Personally, I believe it should, but it should not be forced on(offered as a class, something like alternative Biology, but not required)

Before anyone goes off about it, however, please keep away from religious issues. Strictly based on a social standpoint, should it be taught?

It is a religious issue? If it were not, I don't think anyone would have a problem with it.

Meh. Some people view it as such, other's (for example, myself) don't.


I just don't want this particular topic to go off into a relgious one. i rather see what people think from a social standpoint.

I believe that both should be available to be taught as theory; or not at all.

It should be taught as an elective or something.

I don't think ID or evolution should be required. Science classes can do fine without evolution, as well as they can do while teaching ID. I think they should both be electives and the students should be able to choose either or both.

The only reason I think evolution should be required to know is because it is, at the moment at least, accepted scientific knowledge that is likely to appear on major test such as the ACT, SAT, etc.

I think intellegent design in the idea of "Something bigger than us created us" and then you could say "And from the beings created by this power, samples show that we have evolved" or such. I don't think you should teach the whole 7 Days of Creation theory in a science class, simply because it truly has no scientific link, and I believe it should stay taught in a theology class.

What do you think intelligent design is? You cannot have a topic without religion about a religious issue..


I for one, believe that Intelligent Design should be taught in Christian schools, and Evolution taught as a elective. Though.. what kind of person can make an entire semester class about that? It would be supposedly smart people saying alot about much they do not know. Intelligent Design, there is a much better resource, the Bible. It's strange.. if you read the Bible about a year ago, the chips in the sky, heck, look as Joseph I beleive it was says he saw something rotating in the sky.. and it has been figured out to be satellites in our time. Also, the new chips that are coming out, the bible says it will be on our foerhead or on our right hand.. where the most heat is generated on our body. They've come out with those and they are being distributed. So what argument is there? Big bang may be right.. but maybe God caused the big bang. Muslims have Allah and Shahateen(or was it iblis?) and we have God and Devil.. both are still the same. Just like a computer being the base of the religion, we still have the peripheals to hook into it, but it is still the same thing. So, what is evolution? It's the totem worshipping religion, and one's that usually goin extinct. Read the Bible, and you will figuer it out.. trust me.

~Reiel

Which is why I said from a social standpoint It is not completley a religious issue.
Please refrain from bringing such into this particular topic, if you wish to argue about evolution being a 'dying religion' instead of a largley supported scientific theory, please create your own topic.l

Fuck you.

You give Christians everywhere a good name.

I believe if they choose to teach intelligent design in science classes, then this should be taught too.

There is nothing agaisnt using cuss words in the bible.

Fuck fuck fuck You bitch

No reason for that in a conversation like this. :stupidsign:

-warning-

EDIT:Due to your second post all your posts will be previewed for a week. Also, do not post in this topic again.

I think the main issue with this is that there's no way to teach ID as a scientific course because there isn't a huge amount of evidential research backing it. I would support a required general religious studies course as long as it didn't claim to explore ID to a large extent.

I realize you've been banned from this topic, and for good reason.

Anyway, first off your post is uneducated and random in what you state as fact. First off, The Theory of Evolution doesn't contradict the idea that god might have started the big bang, nor does it even relate to the big bang directly. Evolution relates to the study of how species have developed, basically, and is in opposition to some theories of creation such as the Bible's because the Bible involves all species of various areas being created at the same time (all fish and birds on the same day) and does not say that all life is descended genetically from prokaryotic organisms.

This is also slander of pagan religions, and shows that you have no idea about anythign relating to religion. Evolution has nothing in particular to with contradicting the existence of god, though it would seem to contradict the bible's point of view. Apparently, from your perspective, reading the bible is enough to guarantee that Evolution is wrong because obviously the Bible is true. Well, it isn't for me.

sad thing is, there is plently of evidence, but you can't hear about unless you try because evolution supports don't want you to. they don't tell you about perfectly perserved trees growing through layers of rock that are supposd to represent 'millions of years of sedimentation' or about the dinosaur footprints (yes, footprints plural) that have human skeletons under them. these things and plenty more are impossible under the evoltuion theory, so they don't teach you them.

