What scares me more than this is the way he rammed through his appointment of the ambassador to the UN. This is just the general stupidity we've all come to expect from him, while the UN thing is a little too close to Emperor Palpatine for my liking.
They both make me quite happy I'm not living in the States, though.
The good thing is that unlike Palpatine, he WILL be gone in three years.
I am all for teaching other ideas - including "Intelligent Design" upon the creation of the world and life as we know it. As long as you include the theory that we are just products of some space aliens and NOT just some invisible man in the sky.
I was taught both methods of creation myself (I attended a catholic school early in life, then public later on). I don't see the trouble teaching both in school. Just note in the teachings that there is no empirical data that supports creationism - it is a belief, idea or unproven theory.
> I am all for teaching other ideas - including "Intelligent Design"
You are part of the problem. You have fallen for the idiocy that is the concept of teaching non-science in science classes.
In a science class, when talking biology and speciation, you talk about the FACT of evolution and the *theory* of speciation via natural selection. You teach any and all other scientific theories that explain the FACT of evolution.
"Intelligent design" isn't one of them.
Those who believe "Intelligent design" should be taught in science classes are either stupid or strict creationists (and hence stupid)
Actually I disagree. Speculation is often taught hand in hand with hard science.
How did the dinosaurs die out? No one knows for certain but there are speculations about how it happened. And, as more and more evidence is uncovered, some speculations gain more weight.
Intelligent design is just another type of speculation - one that is way out there but still speculation. There are a few 'blind spots' in evolution that still exist where it is quite easy to see where intelligent design would give someone pause.
And, as for actually 'teaching' it, I am suggesting nothing more than "Some believe that the world was created by a spiritual force, while some others speculate that life was created for an alien experiment. Although all such theories are interesting, here are the facts as we know them..."
I suppose 'teaching' and 'mentioning' are two different things that I don't seperate enough. To me, anything mentioned in a classroom is 'teaching'.
Religion has no place in a science room and creationism is, all said and done, religion. if you believe that some intelligent being made all life, that's religion. I don't care if you don't call them god, it's still religion, very simple.
True, nobody knows for certain why the dinosaurs died out. Our best theory, based on evidence, is the "giant meteor" theory, which is what we teach. if we develop a good theory about the dinosaurs having been wiped out my a giant hand with a fistfull of TNT, then the theory will change. The nice thing about science (as I've said in the past) is that as soon as your new theory starts to sound more plausible and has better evidence than the current theory, you become the current theory.
The problem is that there is not only no evidence FOR creationism, but a goodly ammount of evidence AGAINST it. No evidence=not science=go teach it in a religion classroom.
Also, you don't have to say "some poeple believe that life was created by god". People know that. There's not a person alive who went "Creationism? What the hell is that?! Adam and WHO?!" Likewise, when you go to astronomy, nobody says, "some people think the earth is flat" because those people are screwjobs with no proof or solid evidence of any sort. We say, "People used ot think the earth was flat" and if that's all we say about creationism then fine, but that's all it deserves because it's not science in any way.
>Our best theory, based on evidence, is the "giant meteor" theory, which is > what we teach.
- and, it's taught as "this is the best theory so far, and here's why it's the best theory, and here's things we should expect to find if it's true that we haven't found yet but we're looking for."
I just guess my interpretation of the phrase "intelligent design" is not in line with others. I don't see it being a religion. However, since this is the accepted formula "ID=Religion", I can't argue against it.
It involves a supernatural force. It requires faith. It exists in the absence of evidence. It cannot be disproven because it makes no provable claims.
"Intelligent Design" is creationism. It is creationism that does it's best to avoid ever defining who or what is doing the creation, but it is inseparable from it's tenet that there is, in fact a Creator.
The same guidelines you put down could also be applied to the key gnomes - the ones that steal your keys from where you know you put them and hides them on you. I don't consider it a religion though.
Same thing with fairies. Or many psychic powers. Or ghosts. None of which are considered a 'religion'.
Intelligent Design, IMO regards something that has been created with intent. Whether it is put forth upon the creation of the world, or the creation of 15% of the elements on the periodic chart. If I believe aliens seeded the earth with life, it does not mean it is my religion.
