Intelligent Design

**40sondacurb** · 08-11-2005, 01:03 AM

Intelligent design should not be taught in science classes because it does aid in the explanation of how the universe was formed. All it does is provide the argument that the universe could not exist on it's own; but it does not do anything to explain the universe, it's just honorable mention of something that does not need to be mentioned to further the educations of young minds.

If I am explaining how a speaker works should I be required to mention that Dolby made it so you don't hear a hissing sound if half the parents of my students don't want their kids being taught that, and about 90% of the scientific community says that is completely bogus?

**Grove** · 08-11-2005, 03:35 AM

I agree with you 40sondacrub. I reckon students have enough to be going on with without teaching that sort of junk. Who needs to know why the universe is here?

Here's a short lesson:
The Universe is here. I am here. You are here. No explanation needed I presume

Also the fact to mention that there is no evidence to teach it. All it is guesswork. How is someone supposed to know why the universe is here?

Waste of time if you ask me ....

thomsonmg2000 · 08-13-2005, 02:55 PM

Well, i dont like intelegent design because it doesnt seem logical that a superior being created us all.

yustr · 08-13-2005, 04:43 PM

Intelligent design? What about all of the unintelligent bits that are so prevalent? Your omnipotent god is lazy and is a bad designer.

There is intellectual dishonesty in anyone who says it should be taught in school. What they really want is to indoctrinate our kids with Christian dogma,. Plan and simple. It’s just that they know if they were honest and said that, they’d get thrown out of the discussion. So they come up with this tripe and try to disguise it as worthy of inclusion. It’s not. It’s pure unadulterated stinky BS.

I don’t know why they insist on it. I’ve said this before; kids are in school only 18% of their year. The other 82% is available for any mind controlling BS the parents want to teach. Why school? School = captive audience. If they had to come to my house and ask if they could teach this crap to my kids what level of acceptance do you think they have?

bry623 · 08-15-2005, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yustr

Intelligent design? What about all of the unintelligent bits that are so prevalent? Your omnipotent god is lazy and is a bad designer.

And like most designers, he looks FAAAABBBULOUSSSS.

**40sondacurb** · 08-15-2005, 04:51 PM

Hears a little comic I think you me and toxic can agree on.

He did wonderful work through evolution didn't he?

**mgoldb2** · 08-15-2005, 10:39 PM

This really simple to me in science class we should be teaching scientific theries and laws. Evoulution have met every requirement in order to become a scientific theory.

Intelligent design meets 0 of the requirements to be a scientific theory. I dont even think INtelligent design meets the requirements to be a scientific hypothosis. There for intelligent design is not science. Something that not science have 0 place in science class.

If they want to teach intelligent design they should teach it in a philophy elective. Philsophy is the place it belong but no where close to science.

**myquitehead** · 08-17-2005, 09:28 AM

To stay on topic: Neither evolution, nor intelligent design should be taught in schools. You can’t teach something in school, and say it’s factual, if it hasn’t been proven. It is a good idea to teach the theory of evolution, and hit it with a disclaimer. But I also agree it is pointless to more than briefly mention intelligent design, especially with the separation of church and state.

Ok now for my opinion, bwahah.

Right now it's impossible to prove that a single celled organism evolved into life as we know it today.

It is apparent that organisms change over time, but the argument of intelligent design isn't just flat out trying to say that there is a god…

When I think about the old "dinosaurs evolved into birds" theory... you wonder .. how in the world would WINGS evolve? They aren't useful until you can fly with them. In fact they seem like they would be a hindrance. Evolution works by keeping the beneficial mutations that randomly happen every so often... but how would the START of a wing be in any way beneficial? If a mutation doesn't benefit a species it generally will not stick around. So the dinosaur.. now has a tiny feathery stub, but it can't fly yet... hmm. Doesn’t evolution make a lot more sense if the animal already had the wing?

