alansmithee

But you ignore the fact that outside of a host cell, viruses exibit none of the evidences of life. The strand of RNA/DNA they have is useless unless they attach to a cell. There is no definate answer as to whether viruses are alive or not. Therefore the creation of viruses does not indicate the ability to create life. Teaching that viruses can be created has little to do with the creation of life.

But there is also no concensus as to how life did originate. So by your reasoning, there should be nothing taught about the origin of life.

And in many people's opinion, the opposing arguments are also pseudoscience, put forth by people who lacking evidence have imposed their own beliefs as to how things originated.

How can it be when the current science isn't consistent with itself? If you expose the current theories, you have to allow ID. That is why I say teach evolution, but leave out origin.

raveneye

The fact that their DNA/RNA codes for very complex life processes that are present only in living organisms certainly constitutes strong (just about all biologists would say irrefutable) evidence that viruses came from living organisms.

And many living parasites are also useless until they attach to another organism. That does not imply they are not living. And, like viruses, many parasites are highly reduced organisms that have lost many processes and structures that they don't need because they exploit the host for those processes. That doesn't mean they aren't alive, or didn't originate from living organisms.

There certainly is a scientific consensus that life originated in a stepwise process involving simple carbon based molecules similar in structure to biological molecules that are still found in living cells or viruses. The precise details are still a subject of scientific research, but the fact that there are things we don't know does nothing to invalidate the consensus.

But the difference between the two sides is simple: one side always allows evidence and intellect to guide their theories, and the other side does not.

Here's a simple thought experiment: what would you have to observe that would absolutely refute the hypothesis of ID? If you can specify what that observation would be, then ID is indeed a scientific hypothesis.

The trouble is, there is nothing that can be observed that can refute the hypothesis, because ID contains within it an intelligent, all powerful actor who can apparently orchestrate all kinds of phenomena across the entire universe. Hence this actor is outside the realm of physical constraint. Hence anything you observe is consistent with ID.

You don't have to tell the students every detail about every controversy, just the basic scientific consensus. And this is exactly what students are taught in public schools. For example they are taught the scientific consensus and the scientific theories involved in the origin of life. I don't see any reason to change this.
No you don't have to allow ID, because it is not science, for the reason I summarized above. Allowing it would bring the supernatural into the science class, which is educationally completely inappropriate.

But sure, teach ID in a theology class in public school, or in a mythology class. I have no problem with that.

questone

It seems that people on BOTH sides are willing to ignore parts of the constitution when it fits their needs, not just people who have religious beliefs. If people want to have schools teach their children creationism, let them.

madsenj37

I like that idea. I was taught about Islam in 7th grade, in a public school. I have no problem with schools teaching about all religions, including agnosticism and athiesm. Giving preference to one is a bad idea, however. Teaching different religions also helps teach about different cultures, so that students may gain new perspectives.

__________________
"Only two things are certain: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not certain about the universe."
-- Albert Einstein

Sun Tzu

Does it boil down to if a parent wants to have their child taught creationism as "the way" should they be forced to have to pay for a private school ie(catholic school) or similiar? Or simply let them go to Sunday school? Thats a tough one.

The opinions made here will depend on a persons beliefs, which will continue be an issue.

Personally I wish there wasnt as much historical credence as there is; placed on the old testment. I problem I see is what source of historical documentation does one find valid, and what are the facts the science states.

Like historical documentation; that can be altered according to different political motives through the ages- the old testment shows to have been changed (one source of many) http://www.earth-history.com/

Even then substance from a story; that has numerous similarities to Sumerian text, that has divine intervention I compare to Homer's writings.

I see the fight the founding fathers made to have the freedom to worship as they desired; to outweigh the religion itself. I hear several references in the news latley the fact this country was built on the principles of Judeo-Christian beliefs. While I have argument with that; one point stands out- was there no room left for social evolution?
Today is different than yesterday. How close does the Bill of Rights resemble the ten commandments?

I believe evolution is easier to grasp than Adam and Eve. Faith isnt a bad thing, but in some instances it can detract from the here and now and influence action that affect the present and future. A future that may have been a little more constructive if accountability had been place more on the thinking minds of the humans living here; opposed to outside forces tempting our weakness, and other judging them.

It doesnt mean that a higher power may not be present, I wonder where the common ground can be found? Certainly children can learn values that are good; such as treat others as you would be treated, and still learn evolution. Or even study the Old Testament as inspiration of values opposed to historical fact.

A very tough issue.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

cellophanedeity

Here's what I get out of all of this:

ID shouldn't be taught in biology classes, but I see little harm in mentioning "The Christian faith believes this, but in this biology class we will be discussing Darwin's evolution. If you wish to discuss the relationships between these two ideas, please talk to me, or if there is great enough demand then we will discuss in class."

I think the main problem with this is that we have the thought that we cannot discuss both. Yes, they are in opposition to one annother, and yes one has more scientific background. But what I believe is that if we are discussing "The beginning of the earth" then we should present common conceptions of how the Ball got rolling.

I completely disagree with teaching Creationism as The Truth, which is what I suppose is being proposed by the US government (?) but I see no harm in presenting it as an idea.

I first heard of ID in my grade nine biology class. My teacher was a creationist, but he still taught us evolution, because he believed that both could work in tandem. I can't support his ideas here, but I can say that this did happen. I then learned more details about ID in my grade eleven philosophy class, while discussing Aquinas, and have recently discussed it again in my History of Western Philosophy class in university.

The problem with arguing back and forth between Creationism and Evolution, is that both have their limits. Both suggest that something happened that "started" whatever it is that we are doing now. Neither is comfortable with the idea of infinite regression, but one is slightly more comfortable with it than the other. The thing is that science relies on Microbes (which we have concrete evidence of existing, but we have no definite explaination of how got here) whereas Creationism relies on "god" for comfort.

What I find most interesting about the argument is that ID doesn't nescitate the Christian God, and yet it is mostly Christians that fall back upon this.

Oh, and just for info, I'm a deist who believes that evolution and creationism can coincide. I don't believe in the Christian god, but I do feel that the universe probably had a Starting Force, which I guess I choose to call "god."

__________________
who am I to refuse the universe?
-Leonard Cohen, Beautiful Losers

raveneye

A couple things -- first, promoting a specific religion ("the Christian faith believes this . . . ") in a public school in this context is probably not constitutional.

And although I don't see any real problem in taking a little time at the beginning of a biology course to discuss what science is and does (as compared to say religion), I don't see any need to discuss the "religious" point of view on every topic treated in a biology class, even if there is a lot of interest. Evolution is just one of many that intersects with religion; if you discuss evolution vis a vis religion, then why not bring religion in at every turn, if students are interested?

The reason is that it's a science class; religion is simply not pertinent, either logically or pedagogically.

But I do agree that the basics of the philosophical differences between science and religion should be taught at the HS level, probably best in a social studies class.

cellophanedeity

The problem I find with this, raveneye, is that sometimes it's hard for kids to differentiate between science and religion. When a kid discusses evolution for the first time, when throughout their entire life they hear only about creationism, I think it would be important to ease them into it.

What I suggest is that when going into the evolution unit they give a short history of the science. How the theory itself grew out of doubts of creationism, and this was a more scientific answer to the religious ideas. It's actually a relatively interesting story as well, especially when you hear about how much the idea of evolution bothered Darwin, who was a Christian himself.

__________________
who am I to refuse the universe?
-Leonard Cohen, Beautiful Losers