EDIT - kinda skipped my point. I'm saying there could be class (semester long would be easy to do) about evidence along those lines that give evidence against evolution, so you at least get both sides. problem with the whole thing is, there is no scientific way to absolutely prove either evolution or ID, so the best we can do is supporting facts.

Oh wow seriously? There's evidence questioning evolution! OMG they never talk about that in Bio class!

Yes they do. First off, my AP Bio teacher did bring up some of the factual points brought up in your post during a recent lesson. Personally, I've never been able to find any good counter-arguments online for facts such as the whole human under dino footprint argument, though I personally don't see exactly what the sediment-and-tree argument has to do with this. Fossilization is the process of rock and sand and the like slowly piling on top of an organism, and fossils of plants are not unusual. So that doesn't even remotely disprove evolution.

I have seen this site, though, which I do like. Because there are many misconceptions I've had, and there are certainly arguments I've seen against evolution that don't work and have no logical basis. An example would be carbon dating; most arguments either focus on things that are already out of the scope of carbon dating range (I believe it can go back around 10k years before it gets screwed up), or marine organisms, which can't be dated correctly due to their systems. And yet I've seen one page full of "proof that carbon dating is wrong" or something along those lines that listed all marine organisms such as seals, fish, etc.

My other problem is that most intelligent design works I've read "disprove", sometimes so terribly that I could argue with them despite a limited education, the Theory of Evolution, and then go on to say that naturally Intelligent Design is the only other way things could go.

For examples of debate within evolution, try checking this set of articles I read from wikipedia a while back. I'm not sure what level of scientific knowledge to grade them as, but at least try them out.
First essay
next on the list
Third and last

We're never going to 100% prove anything. Hell, you could say that everything up to this point never really happened, that right now you were created by an omnipotent god along with everything else that just got created, and had memories implanted as though you had been alive this whole time. It's possible. But evolution provides a fairly logical explanation that does its best to not use supernatural...though of course everyone's going to have to wonder how exactly the first thing to exist occurred. I'd like to see someone explain THAT.

excuse me, where I come from they don't even acknowledge the possibility in public schools

one of evolutions's main points in fossil records. these 'records' are 'proven' by layers of rock, each showing a few million years of progress. if it took millions of years like they tell you, there is no chance a tree grow through several layers. that and dead trees don't stand for millions of years

I'd be happy to give you one...if I hadn't returned the book that I read them all from :( good news is, I can probably get it tonight. before that, I can throw out the fact that scientists have independantly dated the skin and bones of the same mammal (wolly mammoth IIRC) a few thousand years apart.

EDIT - perhaps we should make an official topic for this, it seems we have gotten a smidge away from the original intent of the topic

Well, in response to the first thing, well that's just weird. They should learn some teaching.

As for the fossil thing, I don't know very much 'aboot geology. So maybe it's that the tree is planted down in one "era" and then grows up with the sediment, though honestly it should be growing more slowly than the dirt and rock piles up. I'm sure there's at least an argument present on the subject, logical or not, but I know too little to say anything on the subject. Anotherwards, concession.

oops, too late, please check edit

Well, for one thing, I do dissagree with teaching I.D.

They do call it science class for a reason, not vague-mutatations-of-Christianaty-like-beliefs class.

Another thing, I do agree. Why and how are we here shouldn't be the question. What we are going to do with our abilities to benefit the planet of today and tomorrow should be.

So, I really don't give a damn what you believe in, and I am happy for you anyways, so lets stop bitching about it and move on with the welfare of God's/the Gods'/Nature's/Flying Spaghetti Monster's creations.

P.S. I am Hindu, not athiest.
P.P.S. I loved the FSM article!!!

well if people want to take it then let them dont hold them back because you belive in a different religion i bet if they were teaching whatever religion you belive in you would support it all the way thats why they should make it an elective.

I say they should both be taught. both as elective, but if one is required, they both should be. Lets get one thing straight. If the earth is not millions of years old, then that disproves their current belief of evoloution, but it does not prove ID. There is a number of different peices of evidence that support that the earth is not millions of years old for example: Sahara desert would cover all of africa. The moon would be touching the earth. the earth would be spinning VERY VERY slow. the great coral reef. The magnetic feild of the earth would be much weaker.