I actually consider myself to be more of a scientific mind, but I see gaps in the theory of evolution. I an not an advocate for either side, or at least I wasn’t. But in my opinion, evolution becomes 10x more plausible if creatures were created and then let to evolve, then to have evolved from nothing. And I still haven't heard a plausible argument of how live evolved from bits of the big bang. Where did our little 1 cellers come from?

If sources cited in this article I found are credible, it’s a pretty compelling argument.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-ed...n-of-life.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
…the immense odds against amino acids ever combining to form the necessary proteins by undirected means. He estimated the probability to be more than 10 to the 67th to 1 (1067:1) against even a small protein forming – by time and chance, in an ideal mixture of chemicals, in an ideal atmosphere, and given up to 100 billion years (an age 10 to 20 times greater than the supposed age of the Earth). [129] Mathematicians generally agree that, statistically, any odds beyond 1 in 10 to the 50th (1:1050) have a zero probability of ever happening…

• During all recorded human history, there has never been a substantiated case of a living thing being produced from anything other than another living thing.
• As yet, Evolutionism has not produced a scientifically credible explanation for the origin of such immense complexities as DNA, the human brain, and many other complex elements of the cosmos.
• It is highly premature for materialists to claim that all living things evolved into existence, when science has yet to discover how even one protein molecule could actually have come into existence by natural processes.
• There is no scientific proof that life did (or ever could) evolve into existence from non-living matter. Further, there is substantial evidence that spontaneous generation is impossible. Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this ultra-complex code which is so essential to all known life.

"It would mean saying that millions of different, complex, and intricate patterns came about by chance (mutations and natural selection). Think of the sophisticated chemistry behind spider silk and the engineering marvels of spiders’ webs, some of which are used to trap birds. All the complex machinery to make these webs is coupled with programmed instincts (programming which involves coded information) to tell the spiders where to build them for best hunting results, and when and how to move in for the kill of the trapped prey. In literally millions of examples, since we would maintain that complex, purposive design means intelligent, purposive creation, there is prima facie evidence of God having purposely designed the DAS as well."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**ReeKorl** · 08-17-2005, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by myquitehead

To stay on topic: Neither intelligent design, nor evolution should be taught in school, because neither have been proven to be correct.

Unless I'm mistaken, neither has gravity's current thoery been proven..... simply it is a theory which currently best fits the visible world. I can think of another reason why when we jump we drop back to earth..... It's extremely unlikely, but it does explain that aspect of 'gravity'.

Imagine everything is expanding in size. Expanding at the same rate everywhere at the same time. As part of this system, we'd be expanding also, but as everything else is expanding, we wouldn't be able to tell this at all. Now imagine you jump, you push yourself away from the planet's surface. The planet is growing in size, and therefore comes back up to meet you; as are you, so your legs come back down to meet the ground. The only way to get away from this 'gravity' would be to push off at such a pace you would be moving away at a faster rate to the growth of the two objects..... sometimes called Escape Velocity.

This theory is almost definately wrong, I haven't put a lot of thought into it, but it does explain an alternative to the standard "things are pulled towards each other" theory, in which we actually have no proof of why it works - we know that it does work, but saying "It works" isn't a valid proof. In the sense that people say either God exists or evolution exists because "of the way the world is now" is not a proof, neither is saying "Gravity exists because things fall".

If we think about it this way, what can we actually teach? Only things made up by us. Most of what is taught is made up anyway..... art, literature, mathematics (although some people say mathematics has always been here and we're just discovering it, I don't personally think this has a point. If we've discovered it but noone knows it existed before, how is that any different to invention?)

**myquitehead** · 08-17-2005, 09:56 AM

Oh I thought my browser crashed, I hadn't finished writing it yet lol. The rough draft has been removed.

the new one starts out as: To stay on topic: Neither evolution, nor intelligent design should be taught in schools. You can’t teach something in school, and say it’s factual, if it hasn’t been proven. It is a good idea to teach the theory of evolution, and hit it with a disclaimer. But I also agree it is pointless to more than briefly mention intelligent design, especially with the separation of church and state.

