then wouldn't they have to teach other pseudosciences like alchemy, phrenology, astrology, and many others. I mean if your going to let one form of pseudoscience be taught why not bring back all of them?
2007-03-29 17:19:06 · 22 answers · asked by Armund Steel 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Dear alias_47: You said alchemy, phrenology, and astrology have been proven to be flawed and ID hasn't. Here's the thing ID hasnt proven ANYTHING period.
2007-03-29 17:25:38 · update #1
person who said evolution is a pseudoscience. You must not know what a pseudoscience is: Pseudosciences cannot be tested. You can test micro evolution in labs. You will never be able to test if there is a god or not. That is solely based on faith therfore making it bs as a science.
2007-03-29 17:31:07 · update #2
we let the pseudoscience of evolution be taught, why not?
http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&new_topic=26
2007-03-29 17:23:30 · answer #1 · answered by everything is broken 4 · 5⤊ 4⤋
Do you know what would solve this problem? If there'll be no end to the debate of teaching intelligent design in schools, then perhaps the American government can teach it under the guise of ''philosophy'', and philosophy could be made a compulsory subject.
That way it'll be taught as what it is, and there may even be a possiblity that the kids will also be taught some real, old-school critical thinking along the way.
As long as it is NOT taught as a science.
2007-03-29 18:37:01 · answer #2 · answered by [operatic stock character] 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Excellent point. Even their so-called smoking gun evidence, irreduceable complexity, doesn't work. I also find it interesting that Michael Behe wont conduct the experiment that could lend more credence to the ID theory (it would only take 2 years). What kind of science is that? It is sick that this is even a discussion in our country. The ID theory fails in almost every aspect, fails peer review, fails on trial, and fails as a scientific theory. Let's hope that it stays out of the classroom, this country can't stand to become too much dumber.
Sorry to tack this on but the "Evolution is just a theory" argument makes me want to tear my ears off my head. Germ theory, quantum theory, even the theory of gravity are all just 'theories,' each of them having holes or gaps in them. Guess what, that is the nature of a theory. A theory is well tested, passes peer review, and has duplicatable results. ID has none of these. However, the above listed theories not only work but have brought about life changing and life saving results. So yeah, evolution is just a theory, a theory that has withstood over 150 years of rigorous testing.
2007-03-29 17:27:50 · answer #3 · answered by Tukiki 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
There's no point in teaching anything in science
that isn't useful for predicting.
That is, a theory is only useful if you can use it.
Creationism doesn't allow you to even hazard a guess
about what comes next 'cause its all up the man in
charge.
At least alchemy and prenology were trying to work
out rules of prediction (though they never got anywhere).
Astrology as practiced in the US has no scientific
underpinnings at all - its whatever you can convince
the sucker so that he'll pay for your words of wisdom.
No, they aren't all alike, really.
I have no problem teaching intelligent design in
school - just not as science. Maybe philosophy?
2007-03-29 17:24:04 · answer #4 · answered by Elana 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I am a Christian, but I have nonetheless fought my schoolboard over teaching ID.
The Bible is NOT a scientific text, and hard science does NOT attempt to address metaphysical issues.
Personally, I believe that evolution fleshes out the details of creation. But that does not mean that I think it necessary for anybody to waste time explaining ID in a public school classroom!
I gotta go have a t-shirt printed with Darwin on one side, and Richard Dawkins on the other!
2007-03-29 17:36:46 · answer #5 · answered by Sim - plicimus 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Heh. And, also, why should we teach the *Christian* version of "intelligent design" - that some single creator made everything? We have no idea whether one creator or 50 creators created things. Or the creator's _gender_ (which I'm sure it does not have), or what the creator _is_. (Is it human? Probably not.) How would you teach children to "picture" the creator? This picturing in itself is an enormous problem.
2007-03-29 17:25:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why is evolution taught as the truth when it is someones theory but when you try to teach the Truth, they think you are some kind of psycho fanatic. Give ID a chance, all others will fail.
2007-03-29 17:37:18 · answer #7 · answered by jaherrera3499@sbcglobal.net 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Brilliant point! (although I can't bring myself to view astrology as a pseudoscience)
2007-03-29 17:25:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Alchemy, phrenology and astrology have all been proven to be flawed, yet intelligent design hasnt. So your q is baseless, and only you consider intelligent design to be a pseudoscience, stop trying to throw it in peoples faces, the only reason you do it is because you are insecure and feel worthless
2007-03-29 17:22:46 · answer #9 · answered by alias_47 3 · 3⤊ 6⤋
This is the knee-jerk reaction by the Christian community to macroevolution, which is essentially baseless, being included with microevolution, which is well-documented and well-grounded, but I say we stop teaching macroevolution--perhaps insert an aside about it.
2007-03-29 17:32:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Every single one of my college science professors said if they had to teach intelligent design in the classroom, they'd quit. (And some of them were even christian).
edit: we had a panel discussion about intelligent design versus evolution taught in schools, and had all the science professors as well as a governor come to discuss it.
2007-03-29 17:23:17 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