Teaching Intelligent Design in public schools

[BOB SAGET!]

well im not sure if the US have catholic schools, i know in Canada we do.

 

[RDK]

well im not sure if the US have catholic schools, i know in Canada we do.

Of course the U.S. has Catholic schools.

But that's beside the point. If a private institution wants to teach ID and call it science, that's fine. However a public institution has no right to so. It's not science, and public money should not go towards funding the teaching of something that's not science.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

well ID shouldnt be taught in public schools, there are many different cultures who dont believe in the same thing. science and religon can mix but only everyone in the school has the same religon. Though I don't think ID is necessary even in Catholic schools, they already have religon class. though if ID is taught it should be taught in Catholic school and not public ones.

 

[w!zard]

But that's beside the point. If a private institution wants to teach ID and call it science, that's fine.

i disagree. since ID CLEARLY isn't science, it should be illegal to teach it in science classes. even though they are private schools, they should not be able to teach anything they wanted. schools should maintain a certain level of academic integrity, and teaching anti-sciences in science classes breaks that.

 

[RDK]

i disagree. since ID CLEARLY isn't science, it should be illegal to teach it in science classes. even though they are private schools, they should not be able to teach anything they wanted. schools should maintain a certain level of academic integrity, and teaching anti-sciences in science classes breaks that.

If it's a private high school it is by law (and unfortunately) allowed to teach whatever it wants as long as it's not funded by public money. The important thing is that college institutions--and I use that term loosely--like Liberty in Virginia or the ICR in Texas aren't allowed to offer Masters degrees to students in science because their science courses aren't science.

If they were, we would have a problem, but as of now there's no reason to get in a fit about parochial schools teaching ID. No employer in the sciences who is in their right mind would hire somebody onto their staff that openly promotes the philosophy of creationism.

 

[w!zard]

If it's a private high school it is by law (and unfortunately) allowed to teach whatever it wants as long as it's not funded by public money.

really? so can they teach racism?

The important thing is that college institutions--and I use that term loosely--like Liberty in Virginia or the ICR in Texas aren't allowed to offer Masters degrees to students in science because their science courses aren't science.

is this the same for high schools? do colleges not accept some "science" classes as science when considering admission?

If they were, we would have a problem, but as of now there's no reason to get in a fit about parochial schools teaching ID. No employer in the sciences who is in their right mind would hire somebody onto their staff that openly promotes the philosophy of creationism.

it's not fair to the kid to be unknowingly locked in a brainwash facility. schooling is required because the government thinks its citizens should be properly educated, but replacing public education with biased and inadequate private education contradicts the purpose of the law. teaching ID in any science class should be illegal for this reason.

 

[RDK]

really? so can they teach racism?

Sure, as long as nobody complains to the school board about it. Remember, I went to private school my entire high school career. I think I know what I'm talking about.

is this the same for high schools? do colleges not accept some "science" classes as science when considering admission?

I don't think it extends that far; I mean I wasn't penalized by colleges because my high school taught that evolution was false. Colleges don't do that much research into every single potential admission's background. They look at GPA and standardized test scores, and that's about it.

My point was that if you're fresh out of college and are looking for a job in the sciences, no respectable employer is going to hire you after seeing that you got your Master's degree in science from the Institute of Creation Research.

it's not fair to the kid to be unknowingly locked in a brainwash facility.

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

schooling is required because the government thinks its citizens should be properly educated, but replacing public education with biased and inadequate private education contradicts the purpose of the law. teaching ID in any science class should be illegal for this reason.

I agree with this too; however, as long as it's their own money they're pissing into a bottomless pit, the government doesn't care what you teach private school kids. Once you start taking public money, you have to abide by state laws.

 

[|RK|]

it's not fair to the kid to be unknowingly locked in a brainwash facility.

