Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Ben Stein's upcoming movie) (5 Viewers)

[St. Widge]

I disagree. It is perfectly capable a subject for science class as an illustration of what is and is not science. Is that not a redeemable concept to present in a science class towards the education of young people? In a science class would you not present what views persisted in the past and how science was able to show them as being incorrect? Could they not bring up that there are various viewpoints of different religions in this way, not to make it a class on religion, but to say, for instance, what the difference is between faith and science. Can you not define science using this example, for children, to also educate them as to what is science and was is not, to show where that difference is?

Sometimes I think you and others here have a view on this issue that is more plagued by your past experiences with bad examples of religion or religious types. I am not sure if it is too much TV watching of televangelists, or single minded people in your community, or you grew up in a messed up church, or bad parenting, or bad schooling. Being a person who loves science and loves things of their faith, is not a weakness, no matter what it may be for you.

Talk about intellectually dishonest. There is no reason to say anything about religion in a science class. You can teach what science is without teaching what it isn't. You and I both know you just see the above as a way to justify talking about ID and god in science classes. It has nothing to do with teaching science and everything to do with pushing an agenda by using intellectually dishonest means. And that is what bothers me the most about all this. Admit what you really want. You want kids taught that the Christian god was the creator of the universe. If that's not what you want, would you be okay with teachers using the Hindu creation story instead of the Christian one to show what isn't science or is there some reason it needs to be the Christian one?

And yes, I obviously was raised by bad parents because I don't want ID rammed down the throats of children in science class. Only bad parents could have a son like me. And the 13 years I spent in Catholic School, my undergraduate degree in Philosophy, one year in grad school for philosophy and my law degree poorly prepared me to grasp the existence of your god. My woeful lack of education and proper parenting clearly has lead me to be the heathen I am now. /sarcasm

What a joke.

I have had no bad "experiences" with religion or religious types and I was raised well. (That is other than people like you who insult my parents because they can't fathom a person who does not believe in their god.) If you must know, I was raised Catholic and went to Church, did First Communion, etc. When it ended is when I was sent to confirmation class and they refused to confirm me because I told them I didn't believe in god. Not because of some bad "experience", but because it didn't make logical sense to me. Why do you assume something bad happened or I had bad parents just because I don't think there is a god? Is that a matter of faith or is that your scientific opinion.

 

[iron error]

Talk about intellectually dishonest. There is no reason to say anything about religion in a science class. You can teach what science is without teaching what it isn't. You and I both know you just see the above as a way to justify talking about ID and god in science classes. It has nothing to do with teaching science and everything to do with pushing an agenda by using intellectually dishonest means. And that is what bothers me the most about all this. Admit what you really want. You want kids taught that the Christian god was the creator of the universe. If that's not what you want, would you be okay with teachers using the Hindu creation story instead of the Christian one to show what isn't science or is there some reason it needs to be the Christian one?

And yes, I obviously was raised by bad parents because I don't want ID rammed down the throats of children in science class. Only bad parents could have a son like me. And the 13 years I spent in Catholic School, my undergraduate degree in Philosophy, one year in grad school for philosophy and my law degree poorly prepared me to grasp the existence of your god. My woeful lack of education and proper parenting clearly has lead me to be the heathen I am now. /sarcasm

What a joke.

I have had no bad "experiences" with religion or religious types and I was raised well. (That is other than people like you who insult my parents because they can't fathom a person who does not believe in their god.) If you must know, I was raised Catholic and went to Church, did First Communion, etc. When it ended is when I was sent to confirmation class and they refused to confirm me because I told them I didn't believe in god. Not because of some bad "experience", but because it didn't make logical sense to me. Why do you assume something bad happened or I had bad parents just because I don't think there is a god? Is that a matter of faith or is that your scientific opinion.

Touched a nerve, sorry about that. Why so angry at what you suppose is an agenda on my part. There is no agenda, this is obviously just a sore spot for you. I don't blame anyone for not believing in God, but that is not the issue here. I have plenty of friends that are non-believers. Why so threatened by my perspective? I am just saying that for many, their view on science as being the only possible solution for life's mysteries is due to a disapproval for all things supernatural in concept, and that that may have been due to certain factors. Its a fact for many, maybe not you. And, by bad parents, I mean parents that shoved religion down one's throat, or were major religious hypocrites. Also, one class period is not ramming down a student's throat, its an education in what is out there. You sound like the religious folks that don't even want their kids to hear the word evolution in school. By the way, I have no interest in my kids being educated about God in school.

 

[jpcdolphan]

Touched a nerve, sorry about that. Why so angry at what you suppose is an agenda on my part. There is no agenda, this is obviously just a sore spot for you. I don't blame anyone for not believing in God, but that is not the issue here. I have plenty of friends that are non-believers. Why so threatened by my perspective? I am just saying that for many, their view on science as being the only possible solution for life's mysteries is due to a disapproval for all things supernatural in concept, and that that may have been due to certain factors. Its a fact for many, maybe not you. And, by bad parents, I mean parents that shoved religion down one's throat, or were major religious hypocrites. Also, one class period is not ramming down a student's throat, its an education in what is out there. You sound like the religious folks that don't even want their kids to hear the word evolution in school. By the way, I have no interest in my kids being educated about God in school.

