I dont buy into the idea behind ID simply because humans are animals. We are superior to other animals because of the luck of the draw and the fact that were have a few precious evolutionary adaptations that our primate cousins dont possess.

Yet they have remarkable adaptions that we lost.

For instance the male silver back gorilla is so incredibly strong that he can literally stretch a piece of coiled metal into a long straight line. Not even thinking about it. He will do this for fun. Yet he will also sit on the grass and pick daisies and collect them like a child.

Humans are special yes, but so are chimps and gorillas and bunnies and snakes and rats. They are all remarkable in their own ways but nothing magical. They evolved to meet the needs of their surroundings and environment just as we did.

Their closest allies, the Jews?????

What the hell are you talking about now???

Well, to put my own bias on the block, I think it's great practice for identifying pseudoscience and Christian political agendas.



Greatest Possible Being is a much more compelling teleology. ID is just more in the spotlight because of the controversy.

Im pretty much against it even being taught in a public school setting at all. If it had to be, then ONLY as an elective course of study. Evolutionary biology needs to be taught as a required course because many of the other sciences build on its premises. If it were to be decided that ID was to be taught, then I would go about it the same way you have described, with a course outline and text that was as objective as it possibly could be. That way the students could decide on their own.

I also agree with you that part of my reluctance on having this included with any public school curriculum is that parents always have the option of sending their children to ANY religious theology class they want outside of their normal public or private curriculum setting.

That would only create a well rounded human being.

Well, I certainly agree that students should question everything and consider everything.

I don't see anything at all wrong with asking students to ponder intelligent design, or even write essays on why they personally feel it is either compelling or absurd.

But to teach it? That implies that it's true, or that there is official evidence for it.

I think that's where my objections would come into play.

Raising the question is ok. But that's hardly teaching it.



Well the very term Teleology can be confusing since this term has different meanings in different fields of study.

Teleology, in theology, is the doctrine that all things are designed by God

Teleology, in biology, is the theory or study of development as caused by the purposes which things serve.

In the second case there is no implication of any guiding 'entity'.

In fact, there are a lot of problems with these kind of cross-field terms.

In one study (i.e. Theology) they have a totally different meaning than they do in another study (i.e. Biology).

So a lot of confusion can quickly arise as to precisely what the term actually means. That can depend on who is using the term and in what context they are applying it.

Words often have this contextual abstract flexibility. This is actually good, but at the same time it can be confusing for people who tend to think that words have definite concrete meanings.

I mean, someone who's agenda is to support teleology in the context of theology can actually abuse the fact that many biologists offer their support to teleology with respect to the context of biology, when in truth, the two philosophies aren't saying the same things at all.

In short I think the real danger in 'teaching' Intelligent Design, or even Theological Teleology, is that a person who has a religous agenda to push this stuff can indeed misguide the students into thinking that science and biology support the theologocial idea of teleology when, in fact, that isn't the case.

So I'm all for raising the question of Intelligent Design.

But to teach it as though there is evidence to support it I think is going way over the line, and is actually untrue.

JMO.

I would also guess (when you really start wondering what would take place) if suddenly we were to attempt to incorporate the concept of ID into an elective course in the public school system. Okay we might acquire some poor agnostic philosopher to teach but guess who will be signing up for that class primarily? The kids that have Christian parents who are already pissed off and resentful that their kids have to take a human evolution class and pass it.

So like 85% of the students will be Christian kids who will then insist on asking the instructor if its the god of the bible who is responsible for creation. There might be a Jewish student who will argue but then what? How does the professor handle all that crap?

I think that will happen.

If you could trust teachers to tell the truth, it wouldn't be an issue.

Like I was pointing out in my last post, a lot of teachers who have religious agendas are going to be very tempted to outright lie and act like science supports their theological views when it truly doesn't.

The bottom line is that if they could be trusted to tell the truth, in the first place, then they'd confess that there isn't any evidence for Intelligent Design to begin with.

The mere fact that they believe there is already shows that they are either uneducated themsleves, or they have such a strong theological agenda that they truly don't care about facts.

Either way, it's a lose-lose situation.

Yep I agree. Its just not a good idea. Why cant parents simply send their kids to whatever religious theology class they choose? Christian, Hebrew or Islamic and be done with it? Or else if they cant find a class for their beliefs specifically, do it at home.

Im sure some religious person will jump up and ask why cant we send our kids to an evolution class outside of their normal curriculum.

Well because Evolutionary Biology is not based on a fairy tale or a 2000 year old contradictory book. It is in fact a theory based on credible evidence that is both tangible and largely substantiated.

You cant even give a test on the bible because they never explain who Cain's wife was.

Cains wife, from, the land of Nod, who was there, on the sixth day God created the ethnos, mankind, male and female he created them, then he rested, then comes Adam and Eve of the Garden, it's a simple read and so many miss it

Yeah yeah. Give me her name. Or can the bible not be bothered with the names of females?

and for the record, I think religion should be taught at home and not in school, that is not saying I think evolution is correct, but each persons faith is better taught to their children by the parents or a knowledgeable pastor

You can read can't you, her name is not given, you are stuck on false teachings of the bible and refuse to look at any other thoughts on it, Adam and Eve were NOT the first two people. Talking snakes and apples are not correct , no wonder people find it hard to swallow.

sharpshooter said:



I would agree with that and I think most reasonable people would unless they are just religious zealots and nuts. Catholics have no problem with human evolution. In fact quite a few religious beliefs are not at odds with it at all.

Cains wifes name was obviously not important enough to give, The bible leaves Cain at that time, it is a record of the Adamic line and their involvement and dealings with people over time

The bible speaks of many females, so it doesn't give cains wife name, who cares, cain and his lineage are not the subject after that

I rest my case then. Her name was not important enough for god to mention. Even though she would have been one of the great matriarchs of all time. One such creator of the human race in fact.

The Pope and his Catholics believe in evolution is out there to me, The Roman Catholic
Church and their control was what our founding fathers were trying to get away from, they didn't want anything but their theology taught with no room for anything else. I don't think one has to go to a priest to be forgiven of sin, you don't have to confess it to some priest, you don't need all the pomp and circumstance they like to do. A priest cannot forgive you anyway, they make to much out of the virgin mary, she is important, but should not be reverenced and prayed to, that is wrong to me.

I wouldn't think she would be a great anything, she was Cains wife, Cain was the offspring of Satan, not Adam, that is why he is not included in the geneology of Adam and his family after being sent out of Eden because he was not of them, he was of his father, the serpent, the devil, Satan, he is called by many names all through the bible.

The human race had already been going for a while before Adam and Eve came along.

Well the virgin Mary is based on the Goddess and the Catholics used her in order to lure in the Pagans. You cant really be all that angry. It was a move made in desperation for converts yet now she is very powerful in their worship.