|
|
|
|
|
| "Expelled" - The Intelligent Design Movie
Posted: 3/4/2008 7:46:59 PM | Okay, first off, let's go over what this isn't. As the "controversy" continues in the US between science and Intelligent Design, reason, logic, common sense, and the US Federal courts have already pointed out the facts: That ID is by no means scientific and is at best merely a reformulation of Creationism in quasi-scientific terms. Hence, I'm not asking to discuss the merits, flaws, or potential for revelation involved in the "theory" of Intelligent Design. Neither is this about the truth, falsity, or possible metaphysical applications of any theory of evolution.
So, a little background: I've been researching and following this "debate" for quite some time, trying on my own to figure out which is more important, which is "true", and whether or not it matters. I've read a great deal on both sides of the line, but while I've reached my own conclusion and trust others to do the same, much of what I've researched seems to point more toward ID being a socio-political tool for faith-based political reform and acquisition of power. Anyone who disagrees is perfectly welcome to do so, but for the sake of the thread, let's limit it to what's salient to the topic.
What is the topic, then? Premise Media*, a corporation that claims it "develops, finances and produces independent films, books and DVDs for the domestic and international marketplace"**, has announced its release of the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", a film that, from what I can tell, purports to expose a conspiracy in the scientific community to shut out Intelligent Design as a viable scientific theory.
My contention is that, seemingly in keeping with the apparent movement I've noticed from fundamentalist religion (as exemplified by the Discovery Institute*** and its infamous "Wedge" document****), this movie appears to be little more than well-financed high-profile propaganda to discredit the established scientific community, in lieu of performing actual scientific research. It simply seems, like nearly all the books, websites and articles I've read from the Intelligent Design supporters, to be doing little more than criticising a different point of view, polarising a debate that needn't even exist, and avoiding apparently at all cost actually formulating and testing whatever hypothesis is supposedly at issue.
Finally, the actual questions up for discussion: Have you seen or read any of the material advertising this new movie*****, and what impressions did you get? Have you seen, read or researched any of the incidents alluded to in the trailers, and again, what did you think? Utimately, considering the state of religion and politics in the US, do you think this high profile and controversial movie will have an impact, and how?
As an aside, I have to say that, while I've probably made it abundantly clear what my position is, I do maintain an openness of mind to the possibility of one or many intelligent designers of life here on Earth. I'd actually welcome anyone's substantive arguments to that effect, although this isn't the place for that.
What primarily concerns me here is the duplicity and conniving of the groups that have pushed for inclusion of Intelligent Design in national discourse of science and how that seems to be perpetuated with regard to this movie******, as well as the social and political pressures and ramifications that have led to and derive from the "debate".
The links in these notes are just the tip of a very, very large iceberg.
*http://www.premisemedia.com/
**Interestingly, there is nothing on the website other than info about the corporation and the "Expelled" movie.
***http://www.discovery.org/
****http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
*****http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.php
******http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/28/religion.film | |
|
| Expelled - The Intelligent Design Movie
Posted: 3/4/2008 8:06:54 PM |
much of what I've researched seems to point more toward ID being a socio-political tool for faith-based political reform and acquisition of power.
Bingo!
Add to that an effort to usurp scientific and social curricula in schools in favour of faith-based curricula (you can't simply "take-over" the political process and expect it to stick. You have to propogandize the youth so that future generations will adhere to the new political processes and power structure
Utimately, considering the state of religion and politics in the US, do you think this high profile and controversial movie will have an impact, and how?
Popular culture venues now have far more power over the attitudes and opinions of many Americans than traditional sources of knowledge.
What better way to sell the propoganda than through popular media. It allows for the suspension of disbelief, does not beg to be questioned and invites re-telling. How widespread that will be waits to be seen but don't be surprised if it breaks records for viewership in some parts of the country. | |
|
| Expelled - The Intelligent Design Movie
Posted: 3/8/2008 9:33:51 PM |
As the "controversy" continues in the US between science and Intelligent Design
It's mind boggling and alarming that a nation that put human beings on the moon just shy of forty years ago could be embroiled in such a debate today. | |
|
| Expelled - The Intelligent Design Movie
Posted: 3/8/2008 9:57:24 PM | People with faith will believe ANYTHING.
