Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Test for Intelligent Design Proponents
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 4 of 115 (263600)
11-27-2005 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TimChase
11-27-2005 10:21 AM


Welcome to the fray Tim. Nice post.
I have said before that one of the easiest ways to deal with ID is to teach about the problems that are involved with its concepts, to use it as a bad example in science of hypothesis that cannot be tested and that relies on ignorance of any mechanism to explain the features. In other words, teach about "the weaknesses as well as the strengths" of ID.
I also advocate for teaching both sides of the design controversy ... see Silly Design Institute {forum thread} and feel free to comment (contribute?)
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TimChase, posted 11-27-2005 10:21 AM TimChase has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by TimChase, posted 11-27-2005 8:19 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 9 by TimChase, posted 11-27-2005 8:39 PM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 6 of 115 (263606)
11-27-2005 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
11-27-2005 7:56 PM


False Idea of False idea of Separation of Church from State
About the Separation of Church from State, this is SO misunderstood these days it seems hopeless to rescue it. The idea that religion can't be taught in the public schools on account of this principle is utterly ridiculous.
Faith, there is no restriction from teaching courses like comparative religion at any level, nor are there restrictions about teaching about the historical relevance of various religions to the couse of history.
What you cannot teach is that the {precepts\concepts\beliefs} of any religion are necessarily true, what you cannot do is give precedence for any one religion over all the others.
What you cannot do is presume to teach that any religious {precept\concept\belief} has the same value in science class as science theory and the validation process of science, because they are fundamentally different (the main point of your thread I believe?).
As a historical note, although I only have anecdotal evidence of it, the california schools tried to teach comparative religious classes, but christian fundamentalist parents stopped it.
Sorry to see your thread closed, as I had more to say. May have to do that PNT to get there. That would also allow me to pursue Phats comments further too.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 11-27-2005 7:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 11-27-2005 10:40 PM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 7 of 115 (263607)
11-27-2005 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
11-27-2005 7:56 PM


deleted
deleted OT
This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*27*2005 08:28 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 11-27-2005 7:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024