And this is why any religious discussion should be banned here. It's fine if you're atheist, but you obviously do not respect Christianity or Christians. So please, refrain from making slanderous comments towards a group of people. That includes you as well RDK. Being as you are a veteran debater I believe that you are responsible for making comments with more tact than that.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

Well it really depends on what th child is brought up to believe in. ID though really isn't necessary in Catholic schools. Catholic schools already have religon. I think science should just be science and religon should just be religon. ID is a good way to mix them both but it's not necessary. It shouldn't be allowed in pblic schools period because all the childrens religons are different.

 

[Eor]

I would agree that Private Schools should be allowed to teach what they want (actually I do), but I'm wondering if they have to get some sort of verification that they're capable of teaching people? If they don't, then yeah they should be able to do whatever. If they do then I could see why they would be forced to teach evolution. Though I'm actually against private schools having said form of verification and should be able to teach what they want, though like I mentioned before I dunno if this "verification" thing exists.

And to Joker: I agree with you about how people (including me) are insensitive, but I very much disagree that it should be banned. It's just something to deal with

 

[w!zard]

And this is why any religious discussion should be banned here. It's fine if you're atheist, but you obviously do not respect Christianity or Christians. So please, refrain from making slanderous comments towards a group of people. That includes you as well RDK. Being as you are a veteran debater I believe that you are responsible for making comments with more tact than that.

if you're against what i have to say, show me how i'm wrong rather than spew your defensive juices at me. they don't really do anything, but they do get annoying.

 

[|RK|]

What. You are wrong because you insulted an entire religion. I agree with your standpoint on the matter at hand, however.

 

[w!zard]

i didn't post that to insult, it just happened to be insulting; however, it does not make it any less true

 

[Nysyarc]

i didn't post that to insult, it just happened to be insulting; however, it does not make it any less true

Try not to post things that might insult, religion is a delicate matter to debate, and people tend to get more defensive about it than most other fathomable topics.

I agree with your last statement though. However, if teaching religion is 'brainwashing', could it not also be argued that teaching science is 'brainwashing'? I just think that's a bad word to describe it with.

I myself do not 'believe' in anything which I cannot prove. I prefer not to call myself an Atheist, as that is simply a standard term for a non-believer (I'm not part of any Atheist cult or anything), but I do not believe in any higher powers. I do respect other people's beliefs however, and so I think that evolution and intelligent design should both be taught in school, but perhaps not in the same class. Make it optional, if a student wants to learn about evolution, they can elect to take the course on it, and likewise if they want to learn about ID. If they want to learn about both and decide which they will accept, then they can take both courses.

 

[w!zard]

religion requires faith and does not advocate rational thinking. science is the exact opposite. one tells you to accept something as truth regardless of contradictory observations. the other is universally applicable and unbiased. you tell me which one is brainwash and which one isn't.

i can respect a person's right to his own beliefs, but i will not respect their beliefs until they earn it.

 

[Nysyarc]

you tell me which one is brainwash and which one isn't.

I said that neither is brainwashing. Brainwashing, by definition, is drastically altering someone's beliefs by systematic and often forcible measures. I disagree with the use of that word in this instance. School is never brainwash.

i can respect a person's right to his own beliefs, but i will not respect their beliefs until they earn it.

I apologize, that is more along the lines of what I meant to say. I do not respect religions because I do not believe them to be true, however I will not tell someone to abandon their religion because of my personal opinion.

If it were up to me, I would abolish all religions and elect to teach only rationality. Not because I personally have anything against religions, but because statistically, they are the underlying cause for most large-scale conflicts in the world. If everyone on the planet thought with unclouded minds, it would be a much safer world. But since it is not up to me, I will continue to accept people's rights to religion.

 

[w!zard]

many religions target children before they are able to think (rationally) for themselves. it is essentially a forcible measure. religion also advocates having a closed mind by discouraging rationality, questioning, and adaptability.

 

[Nysyarc]

many religions target children before they are able to think (rationally) for themselves. it is essentially a forcible measure. religion also advocates having a closed mind by discouraging rationality, questioning, and adaptability.

