Discrimination On Scientists That Back ID

[The ClayTaurus]

Well it would be nice to know for those purposes. But you could integrate those parts into history classes.

No, you couldn't.

There is a difference between teaching that a war was started because one religion hated another, and teaching the principals and history of each religion. IMO.

Not to mention the fact that you would only be teaching about religion in terms of world conflict, which I'm sure isn't the best message to be sending.

 

[Powerman]

No, you couldn't.

There is a difference between teaching that a war was started because one religion hated another, and teaching the principals and history of each religion. IMO.

Not to mention the fact that you would only be teaching about religion in terms of world conflict, which I'm sure isn't the best message to be sending.

OK so you're talking about a comparative religion class. You can teach that on the secondary level. I think you'd have to teach it on a secondary level where people have a better grasp on things.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

OK so you're talking about a comparative religion class. You can teach that on the secondary level. I think you'd have to teach it on a secondary level where people have a better grasp on things.

Secondary as in college?

 

[Powerman]

Secondary as in college?

Secondary as in highschool...that's what secondary is to my knowledge.

Elementery Ed students teach elementary kids


Secondary Ed students teach highschool kids.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Secondary as in highschool...that's what secondary is to my knowledge.

Elementery Ed students teach elementary kids


Secondary Ed students teach highschool kids.

Should it be required in highschool, or an elective?

 

[Powerman]

Should it be required in highschool, or an elective?

I think it should be an elective personally. Although at my school comparative religion was the senior portion of our religion block. I went to a Catholic School and we studied about several other religions.

 

[Annie]

True. But I don't think that most schools have a theology class. So why not just let the parents teach them whatever they believe at home?

Actually they do all have 'World History' or 'Global Studies' that does include a chapter on Comparative religions or the religions of regions are woven within each region.

Most larger high schools also have 'philosophy' which also includes comparative religions.

In Catholic and I would assume other religious schools, there is theology taught daily. Comparative religions takes up 5 chapters in the 7th grade book I use-"Creed".

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Actually they do all have 'World History' or 'Global Studies' that does include a chapter on Compartive religions or the religions of regions are woven within each region.

Most larger high schools also have 'philosophy' which also includes comparative religions.

In Catholic and I would assume other religious schools, there is theology taught daily. Comparative religions takes up 5 chapters in the 7th grade book I use-"Creed".

Out of curiousity, how objectively do you think comparative religions is taught at a Catholic high school? What's the approach when teaching such things? I would imagine it's a fine line to walk in order to not lead pupils astray from Catholicism, no?

 

[Annie]

Out of curiousity, how objectively do you think comparative religions is taught at a Catholic high school? What's the approach when teaching such things? I would imagine it's a fine line to walk in order to not lead pupils astray from Catholicism, no?

Actually it's pretty straight forward, teach only the 'main precepts' and founding stories and larger leaders of each. I would say the kids are most fascinated with Buddhism, there is something about it they find very appealing.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Actually it's pretty straight forward, teach only the 'main precepts' and founding stories and larger leaders of each. I would say the kids are most fascinated with Buddhism, there is something about it they find very appealing.

Is there ever any fear of turning someone off from catholicism?

 

[Annie]

Is there ever any fear of turning someone off from catholicism?

Not that I'm aware of. Hey, at least two of my students are 'agnostic' from what I can tell. Many Catholics tend to pull away from church in high school, then return as they get over 20 something. Not sure why.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I disagree, it's the amount and quality of the evidence that supports it...period!.

Your proof? FAct is, without a competing theory, it HAS to have leading status. A race of one has no loser.

As you yourself has stated, any "proof" that might be offered in support of a God creator would be anectdotal hearsay. That's not sufficient evidence to include it as an alternate theory..

so all alternatives have to have some evidence to include it in a learning arena? Isnt it possible to come to a proof through logical deduction?

Baloney! All a parent has to do to introduce their kids to ID is take them to any Sunday School at any local Christian church. This is where it's teaching is appropriate in the first place.

And hence you prove my point why evolution has leading status.

 

[Powerman]

Your proof? FAct is, without a competing theory, it HAS to have leading status. A race of one has no loser.

At least you acknowledge that there is no competing theory. But you have to realize that if you have a theory in science you are doing very well. It's not like you obtain theory status with some garbage you thought up off the top of your head. You have to have a lot to get theory status.

so all alternatives have to have some evidence to include it in a learning arena? Isnt it possible to come to a proof through logical deduction?

No not really. You can twist logic 500 different ways to come to any conclusion that you want. Logical deduction isn't evidence for anything. If you use evidence along with logical deduction then we might have something.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

But the issue doesn't really lend itself to rational discussion as ID is clearly rooted in the irrational.

So, you are saying this entire thread is irrational?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Someone's rational is someone else's irrational.

So true. A sane mans rationality is irrational to the mentally disturbed insane person.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I guess I am just a uniterist and not a dividerist....

:teeth:

I vehemently DISAGREE :teeth:

 

[LuvRPgrl]

There's a huge fallacy in this thread that has not been addressed.

People keep saying "ID isn't science (or is not scientifically provable); therefore, ID isn't true." This is scientism at its best - the belief that "science alone can render truth about the world and reality." And the more I see certain posters repeat "ID isn't science, ID isn't science," the more dogmatic in their scientism they become, IMO.

I think that has been brought up , but not responded to , at least not in a scientific way, by the scientific supporters, that science is the ONLY way to know truth.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You could extrapolate that to all subjects then. Science. Philosophy. Math. If you thought God created everything, then why not say 2+2=4 because God created it that way. Multiplication is God's way of improving our mathematical efficiency.

There is a line where you begin to stray from the topic and just always end up with a discussion on God. If you believe that God created mathematics, fine, but math class should be about math, and some other class should be about that God created math. No? You can preface any class by saying "there is a possibility that this subject was the creation of an intelligent designer" but what service does that do for your understanding of that subject? You begin to understand less about mathematics and more that God created mathematics.

Not true at all. Most, if not all subjects, other than science, and particularly the science of the beginnings of life and the universe, wouldnt change one iota whether that subject was created by God or not.

With science, however, if God did create it, then that is important, and would affect what and how the class is taught.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Not true at all. Most, if not all subjects, other than science, and particularly the science of the beginnings of life and the universe, wouldnt change one iota whether that subject was created by God or not.

With science, however, if God did create it, then that is important, and would affect what and how the class is taught.

I disagree whole-heartedly. What you're referring to is a discussion for a theological course, not a science course. At the end of the day, science does not result in the answer of "it's that way because God said so."

If it did, scientific progress would stumble severely.

Unless you want to move to Kansas where they just redefined what Science is.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

At least you acknowledge that there is no competing theory. .

No I didnt. I just stated that the situation is such that no competing theory is allowed in.

But you have to realize that if you have a theory in science you are doing very well. It's not like you obtain theory status with some garbage you thought up off the top of your head. You have to have a lot to get theory status..

Allowing for possibilities is not garbage.

No not really. You can twist logic 500 different ways to come to any conclusion that you want. Logical deduction isn't evidence for anything. If you use evidence along with logical deduction then we might have something.

Twisting logic is using illogic. If you follow the true logic, often it takes you to a truth, or sometimes there is insufficeint information to obtain an answer.

If you come to the wrong conclusion, then you arent using only logic.