May a public school science teacher's right to teach evolution be restricted?
No. The United States Supreme Court has determined that it is unconstitutional to restrict an educator's right to teach evolution.
May a science teacher who teaches evolution also teach creationism? No. Educators may not teach, as fact, the theory that humankind was created by a divine being. In science classes, educators must present only scientific explanations for life on earth and scientific critiques of evolution. Furthermore, schools may not refuse to teach evolution in an effort to avoid offending religious individuals. The United States Supreme Court has held that it is unconstitutional to require educators who teach evolution also to teach creationism.
In addition, disclaimers regarding the theory of evolution as the only explanation for the development of humankind have been found to be unconstitutional. In Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, 185 F. 3d 337 (5th Cir 1999), cert. denied, 530 U. S. 1251 (2000), the court struck down a school board rule requiring teachers to read a disclaimer that said that the teaching of evolution is "not intended to influence or dissuade the Biblical version of Creation or any other concept."
May creationism ever be discussed in the public schools? Yes. Creationism may be included in classes on comparative religion as an example of how some religious groups believe human life began. However, creationism may never be taught as scientific fact.
Do scientific integrity and equity require that we teach a competing theory of human origins? Some have argued that equity, intellectual honesty and scientific integrity require the teaching of creationism as a differing and alternative point of view. However, creationism may not be taught as a response to the theory of evolution. Indeed, creationism (or "creation science") does not meet the tenets of science as scientists use the term. Moreover, it is not a matter of equity to teach a religious point of view in a public school classroom with taxpayer dollars.
Additionally, there is a growing movement promoting the teaching of "intelligent design theory" which asserts that the only reasonable explanation for the very complexity of the world and development of humans is the existence of God. This "theory," often couched in scientific terminology, is just another species of creationism, and thus also must not be taught in the classroom as scientific fact.
John McCain http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Education.htm
No, I believe that's up to the school districts. But I think that every American should be exposed to all theories. There's no doubt in my mind that the hand of God was in what we are today. And I do believe that we are unique, and I believe that God loves us. But I also believe that all of our children in school can be taught different views on different issues. I leave the curricula up to the school boards. Decisions on teaching evolution should be made locally On teaching evolution in schools, McCain says the decision should be made at the local level. Source: Bruce Morton, CNN Aug 27, 1999 Voted YES on declaring memorial prayers and religious symbols OK at schools. Vote to declare that erecting religious symbols and praying on public school campuses as part of a memorial service does not violate the First Amendment to the Constitution, and to provide legal assistance to any government entity defending such a case.
Reference: Bill S.254 ; vote number 1999-121 on May 18, 1999
Sarah Palin http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Sarah_Palin_Education.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------- link
"I pushed her on the earth's creation, whether it was really less than 7,000 years old and whether dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And she said yes, she'd seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them." Munger also asked Palin if she truly believed in the End of Days, the doomsday scenario when the Messiah will return. "She looked in my eyes and said, 'Yes, I think I will see Jesus come back to earth in my lifetime.'"
It would be stupid to involve religious teachings because that would open the door for each religion to require its own "60 minutes" in class and I dont think we need to intorduce and religious debates of who is the True Creator etc. in class because we already seem to have enogh problems with in school mass shootings and killings. Do we need to spread the adult conflicts among our kids?
So let me get this right, we have too many problems in school with violence that we cannot afford to introduce God into the discussion. Seems to me you may have just identified the problem and the solution. :-)
I throw that in because...well, it's an open debate and I have the option of being contrary. In truth, I do not have a problem with creationism taught in the schools as long as its taught as literature, not science. Of course, when I refer to creationism here, I'm referring to Genesis story of earth's creation, etc. not "intelligent design" which is as much an unproven theory as any other unproven theory...including the Big Bang theory. I think that should be allowed in any discussion of theoretical science.
Iron Mike what I meant is that if we teach creationism in schools each religion will eventually want it's own theory introduced, because in democracy there should be equal opportunity for each, so we will have to have classes about christianity, buddhism, islam, shamanism etc. and eventually I can only imagine what the debates in and outside those classes will look like given that obviously nowadays kids shoot one another for even less....
And no, I don't think school shooting happen because the lack of religious classes, as in fact seems that the most military motivated individuals are very much believers yet that not only doesn't stop them from killing and waging wars but seems to empower them even more....
