Teaching evolution -- or not?

[Ken/OC]

The courts seem to want to NOT teach "intelligent design" - but "evolution" seems OK. I can dig it. But when we look back, EVERYTHING we assumed was fact 200 years ago is considered crap today. Should we teach anything to our kids as "fact"? Or are we kidding ourselves?

[sgendler]

200 years ago, the modern scientific method was still barely formulated and 'fact' was still largely based on conjcture and guesswork. Modern science does continue to add to our knowledgebase, but it rarely completely invalidates existing scientific thought. More importantly, whatever we teach, it should be backed up with evidence which purports to prove its correctness. Intelligent design is 'proved' precisely by its lack of supporting evidence, and as such, it isn't appropriate in a school curriculum. Find some evidence thyat actually supports intelligent design, other than 'we can't explain it, so it must be a deity,' and then we can consider its inclusion in an educational curriculum. Until then, it is faith, not fact.

 

But that's just my opinion...

 

--sam

[belezar]

Well said Sam. It's really about what is "science" and what is faith. It has little to do with "facts."

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

The courts seem to want to NOT teach "intelligent design" - but "evolution" seems OK. I can dig it. But when we look back, EVERYTHING we assumed was fact 200 years ago is considered crap today. Should we teach anything to our kids as "fact"? Or are we kidding ourselves?

 

Epistemology is a field of philosophy that examines what we know and how we know it, along with what we don't know, and what we can't know. Wikipedia's got a pretty good writeup here.

 

As a species, it's taken us a pretty long time to figure out how to build our knowledge of the universe. We are subject to a long list of cognitive biases that are an impediment to acquiring knowledge (and successful application of that knowledge). Before we began thinking about how to think, we did OK when it came to understanding simple aspects of our surroundings (“if I let go of this rock, it will fall”), but when it comes to more complex questions (how fast will the rock fall? Does it matter how much the rock weighs? How big it is? Does air resistance matter?), our biases can easily get in the way unless we start to get really rigorous about conscious application of reason, evidence and logic.

 

As Sam points out, science is a probably the best tool we have for examining how the universe works. When properly conducted, it’s got error-correcting mechanisms built into it to it that help assure that what comes out at the end of the process is correct and not overstated:

• After a hypothesis is formulated (and stated in such a way that it is possible to either support or positively refute it with new data), there is an experiment (or in the case of evolution, a search for new data in the fossil/biological record) that gets conducted to test the hypothesis.
   
  
• After all is said and done, there is a requirement for complete openness and access to a researcher’s entire thought process so that other folks can uncover any errors or biases that may have affected the validness of any resulting conclusion or working theory.
  

I think the general public has lost a lot of faith in science because there is much misreporting of research results by the media. There are reports of causal relationships when in fact an experiment found only a correlation (which may or may not be random); there are reports of preliminary results with inherently high uncertainty which are touted as definitive, and then some months later we are told about more rigorous followup research that comes to a contrary conclusion, or we don’t hear about limitations in the applicability of the results. Is caffeine good for you this week? How about eggs? Breast implants? Saccharin? It’s unfortunate that science has such a bad image as a result of all this, because properly applied, it has advanced our knowledge to an amazing degree. The social value of any scientifically derived knowledge is a separate issue entirely, but in the “+” column, because of science we can prevent polio; put men on the moon; build earthquake-proof buildings; transplant hearts; converse on the internet; and so on.

 

Science is an equally good tool for investigating how we came to be. I think there are a number of issues, though, that give people pause when it comes to accepting what science has to say about evolution:

 

• Whereas most religions don’t have anything to say about how to build a durable airplane or transplant a heart, they’ve got a lot to say about the origin of life on earth. Religious beliefs are by definition dogmatic, in that they’re not formed on the basis of rigorous observation and experimentation; true believers, as such, are unlikely to be swayed by any amount of scientific investigation into the matter.
   
  
• The bad reputation science has because of the rapid-fire media reporting of junk (or preliminary) science as the definitive word. “You can’t even tell me whether caffeine is bad for me, why would I trust you idiots to tell me how we got here?”
   
  
• The breadth and depth of research/knowledge regarding evolution. Kids in high school get a fraction of an academic term (maybe an hour a day for a week?) devoted to presentation of very simplistic examples of the processes purported to be involved in evolution; the rest of us (unless we’re willing to dig on our own, either in the dirt or on the internet) get an even more condensed version. Even a college biology course will only touch on relatively fundamental issues. But there is a huge body of evidence in very different fields: fossil records of intermediate species, biochemical evolution, genetic/molecular clocks, and so on. Many of these are things that take years of schooling simply to understand the field of study before even trying to digest the actual data. It’s hard to convey such a complex body of evidence in a meaningful way to the general public.
   
  
• The use of the term “theory,” as in theory of evolution. To people not familiar with the exact usage of the term in science, it implies that the theory of evolution is little more than an educated guess. That description is more fitting of the term “hypothesis”. If we’re going to be really strict about it, then science can never define anything as “fact;” it’s always got to leave open the possibility that new information may be discovered that will invalidate our current understanding of the universe. But at some point there is enough evidence so that a scientific “theory” may be safely regarded as “fact” – at least until a major piece of evidence weighs in against it A good example of this is what is known as the “germ theory of disease.” Yes, it’s properly termed a theory by the tenets of science, but the preponderance of evidence in its favor has resulted in very few people bothering to devote significant research resources into investigating its falsehood.
   
  
• The continued existence of real questions/holes in the theory of evolution. Given the weight of the existing body of research though, it seems more reasonable to work on bridging those gaps rather than trashing the whole thing as unworkable.
   
  
• Confusion between “evolution” and “origin”. There are a lot of hypotheses about how life began, but the theory of evolution so far only takes us from simple, already-existent organisms to more complex organisms. Scientists need to be careful about what they present as hypothesis, fact (direct observation), and theory.
  

As regards what to teach kids in school…I’d rather see less time devoted to teaching esoteric scientific knowledge (e.g. the life cycle of the black widow spider) and more time devoted to teaching scientific thought: how to apply reason, evidence, and logic, and an awareness of our inherent cognitive biases and how to overcome them. The short descriptive: Critical Thinking. Only then should we shower them with facts (observations) and let them make up their own minds.

[RFW]

Well said Sam. It's really about what is "science" and what is faith. It has little to do with "facts."

 

I'd go father than that. "Intelligent Design", besides lacking any intelligence, is a desperate attempt by the flaky religious right to force their pseudo-"science" on the rest of the nation.

 

If Americans don't vigorously oppose the idiocy, the result will eventually be frighteningly similar to the situation in many Islamic states, where religious extremism sets government policy and controls its citizens.

