Intelligent Design in Science Class - Sample curriculum please

I've been hearing for some time now that the Intelligent Design proponents would like to see this taught in science class.OK I'm willing to be fair...I'd like to see a sample curriculum of ID so I can be better informed and thus better able to make a decision.Jacob {Topic promoted from Proposed New Topic version. I've added the "- Sample curriculum please" part to the topic title. - Adminnemooseus}{Edit by Adminnemooseus - I have changed "ID/creation" to just "ID". Let's try to keep the "c word" out of this topic.}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-08-2006 03:42 PM

I really failed to state my position on the matter. I do believe in ID but not like the Christians. I believe that Evolution started the moment after Creation (the big bang) and that, of course God, is the prime mover. I just don't believe that Evolution means random chance. Natural selection is another way of saying God is the brains behind all. Why? Because it is all God's creation. I must say also that I do not consider the Bible to be an authoritive work and that, in particular, the Biblicle stories of creation are both misleading and false. Fanciful dreams.I like to work outside the limiting filters of any religious traditions beliving, as I do, that they are all man made and, as such are flawed.Tks

Good Randman!I agree with you 100% in your msg 9. I agree that in all those topics are implications of ID. Now if you add to that the Biblical story of Creation, I will disagree.I believe that ID is followed by Creation is followed by Evolution. For this to make sense leave out religion.In this package, it's easy to establish a timeline for everything that we observe in the universe which agrees with ID.... except the Biblical Story of Creation.rephrased...See? It's simple, logical and easy to run with. but it conflicts with the Bible so.... considering Occam's Razor and my own intellect, the Bible is wrong.The struggle between these ideas has never been about God vs Science. It's always been about religion vs Science.What is happening now is very similar to what happened a long time ago when the Roman Church sought to inject it's worldview on people. The Church won the day. The result? Enforced ignorance, repression of intellect. The dark ages!We who oppose religious practice in thinking remember the dark age and fear their return in these times. The fundies are like neo Roman Papists. They embody mindless zeal."the practice of religion has always divided people".100,000 belivers are the mental equivalent of 1 thinker.Later Man,JmanNote: the critic who will claim that ID is a separate issue from Creation should be aware that I believe that the first precedes the second and they can thus be used in the same topic line with no compromise...Religion belongs in Sunday School, science in the lab...This message has been edited by Jman, 05-06-2006 10:50 PM

Invictus,I agree that "for the most part" religion and creation are considered together. Yes, theoretical law study would see an advantage in their separation, or at least would see a new avenue to explore. This is because in law school we are taught to think. My discussion has little to do with scientific validity of ID. My position in these matters is apparently unlike that of others. I simply maintain that one may believe in God externally of any "religion". I do this because of my conviction that religions are all man made and, as such, are flawed and illocical. I ask: "why should our study of God result in disagreement, confusion and divisiveness?" I answer: "it shouldn't" but it does because humans are involved. They "create" dogma, require beliefs and promise punishment for non-compliance (all in the name of God).I leave the (obstructionist) requirements of religion out of my thoughts of God. In this way I easily reconcile ID, Creation and Evolution in a single timelime.... everything dovetails nicely. I find this approach satisfactory. I don't believe God disapproves. It answers the ethical, scientific and spiritual questions but not the religious ones. Three out of four ain't bad, for one of this "lot" anyway.Kindly see my msg 84 to Randman for more.Later Dude,Jmanps.... literary critics please take a number and be seatedThis message has been edited by Jman, 05-06-2006 11:32 PM

Thanks for you note in msg 18. Good to hear.Sorry it took so long for me to answer. I've been to Cydonia and there's no email service out there yet.In fact there's not much of anything there. I stayed at the City Pyramid hotel... bummer of a place. I mean, all they had for taxi service was a broken down old space ship that hadn't been registered for 1,712,485 years and service sucked with all that low pressure surcharge and stuff. I ate at the "face restaurant" but all they had to serve was sandwiches with real sand and a glass of "there used to be water". Then I went over to sit on the Wall you know, just to check it out, but the first thing I saw was Hoagland selling souvineer DVD's. OH MAN I came all this way for that? Dude stay here where a guy can get a beer if he wants...Later,Jman

ivicto,You seem to have difficulty with more than a simple, short sentence so let me try again.I believe in God.I believe that God:A. He/She Intelligently Designedfollowed byB. He/She Created (first creative act we surmise as "the big bang",
(not a porno movie)followed byC. evolution (with a small "e" which continues to this day...Now OK that should be clear. Next...Are you trying to say that evolution (with a lowercase 'e'!) spawned Creationism?Negative dude. evolution (small "e" follows creation) A single,
simple thought. Don't add to it.Yes, Creationism is a "movement, a quasi-legal one."creation" (small "e") is just a word which I use to identify a process.I agree with the use of "ID". My use of the term here is simply a convenience on my part, again to identify a process; an event in a timeline.I see a matter which must be clarified and this one is my fault. Most people use the term "Evolution" and what they really mean is someting like: all from nothing... no God or god... random chance mutations.... etc. These I take to be atheists.I am a theist but not a religious one. Do you understand?I believe in God but not religions or dogma.I've never heard of another expressing this view. Even you mistook me for an athesist (evidenced by your last paragraph).Another point might be: I truthfully am impatient with those who quote another man's writing (from ages past) in offering evidence to support their position on an argument. If the argument is academic and the subject is that author then this is OK. If the argument is scholastic we may each have our own platform and who will say that it is less valid that one from antiquity? Plato, after all, wrote many opinions and should we accord his work the status of benchmark knowledge. We all have the same abilities and access.Thank you for your kind response. It's good to know I'm not the only old man who stays up late at night pretending to be wise.Later Dude,Jman

Invictus,I know. You are correct. My ideas of meanings of terms are different than mainstream and that fact promotes misunderstanding. I suppose the main part that is so hard to "see" is that, as humans, we tend to polarize issues. We divide into camps and erect banners. Here we do this by separating into groups of "create" vs "evolve". My mind works differently. My "default position" is that if we bring everything to the center there are agreements to be discovered, and perhaps consensus.I used to say it takes time for this to be realized, but anymore I don't think so. Have you noticed how quick people are to attack?A "fire of mind" I call it. Observe and learn but jump in and get burned.Agreement by scientists? I think they are mostly very spiritual people. Trained to think, they surely must agree that there is something which seems to be "always just out of reach". And, maybe that something is God. Of course they are also trained not to hypothesize unless there is some firm evidence. So they remain silent. I don't blame them.Another appropriate thought might be: If we discover that there is a God what will we do with scientific investigation? Shall we give up and say: "God did it and that's good enough for me". We don't just happen to have higher mind functions. We honor our abilities by using them, not by dismissing the results of their use by others.A.E. said: "I want to know God's thoughts. The rest are details..."Oh shit I'm preaching again....Thank you for being good enough to allow an old worn out guy to have his own opinion. Too bad more can't do that.Later Dude,Jmanps... Ahhh, solice in a flagon of ale! The sweet kiss of oblivion.