Thanks for posting this!

I think I better read up more on this topic before I put in my 2 cents worth

In a way there is no way you can really get completely around religion in science class. It will come up at some point so it's best to know how to address it properly.

I will ask a question - I have a biology based science degree and was always taught that religion belonged in philosophy class. I would estimate the majority of my fellow scientists that I know are atheists, which I realize adds a bias on why they feel it does not qualify to be taught in a science class.

Often, I hear from my religious friends that if religion cannot be taught in science class, then neither should evolution be taught in science class.

Not really a question - more of a comment of what I have witnessed thus far.

For me, evolution makes sense on one level and doesn't on another which can get complicated. I don't believe we evolved from an ape but I do believe the earliest form of man was different than what exists today.

So...I view evolution as a pretty interesting hypothesis and not clearly the bottom line. I think where the dilemma lies in HOW it is taught in schools.

If it were approached as an idea or hypothesis with facts that were given not as the end-all-absolute "scientific truth" thereby discounting many faiths...BUT instead it could be offered as an opportunity for kids to really ponder their own ideas on the matter would be fine.

I think it would be interesting to see what they came up with. To me that would be an interesting scientific experiment.

I think a lot of parents would still freak and persist in their fear that children are being indoctrinated in schools about how life began which conflicts with their personal beliefs....which is hysterical. That happens on TV right in front of them everyday unnoticed...and it is called advertising.

I think evolution has to be taught *yoga*. That's hard to get around too when you get to speaking in certain areas in science.

Or you can be a parent like me and teach your kids that any source that teaches us that life began in any other way but by God's creation is wrong. I also teach them to love God and follow His commandents. I don't need to freak out, I just need to teach my children.

Anyways, the public school systems are govt. run and there is a seperation of church and state. I don't expect my kids to get any education about God at a public school.
If a believer wants their child to recieve a God-glorifying education they private school or home school, or teach their children to discern truth from falsehood.

The case for ID should be taught. I made a long posting on the subject in a room can you prove the existence of God, without referring to divine revelation.

I'd like to read that one *Grandpa*

Grandpa has some brilliant insight. I always enjoy what he posts.

Pink go to my profile, and look at my groups, you will find the group, and my presentation.

Thanks *Grandpa I think I'll go check that out right now. I love a good read!

Cheeky I just wanted to clarify that evolution doesn't state that we evolved from apes, but rather apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor.

Anthropologists often point to the fact that chimps and humans share almost identical DNA. What they're really saying is that we share nearly identical structural DNA sequences (DNA used for protein production), but that our regulatory DNA (DNA that tells the proteins what to do) is vastly different.

As for the topic at hand, I have no objections to ID being presented in high schools, but I do agree with Yoga that science and philosophy should be presented in different classes. I went to a private Christian high school and I can't recall any uproar over the absence of ID in science classes. We had religious studies courses for that.

Quite honestly, I don't think we give high school students enough credit. I think it is entirely possible that they can learn both types of material and intelligently debate said material without the need for parental interference. I also understand that parents have the right to object to the material that is presented to their children, but at some point you need to give your children the opportunity to grow independently.

I'm agnostic for what it's worth.

I completely concur with your points lildorothy. I was a little scant on the details and appreciate you clarifying things.

High school students should be given more opportunity to create opinions. I find often they never really are given the opportunity until a college professor encourages them that it is okay to actually have an opinion.

You brought up some excellent points!

The case for ID, should not, and is not based on scripture of any kind. What it does is present the unanswered questions that can't be surmised or deduced by evolution. I know of no credible scientist who does not subscribe to the theroy of evolution post "pre-Cambrian Explosion"

I will not be able to comment until this afternoon, but I will be back and share what I think and what my husband thinks. Have fun with the discussions!

Grandpa I completely agree with your point that the presentation of ID should not be based on scripture. I think it's entirely possible to intelligently discuss an alternative to evolution without pointing to one or multiple holy books.

We'll see you later Yoga! You've posted a very interesting question here in the group.

"I think it's entirely possible to intelligently discuss an alternative to evolution without pointing to one or multiple holy books."

I agree.

By the way ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive, going forward post Cambrian evolution works pretty well.

My personal view is that ID should not be taught in a science class because I don't believe if follows the scientific method. The goal of science is to use the scientific method to make unbiased observations of the natural world. Science theory is based upon trying to interpret observations/tests into a universal theory that can explain current phenomenon and predict future phenomenon. Do we get theory wrong occassionally? Absolutely - because of limits in current testing and understanding! How do we know it's wrong - continual observations/tests shed light on how the theory may not work in the real world. We may make a new discovery about something previously unknown and then we need to see how that fits into current theories and does it affect those theories, or do they need to change so that we have theories that now encompass the new level of understanding.

The goal of science is to interpret the observations objectively. However, interpretations differ and observations can be manipulated to support biases. I don't think ID fits the definition of science. It seems to me, that ID focuses more on attacking current science theory rather than proceeding with the scientific method. I don't think it's scientific or objective to attribute things as being miraculous. No matter how small a statistical probability, stating it is a miracle is a bias. If the origin of something that we know exists today cannot be explained through today's science, I don't think that is cause for it to be attributable to intelligent design. Also, I do not think complexity indicates or points towards intelligent design - how do you test such a statement? Where is the scientific method applied? I don't think the scientific method can be applied to determining if there is an intelligent design, thus relegating it to philosophy rather than science.