Heck, I wouldn't want to read in the paper something like a student "X" age 15 blew himself in school taking along with himself 50 other kids after Creationism class just to prove them who gets what after death......
It is scary enough that kids have a hard time distinguishing conflict in computer games from reality real life. Introducing more "contradicting fantasies" into their reality will only make things worse. I am sure kids have their own difficulty digesting the adult news about war between the East and the West and then tolerating one another at school. Bringing more "creationism" rather than common sense, isn't going to make America stronger.
LW
i know that u are not with any relegion over other or as i think u respects all relegions and free speech, but sorry eventhough u didnt mention name of islam while saying about that u are afraid that if the student X below 15 years blew himself and taking him with him 50 after creationsit lesson is not a good example and sorry to say it is very naive and it let me strongly beleive that still the west think islam relegion is attatched only with blewing
i think the reverse if each one teach their real relegion even for kids it will keep us all safe and all wars are coming from injust , at least if relegion will teach that not to steal other land or rob another person whatever is his relegion , so no more wars and nobody will try to defend violently.
if the real relegion is taught with love and mercy , so wars will not happen.
sorry , i hope u didnt mean in your intention that islam , and usually after relegion lessons , people become calm, good and acquire morals and i encourage teaching of all relegions as i think it will lead to more peace.
i watched the visit of papa , eventhough sometimes he say bad things about islam , but for me when he said that somepeople worship power and money more , that is true and also in islam.
I don't see how teaching religion, particularly exclusivist religion (such as Islam and Christianity) is going to produce peace, in the classroom or out of it. Throughout history, religion has been more often used to excuse violence than to avoid it, and "my imaginary friend can beat up your imaginary friend" doesn't seem like a good starting point for peacemaking.
I think we are getting wrapped around "teaching religion in schools" without really defining what that means. I see areas where religion will influence the classroom, whether we like it or not.
1. In social studies where discussion of comparative religions and their influence on culture is unavoidable if one is to understand the society. How do you examine western civilization and avoid of the Judeo-Christian foundation for law?
2. In the history class, religion adds context to how we got here. Are we to skip over the 1500s with Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation and its effects on societal evolution? How do we deal with current history without acknowledging and discussing the influence of Islam on terrorism today?
2. In literature where passages of sacred scripture of all kinds from Bible to Koran to Bhuddist writings are examines in context of literary forms and their influence on some of the great writers in history.
3. In science, there are still holes in our knowledge. Intelligent design should be allowed to be introduced--not fill those holes, but to suggest one of many possible theories that have yet to be proven to explain what we do not yet know.
In short, there is a difference between allowing religion to add context to learning and teaching religion for worship or providing advocacy of one religion over another. I agree that is inappropriate. As a parent, teaching religion to my children is my domain, not the schools.
Dear Abdulkasaida
My studant X is a hypotetical situation that can apply for any religion.
Religious teachings make people peaceful in churches, not in classes designed for religious debates and it should be kept in a church temple mosque etc where performed by people who do this best. In schools performed by teachers under the forms of debates is in fact suggesting leaving the class with a conflict among kids minds. Also how exacly are kids supposed to switch from evolutionism class to creationism class?!
I believe school should be preserved for science, and religious temples for religion.
It's inevitable to talk and debate about religion without involving politics and that's where kids will linvolve their family experinces and there will be more of " I come from that country and your country did that to my country and my daddy said that people like you who believe in this or that are ...whatever" and the other kid will say " this is my country not your country, or my daddy got killed by people like your daddy" and there you go your next school beating or shooting.
And I am not saying that kids shouldn't be thought religion. I am saying that it should be kept out of the "play ground".
No one is suggesting anything of the sort. Conflict is inevitable. How we deal with it is not. Avoiding discussion of conflict will not make it go away. Kids will simply fight about something else. The Columbine shooters did not have religious conflict on their agenda.
I suggest that teaching conflict resolution would be a more prductive strategy for dealing with conflict in the classroom, not shielding them from the conflict which they will inevitably face. That's the only way to influence the playground vs. the classroom.
You cannot teach children what happened on 9/11 without discussing Radical Islam, since that was the motivating philosohy behind the action. I suggest that context in the discussion is everything and religion can be introduced in political discussions provided it is framed by an emphasis on the importance of tolerance and the deadly consequences to everyone for the lack of it.
