Why should intelligent design not be in schools?

[Coyote]

Provided that a specific religion isn't taught but merely logical arguments for design, I don't see how it violates the 1st Amendment, especially considering that the American Founders specifically mentioned a creator in the Declaration of Independence.

As long as it isn't taught as science (which it isn't) - it doesn't matter so much.

but why teach it at all?
school time is limited enough. there's no need to add every fantasy to instructional time along with facts.

That's true, but it could taught in an elective course like comparative religion.

i guess. i just can't see how anyone is better off for learning it or worse off for not.

but since everything about it can be taught with one sentence i suppose it's not that terrible if it's introduced somewhere outside of science class

I personally think it should remain in Sunday school, but I won't raise a big fuss if it's taught in the proper context.

 

[there4eyeM]

There isn't time to teach absolutely every idea people have had. How long would it take to learn history if we had to include 'What if Napoleon hadn't existed', or 'What if session had succeeded?"?
Religion, in America, is for private life, not in state supported institutions. You will find that the first amendment will be changed sometime after the second.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Provided that a specific religion isn't taught but merely logical arguments for design, I don't see how it violates the 1st Amendment, especially considering that the American Founders specifically mentioned a creator in the Declaration of Independence.

Because it has no bearing on reality. We don't teach kids that it rains whenever the sky is sad, we teach them the water cycle.

Billy, the reason it rains is because God sees you masturbating and it makes him cry. Do you want God to cry Billy? Because thats what you're doing.

 

[there4eyeM]

But, we need rain!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Of course you don't think I'm kidding. You know it to be true, pod person that you are.

Again, I think you truly believe it. Of course you probably believed all the talk about death panels, the military attacking Texas, and Walmart tunnels.

What I believe is that modern-day Democrats are not Americans.

Of course you do. I'm sure there is a long list of crazy things you believe.

America is an idea they do not support. Ergo ...

I already agreed that you believe a lot of stupid things. No need for you to list them all.

Perhaps you can list the ways in which they support it. It shouldn't take long.

I can certainly list the ways they oppose it, but it would take quite awhile.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Provided that a specific religion isn't taught but merely logical arguments for design, I don't see how it violates the 1st Amendment, especially considering that the American Founders specifically mentioned a creator in the Declaration of Independence.

Because it has no bearing on reality. We don't teach kids that it rains whenever the sky is sad, we teach them the water cycle.

Billy, the reason it rains is because God sees you masturbating and it makes him cry. Do you want God to cry Billy? Because thats what you're doing.

You forgot to paste my part in this exchange, and yet named me. Why is that? Did my part confuse you?

 

[BULLDOG]

Again, I think you truly believe it. Of course you probably believed all the talk about death panels, the military attacking Texas, and Walmart tunnels.

What I believe is that modern-day Democrats are not Americans.

Of course you do. I'm sure there is a long list of crazy things you believe.

America is an idea they do not support. Ergo ...

I already agreed that you believe a lot of stupid things. No need for you to list them all.

Perhaps you can list the ways in which they support it. It shouldn't take long.

I can certainly list the ways they oppose it, but it would take quite awhile.

I;m not going to play that game with a crazy person. Everybody knows you believe crazy shit.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Provided that a specific religion isn't taught but merely logical arguments for design, I don't see how it violates the 1st Amendment, especially considering that the American Founders specifically mentioned a creator in the Declaration of Independence.

Because it has no bearing on reality. We don't teach kids that it rains whenever the sky is sad, we teach them the water cycle.

Billy, the reason it rains is because God sees you masturbating and it makes him cry. Do you want God to cry Billy? Because thats what you're doing.

You forgot to paste my part in this exchange, and yet named me. Why is that? Did my part confuse you?

It was just a funny kids name. Change it to Chucky for all I care.

 

[turzovka]

Provided that a specific religion isn't taught but merely logical arguments for design, I don't see how it violates the 1st Amendment, especially considering that the American Founders specifically mentioned a creator in the Declaration of Independence.

It is not taught because too many scientists want to keep their "we are more important than God" status. So they pretend like they have no evidence there has to be an intelligent designer. They are not that stupid, they are that full of themselves.

Then science when challenged comes around with their usual rejoinder --- we are not in the business of trying to prove God, that is not our field of study. No? Well you sure are in the business of constantly trying to disprove Him!