From Wikipedia "Scientific Method - Truth and Belief"

Belief can alter observations; those with a particular belief will often see things as reinforcing their belief, even if to another observer they would appear not to do so. Even researchers admit that the first observation may have been a little imprecise, whereas the second and third were "adjusted to the facts," until tradition, education, and familiarity produce a readiness for new perception. [16]

Eadweard Muybridge's studies of a horse gallopingNeedham's Science and Civilization in China uses the 'flying horse' image as an example of observation: in it, a horse's legs are depicted as splayed, when the stop-action picture by Eadweard Muybridge shows otherwise. Note that at the moment that no hoof is touching the ground, the horse's legs are gathered together and are not splayed, but for when a horse is jumping. Earlier paintings depict the incorrect flying horse observation.

This demonstrates Ludwik Fleck's caution that people observe what they expect to observe, until shown otherwise; our beliefs will affect our observations (and therefore our subsequent actions). The purpose of the scientific method is to test a hypothesis, a proposed explanation about how things are, via repeatable experimental observations which can contradict the hypothesis so as to fight this observer bias.

Yoga, that is why we call it "the THEORY of evolution. I.D. posits unanswered questions in that theory, and gives an alternative explanation, that explanation is also just a theory, and not presented as dogma. At no point does I.D. try to make the case for religion, or beliefs of any kind, nor does it make the case for an immortal soul, or life after death. I find the case made by I.D. compelling. who or what is behind, or architect, is unknown, and probably unknowable. I hold no illusions when it comes to the "immortal soul". No scientific case can be made for it.

I just wanted to quickly drop by all of the blogs this morning and leave my quick thoughts.

You all are having an insightful conversation, and also a very peaceful one. Thank you so much for expressing your different opinions in a courteous manner inside the group I am very proud to have you as a member.

There are very few that "step" on other people in a personal way, fortunately we rarely see them anywhere but on 4.0. Most sites have very little patience with ad hominum attacks

Sure, teach it from a strictly scientific point of view so no one can say you're preaching and science is science why not.

Yeah, 4.0 can be a little rough on others that do not agree with the main cast. I want everyone to feel comfortable to talk in here.

How can we understand the differences in others if we do not feel comfortable to ask our questions to them? And then we also feel that we will not be taken seriously when we do ask. But what we are confident of is that we will surely be attacked.

We have to understand outsiders before we can all live in better peace.

That's one of the main problems in the world today. People are purposely blind to what others feel and believe in. They don’t want to care therefore they won’t listen properly, if at all.

And when a few bad people within a religion/culture does something seriously wrong, some people want to blame everyone with that belief. We need to keep in mind that not all people are as radical as others.

There are bad apples everywhere...we just can't allow it to spoil everything.

I'm loving this group so far. I had no idea about Intelligent Design being such a big issue in science class nowadays.

I think there is a confusion between. "creationism" as per the bible, and Intelligent design. I fault the press for lacking the intellectual curiosity to investigate I.D. There are so very many unanswered questions in the foundation of the theory of evolution relying on "random chance" to explain how we went from a single cell to here. In fact if you go look at the "Big Bang" that led to the founding of our universe and how tight a tolerance that allowed it to even develop is an amazement in and of itself.

I had a class in which we compared the Orient, Europe and Egypt and during the timetables that language was developed, and then the establishment of religion. It was interesting to see how the changes all came about.

What is 4.0?

Grandpa - you said I.D. makes the case for finding who or what is behind or is the architect. To me - that implies that I.D. is saying something created everything, if you would consider a "who/what" to be behind or an architect of the universe. If no scientific case can be made for it, how can it be included as a scientific theory in a science class? Science theory is based on the scientific method. The goal is that eventually tests/data gathered will dispove a hypothesis and provide evidence that supports the theory - even gravity is a theory. (Remember - you can never prove something, only disprove something). If I.D. is outside of the realms of the scientific method, that does not mean it's not a theory, it's just not a SCIENTIFIC theory, which is why I think it should be taught in a philosophy class. I think it's fine that people learn about I.D., but I don't think it's right to teach kids this is a scientific theory that eventually can be tested.

Yes - evolution is a THEORY - but it is a theory based on the scientific method and it is possible to test the theory and make observations, although the tests will occur over many generations and lifetimes and will not happen in our lifetime. Since it is possible to observe and test the theory, that's why it is a scientific theory. Even if it has unanswered questions and holes in the theory, it is still a scientific theory. A lot of our theories about the universe have holes in the theory, all it means is that more scientific observation and testing is needed to make sense of those holes.

Citizen 4.0

Is that a christian website or something?

No, it's a group on Sugar.

You all are making some very interesting points here. This conversation is insightful.

I.D. is based on unanswered questions, it in and of itself can not give you a final answer as to what this I.D. manifests is in and of itself. I am of the opinion we will never have an adequate answer. A scientist sets up a series of Petri dishes with a medium and bacteria, and then introduces various chemicals to determine the effect on bacteria growth. The scientist is aware of the dish, and how the growth varies in comparison to other dishes, can he identify individual spores, of course not. Does he care what happens to those individual spores; only to the extent it affects his experiment. Oh and by the way what does the scientist do with those Petri dishes when that experiment is over?