Iron Mike
We are talking about kids from age 6 to 18 , yes? Aren't your suggestions for intelectual explorations a little too far out for that age group?
How do we deal with current history without acknowledging and discussing the influence of Islam on terrorism today?
There you go! Receipe for disaster. Should we teach kids to point fingers at other people religion to justify their countries political failures?
In science, there are still holes in our knowledge. Intelligent design should be allowed to be introduced--not fill those holes, but to suggest one of many possible theories that have yet to be proven to explain what we do not yet know.
Thats what churches are for.
In literature where passages of sacred scripture of all kinds from Bible to Koran to Bhuddist writings are examines in context of literary forms and their influence on some of the great writers in history.
Thats good. But what does that have to do with introducing Creationism classes? Plus with so many authors to pick and choose from and from so many different influences in their lifes in the process of becoming great writers why so much focus on the religious influence? That very well can be left for Home Research Projects if there is interest for it.
"You cannot teach children what happened on 9/11 without discussing Radical Islam, since that was the motivating philosohy behind the action. I suggest that context in the discussion is everything and religion can be introduced in political discussions provided it is framed by an emphasis on the importance of tolerance and the deadly consequences to everyone for the lack of it." IM
But then gain Mike..what does that have to do with introducing Creationism classes?
"No one is suggesting anything of the sort. Conflict is inevitable. How we deal with it is not. Avoiding discussion of conflict will not make it go away. Kids will simply fight about something else."
May be we can teach our kids to learn from their parents mistakes and one step to do that would be to involve LESS religious and political BS in their heads especially at their early age.
I think schools call more for Anger Management Classes rather than Creationsim. LOL
For six year olds, perhaps. But if you do not introduce these subjects in Middle School, you are doing them a disservice and underestimating them. By 17-18 these kids are making choices about their futures. You want to wait until AFTER they do so?
There you go! Receipe for disaster. Should we teach kids to point fingers at other people religion to justify their countries political failures?
Who said anything about teaching them to point fingers and justifying "their counties political failures" is YOUR political bias, which is far more destructive to children than any discussion of religion. That's not history; it's propaganda. The fact remains, it was not a gang of Norwegian Nuns that hijacked planes on 9/11. The hijackers were chanting "Allah Akbar" as they committed murder, not "Curse you America for your political failures." You cannot teach history and avoid discussing Islam.
Nothing. No one here has advocated a "Creationism class." There is a difference between introduction of Creationism as context WITHIN a class and conducting a class on Creationism.
"Who said anything about teaching them to point fingers and justifying "their counties political failures" is YOUR political bias, which is far more destructive to children than any discussion of religion. That's not history; it's propaganda. The fact remains, it was not a gang of Norwegian Nuns that hijacked planes on 9/11. The hijackers were chanting "Allah Akbar" as they committed murder, not "Curse you America for your political failures." You cannot teach history and avoid discussing Islam"
Mike I agree. But thats exactly what we should not make our kids fight over in school. That's my whole point. Let kids age 6 to 18 learn history about 9/11 as facts go but let them choose their religious and political position on that same history later in college as adult independently thinking individuals. That way we will perhaps have less beatings over "your daddy did that to my daddy, or my daddy will do this to your daddy". In the meanwhile we can introduce some anger management classes. I believe that is the best kind of skill they could use in the kind of world we gona leave them with.
Leave the kids alone Mike... Dam it! LOL
The problem is sometimes parents who are prejedous to something and want to deliver that to their kids
the explanation of what happend in 11 9 is not radical islam , it is politcs and the mistakes of the forign policy of Bush administration and no relation to any relegion.
I think that may be what LW wants to say, that to leave it and not teach in schools as unfortunately most teachers will be predijeous to their roots and contry of origin and manipulate every thing according to their experiences and not the whole truth.