These religious groups go out and persecute the world, and then turn around and call themselves the victims.
 | |
|
| Expelled - The Intelligent Design Movie
Posted: 3/9/2008 1:38:24 AM | Never heard of the movie until you brought it up. This movie will not be controversial as you state. Movies come and go. Good ones makes it to the DVD home collection. Like Jesus of Nazareth, Last Temptation of Christ, that one was controversial. Peter and Paul.
Ever seen "Half Baked"? That comedy is in my collection. So is "Bad Santa." Along with Napoleon Dynamite. Matrix, Star Wars, Dune and many more.
ID movies are too generic and state the obvious. Boring, 99 movies like that around. | |
|
| Expelled - The Intelligent Design Movie
Posted: 3/9/2008 7:44:08 AM | | If you believe in G-d then its a no-brainer for ID, and if science says we cannot prove theres a G-d, does it matter. If you got the faith then whatever any scientist says will be ignored and if you believe what science has to say, they are still scratching the surface of knowledge also, does it matter. I don't think G-d needs our help. Many physicist now believe in some sort of intelligent creation process, this is where religionists got there hold on the new term ID instead of Creationism. To each there own. | |
|
| Expelled - The Intelligent Design Movie
Posted: 3/9/2008 2:41:15 PM |
Add to that an effort to usurp scientific and social curricula in schools in favour of faith-based curricula (you can't simply "take-over" the political process and expect it to stick. You have to propogandize the youth so that future generations will adhere to the new political processes and power structure
What better way to sell the propoganda than through popular media. It allows for the suspension of disbelief, does not beg to be questioned and invites re-telling. How widespread that will be waits to be seen but don't be surprised if it breaks records for viewership in some parts of the country.
If God's on your side, then anyone that stands against you is an infidel.
Ever since the Scopes monkey trial, creationism has been on the ropes. Instead of adapting to what we know through science, and somehow resolving the issue, intelligent design has re-branded creationism.
It's the new Coke. 
One calorie, less filling.....but still tastes GREAT !
If you can , at the same time, cunningly make science and knowledge look like...hmm.....uh....like the work of SATAN .....well, that's a nice bonus.
So Satan's spent most of his time burying all those fossils, just to mislead us.
What a GUY !
If you can somehow restructure people to accept every single word in the Bible as a literal truth, and a total reality, then you can then use that same mentality to control them easily.
The aristocracy needs such a belief structure to ensure it's control, as one of those "noble lies" that Leo Strauss believed in.
In The City and Man, Strauss discusses the myths outlined in Plato's Republic that are required for all governments. These include a belief that the state's land belongs to it even though it was likely acquired illegitimately and that citizenship is rooted in something more than the accidents of birth. Seymour Hersh observes that Strauss endorsed noble lies: myths used by political leaders seeking to maintain a cohesive society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss
By subtly placing these types of ideas into the minds of the masses, it allows those that impose them to take on the power of the myths they create.
They attach God to themselves, indirectly, and assume His power.
Again, ironically an almost identical reality to the one adapted by fundamentalist Muslims, used to control their masses. | |
|
| Expelled - The Intelligent Design Movie
Posted: 3/9/2008 3:07:00 PM | After the Swaggart and Bakker episodes, evangelicals were outed for the flim-flam artists that they really were. While a lot of regular society already knew this, it was these two episodes that really pulled the wool off the eyes of a few of their loyal flock. The wolves were seen for their true nature and the numbers of loyal followers dwindled greatly as those folks gravitated back towards more orthodox Christian churches to supplement their faith and beliefs.
All of this Creationist hoopla was just a way to win back those devote morons that insist on being lead by wolves. It was a calculated gamble that created a divide between intelligent people and the holy rollers. That divide allowed the bible thumping preachers to point at a new enemy as a means to sell more of their usual snake oil, and it worked.
While some of the attacks by Creationists on Evolutionist theory are correct, it is only that way because all scientific theory has some holes in it. In fact if you want something more scientific and proof oriented then you should study Cataclysm theory. It is neither religious nor based on Paleontology findings alone. Just ignore the fact that some of the bible thumpers are attempting to hijack the scientific element by using studies from Cataclysm theory to denounce Darwins Evolutionist basis. For one thing Cataclysm theory supports the facts surrounding the Great Floods of biblical record. Good luck googling it, because there are very few sources of it to be found on the web. You have to dig into scientific and pseudo-science areas to find any of it.