Yes but the first and key part of the definition is that to brainwash someone, you have to radically change their beliefs. I am only saying that brainwashing is the wrong word to use. I am not saying you're wrong in your argument. It should be the child's decision to be instructed in religion, rather than the parents'; and the decision should only be made once the child is old enough to fully understand the decision they are making.

 

[w!zard]

you change the child's position of non-belief to belief. that is a change in beliefs. brainwashing does not incorrectly describe most religions. it only "seems" that way because people take offense.

 

[Nysyarc]

you change the child's position of non-belief to belief. that is a change in beliefs. brainwashing does not incorrectly describe most religions. it only "seems" that way because people take offense.

In order to change, or alter someone's beliefs, they have to have some sort of beliefs of their own in the first place. Having no beliefs is not the same thing as having opposite beliefs to whatever you are being introduced to.

If a Buddhist was thrown into a Catholic church and forced to learn, understand, and abide by Catholic customs and traditions instead of the Buddhist ones he/she is already familiar with, that would be brainwashing. Introducing a child to a new religion against his or her will is not brainwashing by definition, however I agree that it is wrong.

I'm not religious, so I shouldn't and don't take offense personally from it being called brainwashing. I do however, see the error in the use of that word.

 

[w!zard]

brainwashing only requires any change in beliefs. your definition of brainwashing is incoherent because you see it as a "switch" in beliefs, but that is impossible. you can only disbelieve and believe. brainwashing can cause you to do either. brainwashing a buddhist to become catholic is a process of causing the victim to disbelieve in buddhism and then believe in catholicism, though it is still brainwashing if there is no disbelieving or believing (though both cannot be missing).

 

[Nysyarc]

brainwashing only requires any change in beliefs. your definition of brainwashing is incoherent because you see it as a "switch" in beliefs, but that is impossible. you can only disbelieve and believe. brainwashing can cause you to do either. brainwashing a buddhist to become catholic is causing the victim to first disbelieve buddhism and then believe in catholicism, though it is still brainwashing if there is no disbelieving or believing (though both cannot be missing).

Well... I didn't want to get into this further but here it goes...

The word 'belief' is a noun. The fact that it exists as plural (beliefs) should be evidence enough that a person can have more than one belief. Yes you are right, a person can only disbelieve or believe any one piece of information... but that is too narrow. I can say "I believe my brother may come to visit me tomorrow". At the same time, I can also say "I believe my brother may call and tell me he is not coming tomorrow". Those are two different beliefs that I have at the same time.

The use of the word 'may' (as in: may come to visit) makes the statements unsure, but I still truly believe in each statement 100%, because my beliefs are that my brother may call me, or he may show up at my house.

So then, a Buddhist may believe in Buddhist traditions, but he may also believe that Leprechauns exist. He may also believe that if you read those spam e-mails telling you to send it to ten more people and you don't, the prediction on the message will come true. Those are unrelated to Buddhism, but they are beliefs nonetheless.

Also, a person may believe certain things about each religion. A religion is not one ultimate and single belief, it is a system of beliefs, rituals and superstitions that become a big part of the lifestyle of the people involved. So in other words, you could not make the person entirely abandon Buddhism instantly, and then immediately take up all of Catholicism.

So even though you are right that if someone is brainwashed, they cannot believe in both religions at the same time (they could, but then the learning of a new religion without the abolishment of the old one would not be brainwash), it is a change of beliefs from one to another. It's like if someone came in my house right now and tortured me until he had convinced me to say (and believe): "I believe my brother is not going to contact me at all tomorrow", I just changed my beliefs through brainwashing, because I no longer believe he will contact me tomorrow.

 

[w!zard]

not all religions are mutually exclusive. i took the safe way because i don't know much about buddhism.

strictly speaking, you cannot change a belief. you can only disbelieve what you already do and then begin believing in something else. colloquially, it could be called a switch but logically it cannot. anyways, this is an unnecessary tangent. brainwashing is forcibly changing beliefs. this could be a change from non-belief to belief or vice versa. this is why (most) religions brainwash.