I will not explain what MCthey did in oclahoma with condeming radical or inradical christinity e.g even though he killed many people of his own relegion and country. I have to say the truth and not be prjedous to any relegion because i have deep hate in my heart to that relegion. what is happining now in the west as they have misinformations about islam and our prophet and have hate to them transmitted to them by bias media , so they try to explain any thing bad occur to islam and radical islam which islam is innocent from some of their people if they claim such that.
we have all to grow up and know the real reason for such wars and hatret around the world.
for your information mr Mike the word of Allah Akbar repeated in muslim day may be 1000 times and no relation to any war or doing bad to others
you dont know the culture of muslims and how they use those words in work, normal speech, with friends , if they see strange scene they will say Allah Akbar so please dont let others think that it is related only to 11 september as also unbelivers say Allah akbar for anything and you now see the flag of iraq which their is the " Allah Akbar" and now your country is occuping it with their flag. so what u will tell u kids about that word in iraqi flag which your country now bring democracy and peace their !!!
I will tell them the people of Iraq freely chose to honor Allah in their flag. That is democracy in action. I will also tell them terrorists manipulate the minds of the weak and prostitute Islam to achieve political power. A religion which demands unquestioned obedience is one that can be used for other, less benevolent agendas.
I have lived in the ME also and am well aware how everyday speech includes "Allah Akbar" and "Inshallah." But chanting it hypnotically as one commits murder is a whole different issue.
While you point to Oklahoma bombing, please remember the perpetrators were not motivated wholly or in part by any Christian doctrine. Nor was he invoking Jesus as he blew up the building. Their religion of choice was a footnote, not a factor.
Do you really want to compare the frequency of Islamic bombers to Christian bombers? Perhaps you wish to discuss the topic with the families of the dead from the Al Queda bombing yesterday in Yemen?
And yet, you express no such outrage when the same prejudice is spread to Palestinian children by Hamas through children's TV shows.
Yet we have someone running for president with their vp that disagrees with those rulings. They, along with their supporters like to casually talk about making changes that have been declared unconstitutional. What sort of reforms are we should we expect from Sarah and John?
If parents want their kids about Creationism or any religious belief why cant they teach their kids? why do they want this to be the state's responsibility?
We could always let the states decide though. I would love to hear what John McCain and Sarah Palin say about Muslim public schools in thie country.
All of this would eventually segregate our country according to education religious lines. I would certainly leave any school district, city, or state that decided to teach my kids Creationism instead of Evolution or allow Creationism to be taught as another possible theory. I wonder if John McCain will reimburse me for what that's going to cost.
Yet we have someone running for president with their vp that disagrees with those rulings. They, along with their supporters like to casually talk about making changes that have been declared unconstitutional.
Candace,
Yet, the democratic ticket is opposed to the Supreme Court's recent decision that gun ownership is an undeniable, "individual" right. If you use your arguement to oppose the republican ticket, you must accept mine to oppose the democrats. (By the way, I am a staunch evolutionist, and disagree with the teaching of creationism or other religion, couched as psuedo-science in public schools. So, I disagree with McCain and Plin on this issue.)
All of this would eventually segregate our country according to education religious lines.
Perhaps you were unaware that many states ARE funding Muslim schools or requiring Islamic studies in public schools. I think this is a much greater threat than creationism.
Course has 7th-graders memorizing Koran verses, praying to Allah
In the wake of Sept. 11, an increasing number of California public school students must attend an intensive three-week course on Islam, reports ASSIST News Service.
The course mandates that seventh-graders learn the tenets of Islam, study the important figures of the faith, wear a robe, adopt a Muslim name and stage their own jihad. Adding to this apparent hypocrisy, reports ANS, students must memorize many verses in the Koran, are taught to pray "in the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful" and are instructed to chant, "Praise to Allah, Lord of Creation."
"We could never teach Christianity like this," one outraged parent told ANS.
Elizabeth Christina Lemings, a teacher in the Byron, Calif., Union School District, was unaware of the course until her seventh-grade son brought home the handouts. Obtained by ANS, the handouts include a history of Islam and the life of Mohammad, its founder. There are 25 Islamic terms that must be memorized, six Islamic (Arabic) phrases, 20 Islamic proverbs to learn along with the Five Pillars of Faith and 10 key Islamic prophets and disciples to be studied.
"We can't even mention the name of Jesus in the public schools," Lemings laments, "but ... they teach Islam as the true religion, and students are taught about Islam and how to pray to Allah. Can you imagine the barrage of lawsuits and problems we would have from the ACLU if Christianity were taught in the public schools, and if we tried to teach about the contributions of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the Apostle Paul? But when it comes to furthering the Islamic religion in the public schools, there is not one word from the ACLU, People for the American Way or anybody else. This is hypocrisy."