Edit: I can't go back and edit the post again but its 10^67 not 1067

**myquitehead** · 08-17-2005, 10:11 AM

Ugh I wish the edit button lasted longer, the first sentence still doesn't really say what I meant. My beef with the way evolution is taught is that they don't tell you it's just a theory. In physics classes they tell you straight off that everything is just educated guesswork. They shouldn't teach little kids that evolution is fact as they did to me in the 5th grade. I was annoyed when I found out that evolution isn't fact ("wtf they lied?"). I wasn't trying to say ban the theory of evolution in school, just tell them the whole story.

**ReeKorl** · 08-17-2005, 10:38 AM

What do we have that is complete fact though? Not even something we've lived through, History, is fact..... it's merely the interpretation of the winners normally.

If we're teaching children things, we need to give them something definate to grasp onto - if a teacher says before you start school "Nothing of what we're about to tell you is definately true, but we think it is so you're going to learn it" then I for one would question why we're being taught it at all (if I were still a child that is - I can see why now, but back then.....)

The truth is children aren't able to understand the difference between what everyone thinks to be true but hasn't been proved and a guess, so we need to differentiate between the two for them (obviously this isn't true in all cases, but a large amount of children simply don't have the reasoning power to handle this at early ages) Later on in life, even later on in school, we teach them more about it, and they get to make their own decisions.

The problem is when to start including the "We're not really sure about this" element. If you do it too early, they stop understanding. If we do it too late, they have a hard time changing their already-set beliefs about things. We need to get it just right to have the desired effect.

The further problem is that people are different - not everyone has the same capacity for understanding. I know people that will simply never understand complex mathematical functions, they just can't do them. This also is true of other topics like foreign languages (I for one can't translate ANYTHING from English to any other language. The other way, I'm fine, but I just can't grasp how to form a sentence in another language) and art. How do we set where to change from the 'truth' to the 'we're not sure' is up to the schools and the parents. Unfortunately, it's not possible to get spot on most of the time, so we have to go for the middling ground where it'll be ok for most people.

Let me put it this way, if you were taught about evolution as a theory which had no proof, would you be asking very difficult questions which would have hindered your understanding of the human body? If they told you "We're not exactly sure how life started", with you knowing that we have very advanced scientific tools around, and perhaps more to the point we have something to actually sit down and study, would you beleive anything else they said, even things which were definately true? Probably not. We need to build up the belief in children that what they are taught in schools is correct, so that they won't be disillusioned in the entire system and turn off. you said you thought "wtf they lied?" when you found out, but what would you have thought before they told you if they said the don't really know about any of what they teach..... "wtf they don't know?" I think may have been the gist of it.

This seems to be hapenning a lot these days, people are leaving schools almost with less knowledge than they had before they went in it seems. I swear the proportion of stupid people to normal people is increasing these days, and it's partially the schools fault. The schools are getting too soft, going too politically correct to be able to teach correctly, but the parents are hugely to blame also. They say the school isn't teaching their child, but they don't give the child anything to look forward to after school if they do actually learn. Far too many people are not fit to be role models for their own children these days, especially all of these parents who are actually still in school themselves. What the **** is hapenning there, especially when it's a 14 yr old mother, and her mother blames the school for what hapenned..... did the school force her to have sex at 13 or something?!?

This is probably going off at a tangent here and turning into a rant in itself about kids in schools these days, so I'm going to stop now before I get the pirate waved at me.....

-EDIT

You're right though, a longer duration on the edit button would be nice

**myquitehead** · 08-17-2005, 01:21 PM

Well I'm not even talking about what my point was in the first place anymore, I just wanted to put in some information about evolution+intelligent design, but..

I can remember the incident that I'm speaking of very clearly, and I know that I would have been fine with a "theory." All that would be needed is to say "this is what we think happened because of the crap we dug up."