 

[RDK]

This is turning into semantics, and while both of you are doing a very good job of debating, it is still tangential to the actual topic at hand.

Just for reference, let's take a look at the actual definition of brainwashing:

Brainwashing

1 : a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas

2 : persuasion by propaganda or salesmanship

As you can see, it includes "propaganda or salesmanship", which private schools are definitely guilty of if their goal is to force ID or creationism on students with little to no scientific background. It's comparable to convincing my children that the earth is flat, even we know this to be false. Kids don't know any better.

 

[|RK|]

Actually, doesn't the same go for kids not raised religiously or atheistically? They grow up agnostic. They believe in nothing. And you are both fully aware of the connotations that come with the word "brainwashing". Let's not do this.

bi tch
   /bɪtʃ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [bich] Show IPA
–noun
1. a female dog.
2. a female of canines generally.
3. Slang.
a. a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, esp. a woman.
b. a lewd woman.
4. Slang.
a. a complaint.
b. anything difficult or unpleasant: The test was a *****.
c. anything memorable, esp. something exceptionally good: That last big party he threw was a real *****.
–verb (used without object)
5. Slang. to complain; gripe: They *****ed about the service, then about the bill.
–verb (used with object)
6. Slang. to spoil; bungle (sometimes fol. by up): He *****ed the job completely. You really *****ed up this math problem.

Now, if you called someone's dog a *****, how would they take it? The use for the connotations, in the case of both words outweighs the usage of what the word actually means, and you know that.

EDIT: And you know which meaning is the words non-slang/vulgar meaning as well so don't try that route either.

 

[RDK]

Actually, doesn't the same go for kids not raised religiously or atheistically? They grow up agnostic. They believe in nothing. And you are both fully aware of the connotations that come with the word "brainwashing". Let's not do this.

Atheists don't "believe in nothing". That's a misrepresentation of the atheist position.

That aside, I agree that if parents are aggressively atheistic in their teaching methods that the kid could grow up with an unfair bias. But that could be said about virtually anything.

The point is that kids should not be taught things that are directly contradictory to what modern science accepts as true.

 

[|RK|]

Atheists don't "believe in nothing". That's a misrepresentation of the atheist position.

That aside, I agree that if parents are aggressively atheistic in their teaching methods that the kid could grow up with an unfair bias. But that could be said about virtually anything.

The point is that kids should not be taught things that are directly contradictory to what modern science accepts as true.

I used agnostic.

Besides, most Christians do believe in science.

And I still don't believe (unless there is a class for religion) that religious beliefs should be taught in school

 

[Nysyarc]

Actually, doesn't the same go for kids not raised religiously or atheistically? They grow up agnostic. They believe in nothing.

Actually an agnostic person has no faith in the existence of a god, but does not utterly deny the existence of one either, since their is no solid evidence either way. This best describes my position. I only believe or don't believe what I can find evidence of, therefore I cannot say that a god exists, but I also cannot say that a god does not exist. I think this is the least bias view, and in my opinion, this is what should be taught in schools: to accept proven facts and to not credit OR discredit something that has little to no evidence either way.

Atheists don't "believe in nothing". That's a misrepresentation of the atheist position.

That aside, I agree that if parents are aggressively atheistic in their teaching methods that the kid could grow up with an unfair bias. But that could be said about virtually anything.

The point is that kids should not be taught things that are directly contradictory to what modern science accepts as true.

I agree, and that is why I think that intelligent design should not be taught in schools. I believe evolution to be fact. Some may say that it is only a theory, but even if that's the case, intelligent design can't claim as much itself, it is not a scientific theory. If students were taught to think rationally and with open minds, with a more agnostic view (as I explained above), I would be content.

 

[w!zard]

agnostism is a position about the availability of information of god, not on its existence. your position is (weak) atheism.