That is why I mentioned that not only God as the creator should be mentioned but other theories as well - even if they are outlandish. It helps people to learn to think outside the box.
> The same guidelines you put down could also be applied to the key gnomes >fairies >psychic powers >ghosts.
Incorrect. All of those make tangible, provable claims - and fail to prove them.
> That is why I mentioned that not only God as the creator should be > mentioned but other theories as well
ID loonies aren't going to do that. Besides, "other theories as well" are ALSO not science, and covering all of them would take your entire science class time.
> This is why to me ID != Religion
Your view is not what they are trying to teach in the USA. Your view is still neither science nor scientific. Your view still has no place in a science class.
Actually, MHO< fsaries are religion as well. Anytime you believe in something that defies logic and cannot be proven you have entered into the realm of religion. Maybe not gods, but religion, which are two separate things.
But ID is religion. What are you really believing? That a force, more powerful and advanced than ourselves, for which we have no evidence at all, had a direct hand in our creation. What about that is not religion?
I'm not sure I think so. I don't worship yahweh, but that doesn't mean christianity isn't a religion. And if nobody worshiped him, it would still be a religion, i think.
there was an article recently, where soemone was analysing why creationism/intellegent design was nto a science. it basically boiled down to science can be disproven. creationism effectively can't. You either believe some hand came in and did it or you don't. there is no way to effectively disprove to someone who does believe it.
>Speculation is often taught hand in hand with hard science
Absolutely. You teach any and all other scientific theories. How many models of the atom did you cover in high school? How many models of reproduction, from "meat produces maggots inherently" to cellular mitosis? Pre-Pasteur theories behind disease? We got all of those, alongside "and here's why we've discredited those" and "here's what the current theories don't cover, and the kind of things people are trying to find them."
This is science.
Religion makes no predictive statements. Religion is not falsifiable. "Intelligent design" is religion, and teaches you nothing. It should not be taught as a scientific theory, because it is not scientific and does not meet the requirements of a theory. If should most definitely not be taught as an equally scientifically valid alternative to evolution upon which opinions differ - the only people whose "opinions differ" on this are the phenomenally, wilfully ignorant, because they erroneously believe the evolution and religion are incompatible.
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those who know the facts, and those who think evolution is "just a theory" and that there are other, equally or more valid alternatives.
i'm all for Intellegent Design As long as it is taught in the RIGHT class. Once more, it is NOT science, it has NO place in a science class. Make a damned religious creation class or alternative metaphysics class, but keep it out of science. The later options might actually be interesting and educational. Believe what you like, but don't pass your beliefs off as soemthign they are not.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-02 04:51 pm (UTC)They both make me quite happy I'm not living in the States, though.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-02 05:59 pm (UTC)I am all for teaching other ideas - including "Intelligent Design" upon the creation of the world and life as we know it. As long as you include the theory that we are just products of some space aliens and NOT just some invisible man in the sky.
I was taught both methods of creation myself (I attended a catholic school early in life, then public later on). I don't see the trouble teaching both in school. Just note in the teachings that there is no empirical data that supports creationism - it is a belief, idea or unproven theory.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-02 06:13 pm (UTC)You are part of the problem. You have fallen for the idiocy that is the concept of teaching non-science in science classes.
In a science class, when talking biology and speciation, you talk about the FACT of evolution and the *theory* of speciation via natural selection. You teach any and all other scientific theories that explain the FACT of evolution.
"Intelligent design" isn't one of them.
Those who believe "Intelligent design" should be taught in science classes are either stupid or strict creationists (and hence stupid)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-02 06:50 pm (UTC)How did the dinosaurs die out? No one knows for certain but there are speculations about how it happened. And, as more and more evidence is uncovered, some speculations gain more weight.
Intelligent design is just another type of speculation - one that is way out there but still speculation. There are a few 'blind spots' in evolution that still exist where it is quite easy to see where intelligent design would give someone pause.
And, as for actually 'teaching' it, I am suggesting nothing more than "Some believe that the world was created by a spiritual force, while some others speculate that life was created for an alien experiment. Although all such theories are interesting, here are the facts as we know them..."