I think people underestimate children. Over-controlling what they see and hear can be a very bad thing if you do it wrong, they won't get a realistic view on the world, it could take them a very long time to fix all of their misconceptions (first hand experience). I have no doubt they can comprehend "one of the biggest mysteries to us is where we came from! and this is what we think happened!" We aren't going to go up to the kids and say "Hey we're clueless but learn this anyway!!"

This is of course coming from someone who went to school in California...

**DumberDrummer** · 08-17-2005, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReeKorl

Unless I'm mistaken, neither has gravity's current thoery been proven..... simply it is a theory which currently best fits the visible world. I can think of another reason why when we jump we drop back to earth..... It's extremely unlikely, but it does explain that aspect of 'gravity'.

Imagine everything is expanding in size. Expanding at the same rate everywhere at the same time. As part of this system, we'd be expanding also, but as everything else is expanding, we wouldn't be able to tell this at all. Now imagine you jump, you push yourself away from the planet's surface. The planet is growing in size, and therefore comes back up to meet you; as are you, so your legs come back down to meet the ground. The only way to get away from this 'gravity' would be to push off at such a pace you would be moving away at a faster rate to the growth of the two objects..... sometimes called Escape Velocity.

This theory is almost definately wrong, I haven't put a lot of thought into it, but it does explain an alternative to the standard "things are pulled towards each other" theory, in which we actually have no proof of why it works - we know that it does work, but saying "It works" isn't a valid proof. In the sense that people say either God exists or evolution exists because "of the way the world is now" is not a proof, neither is saying "Gravity exists because things fall".

If we think about it this way, what can we actually teach? Only things made up by us. Most of what is taught is made up anyway..... art, literature, mathematics (although some people say mathematics has always been here and we're just discovering it, I don't personally think this has a point. If we've discovered it but noone knows it existed before, how is that any different to invention?)

The difference between the two gravity theories and ID vs EV is that there aren't people fighting over what exactly gravity is. Also, gravity isn't a source of religious conviction, so we wouldn't have people being offended by only evolution being taught, or vice versa.

the point is that it is such a hot button issue. The religious fanatics want ID taught in school, and the fanatical evolutionists want evolution taught. People like me, who may believe one way or the other, but aren't fanatical about it, get caught in the middle. That's why it should not be taught as a mandatory class in any kind of school. It should be left to the Theory of Knowledge classes to discuss such things, or to classes that are elective.

I agree with your point on Political Correctness in schools. We spend so much time worrying about offending people, and some people just take offense way to easily. We need to all just sit back with a beer and laugh at ourselves everyonce in a while.

**mgoldb2** · 08-18-2005, 02:34 AM

some of you act like evoultion a randon guess made up by fantics. This is not true at all evoultion went through the entire scientific process and most scientist agree that it a valid therory. scientific theories are not like randon theries people have. Scientific theroies must go through alot before it become a acceptable theory. It is not 100% but it very likly.

Intellegent design do not pass the scientific method and therefore is not science. That is the difference between the two. That is why one should be allowed to be taught in school and one should not be.

**myquitehead** · 08-18-2005, 08:15 AM

Noone was saying otherwise, read the posts.

08-11-2005, 01:03 AM	#1 (permalink)
40sondacurb #64 & #36 BACKBONE Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,804 OS: xp	Intelligent Design Intelligent design should not be taught in science classes because it does aid in the explanation of how the universe was formed. All it does is provide the argument that the universe could not exist on it's own; but it does not do anything to explain the universe, it's just honorable mention of something that does not need to be mentioned to further the educations of young minds. If I am explaining how a speaker works should I be required to mention that Dolby made it so you don't hear a hissing sound if half the parents of my students don't want their kids being taught that, and about 90% of the scientific community says that is completely bogus? __________________ Donate to keep the forum running "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully" -George W. Bush Last edited by 40sondacurb : 08-11-2005 at 01:19 AM.