ANS reports that students are to pretend that they are Muslims, wear Muslim clothing to school, stage their own jihad via a dice game and pick out a Muslim name (to replace their own) from a list of 30.
When asked what they thought about the course, students described it as "fun," while others described Islam as "a pretty culture." Joseph Lemings, 12, told ANS, "the jihad was like playing a video game."
The "fun" description disturbs Elizabeth Lemings, who sees the course as a tool, not only to engender sympathy and support for the Muslim cause, but for recruitment.
"This is not just a class of history of examining culture," she said. "This course is entirely too specific. It is more about indoctrination."
It's helpful to note that Assist News Service is a project of "ASSIST
is an international ministry started sixteen
years ago by journalist and author, Dan Wooding and his wife, Norma, as a way to
help Christians living under difficult circumstances, and to share the Gospel
with those who do not know Christ."
Read the analysis at truthorfiction.com:
"This eRumor has been explosive, both in terms of how quickly it grew
in circulation on the Internet and the reaction it prompted.
It is based on an article written for the ASSIST News Service by
Austin Miles, who is described as a chaplain, author, historian, speaker, educator, and veteran
master of ceremonies at various events around the country (he was a
circus ringmaster).
Highlighting concerns over activities in a class about Islam in
Excelsior Middle School, the article suggests that the State of
California has "embraced Islam," that a course on Islam
has been "stealthily" slipped into the seventh grade
statewide, that the course is mandated as are activities such as
wearing Islamic garb, adopting a Moslem name, and stating their own
Jihad. The article also leaves the impression that students
and teachers are not allowed to utter the name of Jesus in a
classroom and that students cannot wear crosses."
Hobbes,
You're right, that was helpful...just not to my argument. :-)
How about this one...
'Five pillars of Islam' taught in public school 'Education practice wouldn't last 10 seconds if kids told to dress as priests'
Um, ditto--as I believe you guys like to say.
If that's how teaching about religions is done, he said, "then teach
all religions in the same way, Christianity, Judaism. Have the kids
study Native American religions, do the dance, smoke the pipe. Have the
kids dress up as priests and hear confession."
He said when he suggests that, school managers and even judges get that "panic-stricken" look.
He knows because he argued the same dispute up to the U.S.
Supreme Court after complaints of similar teachings in the Byron Union School District in California.
As WND has reported
that case was almost a duplicate. Teachers were having students
memorize Islamic prayers, wear Islamic dress and learn to behave as a
Muslim under the guise of studying history.
Some parents objected and their resulting lawsuit was turned
back by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals where the opinion called
it "cultural education."
Where do you dig this stuff up?
Many states? Which states?
Are you saying that you are ok with this or that McCain and Palin are ok with it? What's your point?
I'm saying you're missing the forest for the trees. If your concern is religion creeping into schools, you are missing much more egregious threats to academic freedom and integrity.
Creationism is not the bogeyman you think it is. In the context of literature, it is one more literary account of how ancient sacred text described the birth of a world. In the context of science, intelligent design (related to Creationism but not the same) offers a theory to explan what other theories also cannot explain. It's simply context in a discussion of theoretical science.
I don't see why you feel threatened by it and I really don't see how you can miss the threat that other religious influences pose and the political correctness that removes context from the discussion.
i and all of my collegues used to learn relegion in our schools and their was christians and they are not compulsed to learn islamic relegion as they are living in muslim country
many of their parents want them to study with us and they study only to know about relegion and good morals and they dont take tests like us
all of us learn how to pray 5 times and till now all students took relegion schools with no harm to anyone.
yes also parents will guide later but basics and to know the relegion is essential and all of us grow to love all people and not terrorists and even christians till now who learn the same as us living between us since they were kids and say also allah akbar, and many words as we say it .
i know the west try to go far away from his roots of christianity and the muslim world wants more to go close to real islam roots. i think that will last for ever which proove to me that yes that religion is the last one
What amazing tolerance. It's almost easy to forget that in much of the Muslim world, it is a capital crime for a Muslim to convert to Christianity. Or that a political cartoon of your beloved prophet in Europe sparks riots and death in the Muslim world. Or that while all Muslims are not terrorists, most of the world's terrorists are predominantly Muslim. Or that Islamic schools in the US and UK were found to be teaching hate. Yes, it's almost enough to mistake Islam for a religion of peace.
