• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we tech intelligent design/creationism in schools as Pence wants?

D_NATURED said:
I hope you're right. We can't ignore the fact that Trump has stocked his administration not just with religious fanatics but, specifically, Christian dominionists. Sessions, Pense and DeVos are ALL dangerous mental defectives who, in a perfect world, would be laughed out of any serious job. But, the right, especially the religious right, have no standards, intellectually, behaviorally and politically.

The GOP is a basket of deplorables, as has been pointed out.
Click to expand...

I cannot use that word.
It makes life too easy for the GO-Pee-erz.

But yes.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
There are "alternate possibilities" that can be claimed for anything - all the way to absurdity.

Kids can be taught religious "alternatives" at home or in church. The first amendment is supposed to protect both religion from government and government from religion. We aren't a theocracy, yet. Yes, I get that there are many Christians who aren't happy with that, and they are trying to change it.
Click to expand...

Please quote the first amendment and explain how it is suppose to protect the government from religion.
 
Lursa said:
So might unicorns. We're not teaching about them in zoology classes.
Click to expand...

Then maybe we should stick to the basics, and stop teaching all the social engineering.

You know, this ID kick is mostly a response pushing back against the things that many parents don't want in the schools.
 
Intelligent design/creationism shouldn't be taught in the science classroom, as it's not a product of science. Philosophy classes perhaps would be more appropriate.
 
Ikari said:
Intelligent design/creationism shouldn't be taught in the science classroom, as it's not a product of science. Philosophy classes perhaps would be more appropriate.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of things taught that shouldn't be. Ready to give them up to, or share with others?
 
Lord of Planar said:
There are plenty of things taught that shouldn't be. Ready to give them up to, or share with others?
Click to expand...

Depends on what you're talking about, what your threshold of "shouldn't be taught" is. I didn't even say that ID/creationism shouldn't be taught, just that it's not science and thus should be placed in the academic subject that is more aligned with it.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
I don't want to embolden anyone. But I do want to discourage a new modern scientific dogmatism where people are afraid to consider new ideas.

You might find this interesting...

Click to expand...


That's an excellent video. I worked most of that out for myself quite a few years back, but he articulates it very precisely and clearly.
 
Lord of Planar said:
It used to be thought kids shouldn't be taught several things. thanks to liberals, the innocence of our young doesn't last long.

There are plenty of people who believe there are alternate possibilities. To shut down such discussions should be criminal.
Click to expand...

Scientific theory is not about belief.
You can believe in your heart of hearts that the Moon is made of cheese and that the Sun revolves around the Earth, which is six thousand years old and flat, and that Jesus rode dinosaurs, and that all the fairy tales in a four thousand year old text are literal.
But it has no place in a science classroom. It belongs in church.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Evolution has too many holes in the theory, and need alternate ideas. Not saying the idea of evolution is wrong at all, but it does appear it had some intelligent help along the way.
Click to expand...

And that doesn't turn evolutionary theory upside down and on its head, not in the least.
When one scratches folks who wish to teach intelligent design, the overwhelming majority of them profess a belief that evolutionary theory is 100 percent bunkum, and that's simply a shiny veneer for religious hocus pocus masquerading as science, you can't fool people with that nonsense.
 
Ikari said:
Depends on what you're talking about, what your threshold of "shouldn't be taught" is. I didn't even say that ID/creationism shouldn't be taught, just that it's not science and thus should be placed in the academic subject that is more aligned with it.
Click to expand...

I can agree with placing it in a proper curriculum. But those saying it shouldn't be taught, seem rather absolute on it.

Maybe I'm a bit jumping the gun of my position here, but I am sick and tired of the indoctrination in the schools. We don't all agree on what should and shouldn't be taught. The things we disagree on should be in electives. Not forced on all. We should otherwise stick to reading, math, history, etc.
 
Barnacle said:
Are all those articles from the same type of scurille source as deadstate?
Click to expand...

Screw the attacks on sources because if one does some simple searching using ANY search engine, or even a diligent search in a library, there is NO SHORTAGE of evidence that clearly outlines the Dominionist worldview.
Mike Pence, Ted Cruz and another half a dozen top righties are Dominionists.
The Dominionists do not make any attempt whatsoever to hide their worldview, they're quite proud of it.

