Classes in Darwinism and Intelligent design (Near Darwins home)

[Plane]

“I can see no reason why we have to regard Darwinism as a holy text that cannot be questioned,” he said. “It is a very good idea to challenge that in religious education. Just teaching children Darwinism doesn’t stretch their minds and give them intellectual hurdles to jump over. There should be lively debate.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16791773/

[The_Professor]

Interesting event. It will be intriguing to see how this evolves...hehe...sorry, couldn't resist.

[Plane]

This is less of a problem in England where the shools can have religious classes.


Yet again Europe leads the way.

[_JS]

True, Britain has always had religious education as part of its schooling, but that is part and parcel of having a state religion.

No need to address Intelligent Design, it is such an illogical thought process that it rightly deserves the refuse bin (as they say in the mother country ).

[Plane]

True, Britain has always had religious education as part of its schooling, but that is part and parcel of having a state religion.

No need to address Intelligent Design, it is such an illogical thought process that it rightly deserves the refuse bin (as they say in the mother country ).

What do you consider to be the better alternative?

A lot of people say that they beleive in Evolution who really do not.


How does a beleif in Evolution influence the liveing of a persons life?

[_JS]

What do you consider to be the better alternative?

Why are you searching for an alternative? Just to spite evolution?

How does a beleif in Evolution influence the liveing of a persons life?

Evolution is, at its most basic, descent with modification. I think your statement "A lot of people say that they beleive in Evolution who really do not" is a poor one. I'd say that a lot of people in America have an irrational hatred of evolution first, then they seek to justify that without ever bothering to really understand it at all.

You question is senseless and I'm not saying that to be mean-spirited. It is like asking, "how does belief in gravity influence the living of a persons life?" Well, if you don't believe in gravity it doesn't prevent it from being real. Gravity is. Evolution is. You can loathe Newton or Darwin all you wish for either one, but that doesn't refute the existence of either.

You can invent outlandish and non-scientific theorems to explain the effects of gravity and evolution, but that still doesn't make your new theorems true, or gravity and evolution false.

[Plane]

What do you consider to be the better alternative?

Why are you searching for an alternative? Just to spite evolution?

How does a beleif in Evolution influence the liveing of a persons life?

Evolution is, at its most basic, descent with modification. I think your statement "A lot of people say that they beleive in Evolution who really do not" is a poor one. I'd say that a lot of people in America have an irrational hatred of evolution first, then they seek to justify that without ever bothering to really understand it at all.

You question is senseless and I'm not saying that to be mean-spirited. It is like asking, "how does belief in gravity influence the living of a persons life?" Well, if you don't believe in gravity it doesn't prevent it from being real. Gravity is. Evolution is. You can loathe Newton or Darwin all you wish for either one, but that doesn't refute the existence of either.

You can invent outlandish and non-scientific theorems to explain the effects of gravity and evolution, but that still doesn't make your new theorems true, or gravity and evolution false.

Intellignt Design is the oigional therom , Evolution is the upstart.

Do you beleive in evolution so well that you try to participate in it?

[_JS]

Intellignt Design is the oigional therom , Evolution is the upstart.

Do you beleive in evolution so well that you try to participate in it?

Again, that's like asking someone if they participate in gravity.

[Amianthus]

Intellignt Design is the oigional therom , Evolution is the upstart.

Err, no. Evolution is derived from the scientific process. Intelligent design is based on assumption.

Do you beleive in evolution so well that you try to participate in it?

Yes, I do. I made a choice for the mother of my child that would maximize my child's chances for survival.

[Plane]

Intellignt Design is the oigional therom , Evolution is the upstart.

Err, no. Evolution is derived from the scientific process. Intelligent design is based on assumption.

If the scientific process you are speaking of is <observation> then Inteligant designis also based on scientific processes.

Do you beleive in evolution so well that you try to participate in it?

Yes, I do. I made a choice for the mother of my child that would maximize my child's chances for survival.

That is indeed the sort of thing I was speaking of , you made an important life decision based on your knoledge of evolution.
There is a distinct diffrence in the Theroy of Evolution and in Gravity , but in either case haveing scientific knoledge opens the potential for manipulation of result.

[Amianthus]

If the scientific process you are speaking of is <observation> then Inteligant designis also based on scientific processes.

There is more to scientific process than just observation.

And when was a "creator" observed during the formation of the hypothesis of intelligent design?

[domer]

This is a major front in the now age-old war between religion and science. The question naturally posed is this: which explains reality as best as we can determine? The same was asked of Galileo's cosmology ...

At a certain level of abstraction, however, the question recedes in importance as the two modes of thought can be seen as compatible. Science in this day and age provides both the data and the theoretical structure to understand our world. Religion, to be relevant, can't ignore the findings of science, the very data of life as we know it, but must incorporate those findings (read: reality) into its own formulations. Once that is done for currently valid theories, then religion is free to impose a "super-explanation" based on a Prime Mover or however it is conceived.

Just don't call the religious formulation "science," and don't teach it in public schools.

[Amianthus]

Just don't call the religious formulation "science," and don't teach it in public schools.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, it can be taught in the public schools in a course on theology. I disagree with teaching it as science, however.

[Lanya]

True, Britain has always had religious education as part of its schooling, but that is part and parcel of having a state religion.

We as a country have more church attendance than several countries that have state religions.
Not that this causes us to attend more, but I think it can't hurt.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Intellignt Design is the oigional therom , Evolution is the upstart.


Now that is just entirely untrue.

There was no original "theorem", just a belief that the entire universe was created in a week around 400 BC.

Intelligent design is not a theorem, either. It is speculation, written as Biblical "research" is done.  The Bible is assumed to be true, then we are supposed to consider how this could possibly be true, considering all the evidence that evolution did, in fact, occur, but God was in charge of the entire process.

Evolution, as a scientific view, is always subject to research and elaboration. But intelligent design is not science nor even scientific.
No true scientist takes it seriously.