Can we interrupt this cage match for some common sense? (why does it always have to be me!)
Candace, the Supreme Court has ruled no such thing: there is nothing in the US Constitution about education. States set their own standards (with various forms of public input), and local school boards are free to adopt curriculums of their choice, within certain approved frameworks. The most significant recent case (commonly called Dover)in Pennsylvania ruled that schools could not require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. Because of its comprehensive nature Dover is widely regarded as precedent-setting.
Mike, a second warning for being disingenuous. "Creationism" does not refer to reading the story of Genesis, but to regarding it as a "theory" or explanation for the origin of the world.
A cage match? Thanks.
Thanks, Candace. The USSC has ruled that states cannot violate the Establishment of Religion clause by forbidding the teaching of evolution, or requiring that it be balanced by "creation-science" (in the Louisiana case).
That's slightly different than your summary--but let's not make a Federal case of it
For the voice of common sense, it's you who is playing loose and fast with definitions of Creationism. The fact is, there are many definitions, which is why I was careful to clarify exactly which ones I was addressing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
I do agree with you on your point on education and the constitution. That's also why I believe states should decide standards.
mr mike
all what u say is totally wrong concerning tolerance
we are the most tolerant people for others and in my days as their was no Bush administration all relegions live in peace and all sort of them and no compulsory of anything. why only now terrorists come, if you ask the whole muslim world and do polls they will tell u that the most terror countires or let say the terrorists are US administration with bush and israel administrations and all wars are coming from them and they let the whole world hate those 2 contries and no relation to any relegion.
i thought u are grown eneough to understand that, but it seems u will not be unbias of your beleives , sorry to say that even u r educated but still you are loyal to the even wrong idea delivered to u by others and you dont like to see the other side. I think the other side is not tolerant
for cartoon and other it is legitemate that muslims will be angry as our prophet plays a very big issue in our whole life and we respects all prophets not like the west whom tried their best to hate them or mock them. Even they cant tolerate noble prophets and always make kidd of them. so where is the morals of that?
it is not free of speech to mock and hurt others , their must be responsibility toward the other.
most crimes done from non muslims and now all muslims are defending of theri countries, resources, dignity, and stolen land and money and i hate to repeat that manytimes and remember that their is no muslim military envade any west country to bring democracy and steal their resources or inhiritance and it is the reverse. Most of the west administrations and i specify US administrations play a police and let their groups outside to kill others and want to stay more and more in the east under many execuses.
even though the east still tolerant even to whom wants to steal their resources and change their style life even by force and if they reject, so the west has a ready made diagnosis of those people and it is the word " terrorists" it is so easy to say that to get sympathy and the naive normal western people will agree and they dont have enough knowledge of the history and the root of the conflict.
Back into your corner!
"In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution.[2]
... The meaning of the term creationism was contested, but by the 1980s it
had been co-opted by proponents of creation science and flood geology"
Nice try. Despite your attempts to obfuscate the meaning of the word, the truth is the number of fundamentalist Christians that believe the creation story literally instead of allegorically, is relatively small and does not reflect mainstream Christian doctrine.
Intelligent Design is related to creationism and does not categorically reject evolution.
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/faq.php
again iam not preaching islam but i dont like that the west always accused us of things which are not in us and also of course no any muslim will be happy if they hear any thing bad about their prophet
in this thread i dont interfer in the US election as i will not elect any one even though i was laughed at one of the contributers in BBC channel radio which he suggest that the whole people in the world have to participate in the election of US as US policy is the one which determine the whole politics in universe and all people affected in it.
of course we want a good and honest president in US to treat people of the other world honesty and not biasly and not only for money.
but for us muslim countries we dont care much to whom the president will be as he will not only rule but the jewish loby and zionism will rule with him and we will not gain our rights .
for mr mike as before months i read in our newspaper that they want to make a film against our prophet mohamed (pbuh) and they did and collect many informaitons about our prophet and of course their intention is not good, they want to deliver a bad message to people about that prophet and as long as they collect , they wonder about that personality and they cant find any thing wrong with it, so they try to erase things and put new things and they finish the film and was ready, sorry i forget the name of the film as the article was old for me and that of course after sep 11 .
so the crew of the film after finishing the film, they all imbrase islam and cant forget that man and all that after they read about him and know the correct information without bias or hatret.
so muslims are very generous and peacful to peacful men but of course they will not be peacful to theives and who humulate them and steal their countries.
