Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
With about 70 billion stars and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.
5
8
15
11
14
12
11
9
7
7
10
8
6
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
how can you get away with being so rude
A kind rejoinder.
It is not entirely clear to me who you are inditing for being rude, so I wont attempt to defend them.
I would like to respond two points you raise:
1) That it is preferable to have a super-natural design process to a natural design process.
I'm afraid I can't understand where you are coming from. I really don't see what difference it makes as to what process is responsible for designing us, what the goals, preferences, or attributes of our designer are etc.
Can something be wonderful because it is made by this person in this location at that time? Or is it wonderful because of some property the object possess in the present time? In other words, aren't people wonderful simply because they are people? I have never met a person and asked myself: Was this one created by God? Because if this person wasn't then they just aren't wonderful anymore. I only want intrinsic wondrousness, not some worthless extrinsic wondrousness.
And on your second point: Yes, evolution is in every single biology text book, just like relativity is at the end of every single physics text book.
I'd like to know what you would think if a teacher presented three views for our creation: Evolution, intelligent design, and malevolent design. Can I tell students that life was created to inflict suffering on other life? In all honesty, should I be ALLOWED to tell students that human beings are the creation of a malevolent entity? By simply presenting arguments to support this conclusion I would be forced to advocate some form of satanism.
Less illustratively, teachers do not have freedom of speech when teaching children. I cannot go into school tomorrow and tell all the children in the class and express political opinions. I cannot go and express theological opinions. (Children: pray to Satan. I'm sure I won't get fired for telling you to do this...) Teachers simply do not have the same freedom to express their opinions in the class room as you have in a public forum.
I know you believe that ID is excluded from scientific texts because of its religious connotations. You probably wont believe me but nothing could be further from the truth. ID is excluded from scientific text books simply because of its lack of scientific standing. If ID researcher had productive scientific careers resolving longstanding questions of theory, then I can assure you ID would quickly be adopted by grant hungry professors everywhere.
To provide the most succinct summary I can: ID cannot be taught in a science classroom because no arguments in favor of it are scientific.
Do not confuse philosophy and mathematics with science.
- Matthew Ackerman December 2, 2008 1:46AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A Kind Response
I can't say I agree with too much of what zebrakin said, so I won't defend him.
I however, would like to reply to a couple claims you made about ID:
1. "Less illustratively, teachers do not have freedom of speech when teaching children. I cannot go into school tomorrow and tell all the children in the class and express political opinions. I cannot go and express theological opinions. (Children: pray to Satan. I'm sure I won't get fired for telling you to do this...) Teachers simply do not have the same freedom to express their opinions in the class room as you have in a public forum."
Then why are they told the only "good" religion out there is religion in which evolution is accepted? Does this not violate the very rule you elaborated on?
http://www.discovery.org/a/2978
Not to mention the fact that bringing satanism to the table and saying that a teacher would say SPECIFICALLY to pray to satan under a fairness curriculum is a complete straw man.
"I know you believe that ID is excluded from scientific texts because of its religious connotations. You probably wont believe me but nothing could be further from the truth."
So it has nothing to do with BS claims about the contents of early drafts for ID books or alleged right-wing theocratic conspiracies???
"ID is excluded from scientific text books simply because of its lack of scientific standing."
What does it lack that would give it standing?
"If ID researcher had productive scientific careers resolving longstanding questions of theory, then I can assure you ID would quickly be adopted by grant hungry professors everywhere."
So since that's been taken care of in the form of dozens of books, websites, etc. what happens now?
"To provide the most succinct summary I can: ID cannot be taught in a science classroom because no arguments in favor of it are scientific."
Why not?
- F2XL
December 2, 2008 5:54PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.