore all together as now, not a Federal Decree governing what I chose to let my child learn in school. A single person should not be allowed to come into a new community and force the majority to change, for their own good or not. When did democracy become this tool used to beat others beliefs into submission?

KMS
 

marchare

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
CaliNORML said:
How did every states choice get held hostage, unable to practice what the people believe the laws governing them should be, by the popular opinion of the nation?
The state, a mere artifact, has no right to practice religion and is in fact specifically forbidden from doing so, not by “popular opinion of the nation”, but by the First Amendment, regardless of what “people believe the laws governing them should be”. Spirituality is not subject to consensus in any free society, and the right to free exercise is for humans, not states.
George Washington said this?:
George Washington said that no matter your personal beliefs, everyone has the right to practice theirs freely, as long as a majority of the state citizens votes to obey a law. This Law is not forced upon anyone outside the borders of that state.
..and then, in complete contradiction:
All should be free to decide for themselves, not told it is a law.
As though people are naturally intolerant of others unlike them:
Moving is not really all that huge a deal, People tend to gravitate toward others practicing like beliefs and values, sharing the same attitudes about life.
There’s a word for people who “gravitate” under these circumstances, that word is refugee.
Beside if you left them alone, being truly dumb they would finish off themselves for you. Then you may rule the nation your way unopposed.
Did Y’all get that? A clearly Social-Darwinist argument in the service of Creationism!
Then, incredibly:
When did democracy become this tool used to beat others beliefs into submission?
Ok. You asked for it. Ever since people like you, who’s vision of democracy is reduced to “majority rules”, decided that their faith is the “one and only true” faith, and is best for all.

If you can so coldly tell others that if they don’t agree with the state’s occult practices, they can just move, then it’s only fair to suggest to you, that if you dislike living in a free and open society, it is you that should leave America.

Warning! Some of the views expressed by CaliNORML are like mater/antimatter and, if entertained simultaneously can be noisy (and messy).;)
 

CaliNORML

Active member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Interesting, I believed that America was a place where one could practice religion freely, the Protestants sure believed so when fleeing from England to come to a land where everyone had the right to hold their own truths and live by them freely. For those who do beliieve man was created, that is a fact to them, because some disagree with fact stated does not make either one person right or wrong. Truth and belief go hand in hand, if I believe something then in my own life it is my truth, untill disproven by a weight of concrete evidence to the contrary. Many will not believe even if someone claims that they are wrong producing the evidence, that is their own truth they subscribe to, good or bad to any one else is of no matter they can be governed by their own laws it in thier persuit of happiness.


Seperation of church and state was not meant to deny religion, only to keep goverment officialls out of the moral and value judgments out of goverment policy towards the people. Cases such as the Southern Baptist practice of tithing 10% of your household income BEFORE tax is common in this spiritual community. The state, even if a majority was Baptist could not make that into law. The other religions would be forced by a Faith based law making it enforceable by the state. The practice of fasting is practiced in some faiths as well, because the majority of the state is fasting for faith based reasons, the people of the state can not deny school children meals, shut down restaurants and supermarkets, or close goverment offices for this time of fast. The basis of the law was to keep spiritual text based laws out of the goverment and from being lawfully enforced on those not of that faith and belief practice. How in the world it became against any symbol such as the statues of the commandments recently is puzzling. I see the bible in a court too, upon wich witnesses take their oath to tell what is true. As long as a law is not forcing you into a religious practice, then what is wrong with everyone practicing their own. If the ten commandments in a court of law makes the people feel more secure within the justice system, and no one is forced to read them, believe in them, or even practice them the people there should be free to have their courts reflect a part of that belief. The minority then has a choice, stay and work to create change-unless the goverment labels your efforts radical and works to devalue you opinion- or find a state where a majority of the people created a law to suit your views and do not allow religious symbols in the courtroom.