At this point, I'm not even sure what the argument is here.

Is it that you want ID taught in schools as an "alternative" to evolution, or want ID explained as the process that made evolution possible? Why? There is no proof to support it so it doesn't belong in a science class. On another note, you can't give "equal time" to the hundreds of possible alternative theories out there...the kids only have so much time and evolution is only a small part of the science curriculum in any pre college science course. Evolution has the most going for it (as in proof) so it wins. Even if God were to come down from the heavens and explain that He did it and spell out exactly how, the science class would still focus on the process more than on who was responsible.

In physics class when you learn about Einstein's Theory of Relativity, 99% of the discussion focuses on the "Theory of Relativity" part. The history teacher (or the school library) is responsible for filling in the "Einstein" part. Kind of the same principle here.

 

[St. Widge]

Touched a nerve, sorry about that. Why so angry at what you suppose is an agenda on my part. There is no agenda, this is obviously just a sore spot for you. I don't blame anyone for not believing in God, but that is not the issue here. I have plenty of friends that are non-believers. Why so threatened by my perspective? I am just saying that for many, their view on science as being the only possible solution for life's mysteries is due to a disapproval for all things supernatural in concept, and that that may have been due to certain factors. Its a fact for many, maybe not you. And, by bad parents, I mean parents that shoved religion down one's throat, or were major religious hypocrites. Also, one class period is not ramming down a student's throat, its an education in what is out there. You sound like the religious folks that don't even want there kids to hear the word evolution in school.

It's not your agenda that touched a nerve and I'm not threatened by your position. It was your suggestion that I had bad parents and/or a poor education that set me off. I personally, find that out of bounds, insulting and not on topic at any rate.

As for the rest, if it isn't necessary for teaching science why should ID be taught for even one class period? It would be like saying "sure, tarot card reading isn't science, but what's the harm in teaching it for one period." If you are intellectually honest, you know it's because you want them to be taught the creation story you believe in as though it were science so that it has added credibility. But, it's not science and should not be taught like it is.


I have no problem with a school having anthropology classes that give an overview of the religions of the world. In fact, I think it's a good idea. A class like that would likely include discussion of the Christian, etc. creation story and the section on Christianity would likely contain a large section on intelligent design. Beyond that, I think philosophy should be taught in all schools beginning at a young age. And, that likely would include discussions of the arguments for and against the existence of god and metaphysical questions regarding the existence of an uncreated creator and creation without a creator.

So, you see, your charge is false. I have no problem with my child hearing about ID or god. (As if I could stop it even if I wanted to.) I will give her the intellectual background to look at it, evaluate it and make her own decision regarding if she believes it. But, I don't want it taught in a science class because it is not science. But, if it is going to be done, I don't think the Christian Creation story is the only one that should be told. There is no more evidence for the Christian story than for the Hindu, Buddhist, etc.

So, how open are you? If you want ID taught in science classes, how would you feel about the Hindu story being taught instead of the Christian story or in addition to the Christian story?

 

[Mr. Littlejeans]

Sometimes I think you and others here have a view on this issue that is more plaqued by your past experiences with bad examples of religion or religious types. I am not sure if it is too much TV watching of televangelists, or single minded people in your community, or you grew up in a messed up church, or bad parenting, or bad schooling. Being a person who loves science and loves things of their faith, is not a weakness, no matter what it may be for you.

You're exposing your bias. You don't have to hate religion to see the obvious foolishness of mandating that a religious point of view be taught in a science class. You can come at it from whatever twisted logic you want, but that's what it comes down to , plain and simple.

The answers to life's spiritual and scientific mysteries are not plain and simple, but we are on the wrong track when we try to blur the lines.

I'm a Christian who believes ToE meets the scientific criteria to be taught as a theory in science class. If we're going to throw scientific criteria out the window to cram Creationism
the parameters of science, we're screwing the whole process and doing our children a disservice.

 

[Shawn]

Why so angry at what you suppose is an agenda on my part. There is no agenda, this is obviously just a sore spot for you. I don't blame anyone for not believing in God, but that is not the issue here. I have plenty of friends that are non-believers. Why so threatened by my perspective?.

That's pretty condescending, and frankly, you've been talking in circles on this thread.

You say you don't want your children to learn about God in school, but you also criticize the teaching of certain science in a science class, because it's "intellectually dishonest."

I think what you're seeing is frustration, because you've tried to straddle both sides of the fence. I have no idea what your position is, because it seems fluid. Who decides which science is acceptable to teach in a science class, a which science is not accaptable?

I for one am counfounded by what you're trying to say, because the summary in your last post is absolutely not what you've pushed earlier in the thread.

 

[RSF]

how would you feel about the Hindu story being taught instead of the Christian story or in addition to the Christian story?