 

Think it won't happen? Think again! 30 years ago, I'd NEVER have believed the amount of control the "religious" right is exerting now, would have been possible.

 

Bob.

[Ken/OC]

...and more time devoted to teaching scientific thought: how to apply reason, evidence, and logic, and an awareness of our inherent cognitive biases and how to overcome them. The short descriptive: Critical Thinking. Only then should we shower them with facts (observations) and let them make up their own minds.

 

Wow! You said it, Mitch. It's also what bothers me in the current evolution debate. The "defenders" (I call them that because they act as if they're on the defensive) seem to be saying two things:

 

1 - Our children should not be exposed to things that can't be proved ("So-called evolutionary change occurs due to germ plasm experiments secretly conducted on the plant Zork")

 

2 - Our view of evolution is absolutely proved and correct, and questioning it is not welcomed.

 

I see too much "cognitive bias" on the side of those that should be telling our children to ask intelligent questions, not to accept science-based current "knowledge" as final. My own view is that evolutionary theory is the best we have right now, but that we'll know a lot more (and maybe look at the subject matter quite a bit differently) in the future. But only if we ask questions!

[russell_bynum]

Where I think we get mixed up is the "Intelligent Design" people are up in arms because Evolution is being taught as fact, and no other ideas are being taught.

 

And the Science people are up in arms because they don't think non-scientific ideas should be taught in a science class.

 

I agree with both groups and I think the fix is pretty simple.

 

The basic premise behind evolution is sound and we can test it repeatably in controlled experiments. That's science. Since it is currently the leading scientific theory for How Life Began, I firmly believe that we should teach evolution in science classes. We should teach it as THEORY...which it is, and not FACT, which it is not. We should not teach Intelligent Design in science classes, because it doesn't belong there.

 

However, I would not be opposed to having kids learn about the other, more culture/religion-based ideas for How Life Began, and those ideas should be taught in History class (or Philosophy, but I don't think that's offered to most Highschool Students), and I would not be at all opposed to having them learn about multiple different culture/religion's ideas.

 

Personally, I would welcome a change in the way we currently teach history. I don't know about you folks, but my history classes were mostly a big waste of time...just meaningless memorization and regurgitation of facts which, by themselves, are meaningless. I thought I hated history until I started watching The History channel and shows like "Connections". When I started seeing history in a meaningful way...it became much more interesting and worthwhile. IMO, memorizing the names of the people who signed the Declaration of Independence is frickin' useless. If we spend time learning the how and why behind the what and when, history becomes something useful that we can call upon in our daily life. I think that adding information about different cultures and their ideas about How Life Began would be very helpful and worthwhile.

[belezar]

I'd go father than that. "Intelligent Design", besides lacking any intelligence, is a desperate attempt by the flaky religious right to force their pseudo-"science" on the rest of the nation.

I agree (completely), but it is a much more palatable argument for many to quantify what the argument should be about in the context of what is science, the process involved, and not beat on the fine points - "facts" - which are so often the subject of heated debate.

[russell_bynum]

As regards what to teach kids in school…I’d rather see less time devoted to teaching esoteric scientific knowledge (e.g. the life cycle of the black widow spider) and more time devoted to teaching scientific thought: how to apply reason, evidence, and logic, and an awareness of our inherent cognitive biases and how to overcome them. The short descriptive: Critical Thinking. Only then should we shower them with facts (observations) and let them make up their own minds.

 

I very much agree with that, Mitch.

 

I only had one teacher in all of my Highschool days who really worked at teaching us how to THINK. He didn't make us memorize stupid formulas and equations, instead he let us use a "cheat sheet" for that stuff so we could focus our energy on solving the problem instead of remembering some formula. He constantly pushed us to think "outside the box" and rewarded logical creativity in problem solving.

 

To this day, I still call on the lessons I learned in his class. We need more teachers like that.

[DiggerJim]

I think the general public has lost a lot of faith in science because there is much misreporting of research results by the media.

And misreporting or fabrication of results by "scientists". Let us not forget cold-fusion (Fleischmann-Pons where are you now?) or even the events of the past month with regards to a certain South Korean researcher & ethical lapses (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10046343/).

Religious beliefs are by definition dogmatic, in that they’re not formed on the basis of rigorous observation

Scientific ones can be as well. As an electrical engineer it took me a bit of time to accept (believe...have faith in) the "fact" that electrons move between orbits in quanta where they do not ever occupy the space in between the two orbits -- e.g. first it's here....and suddenly it's up there and never was anywhere in between. We think that's the way it works, not from observation of the phenomenon (which we can't do) but what we infer from the actions of other things (which we can). We get around the conflict of the "fact" that is is impossible for me to be in New York City and then in Los Angeles without transporting the distance between and the "fact" that electrons can be in one orbit, move to the next and never be in between by positing that sub-atomic particles are governed by different rules. To many, that seems like a cop-out.

Confusion between “evolution” and “origin”.

Correct. A reader of classic Asimov might remember when one of his subjects (who is searching for his creator) discovers he is man-made and is asked if he is satisfied. He replied that it simply extended his search. What caused the chain of events that we call evolution to begin is a different question (and allows for the potential of creationism) then whether the way life could have reached its current breadth of variety is with or without an intelligent designer. To my bees, I am god. I not only control their environment but I visit change upon them (taking their honey, splitting hives), determine whether additional queens will be born and whether the drones live or die. On the other hand, I don't do much about actually collecting the pollen and making it into honey.

I’d rather see less time devoted to teaching esoteric scientific knowledge ... and more time devoted to teaching ... how to apply reason, evidence, and logic, and an awareness of our inherent cognitive biases and how to overcome them.

This is the biggest issue I believe we face. It is worsening in the 'net age. Very little thought occurs and even less reasoning. In addition to your list, we need to teach people to ferret out what the information provider's biases might be, how to test for them and then ultimately determine if the information is valid or not.

 

Jim

[smiller]

As regards what to teach kids in school…I’d rather see less time devoted to teaching esoteric scientific knowledge (e.g. the life cycle of the black widow spider) and more time devoted to teaching scientific thought: how to apply reason, evidence, and logic, and an awareness of our inherent cognitive biases and how to overcome them. The short descriptive: Critical Thinking. Only then should we shower them with facts (observations) and let them make up their own minds.

 

Yes indeed, well said and it's unfortunate that attempts to muddle religious faith and the scientific method together as equals in the minds of schoolchildren seems to move in a direction exactly contrary to that goal.

 

There is clearly no basis for bringing religous teachings into a science class and the judge very rightly described this practice as an example of 'breathtaking inanity' (couldn't have phrased it better myself.) This issue is not about teaching creationism in the schools but in science class, and that distinction is critical. It's not the absolute truth or facts concerning the origin of life that matter as much as how you get to whatever conclusions you draw. In this case religious dogma does not deserve to stand on equal terms with the scientific method. Contrasted with a belief system where truth is pre-ordained and there can be no wrong, the fact that science occasionally does get it wrong and then corrects itself is not a weakness, it is a strength.