I suppose 'teaching' and 'mentioning' are two different things that I don't seperate enough. To me, anything mentioned in a classroom is 'teaching'.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-02 07:14 pm (UTC)True, nobody knows for certain why the dinosaurs died out. Our best theory, based on evidence, is the "giant meteor" theory, which is what we teach. if we develop a good theory about the dinosaurs having been wiped out my a giant hand with a fistfull of TNT, then the theory will change. The nice thing about science (as I've said in the past) is that as soon as your new theory starts to sound more plausible and has better evidence than the current theory, you become the current theory.
The problem is that there is not only no evidence FOR creationism, but a goodly ammount of evidence AGAINST it. No evidence=not science=go teach it in a religion classroom.
Also, you don't have to say "some poeple believe that life was created by god". People know that. There's not a person alive who went "Creationism? What the hell is that?! Adam and WHO?!" Likewise, when you go to astronomy, nobody says, "some people think the earth is flat" because those people are screwjobs with no proof or solid evidence of any sort. We say, "People used ot think the earth was flat" and if that's all we say about creationism then fine, but that's all it deserves because it's not science in any way.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-02 07:18 pm (UTC)> what we teach.
- and, it's taught as "this is the best theory so far, and here's why it's the best theory, and here's things we should expect to find if it's true that we haven't found yet but we're looking for."
This is IMPORTANT.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-02 07:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-02 07:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-02 07:35 pm (UTC)What else is it?
It involves a supernatural force.
It requires faith.
It exists in the absence of evidence.
It cannot be disproven because it makes no provable claims.
"Intelligent Design" is creationism. It is creationism that does it's best to avoid ever defining who or what is doing the creation, but it is inseparable from it's tenet that there is, in fact a Creator.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-02 07:48 pm (UTC)Same thing with fairies. Or many psychic powers. Or ghosts. None of which are considered a 'religion'.
Intelligent Design, IMO regards something that has been created with intent. Whether it is put forth upon the creation of the world, or the creation of 15% of the elements on the periodic chart. If I believe aliens seeded the earth with life, it does not mean it is my religion.
That is why I mentioned that not only God as the creator should be mentioned but other theories as well - even if they are outlandish. It helps people to learn to think outside the box.
This is why to me ID != Religion
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-02 07:55 pm (UTC)>fairies
>psychic powers
>ghosts.
Incorrect. All of those make tangible, provable claims - and fail to prove them.
> That is why I mentioned that not only God as the creator should be
> mentioned but other theories as well
ID loonies aren't going to do that. Besides, "other theories as well" are ALSO not science, and covering all of them would take your entire science class time.
> This is why to me ID != Religion
Your view is not what they are trying to teach in the USA.
Your view is still neither science nor scientific.
Your view still has no place in a science class.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-02 09:49 pm (UTC)Please explain. I do not see how saying there are faires differs from saying an invisible man created the world.
We'll just haveta disagree on this one.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 12:51 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 12:50 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 04:28 am (UTC)Without worship, AFAIK, you can't have a religion.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-05 10:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-02 07:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-02 07:16 pm (UTC)Absolutely. You teach any and all other scientific theories. How many models of the atom did you cover in high school? How many models of reproduction, from "meat produces maggots inherently" to cellular mitosis? Pre-Pasteur theories behind disease? We got all of those, alongside "and here's why we've discredited those" and "here's what the current theories don't cover, and the kind of things people are trying to find them."
This is science.
Religion makes no predictive statements.
Religion is not falsifiable.
"Intelligent design" is religion, and teaches you nothing.
It should not be taught as a scientific theory, because it is not scientific and does not meet the requirements of a theory.
If should most definitely not be taught as an equally scientifically valid alternative to evolution upon which opinions differ - the only people whose "opinions differ" on this are the phenomenally, wilfully ignorant, because they erroneously believe the evolution and religion are incompatible.
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those who know the facts, and those who think evolution is "just a theory" and that there are other, equally or more valid alternatives.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-02 07:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-03 06:34 am (UTC)