Don't tell me because all theories should be taught because this hardly constitutes a theory. I am not sure if this would even qualify as a hypothesis. It is just asinine to compare the ToE (which has been thoroughly studied and proven over the last 150 years) to a religious idea that has no evidence backing it except the text of a religion. This would be comparable to moving Greek mythology in with science. Modern theism is just a more widely practiced mythology. It has no business being taught anywhere accept at a place of religion. Disagree? Give me a VALID reason why.
2007-01-19 06:53:21 · 10 answers · asked by bc_munkee 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
well religion shouldn't be taught in school period because there are many people who believe differently when it comes to religion as some are religious and some are non religious
2007-01-19 07:08:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You claim the theory of evolution has been proven. This is simply untrue. As the process of evolution (specifically the changing of one species into another) cannot be tested, it cannot be proven. And any test anyone ever conceives will, in fact, test both ID and evolution as the experiment itself would have a designer. And since it cannot be tested is cannot truly be considered a theory....rather, more correctly, it is a hypothesis. ID, similarly, cannot be tested and is not a true theory, but also a hypothesis.
The same evidence used to 'prove' evolution can also be used to 'prove' ID. In fact, much of the evidence that evolution has a tough time with, like the sudden appearance of many diverse species at relatively the same time, is easily explained by ID.
Many other issues on modern biology pose problems for evolution.
When it comes to evolution, science has dispensed with the scientific method.
2007-01-19 07:05:38 · answer #2 · answered by mzJakes 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
One cannot teach ID, because it offers no explanation of its own, but is a retreat to ignorance (a remodeled "god of the gaps" argument.) Evolution is fact, the ToE, however, is only supported about 75% by evidence (making it one of the top 5 most supported theories science has). But you are correct, ID does not suggest that a particular god would be the creator, so any tradition that includes the idea of a creator would be just as likely. What proponents of ID do offer, however ,are a few important critiques of the ToE, and this kind of information should be taught in science.
2007-01-19 07:03:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think it should be simply to give all kids an alternative way of thinking. It's never wrong to think any one way, and I believe all people should have the option of choice...you know, what this great country of America was built upon.
Thinking scholarly is never a horrible thing so why be so defensive about it? I love it when my kids challenge me, and their own knowledge. Makes for more intelligent conversation and people in general.
Humans need to stop being so self-serving and close-minded. If you don't like it don't listen, or there is always the option of not having to participate due to "personal convictions" or "religious reasons"....Nothing states that you HAVE to believe it, but thoughtfully pushing it aside is better than just saying "screw that!"
Get over it.
2007-01-19 06:59:28 · answer #4 · answered by hjfr27 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree that classes interior the historic previous of international religions and "comparative faith" could study in public faculties, ideally commencing interior the 5th or 6th grade, and persevering with by using extreme college. This has been a protracted-time theory by using Daniel C. Dennett, and that i think of it relatively is an innovations-blowing theory. i'm a criminal professional as nicely as an atheist, and that i think of that correct designed classes does no longer be susceptible to attack as an "enterprise of religion" or an infringement on the loose workout of religion (under the 1st exchange). this form of direction may be as nicely to the standard technology, historic previous, and social examine curricula.
2016-10-31 13:21:44 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess since they teach greek mythology, they might as well explain other myths as well.
2007-01-19 06:59:13 · answer #6 · answered by Scott Justice 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
To make sure the rest of the world laughs at us.
2007-01-19 06:57:56 · answer #7 · answered by Sara 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Nope, I agree wholeheartedly with you. RAmen to that, brother.
2007-01-19 06:57:06 · answer #8 · answered by YDoncha_Blowme 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Not until intelligent design is itself intelligently designed.
2007-01-19 06:57:44 · answer #9 · answered by STFU Dude 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I agree with you.
2007-01-19 06:59:41 · answer #10 · answered by Joa5 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