08-11-2005, 03:35 AM	#2 (permalink)
Grove Professor/Moderator, TSF Design School Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 2,382 OS: Windows XP SP2	I agree with you 40sondacrub. I reckon students have enough to be going on with without teaching that sort of junk. Who needs to know why the universe is here? Here's a short lesson: The Universe is here. I am here. You are here. No explanation needed I presume Also the fact to mention that there is no evidence to teach it. All it is guesswork. How is someone supposed to know why the universe is here? Waste of time if you ask me .... __________________ ========================================== Get Help: TSF Security Forum \| HijackThis \| MB's 5 Step Process Get Clean: AdAware SE \| Spybot S&D \| CWShredder \| Ewido \| CleanUp! Get Protected: SpywareBlaster \| SpywareGuard \| Windows Updates \| IE-SpyAd If TSF has helped you, please consider making a donation to help keep the board running.

08-13-2005, 02:55 PM	#3 (permalink)
thomsonmg2000 Registered User Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: USA Posts: 91 OS: winxp, win2000	Well, i dont like intelegent design because it doesnt seem logical that a superior being created us all. __________________ omg i need a sig

08-13-2005, 04:43 PM	#4 (permalink)
yustr Asst. Manager, The Conversation Pit Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Connecticut shore Posts: 4,994 OS: XP Pro My System	Intelligent design? What about all of the unintelligent bits that are so prevalent? Your omnipotent god is lazy and is a bad designer. There is intellectual dishonesty in anyone who says it should be taught in school. What they really want is to indoctrinate our kids with Christian dogma,. Plan and simple. It’s just that they know if they were honest and said that, they’d get thrown out of the discussion. So they come up with this tripe and try to disguise it as worthy of inclusion. It’s not. It’s pure unadulterated stinky BS. I don’t know why they insist on it. I’ve said this before; kids are in school only 18% of their year. The other 82% is available for any mind controlling BS the parents want to teach. Why school? School = captive audience. If they had to come to my house and ask if they could teach this crap to my kids what level of acceptance do you think they have? __________________ I didn't mean to say it. But I meant what I said. J. McMurtry In Vino Veritas

08-15-2005, 04:51 PM	#6 (permalink)
40sondacurb #64 & #36 BACKBONE Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 5,804 OS: xp	Hears a little comic I think you me and toxic can agree on. He did wonderful work through evolution didn't he? __________________ Donate to keep the forum running "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully" -George W. Bush Last edited by 40sondacurb : 08-15-2005 at 04:52 PM.

08-15-2005, 10:39 PM	#7 (permalink)
mgoldb2 TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 604 OS: windows xp	This really simple to me in science class we should be teaching scientific theries and laws. Evoulution have met every requirement in order to become a scientific theory. Intelligent design meets 0 of the requirements to be a scientific theory. I dont even think INtelligent design meets the requirements to be a scientific hypothosis. There for intelligent design is not science. Something that not science have 0 place in science class. If they want to teach intelligent design they should teach it in a philophy elective. Philsophy is the place it belong but no where close to science. __________________

