There are numerous admirable philosophies expressed by the good Pixie people here but few, if any, seem to have a firm grasp of just what the reality of applying these ideas in schools would be.

As the somewhat farcical and, in my opinion somewhat unhelpful (though nonetheless true), example of the Spaghetti Monster gives, as soon as you start advocating the teaching of numerous possibilities (whether in science classes, religion classes or something inbetween) it becomes impossible to draw a line.

'Intelligent Design' in its many guises is so resoundingly ambiguous as to make any claim for it to be a science obsolete. Strictly speaking the many formulations of it include all sorts of possibilities, from genuine theistic evolution, to Spaghetti Monsters. It would even be easy to argue that Evolutionary Theory is a case of Intelligent Design if you classed the 'Laws of Nature' which might be said to govern it as 'intelligent'.

People talk of the fairest way being of teaching the 'major' beliefs. But how are we to define 'major'? There will always be someone who if offended at having their beliefs rejected as not worthy for teaching.

Quite apart from this dilemma I think it's genuinely impossible to teach these sorts of things to young people - certainly without a major restructuring of the education system. The issues involved are just too complex. When the majority of adults who enter into the debate haven't considered issues such as where any deity might exist, how disembodied souls are supposed to exist and how biblical interpretation makes even 'Creationism' hard to define how are we supposed to expect those in high school to do it?

I would much rather see the emphasis of education be put on teaching children how to critically analyse, how to respect matters of opinion and letting them decide the rest for themselves. Unfortunately this only works in a world where parents can abide by the same rules - but that's a different issue.

Oh i think i got it now....

It's ok for you to push your ideas and be rude and abusive...but they can't

I dont care what religeon, race, colour or any other stuff you are...if you want respect then first you must give it

__________________

As a few here know, I'm currently in a Master's Program for seconday ed, and this topic came up today in my Teaching in Context class. I was the first to post to this, and after reading everyone's replies, I feel the need to post again. - and here's hoping that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was taken as it was meant, as a comic foil -

Firstly, there's a few comment that I feel the need to make, and I don't remember quite who they all apply to. But yes, Lilith, what to teach is decided state to state. And someone else mentioned that Creationism and the book of Genesis was only relevant to Christianity... has Judaism gotten lost in the mix? Just a comment.

OK. As I stated before, I do ascribe to evolution. However, a few people have made reference to ID as more than a mere twist away from creationism, and here I feel a bit lost. Because as I understood it, intelligent design says that there was a designer - deity or not - that created all of the earth out of nothingness. The book of Genesis says - though in several different ways - that G-d created the heavens and the earth, and all that is upon it, in 6 days. Now, as far as I can tell, the only difference between the two ideas is the timeline of the occurence; i.e. ID is taking creationism and fitting to the scientific facts of the fossil record and carbon-dating. Again, if I'm wrong, someone please correct me.

Now, if this is the only difference... this is not a scientific theory. Genetic mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection are proven aspects related to evolution, that, as far as I know, are not accounted for in intelligent design. Therefore, I think that intelligent design belongs in a philosophy of religion and/or social science course, not biology.

__________________
I see your fantasy... you want to make it a reality

Are you in the mood to be subdued

You see these shackles
Baby I’m your slave
I’ll let you whip me if I misbehave

Tie me to the bedpost

I like it rough
cause I'd rather feel pain than nothing at all

True Lilith but sence the feds hold the purse string to a lot of funding they tend to get there way.

__________________
it's only kinky the first time

it's not the orgasm but getting there thats fun

a shot in the bush is worth two in the hand

whip me, beat me, tie me up, break my arm, but please don't break my heart

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid people are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" -Bertrand Russell

I have to disagree with this I think it's one of the best time to teach something like this when they are young and still open to new ideas.