I'm going to bed now, and i am currently too lazy to explain in further depth.

ok, I got the book. I'm going to be quoting from the book Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati

there's more, but I have to go

Hurry need more qoutes!

To be completely blunt and probably stop all conversation in this whatsoever, the only argument intelligent design supporters have is how evolution can be proved wrong, not how intelligent design can be proved right.

Give me evidence without quoting any books that weren't made in this century.

Why you damn it .... hold on give me a minute im sure i can find something (know it all)

I'm confused. Do you mean you want us to find books from 2000-current or what?

and didn't the evolution theory begin somewhere in the 1800s?

not true, in fact there is plently of evidence that points toward either the earth being 6-10 thousand years old or life progressing from around 44-45 hundred years ago. I'll start putting some in my sig if I remember, but here's some to hold you over.

The Great Barrier Reef was mostly undisturbed until WWII, scientists watched the rate of growth after WWII and estimated that entire reef is 4400 years old. The oldest tree in the world is around 4300 years old. Unfossilized dinosaur was found with living marrow cells still in it, estimated no more than a few thousand years old.

PS - if you are wondering, the biblical timeline goes like this:
-about 6000 years, God creates the earth
-about 4400 years ago, there's a big flood (described in writing from almost every ancient culture) wiping out most of the life on earth

do the words 'irreducable complexity' ring a bell?

lets take a look at the bombadeer(SP?) beetle. It is a beetle(duh) that launches two chemicals at a preditor. when the two chemicals make contact with eachother a chemical reaction occurs that produces a heat burst of over a few hundred digrees(i forgot the aproximate tempature). in order for this beetle to be able to have both chemicals without them 'exploding' it must have an incubator that separates the two chemicals. If it was not for ID, then the system would have to develop over time, and before the evolutionary process 'knew' that the two chemicals would need to be separated, the 'unevolved' beetle would produce the chemicals and without the needed incubator, it would basicly explode itself.

there are other examples of irreducable complexity such as the eye, the ear, and more!

and by last century to you mean 1900-current, 1906-current or 2000-current?