True democracy can not be only black or white, democracy seeks out and creates the states between allowing for them all to be accepted, maybe not by you personally and you too have that right. We should all have the right to be free in the laws of our land, subject only to what governs our civil behavior despite our beliefs. I do not know what is best for the people of Maine here on the west coast, if I were to get into federal politics I should not have the right to make laws governing their civil behavior. The laws may even be well intentioned geared to save them all based on my opinion, the fact may remain even then that just pehaps, they do not want to be saved.

KMS

KMS
 

Technocratic_Utilitarian

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
670
Reaction score
0
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Interesting, I believed that America was a place where one could practice religion freely, the Protestants sure believed so when fleeing from England to come to a land where everyone had the right to hold their own truths and live by them freely.
This is only true if you equate protestant America with the United States, which isn't true. The colonies were different entities in the 17th and 16th centuries from the 18th and 19th century United States. Furthermore, many "protestants" came over simply because they didn't like the turgid style and procedures of the Anglican Church--further, several groups were being persecuted by the monarchy and catholic forces in Europe. Persecution is far different from what people today, as Christians, are undergoing. You only have the right to your religion insofar as it doesn't directly or indirectly harm anyone else or interfere with the secular government's operation and formulation of secular laws. Freedom of Religion isn't absoulte, and it should not be absolute.

For those who do beliieve man was created, that is a fact to them, because some disagree with fact stated does not make either one person right or wrong. Truth and belief go hand in hand, if I believe something then in my own life it is my truth, untill disproven by a weight of concrete evidence to the contrary.
That's so inaccurate that I don't know where to begin. A belief and a fact are not the same things. A fact is any repeatable observation substantiated by empirical evidence. You don't have to have any evidence whatsoever to have a belief. Furthermore, saying that belief = truth/fact is hinging on the Relativistic Fallacy which states that you believe everything is true for you, simply because you believe it to be so. That's not logically valid.

If you believe something to be true, then there is no indication that it is true by virtue of that belief. I can believe that 2+2=5. That's not a fact, base ten.


Many will not believe even if someone claims that they are wrong producing the evidence, that is their own truth they subscribe to, good or bad to any one else is of no matter they can be governed by their own laws it in thier persuit of happiness.
Once again, the fact that someone doesn't accept the evidence does not equate to truth automatically on behalf of the disagreement. Creationstist will never accept the absurd profusion of evidence supporting various scientic theories--theories which are also fact. That doesn't make Creationism true in the slightest.
 

128shot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
31
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No and I'll tell you you're better off not learning it.


When you get into college they wont' deal with that petty crap, garunteed. They'll teach only science, and if you bring up creationism they'll probably laugh.....
 

Technocratic_Utilitarian

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
670
Reaction score
0
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Seperation of church and state was not meant to deny religion, only to keep goverment officialls out of the moral and value judgments out of goverment policy towards the people.
THe Separation of Church and State was created and defined by Thomas Jefferson because he believed that a mix of government and religion was a poor idea. He coined the term "wall," which connotes an impasse--a barrier over which neither side can go. It was, in fact, ment to deny religion interfering with government and government interfering with religion, exceptin cases in which the religion is doing harm or if that religion interfers with the secular powers of the government.

I don't know why people artificially divide the state from morality. YOu mean "personal" morality, but not "public" morality. The State can quite justifiably delineate basic morality.


Cases such as the Southern Baptist practice of tithing 10% of your household income BEFORE tax is common in this spiritual community. The state, even if a majority was Baptist could not make that into law
Thank the godless they couldn't, or they sure as hell might.

The basis of the law was to keep spiritual text based laws out of the goverment and from being lawfully enforced on those not of that faith and belief practice. How in the world it became against any symbol such as the statues of the commandments recently is puzzling.
Because how do you think those monuments got there? The magical bible faerie? No. If it isn't through donation, it is via taxation. Forcing people to pay for religious adornements is wrong, especially if they are NOT of said religion.

