Bush: Intelligent Design Should Be Taught

I.D.10-t · Post by **I.D.10-t** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:09 pm

Learning from jsluder's wisdom

jsluder · Post by **jsluder** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:09 pm

texasbagpiper wrote:Hmmmm, Bush is entitled to an opinion.

Is he a Christian President in a Christian Nation????Yes...

This nation was not founded on Scientology or false religions like Islam...

Uh... Nope, I ain't touchin' that one.

Bloomfield · Post by **Bloomfield** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:11 pm

texasbagpiper wrote: Is he a Christian President in a Christian Nation????Yes...

You left out the bit about the secular state.

s1m0n · Post by **s1m0n** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:11 pm

"Was founded on" is not constitutionally or legally significant in this debate. It's a red herring.

And your argument about Islam is ignorant and bigotted.

texasbagpiper · Post by **texasbagpiper** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:15 pm

s1m0n wrote:"Was founded on" is not constitutionally or legally significant in this debate. It's a red herring.

And your argument about Islam is ignorant and bigotted.

It's just one's opinion, its no argument...

jsluder · Post by **jsluder** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:20 pm

I.D.10-t wrote:Learning from jsluder's wisdom

Oh my! You're in trouble now!

Post by **Nanohedron** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:27 pm

Walden wrote:Let's see if we can find some clever way to make ourselves look smart by calling people by religious titles that they never claimed.

Walden, I'll presume this was levelled at me. Perhaps my dig was uncalled for in some eyes. Nevertheless, I find Bush's public stance on this issue to be disturbing. I would have no problem at all if I.D. were to be taught outside of science classes. It is certainly one option of thinking open to us, but I dare say education would be better served if philosophy remains philosophy, religion religion, and science science. To combine a direction of religious thought with scientific studies, is, I am convinced, a mistake, at odds with our culture, and quite unnecessary at best.

peeplj · Post by **peeplj** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:33 pm

Also I think it should be pointed out that not only is keeping Church and State good for State, it's good for Church as well.

Nothing corrupts religion faster than government funding--and nothing makes a denomination shrink faster than government approval. Check out the stats for some of the countries that have a state-sponsored church, you'll see what I mean.

--James

Cynth · Post by **Cynth** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:46 pm

texasbagpiper, I could agree with your first statement.

As for the rest, if you are having us on then I suggest you examine your sense of humor which is offensive and hurtful, and apologize to those you have offended which would include just about everyone.

If you are serious, I suggest you think about what you said and apologize to those you have offended which would include just about everyone.

If you need help figuring out why your statement was offensive, please let me know.

mvhplank · Post by **mvhplank** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:46 pm

IRTradRU? wrote:
mvhplank wrote:My problem is that he didn't like the original question and no one asked the question he had an answer for, so he asked it himself.
Hmmm. I read the article, but the "original question" wasn't part of it.

So... what was the original question?

Beats me. The editor must have deleted it. (That's a reporter's standard defense, and it's true often enough to be plausable.)

s1m0n · Post by **s1m0n** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:04 pm

mvhplank wrote: Beats me. The editor must have deleted it.

I went looking; none of the five papers present appear to have posted an actual transcript of the conversation. It's obvious from Bush's quoted remarks that he is "refocussing" a question, but the initial question isn't recorded.

Wormdiet · Post by **Wormdiet** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:28 pm

Congratulations wrote:
missy wrote: It's the high-level, "intelligent" students that are least concerned with real learning. Homework is assigned so the students can continue to learn by rote, rather than gain a deeper understanding of the material.

/hijack

As an AP History teacher, I would say that homework is (often) assigned so that unmotivated students are given a penalty for not engaging with the class. Yes, we try to design courses so that the assignments are intrinsically interesting and worthwhile, and that students find the material relevant. However, many of students do not have the attention span or time to read academic history articles and books (What college history classes are really like) without some sort of a gun to their head.

I'd also say that, from teaching experience, most of my really thoughtful and engaged students receive good grades, even if they don;t have a history of academic excellence.

I personally believe AP classes should be taught like college classes. 2 seminars per week, small sections, two or three essay exams and a paper. Multiple choice tests judge factual recall and association, not necessarily one's capability for analytical thinking.

Wormdiet · Post by **Wormdiet** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:31 pm

IRTradRU? wrote:"You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

And the problem with this is....?

It evaded the original question. Creationism/Intelligent Design does not have the status of a science because it's based on faith and not empirical evidence. Therefore, if it's taught in a public school, it would be better off in a comparative mythology or religion class, not a science class.

Wormdiet · Post by **Wormdiet** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:34 pm

texasbagpiper wrote:Hmmmm, Bush is entitled to an opinion.

Is he a Christian President in a Christian Nation????Yes...

This nation was not founded on Scientology or false religions like Islam...

Um. . .

Establishment Clause, or has the Bill of Rights become irrelevant?

Lorenzo · Post by **Lorenzo** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:46 pm

texasbagpiper wrote:Hmmmm, Bush is entitled to an opinion. This nation was not founded on Scientology or false religions like Islam...

What you probably mean to say (and we've visited this issue many times) is that most of the better known founding fathers of the US of A were Deists, not Christians.

Do a search here on Deism, Deity, or Deist.

Stephen Hawking said it best I think (and excuse me for repeating myself on this): At some point along the way, the heavens became to technical for religion to be explaining. It use to be that religion (any) had the last word on explaining scientific phenomena (plural of phenomenon). No, this man is not blind because his parents sinned. Yes, we know whither the wind cometh, and why. Yes, we know there are no spirits in alcohol. And we know the sun doesn't rise, as the bible saith; the world turns.

What we don't know is whether there is an intangible something about us or the universe (AKA God or gods), incapable of being perceived by the senses or testing. Likely it's only a story, but it is possible. And so, even an unlikely possibility can still create an organized religion...because of just that: that it's possible. It's just wise to study science also to know the difference.

I personally don't form beliefs from stories, but I don't object to Creation being taught in a public classroom. The one thing that no one knows is whether or not there is a creating God in the heavens, or in us. If there is, then Creation probably is a scientific process.

Why try and close off the debate as if the answer can't be known? I'll admit it looks like a good religious trick, using the never-ending principle, but that's what keeps the wheels spinning. Just because it's not likely we'll never know, doesn't mean we should not allow for it or stop searching.

The thing that kind of killed Creationism (in my way of thinking) was all the other hocus-pocus found along side the Creation story. That's just not good design--having a book full of paranormal experiences right next to something postulated as The Truth.