http://www.venganza.org/

This idea of Intelligent Design is equivalent to the Intelligent Design taught by christianity.

Both form of ID have the same amount of "convincing" evidence, however, after careful research, I find that the 'Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster' is more logical than the christian arguement for ID.

For example, nobody can disprove the fact that global warming has increased with the decrease in existing pirates.

Hence, you see why Intelligent Design is a joke, and should not be taught in school.

Agreed, I mean you guys are for equal time aren't you?

I actually don't think IDers are for equal time. They just want time.

Anyways, what separates christian ID from this form of ID is that there is quite a considerable number of people who believe in the latter, and these people in large numbers can be quite influential.

That’s great...

I noticed days get longer in summer too, in direct proportion to the number of phone calls I receive...

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:



Anyways, what separates christian ID from this form of ID is that there is quite a considerable number of people who believe in the latter, and these people in large numbers can be quite influential.

Correct. Yet nobody is denying the influence they might have.

What is being questioned is the ridiculous arugment they use, that being, that 'they just want to teach the other "theories" of our decent there might be, aside from evolution'. If they want variety in the curriculum, then that includes the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Yep, the entire point of the Monster is to call out an IDist argument. If people really believe all theories should be taught equally then the Speg monster should be mentioned in class. Yet many people just laugh at it and say no. The Speg monster theory has just as much supporting evidence and predictive power as ID. It shows that contrary to what people say this isn't about teaching all theories or giving our kids a better education.

And ice cream causes drowning. As the consumption of ice cream goes up, so do the number of drownings, and vice versa. There's a direct correlation between the two.

^^ Sexual assault too.

We actually had an interesting classroom discussion (I was the moderator so I remember it all) about ID and whether it ought to be taught.

We initially had two groups -- those who believed that ID should be taught alongside evolution, and those who felt ID ought to be constrained to a theology/history/humanities classroom setting.

The conclusion we came to (and this is gold, guys) is that if we treat ID as a debunked scientific theory (like alchemy), then understanding it would further the study of current scientific thought.

The way we figured ID was a past theory is such: ID was accepted until the scientific method was created; once it was passed through the scientific method it failed, but it was proposed and therefore can be considered a past proposal.

Learning about failed proposals and theories furthers the critical nature of science, encouraging students to analyze all theories with a good degree of skepticism.

Even the biggest lefties (me and a few others) had to concede this solution, and we actually came to an agreement through discussion. For the record.

That is interesting. I actually thought long and hard about the ID, and came up with this.

****************************

Basically, a long time ago, back when there was limited knowledge of science, tools, and ability to study many things in the world - there was an age old question everyone has always wanted to know.

That question is "Where did we come from?" and "Why are we here?".

Considering nobody could truly find the answer to this question, people resorted to a simple answer that quenched their thurst for this knowledge to know. That answer was "god created it (in 7 days)." It was short, simple, and did not require proof, or anything other than convincing.

What they did was tell you to look around at all the amazing things on Earth, animals, plants, all forms of life, the stars...and tell you that 'surely only a someone powerful like God (or a God) could have created it all'.

****************************

But as humans became smarter, technology advanced, science, mathematics, etc. We were able to better study many things, and come to answers/explanations/theories that seemed more reasonable, supported by evidence/experiemention/observations.

Hence, ID was a on old accepted theory at one point in time, but it seems that (for the most part) the current scientific method and the current evolution theory is the most accepted and best supported.

And one day, there may very well be a new theory that has never been heard or thought of before.

I do not believe in ID or the creation theory. I don't believe all of the evolutionary stuff either. I do feel a lot of it makes sense, and may very well ahve been true. But I do not feel as though humans evolved from an ape.

And FSMism (Flying Spaghetti Monster-ism) has a rather convincing arguement for global warming. = )

I think that the different theories should be learned about by everyone, for them to decide what sounds most reasonable for them to believe. And equal time should be given to them.

But honestly...how long does it take to teach ID? God created the world in 7 days, he said let there be animals, an it was done.

FSMism could also be taught in a day as well.

Where as evolution, and all the science involved could be an academic career in studying. Well, atleast more than one class day.

However, if the class is meant to be a science class, than it shall remain relevant to science. But if it is a general class on how the world came to be, then all the theories should be taught.

So evolution will taught in science class, and ID taught in religious class.

While proponents of ID claim their belief is NOT faith based, we all know that it is. I have never met a non-beleiver who believed in ID/creation theory. That is why i say it should be taught in a religous class of some form, and NOT in science class.

But should the question about alternative theories arise in either class, I would hope that the teacher knows enough to talk about both.

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

We actually had an interesting classroom discussion (I was the moderator so I remember it all) about ID and whether it ought to be taught.

We initially had two groups -- those who believed that ID should be taught alongside evolution, and those who felt ID ought to be constrained to a theology/history/humanities classroom setting.

The conclusion we came to (and this is gold, guys) is that if we treat ID as a debunked scientific theory (like alchemy), then understanding it would further the study of current scientific thought.

The way we figured ID was a past theory is such: ID was accepted until the scientific method was created; once it was passed through the scientific method it failed, but it was proposed and therefore can be considered a past proposal.

Learning about failed proposals and theories furthers the critical nature of science, encouraging students to analyze all theories with a good degree of skepticism.

Even the biggest lefties (me and a few others) had to concede this solution, and we actually came to an agreement through discussion. For the record.

