Yes indeed. The fact that some who opposed this ruling continue to portray it as "anti-religion" demonstrates this. All the ruling says is that the teaching of ID cannot be MANDATED as part of the curriculum. Individual teachers are free to discuss it, or not discuss it as they see fit.
The verbiage of the debate below demonstrates that the place for ID is in a religion or philosophy class, NOT a science class. No reasonable person wants the Bible or religious ideas entirely banned from schools (for diverse reasons). Many of us though vehemently do NOT want the Bible or such metaphysical ideas invoked in the science classroom. If such a thing were to pass in a public school in which my daughter were enrolled, I'd either withdraw her or insist that along with ID all other creations myths would be taught, including the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That would be a great waste of taxpayer time, as is any use of science class to teach ANY supernatural explanations for anything.
ID proponents misrepresent this ruling in black and white terms, just as some of its opponents do. All the ruling said was: ID may not be mandated in the curriculum. An excellent, reasonable decision.
Nancy Melucci
Long Beach City College
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Guinee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences <tips@acsun.frostburg.edu>
Sent: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 09:59:08 -0500
Subject: Re: ID ruling
> >An intelligent being who got the ball rolling seems to my > >simple mind much more logical than there was nothing > >that caused that ball to exist but yet IT DOES and > >moreover the ball keeps getting more and more > >sophisticated by a long string of "miracles" > Paul Brandon: > The problem is the next logical step: > Where did that 'intelligent being' come from; > what created the creator? Nowhere and no one. Aquinas and Aristotle and others argued (successfully, IMO) long ago that the "prime mover" always existed and created everything else. If you look into it, it's quite logical. It's certainly more logical than the cannard that nothing produced everything. > And again, evolutionary theories do not deal with primal causes. > If you want to posit something that caused natural laws to be the way > they are, most evolutionary biologists (although not Dawkins) would > have no problem with it. > All they say is that once the evolutionary process started it obeyed > (and still obeys: just look at the evolution of Creationism ;-) > certain natural laws. Which is why many religionists (contrary to what some propose) aren't opposed to evolution, not generally speaking, anyway. Too much black and white on this, methinks ;) Jim Guinee --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
