As a few here know, I'm currently in a Master's Program for seconday ed, and this topic came up today in my Teaching in Context class. I was the first to post to this, and after reading everyone's replies, I feel the need to post again. - and here's hoping that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was taken as it was meant, as a comic foil -

Firstly, there's a few comment that I feel the need to make, and I don't remember quite who they all apply to. But yes, Lilith, what to teach is decided state to state. And someone else mentioned that Creationism and the book of Genesis was only relevant to Christianity... has Judaism gotten lost in the mix? Just a comment.

OK. As I stated before, I do ascribe to evolution. However, a few people have made reference to ID as more than a mere twist away from creationism, and here I feel a bit lost. Because as I understood it, intelligent design says that there was a designer - deity or not - that created all of the earth out of nothingness. The book of Genesis says - though in several different ways - that G-d created the heavens and the earth, and all that is upon it, in 6 days. Now, as far as I can tell, the only difference between the two ideas is the timeline of the occurence; i.e. ID is taking creationism and fitting to the scientific facts of the fossil record and carbon-dating. Again, if I'm wrong, someone please correct me.

Now, if this is the only difference... this is not a scientific theory. Genetic mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection are proven aspects related to evolution, that, as far as I know, are not accounted for in intelligent design. Therefore, I think that intelligent design belongs in a philosophy of religion and/or social science course, not biology.

__________________
I see your fantasy... you want to make it a reality

Are you in the mood to be subdued

You see these shackles
Baby I’m your slave
I’ll let you whip me if I misbehave

Tie me to the bedpost

I like it rough
cause I'd rather feel pain than nothing at all

Ah, Alasse, you have not at all got it now. And Lilith, you missed the point as well. Alasse's point the giving respect in order to get it is closer to the mark.

You see, if this is truly a no-flame forum, then the attempts to push "Intelligent design" in science classes would be made in the first place. It is this crap which is inherently disrespectful, offensive, rude and abusive. Under those conditions, I feel no compuction about replying in kind.

Alasse-therfore, I am not saying that it is OK for me to be rude & abusive, but not "them". "They" have already been rude & abusive. And therefore, if "they" wish to receive respect from me, then they should stop being rude & abusive.

Lilith: note that I flame under very rare circumstances. In fact, as I recall, of the by now over 1900 "official" posts I have made to the Pixies forums, I can recall flaming someone only in two different threads.

Amazingly enough, both were in situations where the hate-filled, mind-control forces in our society had performed actions, or made statements, which themselves were not only offensive, but also themselves inflammatory.

Further, I understand that what you said isn't, and can't be true in the strictes senst of the phrase. Specifically, these are a flame-free set of forums. However, I recognize your statement as an attempt to keep them as flame-free as possible.

I insist that the degree of respect I gave to the other side in my expression of my views was exactly the degree of respect I have received from them in their expression of their views, and exactly the degree of respect their issues deserve.

When they stop flaming, I will.

__________________
On the kinkometer, my kink measures as a sine wave.

It depends if it is a science class or a religion class. There is no concrete evidence for ID. ... it should not be discussed in a science class.

__________________
Member Emeritus