Kinda like Bohr's model of the atom, or the aether. The only problem I see is that they'd have to explain why it's scientifically wrong, and alot of fundamentalists would not like that.

we never evolved from apes, we both share a common ancestor, however.

quote:Originally posted by Cancerous Cretin:

we never evolved from apes, we both share a common ancestor, however.



Yep

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Correct. Yet nobody is denying the influence they might have.

What is being questioned is the ridiculous arugment they use, that being, that 'they just want to teach the other "theories" of our decent there might be, aside from evolution'. If they want variety in the curriculum, then that includes the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.



I agree that there is a lot of hypocracy in that argument. It just seems to me that one tends to give authority to the theories more commonly accepted. Lord knows not every actual science theory isn't taught in schools.

Doesn't really bother me either way, since I'm done with high school biology.

By that token, if they would be giving "authority" to the theory most commonly accepted, then they would be giving it to evolution. They aren't. They are giving it to intelligent design.

Thus, they fail on both accounts.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 11-23-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

The conclusion we came to (and this is gold, guys) is that if we treat ID as a debunked scientific theory (like alchemy), then understanding it would further the study of current scientific thought.

I have never been taught about alchemy in science class. We have, however, talked about it in a social studies class, where it belongs.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

By that token, if they would be giving "authority" to the theory most commonly accepted, then they would be giving it to evolution. They aren't. They are giving it to intelligent design.

Thus, they fail on both accounts.



Agreed.

quote:Originally posted by Inti:

I have never been taught about alchemy in science class. We have, however, talked about it in a social studies class, where it belongs.

A few problems with your post.

1. You never refute my argument.

2. You offer an opinion (it belongs in a social studies class) and then don't warrant it, meaning it's useless.

3. You offer a personal experience as proof of a generality.

Sorry, try again.

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

A few problems with your post.

1. You never refute my argument.

2. You offer an opinion (it belongs in a social studies class) and then don't warrant it, meaning it's useless.

3. You offer a personal experience as proof of a generality.

Sorry, try again.

yeah i know, but you havn't tried to counter the thrust of his argument, all you've done is go on about "rules".

so, were YOU taught about alchemy in science?

were you told it was a theory generally accepted by science?

you should sue your school.

My friend showed me that site a couple days ago. It's pretty fucking cool. I hope someday I'll have a religion as cool as that.

quote:Originally posted by TerminatorVinitiatoR:

yeah i know, but you havn't tried to counter the thrust of his argument, all you've done is go on about "rules".



I don't even need to address a flawed argument. If I address it, I am admitting its validity, which I will not do.

If you want to debate me on the rules of debate or on the rules of logic, you will lose, because my knowledge of them is far greater than yours. Don't try it.

You know, all this stuff reminds me about this: http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/horror.html

My own opinion on it all though, is that what makes sense and is good should be the stuff taught. This, btw, excludes a lot of both evolution and christian creationism. Anything that doesnt make sense, if it is brought up in class, should be refuted with the pointing out of the appropriate flaw, before returning to the stuff that does.

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

The conclusion we came to (and this is gold, guys) is that if we treat ID as a debunked scientific theory (like alchemy), then understanding it would further the study of current scientific thought.

The way we figured ID was a past theory is such: ID was accepted until the scientific method was created; once it was passed through the scientific method it failed, but it was proposed and therefore can be considered a past proposal

This is crap because ID is not and has never been scientific theory. If you want to teach critical thinkning skills and scientific controversy keep the topic in the realm of actual science.

There is a scientific process:

1) Come up with a hypothesis/theory

2) RESEARCH! (This one is kind of important BTW)

3) Publish in peer reviewed journals.

4) Gain consensus within the scientific community.

5) Teach the theory in school science classes.

ID is trying to jump straight from 1 to 5, skipping most of the process. IT IS NOT SCIENCE. It isn't a viable theory because it doesn't meet the requirements.

Why should it be taught in classrooms when there is no debate between scientists?

Bottom line, ID is not science in any way/shape/form so it should not be taught in science class. You suggest a 'compromise' that we should just teach it as an example of a debunked theory. Well that is false, because it was never theory to begin with. Furthermore, if you want to teach scientic controversy then what should be taught are things disputed within the scientific community-- evolution vs ID is not such a dispute.



[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 11-24-2005).]

The one thing that bothers me, is school boards that won't listen to such things, and will only teach Intelligent Design IN SCIENCE CLASS.

It's like, they don't care that they are depriving students of education. I don't have children, but if I did I would send them to a different school or raise hell @ PTO meetings.

Likewise, I am in college, and would be pissed with classes who didn't give me the education I am paying for.

It seems a lot of people though, feel the same way I do, so I know I am not alone. We don't have this problem in my state luckily. I hope that the state you live in does not either.

The point of the Spag monster is to show this has nothing to do with teaching other theories but religion. In both recent board decisions that is true.

Dover: The board originally discussed teaching creationism to put religion back in school until they were told that is illegal then they switched to ID. The Book the recommended is published by a group that promotes teaching through the christian perspective and was originally about creationism until a court rulling said creationism couldn't be taught then it was changed to "Intelligent design."

The money to buy the books was raised at a church and then secretly funneled through secular sources before given to the school to hide the fact that a church bought the books.

Kansas: They have outright said they want to teach creationism and fundementalist christian origins, which is why I expect it to be challenged.

In other words this has everything to do with pushing religion and nothing to do with childrens education (As we all know school boards have nothing to do with education http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) )

god i hate living in kansas. the school board passed the "science standards" change thing on a 6-4 vote. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif) people will resist it.