 

[Nysyarc]

agnostism is a position about the availability of information of god, not on its existence. your position is (weak) atheism.

agnostic |agˈnästik|

noun

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

ag·nos·tic

Pronunciation: \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\

Function: noun

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

It seems that these two definitions mention the existence or non-existence of god or a god. My position is best described as agnostic. I stand by that statement.

 

[w!zard]

merriam-webster's definitions aren't very good. they even got the definition of "atheist" wrong (they say it's the belief that there is no deity). the more recognized definition of agnosticism (and i believe the one most accepted by the smashboards members) is the first part of the definitions you provided, which is about the information of deities.

 

[Nysyarc]

merriam-webster's definitions aren't very good. they even got the definition of "atheist" wrong (they say it's the belief that there is no deity). the more recognized definition of agnosticism (and i believe the one most accepted by the smashboards members) is the first part of the definitions you provided, which is about the information of deities.

Do you have a different definition of an atheist? An atheist is a person who denies the existence (or believes in the inexistent) of god or a god. A deity is just another word for a god.

As for agnostic, more recognized/accepted or not, that is still only the first part of the definition. They are not individually numbered definitions, but two parts of the same definition. Besides, you don't speak for all of the smash boards; which part of the definition you choose to give more credit to is personal opinion.

In any case, I think you missed my point. I am not saying that I am agnostic, and I am not atheist either. I was not raised as either of those, and not every human being has to fall into a classification of that sort if they do not wish to. I don't want to be labeled an atheist or an agnostic, but my position is closer in semblance to an agnostic than to an atheist. That's all I'm saying.

 

[w!zard]

yes, definitions do have a lot to do with personal opinion, which is why debates over semantics are pretty stupid. but i've read around in the debate hall and the majority of them seems to be going with what i'm telling you

(weak) atheism is the lack in belief of god, which is how you described your position. strong atheism is the belief that there is no god. it doesn't matter how you WANT to be labeled, but atheism best describes your position.

 

[Nysyarc]

yes, definitions do have a lot to do with personal opinion, which is why debates over semantics are pretty stupid. but i've read around in the debate hall and the majority of them seems to be going with what i'm telling you

(weak) atheism is the lack in belief of god, which is how you described your position. strong atheism is the belief that there is no god. it doesn't matter how you WANT to be labeled, but atheism best describes your position.

Yes but the part that weak atheism leaves out is the lack of belief that there is no god. An atheist of any kind isn't willing to accept that there could be a god. I am of the opinion that god may or may not exist. Thus, closer to agnostic.

I'm not saying that because it's what I want to be labeled. I don't want to be labeled either agnostic or atheist. A person has every right to say how he or she wishes to be labeled by others; whether others agree to those terms is their own choice however, you could label me as an atheist, but that is not how I would label myself, and thus, not how I am labeled (since when it comes to your own title of that sort, your yourself have the last word).

Even so, I cannot say that you are agnostic and expect you and everyone else to start referring to you as agnostic, it's not my place to label you. In any case, I'm going to wrap this up with this statement:

I am not atheist or agnostic. That is my final statement and I will stand by it.

 

[w!zard]

no. weak atheism is the lack in belief of a god. that is the definition accepted by the atheist community and it will be the one that is used in discussions on this board.

it does not matter whether you want to be labeled as something or not. a black person cannot tell you that he isn't black because he does not want to be; and you cannot say that you aren't an atheist because you don't want to be. if you fit under a word's definition, you can be described by that word and it would be incorrect to say you cannot be.

 

[Nysyarc]

no. weak atheism is the lack in belief of a god. that is the definition accepted by the atheist community and it will be the one that is used in discussions on this board.

it does not matter whether you want to be labeled as something or not. a black person cannot tell you that he isn't black because he does not want to be; and you cannot say that you aren't an atheist because you don't want to be. if you fit under a word's definition, you can be described by that word and it would be incorrect to say you cannot be.