I like the Hindu story because their god is an elephant and all you need to do to get into Heaven is give him a bag of peanuts.

 

[iron error]

That's pretty condescending, and frankly, you've been talking in circles on this thread.

You say you don't want your children to learn about God in school, but you also criticize the teaching of certain science in a science class, because it's "intellectually dishonest."

I think what you're seeing is frustration, because you've tried to straddle both sides of the fence. I have no idea what your position is, because it seems fluid. Who decides which science is acceptable to teach in a science class, a which science is not accaptable?

I for one am counfounded by what you're trying to say, because the summary in your last post is absolutely not what you've pushed earlier in the thread.

What has happened is I have mixed too many issues into one thread, perhaps going from one then to the other as the discussion went:

My main point is that I do not think it is honest to teach that for example, abiogenesis, is indeed fact. I have no way of knowing for sure what each and every teacher teaches out there, however, I suspect that if one is biased that God does not exist, then that bias would cause that person to teach it as fact. That is all. I will likely need to go read some basic science texts that are being published now to see how the text reads, regardless of how the teacher teaches.

I also understand that it is not the role of the schools to teach my kids about God, however, it is not their role to explictly think of it as their role to teach my kids that he does not exist either.

Whether the subject should come up in Science class for a moment, when discussing the fact that our origins will never be known for sure, ever, that there is a gamut of concepts out there, that are outside science is what I happen to prefer. Does doing this corrupt the foundations of science as some here believe, I do not agree.

As for people's bias against religious things because of their background, that is a fact for many people. Sorry if I brought it up at all or in an offensive way. I only will say that some are not completely aware of how their bias againts religion affects their views on everything else, and vice versa. Not wanting to patronize or anything like that, although that much worse has been dished out the other way.

I have brought up also the concept of posters on the board being rude to people of a religious background. It does happen, maybe not so in this thread, but when it does it is more offensive then anything I have stated in this thread. No, I do not catalog these statements, but it happens.

Sorry for any misgivings...

 

[RSF]

In history class, I think they should have to tell the students that aliens might have built the pyramids in Egypt.

 

[Pure Energy]

Fundamental Question:

Has anyone seen the movie?

 

[Brandon13]

This lady is giving a lecture at my college tonight and I'm going to attend it. The purpose of her lecture is to show that intelligent design should be taught along side evolution in schools. Being the agnostic that I am I don't agree with her.

If I get up the courage to ask a question does anyone have a suggestion on what I should ask?

 

[LSSpam]

Fundamental Question:

Has anyone seen the movie?

No

This lady is giving a lecture at my college tonight and I'm going to attend it. The purpose of her lecture is to show that intelligent design should be taught along side evolution in schools. Being the agnostic that I am I don't agree with her.

If I get up the courage to ask a question does anyone have a suggestion on what I should ask?

If you're looking for a "Gotchya!" question, there really isn't one. At least, not one she's going to acknowledge. The most enlightening question you could ask would be exactly why she thinks ID is "science" when it defies all scientific principals of what a theory is (i.e. testable, can make predictions, a "best fit for best available evidence", coherent, etc). But there's no chance you'll be allowed to really debate her on the point with follow-up, so it's pretty much a pointless errand from the start.

 

[Brandon13]

If you're looking for a "Gotchya!" question, there really isn't one. At least, not one she's going to acknowledge. The most enlightening question you could ask would be exactly why she thinks ID is "science" when it defies all scientific principals of what a theory is (i.e. testable, can make predictions, a "best fit for best available evidence", coherent, etc). But there's no chance you'll be allowed to really debate her on the point with follow-up, so it's pretty much a pointless errand from the start.

Thanks. I know that any kind of "gotchya" question will be one that she will dance around or find away to explain away anyway. And I'm admittedly not well versed enough in the principles of evolution to ask any questions that delve deep into the subject. I guess I'm just left with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, lol.

I guess I'll just sit back and try to be open minded while she spews her ********.

 

[LSSpam]

Thanks. I know that any kind of "gotchya" question will be one that she will dance around or find away to explain away anyway. And I'm admittedly not well versed enough in the principles of evolution to ask any questions that delve deep into the subject. I guess I'm just left with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, lol.

I guess I'll just sit back and try to be open minded while she spews her ********.

That would be the most entertaining question you could ask.

"Intelligent design doesn't presuppose what kind of intelligence designed life does it? So it could be a giant pan of meatloaf with a pink ribbon on top right?"

 

[Taurus]

Thanks. I know that any kind of "gotchya" question will be one that she will dance around or find away to explain away anyway. And I'm admittedly not well versed enough in the principles of evolution to ask any questions that delve deep into the subject. I guess I'm just left with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, lol.

I guess I'll just sit back and try to be open minded while she spews her ********.

You could ask what sorts of phenomena would falsify ID. What might we see in nature that would show a lack of design...or intelligence, or both?

In order to qualify as an actual theory, it can't just be a tautology.