And of course the federal govt and the teachers unions will see to it that God is never mentioned anywhere, and "hinting" here and there that the possibility of a supernatural existence shows absolutely no evidence of it being real. And then us Christians will close the book and either laugh or cry.

I could not care less if they teach anything about intelligent design as a possibility or necessity for evolution to have occurred, that will never happen. But I would like to see one or two prominent scientists give their own personal opinion outside of their labs as a regular citizen and say that they are a firm believer God has to exist based on their own knowledge and experiences. But they never will. Because they know it will be a career killer for them. In other words, the world of science clearly has an agenda they want to keep --- right or wrong --- and they expect their fellow scientists to stay in line.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Because 'intelligent design' was designed specifically to get Christianity taught in schools alongside and equal to the Theory of Evolution. The purveyors of that religion see their grip on unreality slipping to reality so they've been busy coming up with whatever batshit will stick to the wall. The 'creation museum' is one such endeavor into ridiculousness. They have dinosaurs with saddles on them and children playing next to them.

There is nothing intelligent about ID except the way the fake Christians that came up with it are trying to sell it as something it isn't. They are using the big lie because their bigger lie isn't working any more. Their arguments continually lose in the debate in the public square. Myths have a tendency to slowly die out as actual knowledge is gained, and people no longer believe a snake talked or that we are all responsible for one woman eating an apple and therefore subjecting the rest of us to an eternity of torture at the hands of a flying father figure who commands all humans to love him or burn in torture forever. That is what Kim Jong IL does.

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
― Isaac Newton, The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy

I love how you dorks quote people from hundreds of years ago, continually relying on the fallacy that if someone is an authority on one thing they are the authority on all things forever. Before Darwin there were very few people who didn't believe in 'a god'. But it feels good for you to use the fallacy so you use it, and who am I to rain on your delusion. Your world is the world of lowest hanging fruit, even if it is rotten.

Better scrap that avatar then

So you're the avatar police as well. At least that is how you see yourself. Again, your world is a black and white 1930s movie that has never and will never exist. Join the world in reality, you'll find it's harder but much more rewarding when you see and accept the complexities of reality.

It's fun being a child until you grow up. Then it's just childish.

 

[there4eyeM]

Teaching comparative religion is a very good idea. Comparative political systems would be, too.

 

[rightwinger]

Provided that a specific religion isn't taught but merely logical arguments for design, I don't see how it violates the 1st Amendment, especially considering that the American Founders specifically mentioned a creator in the Declaration of Independence.

It is not taught because too many scientists want to keep their "we are more important than God" status. So they pretend like they have no evidence there has to be an intelligent designer. They are not that stupid, they are that full of themselves.

Then science when challenged comes around with their usual rejoinder --- we are not in the business of trying to prove God, that is not our field of study. No? Well you sure are in the business of constantly trying to disprove Him!

And of course the federal govt and the teachers unions will see to it that God is never mentioned anywhere, and "hinting" here and there that the possibility of a supernatural existence shows absolutely no evidence of it being real. And then us Christians will close the book and either laugh or cry.

I could not care less if they teach anything about intelligent design as a possibility or necessity for evolution to have occurred, that will never happen. But I would like to see one or two prominent scientists give their own personal opinion outside of their labs as a regular citizen and say that they are a firm believer God has to exist based on their own knowledge and experiences. But they never will. Because they know it will be a career killer for them. In other words, the world of science clearly has an agenda they want to keep --- right or wrong --- and they expect their fellow scientists to stay in line.

Your views on the nature of god are capable of changing just like science changes when new information becomes available.

Why continue a thousands of year old view of God? What did primitive people know about God that you don't?

 

[hadit]

Isn't "Intelligent Design" just one way of throwing our hands in the air and saying "It's too complicated to even explore for and answer!"?

No, it's the natural response to examining an organized system that shows every indication of being designed and declaring that it most likely was designed.

 

[Nosmo King]

Isn't "Intelligent Design" just one way of throwing our hands in the air and saying "It's too complicated to even explore for and answer!"?

No, it's the natural response to examining an organized system that shows every indication of being designed and declaring that it most likely was designed.

Most likely? What's the tent pole argument of Intelligent Design? Irreducible redundancy? It's already been disproved.