EDIT-How did something as cute as the red panda ever evolve?
~~~
Agh, the irreducible complex. Mr. Behe. I thought we had seen the end of that argument against evolution when I first heard about it.

There are more and less thorough articles about the "irreducibly" complex features than this one, but everyone likes wikipedia, right? While I don't mean to label every aspect of Intelligent Design arguments as written in ignorance, as I have neither listened to nor have the knowledge neccessary to counter every one, this is certainly among the most obvious flaws in ID arguments.

A few quotes:

The red Panda looks like a racoon .-.

Aw hell no. If I did support teaching Hinduism in classes on top of science, that would be against Hinduism (I'm no expert, yet that is some information that I do know.)!
And if you do want to learn about Christianity, GO TO A CHRISTIAN PRIVATE SCHOOL!
That's what they're for!!! In public school, people generally, correct me if I am wrong, go to science class to learn science, not religion.

And I do still stand by what I said earlier, WHAT DOES IT MATTER??? (Even though I am quite literally contradicting myself)

What if you can't afford it?

Vouchers. If you have a good reason to not go to public school, the gov't will pay you into private school...or sometimes the private school will give financial aid.

Not sure how easy/hard vouchers are to get.

and when you don't have any in your area?

besides, when I go to science class, I'd like to be taught science, not ridiculous, one-sided theories.

and to what it matters, if intelligent design is correct, you'd better do something about it. if not...I don't know. I never understood that. Why bother teaching evolution? it has no possible bearing on the present except to make people stop believing in a religion, and isn't that intolerance?

First off, I've been pointing out reasons why at least some of the creationist claims are incorrect, and I've found more off of a site which is here. I'd say you shouldn't read every one, I know I haven't, but as I go on I'll list a few more pages.

Now, I don't disbelieve in god because of evolution, but that's beside the point. If you convince someone not to be a certain religion, that is not intolerance. So the answer to your second question is no.

Your first question is another wildly incorrect ID-supporting claim with no basis, there is plenty of reason to understand it. Here's a page listing a few things evolution has been used to do, and I just want to emphasize the first one. The idea of Conscilience of knowledge is important to our ability to understand it in general. And,

Also, you've brought up a number of criticisms against carbon dating.
Article about carbon dating as accurate/innaccurate.
Age of universe and age of earth. Partially based on carbon dating issues, but other evidences as well.

I'll just put an idea down. Science is not perfect in its development. We've got a lot of, maybe even an infinite number of, discoveries to make about existence. There are obviously inconsistencies. But pointing out small issues as though they're the only proof is not a good way to make a case.

EDIT-On the subject of vouchers...there are private boarding schools and, in some cities, transit systems to reach schools. Obviously, not everyone is going to be accomadated by public schools, but hell, it's not like public schools are accomadating every individual need anyway. Let alone ID people who won't listen to evolution.

Excuse me, yet I haven't found a section in teaching evolution that says CHRISTIANITY IS INCORRECT ALL THE WAY SO STOP BELIEVING IN IT RIGHT NOW. And also, what does it matter that some John Doe believes that Christianity is incorrect, and how does that stop you from excersizing your beliefs? You wouldn't believe how much bullshit I have beared from my Boy Scout troop, schoolmates, etc about "oh <my name>, you will go to hell straight away if you don't become Christian, and I don't want that to happen, so let me show you the way... oh..." I have nothing against Christains, they really like helping people, it's just that why do you think that you are the best and that everyone should follow your beliefs? I do grin and bear it, but that has been building up in me...

If there is no Christian private school, what is church for? That way you can smile during science class like you know that what the teacher is saying is wrong, and then soak up all the info. that is correct to you at church! What's wrong with that? I'll tell you one thing, and that is it'll be a long time till Americans star being intolorant toward Christians. So, if you don't mind, please stop whining about it.

[/rage]

I don't care about convincing, they can try to convince people all they want...if they do it fairly. I care about forcing one theory on an entire country of students while banning teaching and in some cases mentioning others.

check, read it. I see some room for justification, but still no reason it should be a requirement.

that site looks pretty interesting, I'll check it out in some off the seemingly countless hours I have free. best thing I've seen since this forum, and I can go through all the new stuff in 20-30 minutes.

...just a warning, the rest here will be a ... let's call it a counter-rage to Pheonix, so skip it if you don't care

you'd be suprised. at least, I'd expect you to be. I'll PM you about it when I get some time (probably tommorrow, I don't get so much on weekends)

you pretty much answered your own question right there. according to our beliefs, if some John Doe doesn't belief, they're going to Hell for eternity. that's why we care. true, we can praise God without you, but that doesn't mean we don't care if other people go to Hell. I'm sorry you don't believe and as I've told you, I don't think trying to force anything will help.

see above. also, don't most religions believe they are correct? we do, and if we are, unbelievers are going to Hell.

I don't think speaking up for what you believe in is whining, and I'm sorry both that you don't believe and you find our compassion annoying.

I saved this one for last. that is complete bull. America isn't intolerant towards Christians?!?...so that's why prayer is banned from school (sidenote: they don't seem to mind prayers or practices of other religions, just check your newspaper once in a while), also, their tolerance MUST be why a couple college students got in huge trouble for putting up a fish (a Christian symbol) on their dorm room door. I don't see how much MORE intolerant they can get within legal bounds.

American could be much less tolerant-they could be persecuted just for being christians. And no-one tells christians they will go to hell on a semi-weekly basis. They were in trouble for putting symbols which some may deem offensive(I know its a minor thing, but there were christians who were supposedly offended for being told 'Happy Holidays', so don't look at me.)


Maybe the government is a slight bit intolerant of Christians(not what I believe, but hey), but the public is most definetly not.

define persecuted

and the college students were told they could put whatever they wanted up. noone even noticed until a dean or someone researched it and protested. that's pretty sad IMO

and as long as the government controls the schools, it will still matter even if the rest of the public is tolerant. we don't want tolerant, we want you saved.