And the Dominionist worldview on this subject is CREATIONISM, "Young Earth Creationism" in point of fact.

Go ahead, lambast Google all you like.
Would a forum devoted to Glock pistols satisfy you?

You can pick ANY source, right or left leaning and it will point to the fact that Pence is a Dominionist, so let's not play dumb, okay? It is a FACT.

And it is also a FACT that Dominionism is anti-science and is 100% incompatible with representative democracy, and that the only form of government that Dominionism will tolerate is authoritarian theocracy.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Screw the attacks on sources because if one does some simple searching using ANY search engine, or even a diligent search in a library, there is NO SHORTAGE of evidence that clearly outlines the Dominionist worldview.
Mike Pence, Ted Cruz and another half a dozen top righties are Dominionists.
The Dominionists do not make any attempt whatsoever to hide their worldview, they're quite proud of it.

And the Dominionist worldview on this subject is CREATIONISM, "Young Earth Creationism" in point of fact.

Go ahead, lambast Google all you like.
Would a forum devoted to Glock pistols satisfy you?

You can pick ANY source, right or left leaning and it will point to the fact that Pence is a Dominionist, so let's not play dumb, okay? It is a FACT.

And it is also a FACT that Dominionism is anti-science and is 100% incompatible with representative democracy, and that the only form of government that Dominionism will tolerate is authoritarian theocracy.
Click to expand...


My reply: pfft ...
 
Lord of Planar said:
Please quote the first amendment and explain how it is suppose to protect the government from religion.
Click to expand...

I'm just another DP poster.

I'll let James Madison do it.
https://www.au.org/church-state/mar...red/james-madison-and-church-state-separation
Madison was never one to tolerate any official ties between church and state. As he explained in a veto message to Congress, he rejected the church incorporation measure because it "exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions."

It "violates in particular," said Madison, "the article of the Constitution of the United States which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.'"

The bill noted that the church would be involved with care of the poor and the education of their children. No public funds were earmarked for these charitable endeavors, but Madison saw the legislative action as a foot-in-the-door for such federal aid to religion. He told Congress the measure was "altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity." He added that the bill could "be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty."
Click to expand...

Maybe you would like me to phrase it differently that "protect the government from religion"? Do you think it only "protects religion from government"? What is your understanding of the Establishment Clause?
 
<alt>doxygen said:
I'm just another DP poster.

I'll let James Madison do it.
https://www.au.org/church-state/mar...red/james-madison-and-church-state-separation


Maybe you would like me to phrase it differently that "protect the government from religion"? Do you think it only "protects religion from government"? What is your understanding of the Establishment Clause?
Click to expand...

Madison didn't speak for all who mattered.

You incorrectly invoked the first amendment, when it specifically stated "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." To exclude it from the schools, should the school wish to use it, is a direct violation of the first!
 
Lord of Planar said:
I can agree with placing it in a proper curriculum. But those saying it shouldn't be taught, seem rather absolute on it.

Maybe I'm a bit jumping the gun of my position here, but I am sick and tired of the indoctrination in the schools. We don't all agree on what should and shouldn't be taught. The things we disagree on should be in electives. Not forced on all. We should otherwise stick to reading, math, history, etc.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, you cannot portray established scientific fact as an elective because someone "disagrees".
Scientists disagree with each other all the time but the way they do it is via the scientific method, not by setting up their own sanctioning bodies and their own bonafides, a la "Ptolemy disagreed with Copernicus and set up the Ptolemaic Society and enrolled Copernicus for the express purpose of tossing him out ten minutes later".

In other words, science has PROVEN that geocentrism is bullcrap and geocentrists do NOT deserve their own elective in schools just because they disagree. If you're going to refer to heliocentrism as "indoctrination", that's up to you but you're going to be found to be unfit to make decisions on a school board, I'll lay money on it.

