State Legislators Seek Bills to Allow Questioning of Evolution Theory in Schools

But there's no valid reason to mention it.

Yes, me laughing like a maniac was assuredly me going batshit.

This is going nowhere.

Oh come on, I'm just having some fun with you, stop being defensive.

Already covered in post #129:

All right, name one valid reason to mention an inherently unscientific idea like ID in science class.

Ahh, interesting.

Well, then the next question is, what data does the person with religious faith have to study? I'm not exactly unschooled in religious history, but I'm not sure what sort of data there is to indicate a God may or may not exist.

I remember a number of inherently unscientific ideas being mentioned in science class: alchemy, lysenkoism, abiogenesis...

If you never heard any of those kinds of things mentioned in science classes, or if you think it was unscientific and unconstitutional of the teachers to mention them, then I can only conclude that you are in favor of kids being taught only what they are expected to accept, without ever knowing that when they get out into the real world, there will be people who, for political, religious or other reasons, will disagree with those teachings, no matter how sound they are from a scientific point of view. Personally, I find it useful to go into theories that are advanced against what seems reasonable truth, in order to show the arguments (and the limited basis of those arguments) on which they are based. It tends to give students a much more solid basis for understanding not only what science teaches, but why it holds to those ideas rather than others.

One's own experience of the world is one place to start. Though others may deny it, when you yourself have experienced direct contact with God, that is hard to explain away.

Epistemology, also, provides some very solid data about the existence of God. That, in particular, is what I was speaking of when I said no one has ever been able to refute my reasons for believing in God.

I don't much care about "religion"; religion is pretty much a shouting match between dogmaticians. In that sense, it is very similar to politics. In fact, I grew up with religion, and it didn't do much of anything for me. But when I discovered what it means to live with God, that changed my whole life. That is why I reject the notion that "faith" is simply belief without proof. My faith is based on what I have experienced personally, as well as on the most rigorous analysis of the available data in order to interpret that experience. It's as if someone who denies the moon landings tried to tell Neil Armstrong they were all faked. When you've been there, no matter what theories people come up with to claim that it isn't "reasonable," you will always know that they just don't know what they are talking about, no matter how sincere they are.

Then we would arrive at something of an impasse in that regard. Science, by definition, requires empirical evidence, while religion can get by on mostly personal revelations. As Aquinas says, all proof of God is straw.

On this matter, though, we are on more solid footing.

The difference between the above examples and ID is that philosophies like alchemy and spontaneous generation are mentioned as examples of previous ideas that are no longer valid.

Spontaneous generation, for instance, was mentioned because it was a good example of the scientific method and an experiment.

What Tamar is proposing is that ID, which I agree is the scientific equivalent of alchemy and the like, be discussed as if it is a valid counterpoint to evolutionary studies. But it is not a valid counterpoint at all.

But empirical science is not the only way to approach truth. Philosophy, epistemology and mathematics are also disciplines intended to attempt to discern truth, and none of them is entirely dependent on empirics.

I think you should verify with Tamar that that is what she is proposing. That is not at all the impression I get from reading her posts.

It's pro-stupidity.

Well, philosophy and epistemology are fairly abstract. It's hard to gauge the truth, for instance, of PLato's belief that a utopia can only exist if there is a legitimate ruling religious caste. Mathematics is also unique in that regard, as it often deals with abstract concepts such as zero, negative numbers, and imaginary numbers. But there are such things as mathematical proofs, regardless of the abstract qualities math sometimes has.

Tamar wants ID mentioned, so as to spur discussion. If I'm wrong, then I will gladly correct my stance. But, if my interpretation is correct, ID would hold a distinctly unique, and I believe inappropriate, place in discussion as part of a science curriculum.

Abiogenesis isn't unscientific in so much that experimental work is being done. But it also doesn't belong on the syllabus as there's no consensus on it.

I suppose one could mention alchemy and lysnkoism in their historical contexts but just like ID I see no valid reason to teach them.

You could just as easily accomplish as much with a good course on the scientific method. Though I must admit dragging creationism into the classroom because it's wrong is a novel approach (I'm doubting I'll see too many ID proponents suggesting it).

IN.
THIS.
Thread.

No one is pushing it HERE but you are fighting it HERE.

Why?

Have you been paying attention to the thread at all?