__________________
it's only kinky the first time

it's not the orgasm but getting there thats fun

a shot in the bush is worth two in the hand

whip me, beat me, tie me up, break my arm, but please don't break my heart

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid people are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" -Bertrand Russell

I am not an educator, nor am I a parent. However, I think that sometimes we don't give our kids enough credit for being able to understand ambiguity and different points of view. By the time kids reach high school, I think they should be able to understand the debate.

I believe the issue of seperating creationism from evolution -- into 2 seperate classes -- is that we'd be fundamentally calling one idea "science" and the other one "religion." Not sure everyone believes in this black and white difference. Especially when it comes to creationism.

I like Lixy's idea....and my mom exposed me to several Christian religions...but I hesitate to count on all parents to show this much concern for their kids' development of faith. Plus....many areas don't have access to the scope of religions I'd advocate covering in class. I spent a few months in NE Tennessee recently, and I saw no non-Christian "churces" in the neighborhood. Hard to expose one to Buddhism, Hinduism, Judiasm, Islam, and others when there are no local faithful. These "gaps" make an academic approach all that more crucial.

I'm enjoying hearing everyone's views. Thanks for contributing to the discussion!

__________________
Life is too short not to love and be loved....preferably multiple times in one night.

I think men talk to women so they can sleep with them and women sleep with men so they can talk to them. ~ Jay McInerney

I would dearly love to hear that we are socially mature enough to teach the basic tenets of all religions to our kids aimed at giving them a social flexibility and tolerance we struggle to achieve.

It's not going to happen, as I cannot imagine ardent followers of any of the major religions teaching the good things about the competition.

We are flawed and jaded, but the fact we still care gives just a smidgin of hope.

__________________
Calm, quiet, smooth, devastating

When I was in highschool our teacher discussed evolution at length. Because it was a rural southern bible belt town she offerred a workshop by a theologian to accompany the evolution unit of study. He was a very sweet man who spoke openly of the Bible as an interpretive piece and asked me a question that has stuck with me all this time. " Do you think that a day could have meant 24 hours?" Knowing what we know about the way our species has come to be, did we honestly think the Bible meant 6 days. To me personally this became a way to gel the Science that I knew was correct and had observed for myself and my faith. I no longer saw the reference in the Bible as concrete but rather as the description of 6 evolutionary phases.

That was my introduction to the theory of Intelligent Design. It was probably back in 84.

To me, teaching evolution via the concepts of natural selection and gene mutation are vital. Especially now days when medical science is attempting to create those mutations in labs to cure diseases and illnesses. Students have to understand this because at some point they may be personally affected by the processess being developed.

For me the only difference in a wide variety of the theories comes from how the original process began.

__________________

The practice of putting women on pedestals began to die out when it was discovered that they could give orders better from there.~ Betty Grable

If I wanted your opinion, I'd remove the duct tape and ask you for it.~ Me
<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
One man's dream is another man's nightmare~~~~> §¤ Lilith ¤§
~>My Scribbles<~
==>Gone Shopping<== ~Just a Quickie~ *~A Celebration Vacation~* ~Surprises~ Sleeping With the Window Open
What Did You Do Today? Self Defense Class ~Short Sweet Snippets~ § Summer Spin § Story Challenge Submission Pajamas

I'd have to agree with you it would be a great time to teach them such things - before they've developed and misconceptions or personal bias.

But I wasn't saying it was a bad time to teach them. I was saying that it's impossible to teach them everything at that age. Just because it's theoretically a good time doesn't mean that we should do it.

Quite apart from issues of complexity (and I don't think that Osuche is right that children should understand - these are deep issues and require not only some life experience but also some incredibly complex philosophy) I think there is simply too much to teach them.

Much rather have grounded individuals who are literate and numerate even if they've still much to learn about these things. Are we really proposing to teach them a good understanding of all the world's major religions (again, how many of them exactly? 5? 10? 25? - the number of possible religions in this world is, after all, infinite), a firm grasp of the numerous different theories about how the world came into being, the skills to be able to properly compare what they are told AND everything else they are supposed to learn at school?!