[sgendler]

Personally, I would welcome a change in the way we currently teach history. I don't know about you folks, but my history classes were mostly a big waste of time...just meaningless memorization and regurgitation of facts which, by themselves, are meaningless. I thought I hated history until I started watching The History channel and shows like "Connections". When I started seeing history in a meaningful way...it became much more interesting and worthwhile. IMO, memorizing the names of the people who signed the Declaration of Independence is frickin' useless. If we spend time learning the how and why behind the what and when, history becomes something useful that we can call upon in our daily life. I think that adding information about different cultures and their ideas about How Life Began would be very helpful and worthwhile.

 

Hopefully, this isn't too much of a hijack...

 

Russell, I was really shocked by the difference between the standard UK curriculum for teaching history compared to how they do it here. In the UK, at least for the equivalent of grades 1-7, which were all that I experienced, History is taught as one long, continuous course. We start with prehistory in grade 1 and work our way forward through time through the course of elementary and middle school. Much of that history involves Rome, and is also covered during the course of Latin classes, in which we read the classics (or simplified excerpts) in Latin. The pace was incredibly slow, and the level of detail incredibly high, which is precisely why it was interesting. There was definitely a fair amount of rote memorization, but I think we had a much better understanding of the significance of what we were memorizing as a result of the depth of our stufy. In the entirety of 6th and 7th grade, we we covered the period of English history from 1609 to the late 1700's, stopping pretty much with the American revolution. THere was some world history from the same era thrown into the mix, too, although the focus was definitely on the UK. We studied everything in extreme detail (which is exactly what made it interesting to me and most of my classmates). We actually learned the battle formations for each battle of the civil war, knew all the commanders by name, etc. We studied every significant act of Parliament, etc. The result is that I loved history class, and 20 years later, I still retain a great deal of detail from that era. I might not remember all the dates, times, ad names, but I definitely could give a pretty good overview of those 2 centuries of British history, much better than I can do wht the 2 centuries of american history, and I covered that in 8th grade AND 11th grade.

 

Contrast that with the American curriculum, where you get taught the 'entirety' of US history in one year, 3 times throughout the course of your education (once in grade school, again in 8th grade, and again in 11th grade). You do get more detail each time, but with 500 years of history to cover in one year, a lot of detail is necessarily skipped. At best, you come away with an overview of most of it, and a few extra details around the years 1775-1789 and the mid 1860's (see, I can't even name the dates of the civil war accurately). As for world history, I only ever got a 1 year 'Western Civilization' course in 10th grade, which covered european history from the greeks to the present in a single year.

 

I found the english style to be much more effective. It may have originated in the sheer volume of history they have to teach (2,000 years, rather than 500 only 300 of which have significance), but it is effective, nonetheless. It's possible that my teacher was just aprticularly good at his job, but I think it was mostly the curriculum, coupled with the fact that we had to take national exams at age 13 which tested our knowledge of the entirety of english history up to the late 18th century, so we damn well HAD to know it backwards and forwards and weren't allowed to forget the material we had learned 4 years prior.

 

Strangely, they are completely inverted when it comes to math and science, and again I prefer the english method. In the US, the curriculum introduces a single discipline for an entire year, and then leaves it behind after that. Algebra, Geometry, Trig, Calculus, Bio, Chemistry, and Physics are all one year courses. Some act as building blocks for others, but mostly, they are taught in isolation from each other. In the UK, at least through junior high again, you just have a single 'science' class and a single 'math' class. Each year, you are taught a little bit of each one of the disciplines I mentioned, and each year, you get a little bit more detail and go a little bit more advanced. The result is that you revisit each discipline over and over again throughout your education and build a deep foundation on which to construct your later education. We were learning newtonian dynamics in 6th and 7th grade. In the US, the earliest you can take a physics class is 11th grade in most schools.

 

I found it very strange when I transitioned to an american high school after my time in the UK system, because in every class, for 8th grade and all 4 years of high school, the first half of the year in any science discipline was always a rehash of material I had covered at my english school when I was younger. It was only in the latter half of any year when I'd finally start to see material I hadn't covered to some degree when I was in my english prep school.

 

That said, my american high school did an excellent job of teaching science courses experimentally, meaning that they didn't just force feed us 'facts,' they made us set up experiments and learn from the results what we needed to know, so critical thinking was very much a part of the process. I had numerous teachers who I found inspirational (particularly my physics and calculus teachers, both of whom required an understanding of 'why,' not just 'what.' It was an exceptional school though, and definitely not the norm, if what my peers have to say about their high schools is anything to go by.

 

In fact, I can distinctly remember my biology teacher taking the time to explain that there were folks who did not accept Darwin's theory. The fact that we were standing in Darwin's living room at the time may have biased our impression of that information, I suppose It was an interesting field trip, though. We got off the train 5 miles early and walked across farmland and heath to the museum, collecting 'interesting' biological samples along the way for later discussion. I, of course, managed to attempt to collect 'stinging nettles' with my bare hand, not recognizing them for what they were. We actually spent a fair amount of time talking about the reception of Darwin's theory by the public and the Scopes trial in Bio class, though. It was definitely a part of the curriculum.

[russell_bynum]

Sam, that does sound like a much better way to teach.

 

I think part of the problem is that so many History teachers were coaches. Maybe this was a Texas thing, but it seems like they took all the damn "fooba" coaches who were too dumb to teach anything other than to point across the field and say "Hit 'em" and made them history teachers. We watched lots of boring-ass "fim-strips" and basically learned nothing. I had one teacher who was a huge JFK fan. On my final in his class, I knew my grades were so good it didn't matter (Nobody flunked his class anyway) so I took the scantron answer sheet and filled it out so that it spelled "J F K" in great big block letters. The computer graded the test and gave me a 0, but be wrote in a 100 and even gave me bonus points. This was the quality of the history education most people I know got.

 

It does me absolutely no good to be able to mindlessly tell you all the US Presidents in order. It WOULD do me some good to know what each President did and how their agenda, leadership style, etc impacted the country, and the world.

 

Taking the time to learn things in more detail, and the specific stories, the how and why...really makes History interesting and fun. And it also makes it worthwhile since you and apply it to your daily life.

 

Note: I don't mean to bag on the coaches. We had several who were both very good coaches and very intelligent people and good teachers. But most of the History teachers were your stereotypical brain-dead knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers who couldn't find their ass with both hands on a bright day in a big mirror.