08-17-2005, 09:28 AM	#8 (permalink)
myquitehead TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 570 OS: XP Pro Sp1	To stay on topic: Neither evolution, nor intelligent design should be taught in schools. You can’t teach something in school, and say it’s factual, if it hasn’t been proven. It is a good idea to teach the theory of evolution, and hit it with a disclaimer. But I also agree it is pointless to more than briefly mention intelligent design, especially with the separation of church and state. Ok now for my opinion, bwahah. Right now it's impossible to prove that a single celled organism evolved into life as we know it today. It is apparent that organisms change over time, but the argument of intelligent design isn't just flat out trying to say that there is a god… When I think about the old "dinosaurs evolved into birds" theory... you wonder .. how in the world would WINGS evolve? They aren't useful until you can fly with them. In fact they seem like they would be a hindrance. Evolution works by keeping the beneficial mutations that randomly happen every so often... but how would the START of a wing be in any way beneficial? If a mutation doesn't benefit a species it generally will not stick around. So the dinosaur.. now has a tiny feathery stub, but it can't fly yet... hmm. Doesn’t evolution make a lot more sense if the animal already had the wing? I actually consider myself to be more of a scientific mind, but I see gaps in the theory of evolution. I an not an advocate for either side, or at least I wasn’t. But in my opinion, evolution becomes 10x more plausible if creatures were created and then let to evolve, then to have evolved from nothing. And I still haven't heard a plausible argument of how live evolved from bits of the big bang. Where did our little 1 cellers come from? If sources cited in this article I found are credible, it’s a pretty compelling argument. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-ed...n-of-life.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- …the immense odds against amino acids ever combining to form the necessary proteins by undirected means. He estimated the probability to be more than 10 to the 67th to 1 (1067:1) against even a small protein forming – by time and chance, in an ideal mixture of chemicals, in an ideal atmosphere, and given up to 100 billion years (an age 10 to 20 times greater than the supposed age of the Earth). [129] Mathematicians generally agree that, statistically, any odds beyond 1 in 10 to the 50th (1:1050) have a zero probability of ever happening… • During all recorded human history, there has never been a substantiated case of a living thing being produced from anything other than another living thing. • As yet, Evolutionism has not produced a scientifically credible explanation for the origin of such immense complexities as DNA, the human brain, and many other complex elements of the cosmos. • It is highly premature for materialists to claim that all living things evolved into existence, when science has yet to discover how even one protein molecule could actually have come into existence by natural processes. • There is no scientific proof that life did (or ever could) evolve into existence from non-living matter. Further, there is substantial evidence that spontaneous generation is impossible. Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this ultra-complex code which is so essential to all known life. "It would mean saying that millions of different, complex, and intricate patterns came about by chance (mutations and natural selection). Think of the sophisticated chemistry behind spider silk and the engineering marvels of spiders’ webs, some of which are used to trap birds. All the complex machinery to make these webs is coupled with programmed instincts (programming which involves coded information) to tell the spiders where to build them for best hunting results, and when and how to move in for the kill of the trapped prey. In literally millions of examples, since we would maintain that complex, purposive design means intelligent, purposive creation, there is prima facie evidence of God having purposely designed the DAS as well." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last edited by myquitehead : 08-17-2005 at 09:58 AM.

08-17-2005, 09:56 AM	#10 (permalink)
myquitehead TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 570 OS: XP Pro Sp1	Oh I thought my browser crashed, I hadn't finished writing it yet lol. The rough draft has been removed. the new one starts out as: To stay on topic: Neither evolution, nor intelligent design should be taught in schools. You can’t teach something in school, and say it’s factual, if it hasn’t been proven. It is a good idea to teach the theory of evolution, and hit it with a disclaimer. But I also agree it is pointless to more than briefly mention intelligent design, especially with the separation of church and state. Edit: I can't go back and edit the post again but its 10^67 not 1067 Last edited by myquitehead : 08-17-2005 at 10:03 AM.

08-17-2005, 10:11 AM	#11 (permalink)
myquitehead TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 570 OS: XP Pro Sp1	Ugh I wish the edit button lasted longer, the first sentence still doesn't really say what I meant. My beef with the way evolution is taught is that they don't tell you it's just a theory. In physics classes they tell you straight off that everything is just educated guesswork. They shouldn't teach little kids that evolution is fact as they did to me in the 5th grade. I was annoyed when I found out that evolution isn't fact ("wtf they lied?"). I wasn't trying to say ban the theory of evolution in school, just tell them the whole story.