Cataclysm Theory also presents far more solid arguments for how diverse life evolved on the planet, and has the Zoological, Physics and Geological proof to back it up. Sadly it is often overlooked because the scientific establishment has been so busy spending the past 100 years fighting off the Creationists, and afraid to do anything other then stand behind the Evolution debate founded by Darwin. Even at the end of their lives both Darwin and even Einstein supported that Cataclysm theory was closer to the truth then either of the others. Sadly both men died before they could expand on their thoughts with it even more.
 | |
|
| Expelled - The Intelligent Design Movie
Posted: 3/9/2008 5:03:28 PM | I don't see why people can't be permitted to believe what they want to believe? I also don't understand why each side thinks it's thier mission in life to subjugate the other to their standards? If both sides wanted to be fair then I suggest the following:
I personal have little tolerance for those who wish to discount a supreme being or those who try to impose a supreme being ideology as the only answer. I do however welcome the open a decent discussion on the subject and feel that the subject should be permited to be discussed.
No, I don't believe religion should be taught in the classroom agreeing with the American Constitution's view of sepreation of Church and State. However, I see no reason why the Non-reliegious should deny students the truth in a classroom on the pretext that religion can not be disussed. What kind of education is that encouraging to deny the fact that religion exsist in the world? So, in effect what I'm saying is no specific region should be taught to students but it would be a poor education system to not permit relgion itself being discussed in a class room. However, Darwinism is being taught in the educational system much akin to a religion itself, it only seems fiting for the alternative be given an opportunity just as equal.
If any thing I fear for non-believers as for the various faiths of the world. Are we as a socitey of people going to allow the products coming out of the educational system for the last 50 or so years believe as this fella?
<div class="quote">Contrary to popular belief, it is not a right to screw your kids up no matter how strongly you believe in what you are doing.
The gov't is perfectly entitled to protect children, even from their parents; when it comes to the obligation to ensure a child is adequately educated.
How long till we have a populace overun by people taught by an education system that forbides the open discussion of all things? As this person and many others I've known truely believe. The Govenment should be the only obligated source to provide an education it deems proper contray to whatever the child's parents believes... Guess what children grow up and in time have children of their own and eventually you have a long lineage of people taught but only one thing and having never had an opportunity to know anything differently will believe in a lie and accept it as truth...
We once called this brain washing but evidently it's known as a education now? | |
|
| Expelled - The Intelligent Design Movie
Posted: 3/9/2008 5:24:25 PM | I teach college English and I refuse to let my students write about religion for several reasons. One is because I don't proselytize in class so why should I allow someone else to try to convert me? Another reason is because I don't allow opinion papers; an opinion is just that: an opinion. I cannot refute an opinion; a student can say that he or she "thinks" pink unicorns live on the moon and all I can say is that I disagree. If a student says definitively that pink unicorns live on the moon, I can say, "Prove it" and the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim. With religious arguments in papers, all the reader has to say is "I don't buy into your religion," invalidating the argument because things of faith cannot be proven.
So why did I write that lengthy prologue? Because a student of mine wanted to write a paper disproving the big bang and evolution. He said he could do it without mentioning a god, but when I told him he would have to give an alternative theory for how we got here--he looked uncomfortable. His argument boiled down to a religious belief which is based on existence of a deity.
He said that I was "stubborn but not intolerant" and changed his paper topic.
I find it interesting that teachers often get left out of this debate about science and religion. In a secular school, the classroom is no place for religion--leave it for the religious institutions. A teacher should not be placed in a position where s/he must teach ANY religious ideology. In a writing class, that is relatively easy, but if a science teacher were forced to teach intelligent design (which assumes the existence of a deity), things could get sticky.
I am pagan; I do NOT tell inform my students of my "religious" affiliation nor do I discuss my beliefs in class: IT IS NOT PROPER. Neither I nor any other teacher should be forced to read evangelizing works or forced to teach religious ideology--including intelligent design. | |
|
| Expelled - The Intelligent Design Movie
Posted: 3/9/2008 5:30:06 PM | We once called this brain washing but evidently it's known as a education now? The problem is that you're expecting the PUBLIC to cover what amounts to RELIGIOUS EDUCATION. My parents wanted me to have a religious education, so they sent me to a Catholic school. That is how you control what your children learn, and it has nothing to do with controlling what other children learn. I know some claim they are expensive, but I know for a fact, many have programs for those who can't afford it, or they charge a little more for those who can afford it and then offer grants to the poor students.
If ID can stay with the religious schools and other programs, then it's no problem and no one complains. There is not "getting rid of religion" in this. It's keeping it from trying to overshadow other religions and ways of life. The issue came in when people started complaining that they wanted THEIR beliefs taught to EVERYONE.
There are so many private schools that are religion based; why are people not sending their kids there? The government can't prevent you from sending your child to a private religion-based school. In fact, in some states, there are government vouchers that cover the cost of a child going to a private school instead of a public school. | |
|
| Expelled - The Intelligent Design Movie
Posted: 3/9/2008 5:36:09 PM |
I personal have little tolerance for those who wish to discount a supreme being or those who try to impose a supreme being ideology as the only answer. I do however welcome the open a decent discussion on the subject and feel that the subject should be permited to be discussed.
As it certainly should.
The problem becomes when science is ignored, and God did give us a brain for a reason.
That's were the intelligent design people fail miserably. They all too typically take any challenge to their belief system, a scientific and logical one that can be repeatedly proven , and then go "la la la I'm not LISTENING !"
That's the great danger here.
If we are going to have a logical and rational discussion of our history, then it must be argued on a logical and rational plane.
Religion, as opposed to spirituality, typically has a hard time doing that.
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.The US National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience. Others have concurred, and some have called it junk science.
"Intelligent design" originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguilard ruling involving separation of church and state. Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes. Several additional books on "intelligent design" were published in the 1990s. By the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents had begun clustering around the Discovery Institute and more publicly advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula.With the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture serving a central role in planning and funding, the "intelligent design movement" grew increasingly visible in the late 1990s and early 2000s, culminating in the 2005 "Dover trial" challenging the intended use of intelligent design in public school science classes.
In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a group of parents of high-school students challenged a public school district requirement for teachers to present intelligent design in biology classes as an alternative "explanation of the origin of life". U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and concluded that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
A key strategy of the intelligent design movement is convincing the general public that there is a debate among scientists about whether life evolved, in order to convince the public, politicians and cultural leaders that schools should "teach the controversy".
There is no such debate, however, within the scientific community; the scientific consensus is that life evolved.Intelligent design is widely viewed as a stalking horse for its proponents' campaign against what they say is the materialist foundation of science, which they argue leaves no room for the possibility of God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Again, if one can account for what we know to be true from things like fossil records, and their age, then this literal manifestation of the Bible as an exact description of how we arrived here is proven to be untrue.
Personally, I don't see a conflict between God creating the universe, and that fossil record. I think both can coexist rather easily, if one gets over the dogma. I actually think it's a rather elegant way to look at it.
If the alternative is ignoring science, and discounting it, then it's no longer a rational discussion.
That's where the line must be drawn, or else we regress as a society.
Ironically , the only two places that have this type of mentality are the USA and the non-secular Islamic world, who have their own version of it.
This defines it , almost without doubt, as a cultural fundamentalist movement, if it does not occur elsewhere. In almost every Christian country in the world, intelligent design is seen for what it truly is. | |
|
| Expelled - The Intelligent Design Movie
Posted: 3/9/2008 5:43:24 PM |
If you believe in G-d then its a no-brainer for ID
There is no reason that faith in God and faith in science have to be mutually exclusive. There's room for both, but introducing ID into the classroom essentially creates religious schools which should be avoided unless it's a religious based school. Public school is not the place for it. | |
|
| Expelled - The Intelligent Design Movie
Posted: 3/9/2008 5:47:58 PM |
gwendolyn2008
I hear what your saying and agree no teacher should be forced to teach something they don't believe in, but I know many that have to teach a false history that they don't believe in or lose their tenure but that's an argument for another time...
What I was saying is that there are people out there who are well qualified willing to take on the task of religion. It's the education system that is baring them from being able to provide a classroom setting to discuss the reality. To me I believe this is a misjustice to the educational process that is shouthing at the top of it's lungs to learn but don't talk about religion. What kind of education is that when a student is being a true education, only a one sided view?
Yes, you are absoultely correct this is a difficult problem for teachers and the education system itself. What are we to do? We can't claim to be providing a true education system when we omit certain realities. Religion does in fact exsist and to bury are head in the sand is no solution. There must be a way but that must come with tolerance from both sides and that is something neither side is willing to do. But that doesn't mean we can't seek the proper course to find an avenue so that a true educational system can come about? Just because I'm not a pagan doesn't mean I don't believe Paganism should be omiyed from the educational system because it's belief system.
O'by the way I think I've heard of the pink unicorn on the moon theory? Didn't NASA have to edit them out of the photo's because they were chewing on the Flag that Neil & Buzz was trying to plant on the moon. | |
|
| Expelled - The Intelligent Design Movie
Posted: 3/9/2008 7:55:02 PM |
It's the education system that is baring them from being able to provide a classroom setting to discuss the reality. To me I believe this is a misjustice to the educational process that is shouthing at the top of it's lungs to learn but don't talk about religion. What kind of education is that when a student is being a true education, only a one sided view? Every church I know of had its own classes for youth. In the town I was in, once one went to a public school, you took your religion course at the church after the main school day. There was no lack of religious education there. Also, once one religion is taught, they ALL have to be taught. That includes paganism, satanism, and all the others that those who belong to the three major religions prefer their children not learn about. Unless you would like your child to have a 16 hour school day, that's just not possible. | |
|
| |
| Expelled - The Intelligent Design Movie
Posted: 3/9/2008 8:57:30 PM |
I teach college English and I refuse to let my students write about religion for several reasons. One is because I don't proselytize in class so why should I allow someone else to try to convert me? Another reason is because I don't allow opinion papers; an opinion is just that: an opinion. I cannot refute an opinion; a student can say that he or she "thinks" pink unicorns live on the moon and all I can say is that I disagree. If a student says definitively that pink unicorns live on the moon, I can say, "Prove it" and the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim. With religious arguments in papers, all the reader has to say is "I don't buy into your religion," invalidating the argument because things of faith cannot be proven.
I'd think that religion is important enough for literary analysis of the english language, that some religion writings should be allowed within English classes.
Theology and biology though, have nothing in common. | |
|
| Expelled - The Intelligent Design Movie
Posted: 3/10/2008 6:33:30 AM | Religion is an extremely important topic in studies and to omit it from education the educational process is no education at all... I'm not saying teach religion in school but expressing it's importance in world, cultural affairs of the past, present, and future. To deny it's exsistance is leaving a major void in promoting a real education. Any thinking person would realise to erase such a factor from discussion isn't presenting the entire reality and truth and denying a student a true education. Sure the world is full of different religious secs and no class should be promoting any specific one over another but to not bring religion itself into the fold of education is no education at all.
Maybe having a class: Religion in world affairs (past, present & future) 101...
In that study students could be exposed to the various beliefs amoung different cultures and the roles each of those religions played in the development of their cultures and it's importance on the world stage...
That's not teaching a specific doctrine but at least giving students an opportunity that has been previously denied to them in which to gain a full education...
That could be one way that it could be introduced into the educational system without breaking the sepration of Chruch and State while at the same time giving students an opportunity to learn something that is being denyed to them presently? Maybe some of you have a better idea and I'm all willing to hear your suggestions for tolerance is the key to understanding.
To omit religion from the educational process isn't tolerance.
"Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.
Mohandas Gandhi " | |
|
| Expelled - The Intelligent Design Movie
Posted: 3/10/2008 7:00:49 AM | Maybe having a class: Religion in world affairs (past, present & future) 101...
In that study students could be exposed to the various beliefs amoung different cultures and the roles each of those religions played in the development of their cultures and it's importance on the world stage...
That's not teaching a specific doctrine but at least giving students an opportunity that has been previously denied to them in which to gain a full education...
A great idea. This is actually something I was blessed with. I went to a school with many immigrants, and we all learned about different religions. We had more than a few of them in our class.
As young kids, we all learned about all the major religions. We found , as young children, some things really funny. Kids would speak about how their religion worked, in a "kiddie version" of it.
In the end, we were not divided by the experience. We actually grew a lot closer, and respected the differences we had amongst us.
I wish the world was just filled with kids sometimes, it might be a lot better world. | |
|
| Expelled - The Intelligent Design Movie
Posted: 3/10/2008 7:43:29 AM |
I'd think that religion is important enough for literary analysis of the english language, that some religion writings should be allowed within English classes.
In a literature class, the Bible and other religious writings are looked upon as literature, not the infallible word of god. In a composition class where the students are learning to write different types of papers, an argument based on religious beliefs is out of place.
A student brought up a topic once (I think it was same sex marriage), and I told the class to write why they were for or against, but their reasoning could NOT be based on religious ideology. Another student wrote, "Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry because God says so. I know you said we couldn't say that, but it is true." This student wound up dropping the class and telling other students not to take me because I won't "give Christians a chance" and I "flunk them." The student's writing was inadequate, but it was easier to blame the teacher than to try to improve or take responsibility.
I teach mythology, as well, and on the first class period, I announce to the class that I am going to offend some of them because for the purposes of mythology, I refer to the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures as myth. i.e. we compare archetypal flood myths and it is obvious that Noah is based on the older Sumerian/Babylonian myth found in Gilgamesh. I explain that it is not my purpose to denigrate anyone's beliefs or try to change their beliefs, but the comparisons stand.
I have had a few students drop the class after that first period, but most stick with it (I am in the Bible Belt, remember). I have some leeway because I teach in college; high school and elementary teachers have it rougher.
but I know many that have to teach a false history that they don't believe in or lose their tenure
What constitutes a "false" history? And yes, I know that "alternative" versions of history do exist. In higher education, that instructor has the opportunity to explain other historical aspects. History is not quite the touchy subject as is religion.
Keep in mind, there are world religion classes, so it isn't as if religion is NEVER discussed in college classes. If the prof and the students can stick to the historical aspects of a faith and not get overly angry and overly emotional, there is nothing wrong with that.
In my myth class, I have had several students tell me that when they took World Religion, the instructor barely touched on Christianity. I think this is for two reasons: one is because they instructor thinks the students are all Christian and they don't need to learn about their religion; two, because most of them are Christian and the teacher doesn't want to offend anyone. Oh, and one more: the instructor is Christian and doesn't want to discuss his/her belief system because he/she can't keep out biases or doesn't want people to disagree.
O'by the way I think I've heard of the pink unicorn on the moon theory? Didn't NASA have to edit them out of the photo's because they were chewing on the Flag that Neil & Buzz was trying to plant on the moon
I was there; I saw it.
 | |
|
| Expelled - The Intelligent Design Movie
Posted: 3/10/2008 8:49:54 AM |
I have some leeway because I teach in college; high school and elementary teachers have it rougher.
Of course college is far different than elementary school. You as an educator should know the value of what is taught in the early stages of an education greatly influences what that mind will accept as reality later in life. That is where the problem begins not at the college level...
In molding minds it's paramount that such education begin at an early age. This is a well known fact and when used for destructive ends such as with those practiced in "Hitler youth camps" you build a product that believes as they want you to believe. Naturally we are not talking about building monsters but it does go to prove the power of influencing a young mind. It's near impossible to influence a free thinking adult mind but if you can capture that mind before it attains adulthood then you greatly influence what that mind will believe as an adult... So by omiting religion from the educational system at an early age is to mold a mind void of religion and to promote intolerance of religion...
"If we are to teach real peace in this world, and if we are to carry on a real war against war, we shall have to begin with the children.
Mohandas Gandhi" | |
|
| Expelled - The Intelligent Design Movie
Posted: 3/10/2008 10:34:14 AM |
So by omiting religion from the educational system at an early age is to mold a mind void of religion and to promote intolerance of religion...
You need to qualify what can be taught and how it can be taught.
I don't know what other elementary/secondary schools in other states do, but when I left CA 10 years ago, the social studies framework said that teaching religion in a secular manner--historical and social aspects--is fine. But to teach religion as religion (with value placed on beliefs) is not allowed--and shouldn't be allowed. | |
|
| |
| Expelled - The Intelligent Design Movie
Posted: 3/10/2008 3:13:56 PM |
Many physicist now believe in some sort of intelligent creation process
Sources please ?
If we want to discuss this topic in more detail, I think having any scientist or academic who believes in intelligent design brought into the discussion would assist us.
And by this, I don't mean a "self-described" scientist.
Show us someone with credentials , a bona fide one. | |
|
| Expelled - The Intelligent Design Movie
Posted: 3/10/2008 3:43:43 PM | | The fact that electrons behave like waves unless observed has led some credible scientists to think there's a spiritual element to the universe. But that's not the same as accepting intelligent design. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