[dhb]

I'm no supporter of the intelligent designers, and I don't favor political pressure or law suits to force teaching of it in science classes. However, I've noticed that I have become more sympathetic to the plight of intelligent design as I see it held up to the ridicule, disdain, haughty dismissal and arrogant pomposity of the academics recruited to beat it down.

 

No, I don't "believe" in intelligent design, but I think the evolution faction is in danger of over-reacting, and demonstrating through the misguided actions of its proponents that "science" can be as close minded and parochial as its opponents.

Come on guys, take the high road and get those bozos who have no idea of how to handle the press or public relations off the air.

 

Dave

[DavidEBSmith]

We should not teach Intelligent Design in science classes, because it doesn't belong there.

 

Oh, I disagree.

 

Intelligent Design absolutely belongs in science classes. Schools should teach students to understand and apply the scientific method, to examine and weigh facts, to separate facts from argument from dogma. Then they should have the students examine the scientific support for the theory of evolution, and compare that to the scientific support for Intelligent Design, and determine which has a basis in observable, reproducable fact and which one is a belief system unsupported by data. In the same way that in astronomy classes, students are taught about the Ptolemeic system, and the Copernican system, and compare them to determine which theory best explains the observational data.

 

But ID advocates don't want to hold ID up to scientific scrutiny, they want it to be taught as a credible alternative to evolution without being subjected to challenge. The big issue is not really the validity of Intelligent Design; the issue is whether some groups have enough political power to alter reality to conform to their way of thinking.

[EffBee]

Well said Sam. It's really about what is "science" and what is faith. It has little to do with "facts."

 

I'd go father than that. "Intelligent Design", besides lacking any intelligence, is a desperate attempt by the flaky religious right to force their pseudo-"science" on the rest of the nation.

 

If Americans don't vigorously oppose the idiocy, the result will eventually be frighteningly similar to the situation in many Islamic states, where religious extremism sets government policy and controls its citizens.

 

Think it won't happen? Think again! 30 years ago, I'd NEVER have believed the amount of control the "religious" right is exerting now, would have been possible.

 

Bob.

 

Gee, Bob. How nicely you have everything packaged. Here I am, a believer in the Biblical version of creation (my opinion only and I'll face my maker with it), yet not a member of the "flaky religious right" and certainly not a supporter of any "idiocy" outside of my virtually uncontrollable disgust for those who throw labels around as if they actually know what they're talking about. So, what label do you have for me? Would I be a member of the "Flaky biblical-creation-accepting-not-soon-to-be-quite-the-equivalent-of-radical-Islamicists middle?" Keep your denigrations to yourself.

 

BACK TO THE MAIN TOPIC:

I agree with those who have said that evolution is a scientifically proven possibility, repeateable in numerous experiments. Yet there's no proof that it was evolution, and purely evolution, that brought about the world. In other words, evolution COULD have occured. And even if we decide to accept that it did, for the sake of argument, was it pure happenstance? Did evolution just happen? Or was there Intelligent Design behind the evolutionary processes. Remember, these are scientifically repeatable processes. Is random happenstance scientifically repeatable? If so, is it really random, or is it designed repeatability?

 

Summarily, is it not possible for the concepts of creation, and evolution, to coexist? That one occurs as a product of the other. Or are we to believe that each is a mutually exclusive concept? Perhaps the better question is, are the believers of each so entrapped in their own positions that they cannot, or will not, concede to the possible contribution of the other.

[Whip]

Fernando

 

Very well said........

 

Larry

[russell_bynum]

Summarily, is it not possible for the concepts of creation, and evolution, to coexist? That one occurs as a product of the other. Or are we to believe that each is a mutually exclusive concept? Perhaps the better question is, are the believers of each so entrapped in their own positions that they cannot, or will not, concede to the possible contribution of the other.

 

Very well said.

[90%angel]

Amen, Fernando!

 

My high school biology class was very open minded about both concepts, and I was taught at a CHRISTIAN high school!!! (gasp?! You mean they taught you actual science at the islamic exteremist in training academy?!)

 

Evolution AND Creationism were taught in science (as were other theories in English class...we did a whole study on what different native american cultures believe...), and we were expressly instructed to try and find holes in both theories (and yes, they were both presented as THEORIES), and see if perhaps both ideas could have happened (was God the mastermind behind evolution?), and generally THINK about both ideas. Theistic Evolution was the term they coined for it back then.

[smiller]

Summarily, is it not possible for the concepts of creation, and evolution, to coexist? That one occurs as a product of the other. Or are we to believe that each is a mutually exclusive concept? Perhaps the better question is, are the believers of each so entrapped in their own positions that they cannot, or will not, concede to the possible contribution of the other.

 

I think that depends on what it means to 'coexist'. Can the idea that we may never know with certainty the nature of the origin of the universe coexist with scientific theory? Sure. Can the idea that the entire universe was created in seven days by a supernatural being coexist with scientific theory? No.

[Ken H.]

Great essay Mitch.

 

Personally I can relate to this statement:

If we’re going to be really strict about it, then science can never define anything as “fact;” it’s always got to leave open the possibility that new information may be discovered that will invalidate our current understanding of the universe.

In reality we humans know so little about 'all there is' that it's little more than egotistical arrogance for us to say anything at all is an indisputable "fact." We can however with a certain degree of humbleness state that some things are far more likely than others. And I think that's where the division is between scientific study based beliefs and faith based ones. The former attempts to build a case, an argument that is acceptable to the majority if you will, that something truely is the way they think it is. The later ask us to believe something is the way they think it is without any (or at least little) case for it being true having been constructed.

 

 

 

 

 

I think the thing that gets my goat about the Intelligent Design movement more than anything is not their basic premise, but the, in my opinion underhanded way they have attempted to disguise what it really is - creationism. In an attempt to defuse the volatility of the word "creationism." In other words rename it with a term perceived to be more palatable and thus be able to better advance their cause. If we're going to have a national debate of when/where/how to teach creationism vs. evolution, fine. But don't try to disguise your (not you Mitch, the proponents of I.D.) side of the issue. As far as I'm concern that just makes them less credible.

[russell_bynum]

I think that depends on what it means to 'coexist'. Can the idea that we may never know with certainty the nature of the origin of the universe coexist with scientific theory? Sure. Can the idea that the entire universe was created in seven days by a supernatural being coexist with scientific theory? No.

 

Dig deeper.

 

Does the Bible say that God created everything in seven days and nothing's changed since then?

 

Do we know how long "a day" is in God's terms?

 

It says things like "He created _____" but it doesn't say how He did that...if He just said "Let there be horses" or if he put into place the circumstances the led to the horse.