08-17-2005, 10:38 AM	#12 (permalink)
ReeKorl Superhuman Computer Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: 6th Circle, The City of Dis, Hell Posts: 1,610 OS: WinXP Pro SP2 My System	What do we have that is complete fact though? Not even something we've lived through, History, is fact..... it's merely the interpretation of the winners normally. If we're teaching children things, we need to give them something definate to grasp onto - if a teacher says before you start school "Nothing of what we're about to tell you is definately true, but we think it is so you're going to learn it" then I for one would question why we're being taught it at all (if I were still a child that is - I can see why now, but back then.....) The truth is children aren't able to understand the difference between what everyone thinks to be true but hasn't been proved and a guess, so we need to differentiate between the two for them (obviously this isn't true in all cases, but a large amount of children simply don't have the reasoning power to handle this at early ages) Later on in life, even later on in school, we teach them more about it, and they get to make their own decisions. The problem is when to start including the "We're not really sure about this" element. If you do it too early, they stop understanding. If we do it too late, they have a hard time changing their already-set beliefs about things. We need to get it just right to have the desired effect. The further problem is that people are different - not everyone has the same capacity for understanding. I know people that will simply never understand complex mathematical functions, they just can't do them. This also is true of other topics like foreign languages (I for one can't translate ANYTHING from English to any other language. The other way, I'm fine, but I just can't grasp how to form a sentence in another language) and art. How do we set where to change from the 'truth' to the 'we're not sure' is up to the schools and the parents. Unfortunately, it's not possible to get spot on most of the time, so we have to go for the middling ground where it'll be ok for most people. Let me put it this way, if you were taught about evolution as a theory which had no proof, would you be asking very difficult questions which would have hindered your understanding of the human body? If they told you "We're not exactly sure how life started", with you knowing that we have very advanced scientific tools around, and perhaps more to the point we have something to actually sit down and study, would you beleive anything else they said, even things which were definately true? Probably not. We need to build up the belief in children that what they are taught in schools is correct, so that they won't be disillusioned in the entire system and turn off. you said you thought "wtf they lied?" when you found out, but what would you have thought before they told you if they said the don't really know about any of what they teach..... "wtf they don't know?" I think may have been the gist of it. This seems to be hapenning a lot these days, people are leaving schools almost with less knowledge than they had before they went in it seems. I swear the proportion of stupid people to normal people is increasing these days, and it's partially the schools fault. The schools are getting too soft, going too politically correct to be able to teach correctly, but the parents are hugely to blame also. They say the school isn't teaching their child, but they don't give the child anything to look forward to after school if they do actually learn. Far too many people are not fit to be role models for their own children these days, especially all of these parents who are actually still in school themselves. What the **** is hapenning there, especially when it's a 14 yr old mother, and her mother blames the school for what hapenned..... did the school force her to have sex at 13 or something?!? This is probably going off at a tangent here and turning into a rant in itself about kids in schools these days, so I'm going to stop now before I get the pirate waved at me..... -EDIT You're right though, a longer duration on the edit button would be nice __________________ "Sorry, the number you have dialled is imaginary. Please rotate dial by 90 degrees and try again."

08-17-2005, 01:21 PM	#13 (permalink)
myquitehead TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 570 OS: XP Pro Sp1	Well I'm not even talking about what my point was in the first place anymore, I just wanted to put in some information about evolution+intelligent design, but.. I can remember the incident that I'm speaking of very clearly, and I know that I would have been fine with a "theory." All that would be needed is to say "this is what we think happened because of the crap we dug up." I think people underestimate children. Over-controlling what they see and hear can be a very bad thing if you do it wrong, they won't get a realistic view on the world, it could take them a very long time to fix all of their misconceptions (first hand experience). I have no doubt they can comprehend "one of the biggest mysteries to us is where we came from! and this is what we think happened!" We aren't going to go up to the kids and say "Hey we're clueless but learn this anyway!!" This is of course coming from someone who went to school in California...

08-18-2005, 02:34 AM	#15 (permalink)
mgoldb2 TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 604 OS: windows xp	some of you act like evoultion a randon guess made up by fantics. This is not true at all evoultion went through the entire scientific process and most scientist agree that it a valid therory. scientific theories are not like randon theries people have. Scientific theroies must go through alot before it become a acceptable theory. It is not 100% but it very likly. Intellegent design do not pass the scientific method and therefore is not science. That is the difference between the two. That is why one should be allowed to be taught in school and one should not be. __________________

08-18-2005, 08:15 AM	#16 (permalink)
myquitehead TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 570 OS: XP Pro Sp1	Noone was saying otherwise, read the posts.