Behave when reading this!

[Woodlouse2002]

In which case it is Genesis made (slightly) plausable.

[RichieB16]

In which case it is Genesis made (slightly) plausable.

I honestly don't even see how it relates.  It really makes no reference to anything in Genesis at all.  To be honest, I'm not a proponent of intellegent design, but I simply don't see the connection between Gensis and intellegent design-except the existance of a higher being in both cases.

Then again, my knowledge of intellengent design is limited to what I have read-I am no expert.  

[Hagar]

Knowing what I do now I think that Omag might have unintentionally stirred up a hornet's nest by posting this topic. Even so, he specifically requested that there be no discussion on it. Despite this some people appear to have deliberately ignored his wishes or didn't read the subject line & what he said about it.

This subject was brought up during a discussion on the radio this morning. As I understand it this all stems from the fact that teaching religion at school is banned in the US or some parts of it. It's fine to teach evolution in science classes & this is seen in some quarters as trying to get round that by introducing religion by the back door by means of this thinly disguised "new theory". (Not my words so don't shoot the messenger.) To the best of my knowledge the situation does not arise in the UK or the rest of Europe so it's not taken so seriously on this side of the Atlantic. This would explain why I've never heard this theory even mentioned before but it's a long time since I had anything to do with schools so I could be quite wrong. I haven't studied "Intelligent Design" in depth so can't comment on it even if I wished to do so.

PS. However I have to agree with this.

pollitical correctness and the fear of offending has diminished our educational status greatly,

The fear of offending someone stifles intelligent discussion & debate, not only in schools but everywhere else including this forum. I'm quite prepared to listen to anyone's point of view providing they present it honestly in an intelligent manner & without ridiculing anyone who might have different views or disagree with them. Unfortunately, ridiculing people with different views & shouting them down are commonly used tactics to try & win arguments these days. Whether I agree with their views or not this just proves to me that they don't know enough on the subject to discuss it rationally.

[Saitek]

It's making me laugh reading how we all have our theories on what the theories actually are.


My understanding is thus:
There are three, even perhaps four main views:
1) Evolution. Held by most (not all) scientists. Generally accepted in developed world.

2) Creation. Probably one of the most well known - that the earth was made out of nothing from nothing by God as in the Bible.

3) Intelligent Design. This is similar to Creationism, but this time it incorporates a wide range of ideas of the idea of some designer, whether it be God or anything and has no defined timeline (unlike the 6 day account in Genesis). There are other differences that basically can be devoped by one's own opinions on the idea of a designer.

4) Cosmic Forces. Not very well known, and it was what someone told me who had forsaken the Christian religeon, yet could see straight through evolution's flawed theories. I know nothing of this theory - but it exists.

I hope tihs helps folks.

[Omag 2.0]

Knowing what I do now I think that Omag might have unintentionally stirred up a hornet's nest by posting this topic. Even so, he specifically requested that there be no discussion on it. Despite this some people appear to have deliberately ignored his wishes or didn't read the subject line & what he said about it.

Hey Doug... don't worry to much about it... I wanted the info, I got it, what happens now is totally up to the others! But no-one should come complaining if things go wrong...


Cheers,

Omag

[Hagar]

Hey Doug... don't worry to much about it... I wanted the info, I got it, what happens now is totally up to the others! But no-one should come complaining if things go wrong...


Cheers,

Omag

It doesn't worry me at all Kris & I would like to see a civilised discussion on this & many other subjects. Unfortunately we all know where that can lead & the reasons for some subjects being banned here. I know only too well that some people feel so strongly about these subjects that nothing anyone says will ever change their views on it so discussion is a complete waste of time. All you see is the same old arguments trolled out from both sides.

I learned a very valuable lesson on theories when I was about 11 years old. This changed the way I look at things from that point on.

[Fly2e]

Thank You People!

[loomex]

I just got done reading this thread and I must say, that for the first time that I can recall, a subject that can bring very heated discussions, has in fact, remained a very adult, meaningful discussion. As far as my feeling about teaching this, its best left to the parents I guess, but than I learn cool stuff in biology

Chris

[Politically Incorrect]

As far as my feeling about teaching this, its best left to the parents I guess

Chris

Very true, and what also must be taught by parents is the fact that each person is a individual with individual belifes, feelings, thoughts etc. and that must be respected no matter how much you may disagree with thier ideals.