[uk1200RT]

You are right...the Bible actually says that "a thousand years are as a day to God". Does that mean that literally one thousand years is equal to one "God day"? Who knows. More importantly, what difference does it make? Everyone is so worried about how we got here. Was it God? Science points to a singularity...what caused it? Evolution? Why couldn't the world and life in it have evolved? In the end I think it is very simple. We are far to arrogant as a species to accept something that is beyond our ability to see it, touch it, and replicate it. The scientific community (and, I think, many everyday people) find it easier to dismiss the idea of the "supernatural being" who could create the world and all that is in it in seven days. After all, admiting that He exists would cramp a lot of lifestyles, wouldn't it? It's just easier to say God doesn't exist and get on with our lives.

[RFW]

So, what label do you have for me? Would I be a member of the "Flaky biblical-creation-accepting-not-soon-to-be-quite-the-equivalent-of-radical-Islamicists middle?"

 

If (and that is an "if") that means you believe that what amounts to a religious belief should masquarade as "science" and be taught in science class, then I guess the answer is "Yes".

 

Bob.

[belezar]

Summarily, is it not possible for the concepts of creation, and evolution, to coexist? That one occurs as a product of the other. Or are we to believe that each is a mutually exclusive concept? Perhaps the better question is, are the believers of each so entrapped in their own positions that they cannot, or will not, concede to the possible contribution of the other.

Well said, Fernando. I think it is very possible for the concepts to co-exist. (Actually, I believe in "intelligent design," although I don't like that name.) But beliefs are not science, and should not be part of that class. Just as Fernando was (justly) put off by those remarks, leave the belief system to other classes. Each is entitles to their beliefs, and going down that path will never (IMO ) be a winning arguement.

[russell_bynum]

You are right...the Bible actually says that "a thousand years are as a day to God". Does that mean that literally one thousand years is equal to one "God day"? Who knows. More importantly, what difference does it make? Everyone is so worried about how we got here. Was it God? Science points to a singularity...what caused it? Evolution? Why couldn't the world and life in it have evolved? In the end I think it is very simple. We are far to arrogant as a species to accept something that is beyond our ability to see it, touch it, and replicate it.

 

Very well put...that sums up my feelings pretty well.

[DiggerJim]

Then they should have the students examine the scientific support for the theory of evolution, and compare that to the scientific support for Intelligent Design, and determine which has a basis in observable, reproducable fact and which one is a belief system unsupported by data.

Although, one might question how evolution with its continued development of more complex lifeforms squares with Newton's second law of thermodynamics (which says entropy increases...ergo for every complex lifeform created/evolved, there must be a corresponding, and larger, increase in some other form of chaos/disorder in the universe...an increase not yet observed).

 

In fact, Newton's laws although accepted by almost every engineer, chemist, designer, etc. when explaining the physical world, has an underlying intellectual dissonance. For instance - if the 1st law (conservation of energy -- matter cannot be created or destroyed) is true, where did matter come from in the first place unless from outside the system? It's definitely there so something created it, yet the 1st law says nothing natural could create it. Ergo something supernatural (God?) must have. If God is thus proved, why can He not be responsible for other things (like tweaking a mutation to create sentience)?

 

When it comes to the 2nd law, we know that the universe is decaying (increasing entropy, less usable energy, more disorder). That implies there must have been a beginning where there was zero entropy or perfect order. The question then arises as to how that order was created (which violates the 2nd law) and who did it. A NASA astronomer (Robert Jastrow) once wrote that theologians are happy with proof that the universe had a beginning but that astronomers are not. He said that the "scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence."

 

To a large degree, science depends on faith...just a sometimes more rigorously examined faith. Or not.

 

Jim

[RFW]

You are right...the Bible actually says that "a thousand years are as a day to God". Does that mean that literally one thousand years is equal to one "God day"? Who knows.

I doubt very much if any of these references in the Bible were ever meant to be taken literally. As with many old stories, they are simply allegorical to illustrate a general point. Besides, the Bible as we know it was "assembled" over hundreds of years from many sources, including many verbal accounts passed down for generations. Later, entire sections were edited out by the church, and translations of translations were done, each with its own "slant". Based on this, it appears to me to be rather absurd to take anything in it literally.

 

My belief is that it serves as, and was intended to be, a civilizing (or better, moralizing) force for people and was never intended to be blindly accepted as dogma.

 

Bob.

[smiller]

Dig deeper.

 

Does the Bible say that God created everything in seven days and nothing's changed since then?

 

Do we know how long "a day" is in God's terms?

It seems to depend on who you talk to. Many believers will insist that the Bible is literally accurate. Others will modify the meaning of the text as necessary to suit their own interpretation or to try to force it match reality. If you take the latter view I would guess a year in God's terms varies quite a bit in length since the events in each 'day' of creation in Genesis took radically different amounts of human time and if so it's quite convenient that they happen match up so well.

 

It's kind of difficult to dig deeper when varying interpretation of biblical text allows it to mean just about anything you want. That kind of destroys any meaning whatsoever, at least in any scientific sense.

 

And if the two are compatible then what is it exactly that creationists don't like about the theory of evolution? If a biblical day can mean anything you want then exactly where is theory of evolution 'wrong' in the context of intelligent design?

[Dave McReynolds]

To a large degree, science depends on faith...just a sometimes more rigorously examined faith. Or not.

 

Science doesn't depend on faith. Science relies on the scientific method. No more and no less.

 

Postulating a hypothesis is a part of the scientific method, but it is not very interesting science unless it is susceptible to being tested, using scientific experiments, that can be repeated by as many others who are interested in confirming or challenging the results of earlier experiments.

 

To say that the universe was created by an intelligent design could be a scientific hypothesis, but pondering at how all the complexity we observe in life could have occured without some kind of guiding hand is not scientific; it is just the kind of thought process that might lead to a hypothesis.

 

Once the hypothesis is formed, it must be tested by physical experiments, or the science part is at a dead end. There is no time in a science class to review all the dead-end hypotheses that have been proposed over the years. As has been previously mentioned, that doesn't mean that the hypothesis is untrue, just that it doesn't happen to be susceptible to scientific testing at the moment. If someone wants to design an experiment that would in some way test the hypothesis that the universe was caused by intelligent design, then I think it should be considered science, if it is carried out with the usual rigor required of scientific experiments.

 

Without any scientific testing, mixing intelligent design and science is kind of like mixing architecture and carpentry. A carpenter may have an interest in architecture, but that's not what he's doing when he's building a house.

[russell_bynum]

It's kind of difficult to dig deeper when interpretation of biblical text allows it to mean just about anything you want. That kind of destroys any meaning whatsoever, at least in any scientific sense.

 

Exactly. You can't dig deeper looking for specific answers in the Bible because they are not there.