Are you talking to me?
I quoted the wikipedia entry you referenced. If you'd linked to the entry on Intelligent Design, we'd be having a different conversation.
Creationism is definitely not mainstream Christianity. Why are you bothering to defend it?
John Paul II:
considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of
investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis.
... Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new
knowledge has led to the recognition of
the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.
[Aujourdhui, près dun demi-siècle après la parution de
l'encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaitre
dans la théorie de l'évolution plus qu'une hypothèse.]
It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been
progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in
various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated,
of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a
significant argument in favor of this theory.
We are in agreement that Creationism is not mainstream Christianity and I have said so explicitly. It's not creationism per se, that I defend, but the right for anyone to believe it if they so choose, and to defend the proposition that their mere belief in Creationism should not make them any less qualified for secular public office.
On the issue of education, I would go further and allow Creationism to be taught in schools in the context of literature and to facilitate an understanding of comparative religions because, unlike LW, I believe that discussion facilitates a better understanding of religious differences which leads to peace, not conflict.
I would advocate Intelligent Design in the science classroom since it hold as much empirical validity as the big bang theory. Neither can be empirically proven. Teach them both or teach neither, but be consistent.
Perhaps you should actually review th link I provided since I think it articulates the argument well.
No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text.
hold as much empirical validity as the big bang theory. Neither can be
empirically proven. Teach them both or teach neither, but be
consistent.
I wanted to quote this now, cause, unlike gentle Hobbes, I am still considering my response to this... er, point of view.
A theory is a structure of scientific explanation, developed to account for a set of observable data. It does not exist in isolation, but connects with other sets of data and explanations.
this observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies
and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage
point. The farther away, the higher the apparent velocity.[1]
If the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, everything
must have been closer together in the past. This idea has been
considered in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures, and large particle accelerators have been built to experiment on and test such conditions, resulting in significant confirmation of the theory. But these accelerators can only probe so far into such high energy regimes.
Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the
expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any
explanation for such an initial condition, rather explaining the
general evolution of the universe since that instant. The observed
abundances of the light elements throughout the cosmos closely match
the calculated predictions for the formation of these elements from
nuclear processes in the rapidly expanding and cooling first minutes of
the universe, as logically and quantitatively detailed according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis.
Note: "The observed
abundances of the light elements throughout the cosmos closely match
the calculated predictions for the formation of these elements from
nuclear processes in the rapidly expanding and cooling first minutes of
the universe"
That's a scientific theory: observable data match calculated predictions.To argue that it has "no empirical validity," you'd have to argue that radio telescopes, redshifts, the Theory of Relativity and particle accelerators have no empirical validity--a tall order, even for you.
ID is creationism cross-dressing as science: it predicts nothing, observes nothing, explains nothing. "Teaching" it would involve saying ignorance (we just don't know) is a good explanation.
Hook, line and sinker!
For further castigation of ID, please head directly to the "faith" section of this web site, where ID is to be tolerated along with other "ideas", such as the infallibility of Islam. Your cooperation is appreciated.
Yes...that is a theory and I acknowledge it as such. But to avoid annoying Brendan further and confusing LW, I would simply point out your theory has no empirical evidence to explain what force caused the "big bang" to happen in the first place as your own quote points out.
explanation for such an initial condition, rather explaining the
general evolution of the universe since that instant.
So your theory has some empirical evidence to explain (measure) the middle, but not the start or end of the Big Bang process. ID is one explanation, but certainly not the only explanation.
There is much more to ID than this, most notably in biology, though its discussion is more properly in a scientific forum, than Faith section as others have proposed--though I expect that statement alone will cause an instinctive hit on the "reply" button.
Before doing so, take a look at these links which discuss the science of ID.
