What's wrong with intelligent design?

[Semper Fi]

At my school, there is a club called the Gay Straight Alliance (GSA). Their main pillar is tolerence, urging people to tolerate gays and lesbians with their silent days and rainbows. However, they are outspoken against intelligent design. How then, are the they tolerating? According to them, it is, therefore anything gay I'm automatically labeling as 'wrong'.

 

[5stringJeff]

The homosexual community - and many other Leftist organizations, for that matter - define tolerance as "agreeing with us." If you speak out against their mantra, then you are the lowest scum on earth.

 

[liberalogic]

You've missed the entire point of the ID issue...no one is saying you can't believe it...it just shouldn't be taught as a science because it is not-- it is a system with tremendous theological implications.

There is a difference between tolerating and accepting. The GSA at your school has the right to disagree (just as people have the right to disagree with homosexuality), but the main point is to be understanding and tolerate all views. If they are not understanding of your views on ID, then they are hypocrites. At the same time, though, that doesn't mean that they have to embrace them.

 

[Semper Fi]

You've missed the entire point of the ID issue...no one is saying you can't believe it...it just shouldn't be taught as a science because it is not-- it is a system with tremendous theological implications.

There is a difference between tolerating and accepting. The GSA at your school has the right to disagree (just as people have the right to disagree with homosexuality), but the main point is to be understanding and tolerate all views. If they are not understanding of your views on ID, then they are hypocrites. At the same time, though, that doesn't mean that they have to embrace them.

I'm not addressing ID, I'm slaiming that the GSA is bunch of hypocrites. You are right, they have the right to disagree. I think you are wrong as far as the GSA ideals go. They don't want me to tolerate them being a bunch of gays, they want us to work it into our culture. I say that if I should do that for them, they should have to accept my views, or at least a sample of them, into their culture.

 

[liberalogic]

I'm not addressing ID, I'm slaiming that the GSA is bunch of hypocrites. You are right, they have the right to disagree. I think you are wrong as far as the GSA ideals go. They don't want me to tolerate them being a bunch of gays, they want us to work it into our culture. I say that if I should do that for them, they should have to accept my views, or at least a sample of them, into their culture.

What would you like them to do in order to accept it? I don't really see the correlation between gayness and ID.

 

[MtnBiker]

I believe Semper Fi wants the GSA to be open minded to at least the idea of ID if he is to be asked to be open minded about the gay lifestyle.

 

[Semper Fi]

What would you like them to do in order to accept it? I don't really see the correlation between gayness and ID.

Not speak out against it. If they expect me to not speak out against gayness, then it's pretty acceptable that I expect them not to speak out against things that influence my lifestyle.

 

[dmp]

Not speak out against it. If they expect me to not speak out against gayness, then it's pretty acceptable that I expect them not to speak out against things that influence my lifestyle.

Ironic...There exists more biological evidence to support ID than exists to support they are victims of genetics...that they are somehow 'born gay', yet they speak out against ID?

Yeah - Dude, brother...Get used to it. In the coming years More and more lies will be worshipped as 'truth'.

 

[5stringJeff]

You've missed the entire point of the ID issue...no one is saying you can't believe it...it just shouldn't be taught as a science because it is not-- it is a system with tremendous theological implications.

There is a difference between tolerating and accepting. The GSA at your school has the right to disagree (just as people have the right to disagree with homosexuality), but the main point is to be understanding and tolerate all views. If they are not understanding of your views on ID, then they are hypocrites. At the same time, though, that doesn't mean that they have to embrace them.

That bold portion, I believe, is the thrust of his complaint, and the thrust of the Right's complaint about "tolerance" in general. Too many on the Left will not even allow a dissenting view to be heard, much less discussed, understood, or tolerated.

 

[liberalogic]

Not speak out against it. If they expect me to not speak out against gayness, then it's pretty acceptable that I expect them not to speak out against things that influence my lifestyle.

Ok, I'll agree with you there. If they are speaking out against putting it in a science class, then they are correct. But if they are simply saying that ID is wrong and that people shouldn't believe it, then they are wrong and should shut up.

But I'm just emphasizing-- by no means should ID be required in public science classes....at the same time, the gays in your school should at least respect your views as you hopefully do theirs.

 

[Abbey Normal]

...But I'm just emphasizing-- by no means should ID be required in public science classes....at the same time, the gays in your school should at least respect your views as you hopefully do theirs.

By no means, ey? If we are to be so narrow in our definition of what does and does not belong in a particular class, why does my daughter have to have a discussion on homosexuality in Health class?

I am not talking about learning about AIDS or STD's, which I could certainly understand being pertinent in a Health class. I am talking about a speaker coming in to lecture the class on understanding and accepting gays and lesbians.

And her one and only Health homework assignment was to have a parent answer a questionnaire about our views on our acceptance of gays, gay marriage, etc.

 

[Semper Fi]

Ok, I'll agree with you there. If they are speaking out against putting it in a science class, then they are correct. But if they are simply saying that ID is wrong and that people shouldn't believe it, then they are wrong and should shut up.

But I'm just emphasizing-- by no means should ID be required in public science classes....at the same time, the gays in your school should at least respect your views as you hopefully do theirs.