 

 

And if the two are compatible then what is it exactly that creationists don't like about the theory of evolution? If a biblical day can mean anything you want then exactly where is theory of evolution 'wrong' in the context of intelligent design?

 

I think some people get all worked up over the "chance" aspect of what's taught in evolutionary theory....the idea that all of this "Just happened by chance". There are some people who also get all worked up over the timetable, saying that the Earth is only 4,000 years old and therefore, evolution couldn't have happened. These people are extremists and are not particularly reasonable.

 

There are a bunch of blanks in the Bible where we really don't know what happened and how long it took. There is also a bunch of stuff that is vauge. And there's a bunch of stuff that is not meant to be taken literally. Different groups fill in the blanks in different ways, but the fact is, they're all just guessing. We don't know many of the specifics and to assume that we do is illogical and arrogant.

 

IMO, too many religious extremists get all worked up about science because they believe that it is attacking God. The way I see it, if God created all of this crap, then He also created the Rules by which everything works. Likewise, if God is all-knowing and all-powerful, then He darn well could put everything in place for life to evolve as the supporters of Darwin's Theory say it did.

[sgendler]

I think that depends on what it means to 'coexist'. Can the idea that we may never know with certainty the nature of the origin of the universe coexist with scientific theory? Sure. Can the idea that the entire universe was created in seven days by a supernatural being coexist with scientific theory? No.

 

Actually, it is undeniable that the entire universe could have been created in 7 days by a supernatural entity. After all, if the entity could do that, then surely it could fake all the evidence the points to evolution. However, we should only be teaching 'science' for which there is evidence. I have yet to see a single experiment designed to prove the validity of ID, nor have I seen any evidence that supports it. The only 'proof' offered for ID is the lack of evidence for some better explanation of the first instant of the universe's existence. That is insufficient. I can posit all kinds of of ideas for which there is no evidence and declare them valid 'theories' if the only qualification is a lack of alternatives. You can't prove to me that there isn't a race of alien beings living inside the black hole at the center of the galaxy, for instance, but that doesn't make their existence a valid scientific theory. It is pure speculation, just as ID is. Speculation has no place in a science classroom, except in the context of explaining why it is mere speculation.

 

Whether you are a 'right wing fundamentalist whacko' or not is irrelevant. Science doesn't give the same creedence to pure speculation as it does to theories supported by a large quantity (if incomplete) body of evidence. As such, speculation doesn't belong in the science classroom. Philosophy or religon class, sure. Not science.

 

--sam

[DavidEBSmith]

Although, one might question how evolution with its continued development of more complex lifeforms squares with Newton's second law of thermodynamics

 

If one might question it, one might find the answer (far too long and complex to be quoted here) in sources like this , this , this , this, this, or this. The short answer is, it does.

 

For instance - if the 1st law (conservation of energy -- matter cannot be created or destroyed) is true, where did matter come from in the first place unless from outside the system? It's definitely there so something created it, yet the 1st law says nothing natural could create it. Ergo something supernatural (God?) must have. If God is thus proved, why can He not be responsible for other things (like tweaking a mutation to create sentience)?

 

First of all, the "proof from ignorance" doesn't prove anything. The absence of a scientifcally consistent or testable theory for the origin of the universe proves that we're not smart enough to have come up with a scientifcally consistent or testable theory for the origin of the universe, not that a scientifcally consistent or testable theory for the origin of the universe cannot exist and that (ergo) we must resort to a supernatural one. 150 years ago, we didn't understand how the sun could keep burning for as long as it has. There was no explanation within the laws of physics as we understood them. By your logic, the explanation was obviously supernatural. Then some smart guys figured out nuclear physics and the fusion reaction, and the sun wasn't supernatural anymore.

 

And even if you accept that the origin of the universe is not properly explained by natural theories, and that a supernatural explanation is necessary, why would that mean that it would be appropriate to teach the supernatural explanation in a science class? Science classes teach information about the world that has been tested and filtered through the scientific method. By definition, a supernatural explanation is one that cannot be tested and filtered through the scientific method. Ergo, it has no place in the science classroom.

 

The scientific method tells us to explain the world by theories that are objectively testable to agree with observable data. Evolution can be tested by observable data. Intelligent design, by definition, can't. Any supernatural explanation, by definition, can't.

 

Nobody is demanding that evolution be preached from church pulpits or taught in Sunday school. Why the insistence on teaching supernatural explanations of the world in classes about natural explanations of the world?

[smiller]

IMO, too many religious wackos get all worked up about science because they believe that it is attacking God.

 

Nobody is demanding that evolution be preached from church pulpits or taught in Sunday school. Why the insistence on teaching supernatural explanations of the world in classes about natural explanations of the world?

 

Now there's a good place to dig deeper, kind of the elephant in the room here. It seems to me that that much of the fear of secular thought overshadowing religious views has more to do with the insecurity of those who can't deal with the apparent randomness of nature and the relativism inherent in human morality than a mere dispute over some facts of history.

 

I personally don't know what seems to scare people so to consider that this is all chance. If it is, so what? We are here, alive, trying to make the best of it all, and that's what matters. How (or if) you pray, who you sleep with, or even how the universe began is really pretty immaterial. It isn't necessary to make up answers to unknowable questions in order to have meaning in your life.

 

Science doesn't give the same creedence to pure speculation as it does to theories supported by a large quantity (if incomplete) body of evidence. As such, speculation doesn't belong in the science classroom. Philosophy or religon class, sure. Not science.

 

Back on the original topic, that sums it up pretty well. The scientific method and philosophical speculation are not the same thing and aren't very compatible concepts. They each have their functions but I don't think it's possible to mix them and remain intellectually honest.

[sideways]

[The scientific method and philosophical speculation are not the same thing and aren't very compatible concepts. They each have their functions but I don't think it's possible to mix them and remain intellectually honest.

 

That, broadly speaking, is what the PA court held. ( Here's an abstract, and you can download the real opinion in a pdf doc from here, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District )

 

The court also held, based on a variety of blaring facts, that not only were the ID people not "intellectually honest" they were flat-out dishonest. Just one more example of "good Christians" wanting to stick up, but not stick to, some of the Ten Commandments.

 

Don't get me wrong, many Christians are truly decent and wonderful people (some of whom, I suspect, have made entries above). I was raised to be a Christian above all other things, but I no longer believe. However, the Dover dingbats, comi-tragically so, show that neither reason nor ethics are sufficient to impede the zealotry of many a "true believer."

See, for example, Galileo, Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Salem witch trials, Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, Falwell, Robertson, the nut job who shot Yitzhak Rabin, and the very calculating (and very rational given their devoutly held beliefs), 9/11 hijackers - just for starters.

