Hooray: No ID in PA Schools (Page 2)

Pigpen, [sarcasm]don't be ridiculous, it's already been proven in this thread beyond any doubt that no credible scientists would in any way back intelligent design.[/sarcasm]

I have resigned myself to stay confused as to why all the open minded people in this thread would be so excited to have the minds of our children slammed shut.

bts

No offense, I was just continuing the role of devil's advocate.

I disagree.  It is another theory as to the development of homo sapiens as a species.  Regardless of how ridiculous you may think it is, it warrants presenting.  You give the reasons where it makes sense, you give the flaws, just like evolution (a theory with a number of issues scientists are still trying to explain). 

I actually have no problem with that idea (and you're right, $$$ make it tough).  I took AP Bio in High School and we barely even touched on evolution let alone going into any great depth on some of the alternatives.  My point is a judge has no business wiping out segments of the curriculum... it smacks of "1984".  I don't like the idea of the government picking and choosing what gets taught.

bts

So you were against it when the government in the form of the school board mandated that ID be included?

I'll give you a touche for that one, I didn't say that clearly.  I don't think it's the "higher" or "Federal" or "National" government's role.  I'm all for them ensuring everyone gets an education (i.e. No Child Left Behind... if it worked, but that's another debate entirely) but when they start saying exactly what's in the curriculum that starts down a slippery slope.  The School Board are locally elected officials, not long term political appointee's... actually I know some PA judges are elected... damn, now I've got to go look that up.

bts

Edit - That's right, I forgot, ASA already mentioned that he was an appointee. 

Sidebar - I think it's ironic that the article also talks about the Scopes trial, where not 100 years ago it was illegal to teach evolution.  And then, as now, I would have advocated presenting both.

Well one option is to have it so that parents can choose where their tax dollars are spent introducing a bit of competition into the system. It is not a perfect plan but it would also solve this whole argument. If you want you can send your kid to a private Christian school and have YOUR tax money pay for it or you could send your child to a secular school where they can avoid any Christian reference in their studies.

I believe in a free market, and education is no different. The quality of public education would increase if they were forced to compete to keep all of their students. I have found there are few things the private sector can not provide cheaper AND in higher quality if given the opportunity.

How many scientists are agnostic?  I think not many as it's nearly impossibly to be that intelligent of a human being and still remain agnostic once you see how amazing our world is.

While I agree, "faith" is not "science" and "science" is not "faith"...but that's just because HUMANS created the definition of those words.  Who's really to say they should be separate?  Ask your fellow scientist about their views on agnosticism.

Well said Renee!!!

I hear too many stories where teachers are telling their students what to think, instead of teaching them how to think.

I'm on the flip side of your incredulous coin - I think it's impossible to consider oneself an intelligent, critically thinking human being and not accept the merits of the theory of evolution. I just can't wrap my head around how seemingly intelligent people can reject the theory of evolution - but they do! 

What this means, I believe, is that one can be intelligent and discerning and still not see the world as I see it. What a concept. 

Likewise, I can consider myself to be intelligent and not jump to the conclusion that, because science hasn't provided all the answers to LTUAE*, a deity must have been been a master craftsman in designing and creating LTUAE. Just because science has not answered all questions about LTUAE, it does not logically follow that, therefore, a deity must have done it. That can be considered nothing other than the proverbial "leap of faith," rather than a logical construct.

As for saying "Wow, it's so incredible that only a magical force could have done this," that defies my sense of awe and wonder about naturally occurring phenomena. I'm okay and comfortable with saying "We don't yet have that answer." I don't need to look for a superstitious cause to explain things that are, at present, beyond our scientific understanding.  Again, we see the world through different eyes.

I don't see how accepting the theory of evolution excludes or negates an acceptance of the existence of a supernatural being who is responsible for creating LTUAE. If you want to believe that a deity created LTUAE, no science is going to stop you or rob you of your belief system.

It seems to me that faith is (unnecessarily) hostile to science while science is indifferent to faith.

* Life, The Universe And Everything

See what happens when science answers The Big Question? People go nuts.

They're never satisfied.

Atheist:  one who believes that there is no deity.*

It's not that they know there is no deity; it's that they believe there is no deity. Isn't an atheist similar to a believer - both are based on a belief system rather than knowledge?

Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god*

*Merriam-Webster

Back to HuffPo

As noted below,there's an insane post at the Huffington Post that twists the words of Benedict's Urbi et Orbi message to give the impression that he's condemning intellectual achievement, an interpretation that's gleefully seized on by commentors there, confirming their communal wisdom about the evils of the medieval, backwards, oppressive church. It's bizarre, frankly, and in a way, a minority view, but...not totally. There is, indeed, a kind of anti-Catholicism among the left that sees the institution as essentially obscurantist, because you know, there was Galileo, and there's AIDS, or so sez Bill Maher, Al Franken and HuffPo.

One has to wonder, though.

At all of of those Catholic universities around the world...what are they teaching... are there no departments of science or mathematics in those institutions? Do the students sit around with an abacus and a spyglass, vainly tilted at the heavens?

At all of those Catholic hospitals around the world...what's going on? Are all of those surgeries just facades, behind which priests shake holy water and nuns finger beads? Well, if so, perhaps we'd better rethink this whole "medicine" thing after all!

And what about this thing - this Pontifical Academy of Science,"Pontifical" having to do with, you know, the POPE. Look at the papers it's published: "Accordian-like vibrations of long chain molecules""New developments in neurobiological research." "Infrared and Ramanspectra of 1,2-dichloroethane and its deuterium compound in the gaseous, liquid and solid states."

Anti-scientific clerical oppressors!

What about these conferences, sponsored by the Vatican over the past decade or so:

On cosmology

On the human genome

On biotechnology and crops, and one on depression as mental illness

On water and the environment

On end-of-life issues and palliative care

On "Science and the future of humanity"

On immigration

On "Mind, Brain and Education" and on Stem Cell Research - do go to this one and check out the papers and scholars involved.

On "Pastoral Care for the Liberation of Street Women"

On "The Family and the Integration of the Disabled"

And on, and on and on...we haven't even touched on the conferences and working groups on philosophy, history, the arts and yes, theology.

(insert obligatory Vatican Observatory reference here)

Show me a global institution more dedicated to learning, to integrating intellectual work and real world problems. Show me. I dare you.

Beyond the ignorance of reality, the mindset so doggedly opposed to religion and ethical considerations is mind-boggling. But, you know,you get what you pay for. You want science unfettered by the inconvenient questions and challenges of an ethically-grounded worldview?

Okay. There you go! Good luck with that!