I see the bible in a court too, upon wich witnesses take their oath to tell what is true. As long as a law is not forcing you into a religious practice, then what is wrong with everyone practicing their own. If the ten commandments in a court of law makes the people feel more secure within the justice system, and no one is forced to read them, believe in them, or even practice them the people there should be free to have their courts reflect a part of that belief.
Then they should make their own little donations to fund the development of their own churches. You don't use taxes to adorn a public building with religious memorabillia.

The minority then has a choice, stay and work to create change-unless the goverment labels your efforts radical and works to devalue you opinion- or find a state where a majority of the people created a law to suit your views and do not allow religious symbols in the courtroom.
If my religion were the nazi cult developed around Hitler, could I use public funds to build a giant swastika crossed with Thor's Hammer and slap it on the courts? That's a resounding no.

[quotte]
True democracy can not be only black or white, democracy seeks out and creates the states between allowing for them all to be accepted, maybe not by you personally and you too have that right. We should all have the right to be free in the laws of our land, subject only to what governs our civil behavior despite our beliefs. I do not know what is best for the people of Maine here on the west coast, if I were to get into federal politics I should not have the right to make laws governing their civil behavior. The laws may even be well intentioned geared to save them all based on my opinion, the fact may remain even then that just pehaps, they do not want to be saved.
[/quote]

So you think it's perfectly fine for the majority of education to go to hell if the majority feels it's ok to do that? Putting Creationism into the classroom will NOT improve education: it will destroy it further.
 

CaliNORML

Active member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Thank you Techno, I appreciate the editing of my grammar.

Religion is a belief, by accepting that belief into your life and thoughts you are practicing a religion. Faith based beliefs are then that individuals truth, despite the physical evidence to the contrary. Even an apostle in the Bible because of the evidence witnessed a death on Calvary, disbelieved physical evidence when seeing it first hand. What a doubting Thomas was he.

Should it be taught in Public schools? I can not say for everyone, no one person should. I have a right to respect their beliefs for wanting to do so, and a responsibility to myself and my community to state why with acceptable clarity and reason behind our opinion. No personal belief held by others should have the right to stop a majority of the vote. All opinions, beliefs, and ideals are just as equal as the people holding them are among us as a diverse Nation.

What is the fear that makes America believe that if I have a right to do something I vote into law in my state, that it will take away or impose upon the entire nation my view? It would not effect you at all unless you were in my state. I know Nevada still has gambling and prostitution houses, are their citizens recruiting in other states? Having conventions to force all 50 states to adopt the same laws? Taking out full page ads in the New York Times? How does a single state and the laws of those inside the borders effect everyone?

Love it or leave it is the anti-democratic statement, there should always be a 3rd, 4th, and at least 5th choice somewhere along the line.

KMS
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I don't think intelligent design should not be taught in schools because I don't believe our institutions of all things, should lie to children.
There is no intelligent design in evolution. Nature is a blind watchmaker.
 
Last edited:

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I mean :doh I don't think intelligent design should be taught in schools because I don't believe our institutions of all things, should lie to children.
There is no intelligent design in evolution. Nature is a blind watchmaker.
 

NewAgeTexDem

New member
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Location
Waco, Tx
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Intellegient Design should not be taught in the classroom as it involves an amount of faith to beleive in. Although I do beleive in God, I'm methodist in fact Creationism/I.D. should be taught in the Sunday School room not the science classroom. Science is a matter of practice, following the steps of the scientific method, a method Intelligent design does not follow.
 

Vandeervecken

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
744
Reaction score
1
Location
Midland MI USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Since when does not being able to use agents of the state to force your superstitions down the throats of others infringe on your right to freely practice your religion?
 

CaliNORML

Active member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
NewAgeTexDem said:
Intellegient Design should not be taught in the classroom as it involves an amount of faith to beleive in. Although I do beleive in God, I'm methodist in fact Creationism/I.D. should be taught in the Sunday School room not the science classroom. Science is a matter of practice, following the steps of the scientific method, a method Intelligent design does not follow.
Very well stated, I hope democracy works and if the majority of people believe in that as a great solution, I pray you can have that right.

KMS
 
Top Bottom