[smiller]

I don't think that those events or individuals are any more representative of mainstream Christianity in this day and age any more than terrorism is representative of mainstream Islamic thought... but I do wonder when (what I believe to be) the 'silent majority' of responsible Christian leaders will begin to speak out against some of the nutso fundamentalists (and I would have to include those that would mandate the teaching of creationism in a science class, or those that would try to enforce their specific moral values on the general population, or judges that openly defy unanimous state supreme court orders to move a monument among the 'nutso' category.) I can't believe that the majority of Christians want the tenets of their religion to be co-opted and corrupted in this manner.

[Hermes]

But what if both are true?

 

Think that's impossible? Maybe not, what if evolution took us all the way to the higher primates living on the shores of Lake Victoria in Africa some two, maybe even five million years ago.

 

Then, we were observed by a visiting team of space explorers, advanced relativ to us in science and technology by millions of years.

Their million earth-year mission: to seek out solar systems (let's just say within our galaxy) with the potential of inhabited planets. Visit such planets and search for such planet's most advanced specy.

 

If such specy is found to have the necessary potential for rapid advancement, provide them, via genetic manipulation and intervention, with the foundation for a potentially distinguishing rise from their ancestry.

 

Observe those planets where interventions were performed and, if in time, such species reach a pre-requisite level of competence (and stewardship), re-contact them and offer an opportunity to become members of a galactic elite, dedicated to populating our galaxy (and perhaps other galaxies) with advanced intelligence.

 

Sounds far fetched? Less so then, in my opinion, what our Religions have to offer, and at the same time far less oppressive.

 

Jurgen

 

p.s. I am not a Trekky, honest!

[smiller]

Sounds far fetched? Less so then, in my opinion, what our Religions have to offer

 

Agreed, but... I don't think that's exactly what the Intelligent Design folks had in mind...

[jim c]

ID shud b left outta the publik skol cyst em

 

but then again so should many other things being taught, or passing for education, in PS today.

ID or evolution? there is potential for both.

unfortunately politics (on both sides) has ruined any chance of either being truely understood by todays youth.

[russell_bynum]

I can't believe that the majority of Christians want the tenets of their religion to be co-opted and corrupted in this manner.

 

It's a strange thing. "The Majority of Christians" wanted "Under God" left in The Pledge, even though I haven't heard a single logical argument for why it should be there. (And they usually totally ignore the fact that it was only added fairly recently.)

 

Personally, I don't give a rat's posterior if it's there or not. It doesn't change my faith or beliefs for it to not be there, and it's not going to change other people's faith or beliefs for it to be there.

 

People want it there because that's how THEY feel and they don't seem to be able to put their own personal feelings aside and look at things logically. I don't know why they don't understand that you can't legislate your religion onto someone else.

[lithoman]

only had one teacher in all of my Highschool days who really worked at teaching us how to THINK. He didn't make us memorize stupid formulas and equations, instead he let us use a "cheat sheet" for that stuff so we could focus our energy on solving the problem instead of remembering some formula. He constantly pushed us to think "outside the box" and rewarded logical creativity in problem solving.

 

To this day, I still call on the lessons I learned in his class. We need more teachers like that.

 

teaching problem solving is the best way to broaden your imagination and "think out of the box" as they say.

being a leader rather that a follower put simpler.

 

That type of thinking has got me where I an today In my career, and my problem solving skills

 

well said mitch and russel

[EffBee]

I just deleted a post that was littered with strong political comment, and contained anti-Semitic generalizations.

 

Folks, the topic is whether to TEACH evolution or not. It is not about your personal political/religious rants. We don't allow political discussions, but these kinds of threads can provide interesting exchanges IF you can figure out a way to contribute to the topic, without indulging in the latter.

 

Otherwise, keep it to yourselves or we'll just delete the whole thing.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

I agree with those who have said that evolution is a scientifically proven possibility, repeateable in numerous experiments. Yet there's no proof that it was evolution, and purely evolution, that brought about the world. In other words, evolution COULD have occured.

 

In using “brought about the world,” I think you’re conflating the origin of life on earth with the evolution of life on earth – a common problem I mentioned earlier.

 

Regarding the origin of life on earth – that is, how this planet changed from a lifeless hulk to one bearing self-sustaining, self-replicating biological processes – yeah, the jury’s still out on that one, and although I suspect someday we will be able to say with confidence “this is most likely what happened,” we’ll never be able to say definitively “this is what happened.”

 

Regarding “proof” for the purported evolution of life on earth – that is, how successive generations of organisms gradually altered form over time – I guess this is a limitation of retrospective investigations (as opposed to some laboratory investigation of a repeatable phenomenon). That is, I don’t know that there can ever be absolute proof, but there can be a preponderance of evidence.

 

Consider the demise of the space shuttle Columbia in 2003. The day it happened, Saddam Hussein’s theory was that God was punishing America for its efforts to remove him from power (seriously, I remember hearing this on the news). Well, OK, that’s one theory. But then the folks at NASA got together and started looking at the scattered pieces, the data streams, the timeline of what was observed, where the parts were found in the countryside relative to each other, exactly how they were damaged, and so on. All the information seemed to suggest that there had been a gaping hole in the leading edge of one wing during re-entry. Then someone looked at the launch videos and saw a big hunk of foam slamming into that very same suspect wing. They wondered if the foam could have done the damage to that wing. They set up a lab test where they fired a piece of foam at a wing leading edge piece and blew a massive hole in it. As far as “proof” goes, well, no one ever directly saw (or recorded on video) the presence of a hole on the wing of the Columbia as it circled the planet. But everything else sure seems to indicate that that’s what happened.

 

And so it is with evolution. For a long time we were satisfied to say God made us as we are. And then one days some farmer off in a field says “hey, check out this big rock. It looks like a skull…but it’s five feet long, with eye sockets ten inches in diameter, and teeth six inches long!” I guess there will never be “proof” that dinosaurs existed – or that there was a menagerie of other species that made an ephemeral appearance between then and now, and they all share some kind of developmental relationship – but there sure is a lot of evidence lying around for it.

 

And even if we decide to accept that it did, for the sake of argument, was it pure happenstance? Did evolution just happen? Or was there Intelligent Design behind the evolutionary processes. Remember, these are scientifically repeatable processes. Is random happenstance scientifically repeatable? If so, is it really random, or is it designed repeatability?

 

The most general tenet of evolution is that over time, a species adapts to its environment. “Random” is not really a good description for it, but then neither is “intelligent design.” The process is directed – by the organism’s environment. As far as any repeatability is concerned, we see instances of it in “convergent evolution,” where two unrelated species in the same environment have developed similar adaptations. We also see instances where a single species isolated in two different environments evolves into two very different species, each adapted to its local environment.

 

Summarily, is it not possible for the concepts of creation, and evolution, to coexist?