If schools could head in a direction where both sides of a theory can be taught, in a way that allows a child to decide for themselves or at least give them equal amounts of information for them to draw thier own conclusion THEN the real learning process takes place. Schools don't offer any options or choices.

Taught is the wrong word, when you teach someone something you are basically saying "This is how it is", leaves no room for choice, subject matter such as this topic should not be "taught" but discussed un-biased by the teacher, with proven facts and evidence, not only does this allow the student to use his/her mind, but also invokes interest in a subject in which case will lead them to investigating on thier own, to basically learn.

I feel this is the problem with education today, to much "this is how it is" and not enough thought provoking discussion that provokes a child into wanting to dig deeper to learn the answers as to why "this is how it is".

This is where the learning process stops, a student will learn "this is how it is" and remember it, take thier test pass and that is it, why learn more about a subject if you don't need to? only learn the minimum requirments to pass. That my friends is the flaw with our educational systems.

But I will stop as Im leading into a very seperate discussion

[Hagar]

If schools could head in a direction where both sides of a theory can be taught, in a way that allows a child to decide for themselves or at least give them equal amounts of information for them to draw thier own conclusion THEN the real learning process takes place. Schools don't offer any options or choices.

This is the basic difference between the UK & the US. If I understand it correctly, religion is not only taught at school in the UK but this is compulsory. In theory the pupils get a balanced view of all religions but this can obviously be influenced by the school itself & the beliefs of the person teaching the subject. There is a considerable number of denominational schools of various religions that would obviously be biased towards their own way of thinking. This is one reason these schools are popular & many parents opt to send their children to them as they agree with their own beliefs. This is a very difficult subject to address on a completely unbiased basis. I would say it's almost impossible.

I'll repeat what I've said many times before & will continue saying until I run out of breath. This is all theory & cannot be proved or disproved by anyone. Believe what you believe but please consider all the options before coming to that decision. So many people believe what they're told from a very early age without questioning it or ever considering that what they're being taught might be wrong.

PS. This is the official policy of just one out of many similar primary schools in the UK. http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/wickham/policies/re.html

We teach Religious Education according to the aims of the Berkshire Agreed Syllabus and it is clearly stated that Religious Education should not attempt to alter a child's own beliefs but to provide a knowledge of their own and other's beliefs.

[Katahu]

I say that all public schools should stop teaching "both" theories. That way, "no one" will have an excuse to start such a dumb arguement.

Besides, the decision to accept either theories as fact is ultimately left to the students, not some dumb politician that we don't know much about on Capital Hill. Even as the parents make the decision for their kids, the kids will soon grow up [and they grow fast] and make their own decisions.

[H]

I tried staying out of this and still don't vie for specificity, but to elaborate some:

My understanding is thus:
There are three, even perhaps four main views:
1) Evolution. Held by most (not all) scientists. Generally accepted in developed world.
2) Creation. Probably one of the most well known - that the earth was made out of nothing from nothing by God as in the Bible.
3) Intelligent Design. This is similar to Creationism, but this time it incorporates a wide range of ideas of the idea of some designer, whether it be God or anything and has no defined timeline (unlike the 6 day account in Genesis). There are other differences that basically can be devoped by one's own opinions on the idea of a designer.
4) Cosmic Forces. Not very well known, and it was what someone told me who had forsaken the Christian religeon, yet could see straight through evolution's flawed theories. I know nothing of this theory - but it exists.

All of these have their own variations and, I expect, depend upon one's specific locale as to what beliefs are prominent, generally or elsewise.
Of course, Saitek overlooked the theory which would relate to the story I wrote many moons ago [basically, a spaceship not bound to the speed-of-light-delimited universe. Upon emerging from the familiar galaxial view they were accustomed to, they saw a hand about to flush their "universe" down the loo.  :)]. The main proponents for the related theory hold the belief that our "universe" is the atomic/molecular level of a much larger one (truly making us part of a celestial body). An extended form of this theory is that there is an indefinite, if not infinite, amount of larger and smaller universes.
Another long-standing (or, maybe, only prone) theory group (I admit difficulty in accepting them since we can only imagine them as theory ) is the rather confusing "surrealistic" universe, wherein we don't really exist but are [said in my linguistic flavor ] a pigment of our own or a higher being's not-necessarily-so-vivid imagination. Advocates for any form of this theory are, certainly, in a true dreamworld* .
*said only in pun, as per precept, not as a disclaimer of the theory