So we're (more or less) on the same page. On the note of actual intelligent design, I believe that an alternative to evolution should at least be recognized in schools. I've been tought Darwin's Theory , not Darwin's Law. If one theory is tought as a public curriculum, then why not all, provided that they are not total nonsense?

 

[Annie]

By no means, ey? If we are to be so narrow in our definition of what does and does not belong in a particular class, why does my daughter have to have a discussion on homosexuality in Health class?

I am not talking about learning about AIDS or STD's, which I could certainly understand being pertinent in a Health class. I am talking about a speaker coming in to lecture the class on understanding and accepting gays and lesbians.

And her one and only Health homework assignment was to have a parent answer a questionnaire about our views on our acceptance of gays, gay marriage, etc.

Now THAT is an issue I can agree with. In fact, I think a case could be made that what the gays/lesbians are doing in public schools, via health and diversity education could be construed as 'proselytizing'. Thus setting it up for 'establishment' challenge.

 

[liberalogic]

So we're (more or less) on the same page. On the note of actual intelligent design, I believe that an alternative to evolution should at least be recognized in schools. I've been tought Darwin's Theory , not Darwin's Law. If one theory is tought as a public curriculum, then why not all, provided that they are not total nonsense?

We are on the same page with the gays respecting your views...I strongly disagree with placing ID in the SCIENCE classroom because there is no evidence to back it up: it isn't science and it's underlying principle is based on a theological premise: that should not be taught as fact or anything close to it.

As for ID in a philosophy/culture class (or anything of that sort), I have no problem whatsoever with it because it is an explanation of people's beliefs and is not necessarily providing the class with a way to look at the world, but rather a group of people.

 

[liberalogic]

By no means, ey? If we are to be so narrow in our definition of what does and does not belong in a particular class, why does my daughter have to have a discussion on homosexuality in Health class?

I am not talking about learning about AIDS or STD's, which I could certainly understand being pertinent in a Health class. I am talking about a speaker coming in to lecture the class on understanding and accepting gays and lesbians.

And her one and only Health homework assignment was to have a parent answer a questionnaire about our views on our acceptance of gays, gay marriage, etc.

Look, I'm assuming you're religious and I'm going to venture to say that we will not agree on the "legitimacy" of homosexuality. My answer to your question about homosexuality in a health class is that it is not their to corrupt your children or anything of that nature, but to present the reality of sexuality-- there are those who to prefer to have sex with people of the same gender: it's a part of today's society and should be recognized in a health class to alert students of what is going on in the "real world."

Now, if they told your kids to be gay, then I might take issue with that...

 

[Hobbit]

Look, I'm assuming you're religious and I'm going to venture to say that we will not agree on the "legitimacy" of homosexuality. My answer to your question about homosexuality in a health class is that it is not their to corrupt your children or anything of that nature, but to present the reality of sexuality-- there are those who to prefer to have sex with people of the same gender: it's a part of today's society and should be recognized in a health class to alert students of what is going on in the "real world."

Now, if they told your kids to be gay, then I might take issue with that...

But they do. They offer psychological exams to people to determine sexual orientation, which are often wrong. My mom had to take one once, and it said she was less than 30% straight, which is laughable.

 

[liberalogic]

But they do. They offer psychological exams to people to determine sexual orientation, which are often wrong. My mom had to take one once, and it said she was less than 30% straight, which is laughable.

I didn't graduate from HS that long ago and they didn't do that to me-- they just showed us a video that promoted tolerance of homosexuals (which should be in a health class).

A test to determine your sexuality! Wow...that's pretty crazy...not only does that fuel more concerns during adolescence, but it is also an invasion of your privacy (your sexuality). Plus, it doesn't seem too accurate as in your mom's case! I think your own sexuality is something you need to come to grips with on your own...the school shouldn't tell you whether your gay or straight.

 

[Hobbit]

I didn't graduate from HS that long ago and they didn't do that to me-- they just showed us a video that promoted tolerance of homosexuals (which should be in a health class).

A test to determine your sexuality! Wow...that's pretty crazy...not only does that fuel more concerns during adolescence, but it is also an invasion of your privacy (your sexuality). Plus, it doesn't seem too accurate as in your mom's case! I think your own sexuality is something you need to come to grips with on your own...the school shouldn't tell you whether your gay or straight.

Ah, something we can agree on. Now, I'm of the opinion that all people are biologically straight and that homosexuals have a few loose screws, but as I've said before, God gave us free will, and that includes the freedom to sin (but that doesn't mean I have to like it or allow the government to sanction it).

They didn't do it to me, either, but it is done in some places. I think this particular test was a psychological evaluation my mom had to take before starting to student teach, and when she told me about it, she said that if she was a confused girl trying to figure out what she really was, she probably would have bought that load of bull and found a, if you'll excuse the term, dyke to shack up with.

 

[deaddude]

On ID: There is nothing wrong with ID. There is somthing wrong with calling ID a science. Science deals with the natural and the observable, any hypothesis which involves or requires the intervention of the supernatural is unscientific.

On homosexuality: Test = wrong. Other than that, live and let live.

 

[dmp]

Science deals with the natural and the observable. . .

Makes me wonder why Evolution is called 'science'.

Nothing is observable in Evolution.