Yes but skin color is an obvious and thus necessary title. Religion-related titles are not necessary, and so it doesn't matter if I don't want to be labeled agnostic, atheist or the like, because it's not a physical feature that is obvious. You can't prove that I am truly atheist, agnostic, christian, buddhist or anything else of that manner; only I know what goes on inside my head.

Just the same, I can't prove that you are atheist. You may say you are on a forum, but there is still no way for me to get inside your head and actually see what you truly believe. People can always lie, and though I'm not saying that you are a lier, and I do trust that you would not lie about your position (atheist or otherwise), I'm only saying that I myself cannot actually 100% prove it. And neither can you prove that I am any of those. And so it is safest to say that I am none of them and then forget about it. Because it doesn't matter.

If you want to label yourself as one so that people understand your position, fine. But I don't think that I properly fit in with any of those definitions, so I am content to tell people that I am not atheist, agnostic, or anything else; and no matter what you decide to label me as, it may well not be true and you can't prove it either way.

 

[thesage]

Sometimes this topic gets me really riled up for some reason.

I hate it when religious people are saying that the bible is 100% literal. The bible is very vague when it comes down to specific stuff. That's why there are so many different sects of Christianity. People have different interpretations of the bible.

I also hate it when people single out catholic schools. I went to catholic for 6th-10th grade. We learned about evolution in my science classes (one of them was taught by a catholic monk, who was the headmaster of the school). We laughed at creationists (and Scientologists, but that's another debate) in our religion class. I don't really understand why some people can't accept the evidence that it did happen:

1. Comparative embryology (why does a human fetus have gills and look almost the same as a fish fetus in the early stages of development?)

2. Viruses/Bacteria that are evolving/undergoing natural selection today (Why do we need new antivirals/antibiotics?)

3. Fossil evidence

There's more, but I have to go to school now...

It's not like the fact that evolution is real will prove that god is not real. Why is religion even brought up when evolution is discussed? It's not like using the bible will help convince an atheist/non-christian that evolution is real, especially since they don't follow the bible. People against the theory of evolution have to find facts to counter it... I'm not making a comment on the most recent posts since I don't really think evolution should be connected to one's religious beliefs. If anything should get creationists riled up, it should be the theory of the formation of the solar system.

Also why do people single out Catholics so much? Ok, yea the popes were pretty messed up during the middle ages, but today it's not like the Catholics in America have that much influence in politics. Especially considering that the majority of extremely conservative Christians tend to be Protestants/Televangeli$t$. I'm a deist and my family is traditionally eastern orthodox. I hate religious conservatism (it ruined the republican party) as much as any other regular guy, but stop ripping on catholic schools.

 

[w!zard]

Yes but skin color is an obvious and thus necessary title. Religion-related titles are not necessary, and so it doesn't matter if I don't want to be labeled agnostic, atheist or the like, because it's not a physical feature that is obvious. You can't prove that I am truly atheist, agnostic, christian, buddhist or anything else of that manner; only I know what goes on inside my head.

it doesn't matter what your actual beliefs are. as far as anyone cares, the ones you present here are your actual beliefs.

skin color is just as "obvious and necessary" as religious beliefs. it will come up when it is relevant. you don't want to be called an atheist, fine. but that does not make you any less of an atheist. the view you advertised your beliefs as is an atheistic view so as long as you defend those views, you are an atheist.

 

[|RK|]

....however, being there's an actual term for it, being agnostic, your statements are void. Weak atheism sounds like you made them up just now. However, as I do not wish to discredit what you are saying (yet), do you have definition of these terms?

 

[w!zard]

you don't know what you're talking about

theist - one who believes in 1+ deities
(strong) agnostic - one who believes information about deities cannot be known
(weak) agnostic - one who believes information about deities is unknown
(weak) atheism - one who does not believe in the existence of deities
(strong) atheism - one who believes deities do not exist