 

I guess it depends on how you define creation and evolution. If you stick rigorously to what I defined earlier – evolution as the development of new species from old ones, and creation as the transition from a lifeless plant to a life-bearing one – then they’re not mutually exclusive. But even by that description, creationism is not a scientific theory and ought not be taught in science classes as such (although I think it would be a fine thing to include in a class that studies the religions of the world).

[Whip]

 

People want it there because that's how THEY feel and they don't seem to be able to put their own personal feelings aside and look at things logically. I don't know why they don't understand that you can't legislate your religion onto someone else.

 

THEY do not want to legislate anything....They want to be able to say God in public without being ridiculed or jailed. That is what this country was founded on. The founding fathers prayed in chambers and put GOD into every part of our Goverment. They want to say the pledge with GOD in it. If you wish to sit or leave the room THEY do not care. The people who want to stop them are the people who are doing the legislating and not being understanding and tolerant.

 

The root of this....is the fear of being judged by your morality. (is that english)

 

People want to do what ever they want and not have consequences.....

 

Larry

[smiller]

They want to be able to say God in public without being ridiculed or jailed.

 

No one ever said or proposed that you not be able to discuss God or any religion in public. One hears that complaint quite often and it completely sidesteps the real issue which is the injection of religion into the government-funded and run public school system, or the court system, or any other government agency. That is what is prohibited, not anyone's overall ability to express their religion. Discuss it at home, with friends, at work, stand on a soapbox with a megaphone in a public park if you want. Just not in public schools or a courtroom.

 

The root of this....is the fear of being judged by your morality. People want to do what ever they want and not have consequences.....

 

No, I think the root of this some people's concern over other people's morality. Every act has consequences and every individual eventually has to deal with them. If the act is illegal the justice system is charged with taking care of it, otherwise no assistance (or judgment) is required from anyone else.

 

BTW I often wonder why an omnipotent, all-powerful deity needs the assistance of a public school teacher to get a message across. Couldn't he just write it in the sky or something?

[Ken/OC]

That is what this country was founded on. The founding fathers prayed in chambers and put GOD into every part of our Government. They want to say the pledge with GOD in it.

 

A couple of very minor corrections: (1) The founding fathers carefully kept God OUT of every part of government; and (2) I doubt that any were still around when the words "under God" were added to the pledge of allegiance in the early 1950s.

[Whip]

That is what this country was founded on. The founding fathers prayed in chambers and put GOD into every part of our Government. They want to say the pledge with GOD in it.

 

 

A couple of very minor corrections: (1) The founding fathers carefully kept God OUT of every part of government; and (2) I doubt that any were still around when the words "under God" were added to the pledge of allegiance in the early 1950s.

 

 

A little out of context. "The founding Fathers" and "They want to say the pledge" are not both refering to the Fathers........"They" refers to the same They used in Russel's post.......(sorry english is not my first language...)

 

God was added to the pledge By Eisenhower.......

 

The Founders did not keep God out of Goverment....

 

The term used by many "seperation of church and state" is an incorrect quote by Madison of something he thought Jefferson had said but never did....

 

The founding father's did put God into many of our orginal documents.....Reading the Federalist Papers and many of Thomas Jefferson personal letters you can see that God played a big part in the founding of this great country....

 

IMHO The founding Fathers would not aggree with removing ID from school or not allowing a Chistmas scene in front of Town Hall or removing the Ten Commandment from a court House......

 

"Religoin as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our goverment has been founded and its rights asserted" Thomas Jefferson to P.H. Wendover 1815 M.E. 14:283

 

Larry

[Whip]

They want to be able to say God in public without being ridiculed or jailed.

 

No one ever said or proposed that you not be able to discuss God or any religion in public. One hears that complaint quite often and it completely sidesteps the real issue which is the injection of religion into the government-funded and run public school system, or the court system, or any other government agency. That is what is prohibited, not anyone's overall ability to express their religion. Discuss it at home, with friends, at work, stand on a soapbox with a megaphone in a public park if you want. Just not in public schools or a courtroom.

 

What you just said is false...You can't go to a public park with a megaphone and talk about GOD.

 

What part of the Ten commandments is objectionable to a public school and where is it written that you cannot teach it in school. It's not in the Constitution...it was made up by bad judges.....

 

Larry

[smiller]

What part of the Ten commandments is objectionable

 

Well, simply put some people don't believe in deities, or don't keep sabbath days, or might even prefer to worship idols. They don't care what others might believe and don't want to hear about it in school.

[russell_bynum]

THEY do not want to legislate anything....They want to be able to say God in public without being ridiculed or jailed.

 

????

 

Since the decision was made to remove "under God" from the Pledge, I've said "God" in public many times and haven't been ridiculed or jailed.

 

That is what this country was founded on. The founding fathers prayed in chambers and put GOD into every part of our Goverment.

 

Many of the founding fathers were indeed deeply religious people. But one of the biggest ideas that America is based on is Freedom of Religion (which includes Freedom FROM religion). Personally, I'm very glad that many of the Founding Fathers looked to God for guidance when they were building our government. But one of the main reasons that people came here in the first place was so that they could choose to practice whatever religion they wanted to practice (or not).

 

 

They want to say the pledge with GOD in it. If you wish to sit or leave the room THEY do not care. The people who want to stop them are the people who are doing the legislating and not being understanding and tolerant.

 

The Founding Fathers didn't put "Under God" in the Pledge. The Pledge was written in 1892 by a Baptist Minister...and he did NOT put "Under God" in. That was added later, in 1954.

 

Here's how I see it...Saying "Under God" when you don't believe it doesn't make you believe it. Not saying "Under God" when you DO believe in, and follow God doesn't weaken your faith. So what's the big deal? I live "Under God" and don't need to say those words in the Pledge for it to be true.

 

Now don't get me wrong...sometimes people go too far with this stuff. I've heard of people figting to prohibit students from praying on public school campuses. That's just as wrong as forcing people to acknowlege the existance of God when they don't believe. When I was in Highschool (public school in Texas) before the Band would take the field, we would say the Lord's Prayer. That was student-led and totally voluntary. Some people didn't participate and that was OK. At the graduation ceremony, it's traditional for the Salutatorian to say a prayer. One year the Salutatorian was Agnostic and she didn't want to say a prayer. But she understood that it was important to many of her fellow students, so she asked someone else to say a prayer instead. That was OK. If she had opted to skip the prayer, people would have complained, but they would have been wrong to do so.

 

On this subject, here's what I want from the Government:

1. Don't force any of your religious beliefs or morals on me.

2. Don't infringe on my right to practice my religion (or not).

 

Fortunately, we have a really neat and tidy ammendment to the constitution that covers both of those items.