The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory
Intelligent design is a scientific theory which has its roots in information theory and observations about intelligent action. Intelligent design theory makes inferences based upon observations about the types of complexity that can be produced by the action of intelligent agents vs. the types of information that can be produced through purely natural processes to infer that life was designed by an intelligence or multiple intelligences. It makes no statements about the identity of the intelligent designer(s), but merely says that intelligent action was involved at some points with the origins of various aspects of biological life.
Mike,
The only comment I would make is that ID assumes an unprovable conclusion and then tries to prove it. Big bang is a theory describing observed reality, but draws no conclusions about what cannot be tested. This is one reason why the Hadron Collider has been built to create the conditions that may have existed at that time in order to draw further conclusions.
What are ID proponents doing to contact the designer or to prove that a designer existed? The two theories cannot be said to be equivalent in intent or in their scientific testing. ID is simply an assertion.
To get back on point , what all this complicated theories and stuff got anything to do with the kids in school?
You guys 250 years old....lol..,couldn't agree on a definition of Creationsm and one is to expect 10 years olds to actually make sense of it?...lol... come on
NO religion for kids in school unless it's under the form of a computer game of some kind in which God is the Christian god and at the end of the game he kills Osama Bin Laden,
Something like Dart Vader and Luke...LOL
Right, Iron Mike?
I think that's the perfect combination of spiritual context, science and fiction. Three theories in one class.
he he
Mike--ID is not an explanation in any meaningful sense, since it can't unpack the word "intelligent" into structures of cause and effect. Its basic structure is to say that certain types of complexity are too complex to have been produced at random; what it leaves out is action over time--specifically, the inconceivable amounts of time represented by the word "billion."
As your quotation points out, ID is generally deployed in arguments about biology: "intelligent action was involved at some points with the origins of various aspects of biological life"
This is the first time I've seen it extended to cosmology, where it is at a distinct disadvantage, given that it can't produce any evidence of its own without relying on the theory it contests.
On the other hand, as you correctly note, the Big Bang has built in limits: it can't explain anything before moment zero--and doesn't try to. Its scope is limited by the need for there to be something to observe.
For ID, "intelligent" has to mean "greater than we can understand, given our human capacities." I'm actually quite sympathetic to this AS A THEOLOGICAL POSITION. It goes wrong when it misunderstands itself as science.
‘It goes wrong when it misunderstands itself as science.’
Hobbes,
You’ve got it all wrong, proponents of ID understand it’s not a science, they also understand that all they do if have to do is argue that it’s a science to get the American public to believe it’s a science.
This type of misinformation and propaganda is right up there with those argue that 911 was committed by the Israelis, or that the holocaust never happened. That these sort of deceptive lies are as wide spread and believed by so many, including relatively intelligent people such as IM, doesn’t speak all that well to human rationalism.
argue that 911 was committed by the Israelis, or that the holocaust
never happened.
I think this is an inflammatory comparison: it unnecessarily introduces issues of moral culpability to denigrate others' judgments. Not my tactic.
The more interesting question raised by IM's defense of ID has to do with control of the structure and content of education. Mike wants educational decisions, as far as possible, to be left up to local authorities, ideally to the people whose children are being educated. Such local control is eroded by curricular standards and content being dictated by statewide or national authorities. It looks, to many, like unaccountable meddling or elitist condescension. The turn to ID is, I think, a symptom of that animus.
Hobbes,
Sorry, but it’s not a tactic, it a conviction. The manipulative strategy of those who are spreading intelligent design under the guise of a science, as a way to wedge
creationism back into the public school system is what is inflammatory, and
those who turn their backs on basic fundamental reasoning in order to support
an opportunistic venture that supports their political or religious views
deserves to be denigrated.
Alan,
Theres a lot at risk right now, and we all have to prioritize our concerns in order to choose a candidate. Gun rights activists are motivated to keep those rights, I dont see the same urgency to protect the separation of church and state. the mood and extent of debate in this country now is if you are against the doctrine of preemption, you are against democracy. If you are opposed to having creationism taught in school you are against god and you probably want Americans to give up our guns so the terrorists can take over and make this country a nation of Islam.
So anyway I can understand where youre coming from about the supreme court ruling on gun ownership rights but I think in choosing McCain and Palin you are having to accept and be ok with how they intend to change this country, and how their foreign policies will affect us and the world which to me is more alarming than the gun issue.
Post new comment