Heliocentrism IS absolute because it's a FACT, the law of gravity is a FACT, evolutionary biology is perhaps the slightest bit incomplete but it is buttressed by mountains of FACT.
Are you seriously trying to promote some kind of slapdash 21st century neo-lysenkoism as valid? Get real.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Screw the attacks on sources because if one does some simple searching using ANY search engine, or even a diligent search in a library, there is NO SHORTAGE of evidence that clearly outlines the Dominionist worldview.
Mike Pence, Ted Cruz and another half a dozen top righties are Dominionists.
The Dominionists do not make any attempt whatsoever to hide their worldview, they're quite proud of it.

And the Dominionist worldview on this subject is CREATIONISM, "Young Earth Creationism" in point of fact.

Go ahead, lambast Google all you like.
Would a forum devoted to Glock pistols satisfy you?

You can pick ANY source, right or left leaning and it will point to the fact that Pence is a Dominionist, so let's not play dumb, okay? It is a FACT.

And it is also a FACT that Dominionism is anti-science and is 100% incompatible with representative democracy, and that the only form of government that Dominionism will tolerate is authoritarian theocracy.
Click to expand...

Some good books on the topic, in case you haven't seen them:
https://www.amazon.com/American-Fascists-Christian-Right-America/dp/0743284461
https://www.amazon.com/Religious-Right-Greatest-Threat-Democracy/dp/0615515630
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
With all due respect, you cannot portray established scientific fact as an elective because someone "disagrees".
Click to expand...

Evolution is not scientific fact, if that's what you mean. This is the problem some people have and why they wish to have ID taught along side evolution.

I understand why these people want it in the curriculum. Have you tried to understand the people you disagree with?
 
Lord of Planar said:
I can agree with placing it in a proper curriculum. But those saying it shouldn't be taught, seem rather absolute on it.

Maybe I'm a bit jumping the gun of my position here, but I am sick and tired of the indoctrination in the schools. We don't all agree on what should and shouldn't be taught. The things we disagree on should be in electives. Not forced on all. We should otherwise stick to reading, math, history, etc.
Click to expand...

Specifically teaching a religious myth about how the world came about is pretty much the definition of indoctrination.

Unless it is in the context of other such myths as an elective...which you do imply is acceptable.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Evolution is not scientific fact, if that's what you mean. This is the problem some people have and why they wish to have ID taught along side evolution.

I understand why these people want it in the curriculum. Have you tried to understand the people you disagree with?
Click to expand...

Of course it is :doh That evolution is the process by which life developed and speciated on Earth is not remotely in question.

Do you doubt the cancer being removed from your lungs even if the doctors cannot explicitly explain everything that went into creating that cancer?
 
Lursa said:
Specifically teaching a religious myth about how the world came about is pretty much the definition of indoctrination.

Unless it is in the context of other such myths as an elective...which you do imply is acceptable.
Click to expand...

Under the premise that we don't know who... Have you ever looked at the reasoning that people believe that some intelligence manipulated life, outside of the religious argument, or is that something you can't see past? Forget the religious argument and look at the possibilities.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
No, but I think it should be taught that it's a theory and that there are still some unanswered questions. I feel the way I was taught about evolution in school made it seem like an established fact. It's a theory. It's a good one but it's not complete.
Click to expand...

Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

It's a fact that humans share ancestors with the great apes.

All of the minute details involved comprise the "theory" part. So we might not know ever single ancestor, every where they migrated too, every single mutation and exactly when it happened. But we know alot of it, and it all goes under the "theory" umbrella. But on top of that umbrella is the fact that evolution occurs and that we share an ancestor. Its the same reason that we still have a theory of gravity. We know gravity exists. It's a fact. But we don't know every minute detail of the effects that gravity has on the universe. Every time we discover a new thing, it goes in to that theory. But no one is questioning gravity. Because it's a fact.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Then maybe we should stick to the basics, and stop teaching all the social engineering.

You know, this ID kick is mostly a response pushing back against the things that many parents don't want in the schools.
Click to expand...

An understanding of evolutionary biology informs many different disciplines, including human behavior :2wave:
 
Lursa said:
Of course it is :doh That evolution is the process by which life developed and speciated on Earth is not remotely in question.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is actually questioned. There are too large of gaps for the changes we see in species.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom