Intelligent Design in Science Class

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michaelo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Namesake said:
Not in a science class. Not in a math class.
Click to expand...
So, can I then assume that you are opposed to critical thinking? A child in a science class has no right to question? Everything the science teacher says is to be taken as absolute, unquestionable fact? And all this time I thought it was the atheists who claim to be the champions of free thought. I stand corrected. All students are to be absolutely obedient to whatever their teacher says. I certainly hope a science teacher doesn’t try to justify racism by saying that certain races are “less evolved” than ohters. (It isn’t impossible…it has happened before). Of course even if a teacher would say such a thing, the student must accept it. They have no right to counter with their own arguments. Inanity such as this, restricting critical thought is one of the reasons American science education is lagging. THe purpose of science is to question and think critically. Furthermore, for a science teacher to force a student to say all of this happened outside of God is treading on areas science should not tread. Perhaps ID/Theistic Evolution is not prperly science. By the same token, science classrooms should not make the claim that natural processes occur without God. It is not a science teacher’s job to try to drive the belief in God out of the student.
 
CWBetts said:
So, can I then assume that you are opposed to critical thinking? A child in a science class has no right to question?
Click to expand...
If it’s a science class then questions should be confined to science. If it’s a math class questions should be confined to math.
 
Namesake said:
If it’s a science class then questions should be confined to science. If it’s a math class questions should be confined to math.
Click to expand...
You are right. “where did we come from?” is a philosophical question. Evolution is a classic case of discipline misapplication. Science is used to define how the world works. It is not to be used to speculate the methods God used to create us.
 
CWBetts said:
You are right. “where did we come from?” is a philosophical question. Evolution is a classic case of discipline misapplication. Science is used to define how the world works. It is not to be used to speculate the methods God used to create us.
Click to expand...
I think the question is how did all the amazing diversity of life, past and present, on Earth come to be? It’s a *how did that happen question instead of a *where did we come from question.
 
Namesake said:
It’s not offensive until you try to force that belief on other people. Just let science do what it does and leave your design ideas out of the science classroom. It’s very simple.
Click to expand...
Who is forcing anything into the classroom? This is a Catholic Forum and the answers should be from a Catholic perspective.

Peace,
Ed
 
This is a delicate issue and really depends on whether it is the public or Catholic school system that we are talking about. If it is a public school, the theory of evolution should be presented with a sidelight on what different faith groups think about it, and if it is a Catholic school, the theory of evolution should be presented with the Church’s teaching and excerpts of Pius XII’s Humani Generiis. After all, the late Pope John Paul II said that evolution is more than a theory, showing his adoption of the idea. This, of course, doesn’t mean that this is the Church’s position and the Church will likely never make a formal statement for or against because they are not a scientific body. Besides, evolution is not opposed to faith.
 
MacMcCarver said:
If it is a public school, the theory of evolution should be presented with a sidelight on what different faith groups think about it,
Click to expand...
Then science class would include time for all faiths to be represented? That could take a lot of class time. Why not let the faiths do their discussions in faith sorts of classes? Why in science class?

Something is wrong here. Faith/science… I think you can pick one per class.
 
MacMcCarver said:
This is a delicate issue and really depends on whether it is the public or Catholic school system that we are talking about. If it is a public school, the theory of evolution should be presented with a sidelight on what different faith groups think about it, and if it is a Catholic school, the theory of evolution should be presented with the Church’s teaching and excerpts of Pius XII’s Humani Generiis. After all, the late Pope John Paul II said that evolution is more than a theory, showing his adoption of the idea. This, of course, doesn’t mean that this is the Church’s position and the Church will likely never make a formal statement for or against because they are not a scientific body. Besides, evolution is not opposed to faith.
Click to expand...
Pope John Paul II said, “… more than a hypothesis.” But there is a lot more he also said.

nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html

The Church also has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

Peace,
Ed
 
Namesake said:
Then science class would include time for all faiths to be represented? That could take a lot of class time. Why not let the faiths do their discussions in faith sorts of classes? Why in science class?

Something is wrong here. Faith/science… I think you can pick one per class.
Click to expand...
Have you bought into the lie that science and religion are irreconcilable? That might come as a surprise to Mendel, as he was a monk.
 
CWBetts said:
Have you bought into the lie that science and religion are irreconcilable? That might come as a surprise to Mendel, as he was a monk.
Click to expand...
No, but in science classes, in public schools, there is no place for religion and ID is religion thinly disguised.
 
Namesake said:
No, but in science classes, in public schools, there is no place for religion and ID is religion thinly disguised.
Click to expand...
Every place is a place for faith. I define myself as a Catholic first. This comes after a lifelong journey through Christianity, Atheism, Paganism, and Eastern Philosophy. At public schools, constitutional rights are not suspended.
 
Namesake said:
No, but in science classes, in public schools, there is no place for religion and ID is religion thinly disguised.
Click to expand...
Interesting. So probability theory is not science? I find it very hard to believe that an integrated, interconnected arrangement of micro-machinery could assemble itself by accident or swap parts with similar. It would be like swapping VW parts with a Mercedes. Very highly unlikely.

I don’t think science was ever really the primary issue of this thread.

Peace,
Ed
 
CWBetts said:
Every place is a place for faith.
Click to expand...
Not in science class.
At public schools, constitutional rights are not suspended.
Click to expand...
Pupils in public schools do not have full rights under the constitution because they are not adults. Public schools can enforce a variety of rules that you might think are unconstitutional.
 
Well, that settles it. All those true and false questions I had to answer while talking electronics courses – meaningless? I don’t think so.

Peace,
Ed
 
Namesake said:
Science class doesn’t teach truth because truth isn’t a concept in science.
Click to expand...
I didn’t necessarily mean in science class.

But you make an interesting point. Science has no concept of truth? So what is the point of it? If it isn’t interested in truth then it is a meaningless and costly exercise. Did I understand you correctly?
 
buffalo said:
I didn’t necessarily mean in science class.

But you make an interesting point. Science has no concept of truth? So what is the point of it? If it isn’t interested in truth then it is a meaningless and costly exercise. Did I understand you correctly?
Click to expand...
Not exactly. What is generally consider to be true in science is open to change. That’s not the same as truth in religion.

Science certainly goes about trying to discover the truth (facts) of the natural universe, but nothing is ever finally unalterably the truth. Science deals in facts (observations) that can be explained with theories. Science hopes that theories generate more questions than answers. Once you’ve answered a question in science the fun is all over. Then you have to find a new question. It just keeps on going like that.
 
edwest2 said:
Well, that settles it. All those true and false questions I had to answer while talking electronics courses – meaningless? I don’t think so.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I don’t think so either. But the answers might not be true in perpetuity.
 
Namesake said:
Not exactly. What is generally consider to be true in science is open to change. That’s not the same as truth in religion.

Science certainly goes about trying to discover the truth (facts) of the natural universe, but nothing is ever finally unalterably the truth. Science deals in facts (observations) that can be explained with theories. Science hopes that theories generate more questions than answers. Once you’ve answered a question in science the fun is all over. Then you have to find a new question. It just keeps on going like that.
Click to expand...
Given the above, why do you think that scientism is rampant?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top