It takes some people most of their lives to understand one religion properly and we're advocating teaching the most influential ones to children in a few years? As well as everything else?

This is a very standard line used equally by those who lean towards theistic evolutionism and those trying to defend creationism. But as soon as you start arguing for 'biblical interpretation' you can can interpret all sorts of things.



As a side philosophical point I'll have to agree with this but question how sensible that makes the arguments between the theories. An argument often given by the religious who are prepared to discuss their beliefs is that there 'had to be' a creator.

This is where a key attitude towards evolutionary theory needs to change. From a philosophical perspective it really doesn't matter that much whether it's true or not. It just has to be possible. If evolution is possible - and the theory is possible, if not fully justified - then the argument that there 'had to be' a creator cannot be used to justify religious belief as it's not true.

But quite aside from that. Saying that God created the earth doesn't solve the problem. People seem reluctant to accept that at some point something just has to exist - without being created. Whether this is an omnipotent deity or some cosmic goo from whence we came... is by the by. There's no more reason for it to be one than to be the other.

Despite all that, I still think this about as spot on as one can get when it comes to religious education.

I still think it was the women from Mars who mess up the human race.

__________________

I've heard that one before. Has merit.

__________________
Calm, quiet, smooth, devastating

I am very much a disbeliever in Intelligent Design.

ID requires an intelligent designer. However, how is this possible? If the universe, by definition, contains everything that exists, then that includes the intelligent designer. Where did they come from? Create themselves out of nothing (which apparently could not have possibly applied to the universe, necessarily a less-complex entity than the designer)? Are they eternal beings (again, eternity couldn't apply to the universe)?

ID proponents throw out ludicrous-sounding figures about the probability of certain occurrances happening without design. Yet, improbable things happen. How probable was my birth? That my parents should happen to meet, that their parents should meet, etc? Consider the possibility that the universe is eternal. If time is infinite, then the probability of a given occurance at any point in time is 1. In that case, not only do apparently improbable things happen - they MUST happen, no matter how improbable they seem. That's only one idea, of course.

But most of all, I don't believe in ID because I've never seen objective evidence for it. All I've seen is alleged lack of evidence for other theories used in lieu.

Also, see The watchmaker argument refuted and I've found reading transcripts of Victor Stenger's talks to be interesting also.

What should we teach in schools? ID is too socially significant to ignore. As far as giving it equal time goes, I'm not too sure about that. Teachers should be able to point out (perceived) advantages and deficiencies of ID and evolution.

__________________
I want to know everything
I want to be everywhere
I want to fuck everyone in the world
I want to do something that matters

Ah, Alasse, you have not at all got it now. And Lilith, you missed the point as well. Alasse's point the giving respect in order to get it is closer to the mark.

You see, if this is truly a no-flame forum, then the attempts to push "Intelligent design" in science classes would be made in the first place. It is this crap which is inherently disrespectful, offensive, rude and abusive. Under those conditions, I feel no compuction about replying in kind.

Alasse-therfore, I am not saying that it is OK for me to be rude & abusive, but not "them". "They" have already been rude & abusive. And therefore, if "they" wish to receive respect from me, then they should stop being rude & abusive.

Lilith: note that I flame under very rare circumstances. In fact, as I recall, of the by now over 1900 "official" posts I have made to the Pixies forums, I can recall flaming someone only in two different threads.

Amazingly enough, both were in situations where the hate-filled, mind-control forces in our society had performed actions, or made statements, which themselves were not only offensive, but also themselves inflammatory.

Further, I understand that what you said isn't, and can't be true in the strictes senst of the phrase. Specifically, these are a flame-free set of forums. However, I recognize your statement as an attempt to keep them as flame-free as possible.

I insist that the degree of respect I gave to the other side in my expression of my views was exactly the degree of respect I have received from them in their expression of their views, and exactly the degree of respect their issues deserve.

When they stop flaming, I will.

__________________
On the kinkometer, my kink measures as a sine wave.