A question for those who don't like the idea of teaching intelligent design to children in schools?

Question

What if the name of a unit on intelligent design was changed to "Science and Moral Responsibility". You would have to teach a religious basis for morality, since the only people that buy the argument "well morality's great because it's just so pleasant when we're nice to each other" are fools and blind unquestioning atheists, and children are unlikely to take any interest, especially when they see all the hypocrisy and iniquity of the world they live in. What if this unit took the teachings of science and then transcended them, showing students that taking research money from drug or weapons manufacturing is hardly "pure science" and this class taught a critique of what scientists have done when they've been allowed to serve their military-industrial masters, from the invention of the nuclear bomb to the current scams being perpetrated on the American people by medicare? Is a science class an appropriate place to teach that life has value, that we are not hidden simply because we work in area 51, that we must have faith in Gods purpose, or does this whole notion undermine the economics and values system of the modern science curriculum? Please feel free to share your thoughts and suggestions regarding this suggestion.

Answer 1

Dude.



What the hell?

Answer 2

Religion took the idea of morality from society rather than society getting the idea from religion. If you study sociology then it would help explain why morality benefits society as a whole rather than it being 'just so pleasant'. You could even argue that those without religion are more moral than those with, but that is probably better as a separate question.



If you study the animal kingdom, morality does show itself in social groups and you can see how these group benefit with this morality - they also do this without religion.



If you look at the history and evolution of religion you can also see how morality has grown and changed within religious teachings.



There are many branches of science, and many should have more time in the class room. 'Intelligent design', by whatever name you wish to call it, is not a science and never will be.



Science has given us everything to some greater or lesser degree, whether its the Atomic bomb, medicine, industrial pollution, farming, or the internet; it is neither a bad thing or a good thing, it just is what it is. Its the uses that man makes from the findings that is either good or bad.

Answer 3

There are so very many things wrong with this.



First, intelligent design is religion and therefore does not belong in government-funded public schools, as per the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.



Second, religion is not the only valid basis for morality; in fact, there are other sources of morality that are more compassionate, more effective, and -- most importantly -- don't boil down to "because I said so, that's why!" Morality is a survival trait, because humans are a social species.



Third, how the heck do you "transcend" science, and why in the name of pretty purple butterflies would you want to do it in a *science* class?



Fourth, so you're suggesting that only the independently wealthy be able to do scientific research, since that's the only way one would be able to afford it without corporate or government funding. Because keeping knowledge in the hands of an elite few is such a good idea, right?



Fifth, the phrase "we must have faith in Gods [sic] purpose" has NO PLACE in a science classroom, both because of the First Amendment (as discussed above) and because God is an inherently un-scientific concept.



You have so many flawed or outright false assumptions weighing down this question, it's no wonder it never got off the ground.

Answer 4

"You would have to teach a religious basis for morality, since the only people that buy the argument "well morality's great because it's just so pleasant when we're nice to each other" are fools and blind unquestioning atheists,"



No, that is not true. Religion is sometimes used to enforce basic morals, but some religions have had no moral content at all.



What is the moral relevance of the kinetic theory of gases? The theory of gravity? Combustion theory?



As for the rest, I can't say it any better than Paul B. ID is nothing but a fraud. Like creationism, it exists for the purpose of raking in money from the undereducated.

Answer 5

Christianity is a very poor example of morality, so that would not work.



School is for facts only.



Bigotry and hate are not moral.







The cultures of the world all have codes of conduct, even the ancient ones, and many of these codes predate the writing of the various books of the Bible and almost all predate each cultures first exposure to the Bible.



Where did the Greek Philosophers gain their insights? Did Socrates have no morals? Was Pythagoras lost? Confucius? Buddha? The American tribes? Eskimos?

Much of what is contained in the Old Testament is simply the conduct codes of the ancient Middle East. Some of these codes are commonly found in cultures all over the world, such as the prohibition against murder, but many are unique to the region and were never adopted by anyone else, like the prohibitions against eating pork or working on Saturday. Many are tribal rules, such as the requirement for a man to marry and have children with his brother's widow in order to ensure the survival of the tribe. Much of the New Testament is a reinterpretation of the older Biblical laws from the perspective of a culture that had been exposed to Greek and Roman thought for several centuries.



We have access to thousands of years of religion, history, philosophy, ethics and sociology from all over the world. We can see what worked well, and what didn't work so well, and we acknowledge that many things should never be allowed to happen again, such as genocides, witch burnings and Inquisitions. We do not believe that any group or culture has had all of the answers, and we refuse to be tied to laws that should be abandoned and rules that do not work. Claiming to have all of the answers is a dangerous game, and claiming to be the "One True Path" has led to some of the most horrific abuses and tragedies in human history.



"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930

Answer 6

Religion is NOT a basis for morality, morality has nothing to do with how or why we exist, and if this is done, then you must teach all theories of Genesis; not just the Bible's version but the Hindu version, the Zoroastrian version, the various Native American versions, Native African and Australian versions, atheist version, and on and on. Religion and religiously themed topics should be reserved for a person's respective church or temple, and subjects like math and science should be taught in schools. I mean, you wouldn't want to teach algebra in church, would you?





EDIT: Huh, what do you know? Not a supporter in the group!

Answer 7

Frankly, I don't see the point.



First of all, if what you mention would be the subject of the class, then it wouldn't be a unit on intelligent design anymore.



Second, most schools talk about the actions and influence of science in history and social studies classes. (though they, as they should, remain neutral on whether the actions were good or bad)



Third, none of that is science. It's about scientists and their effect on society, but that is not science.



Foiurth, the only reason I see to teach a class solely on this is to discourage people from accepting what the scientists say, which is dirty and underhanded and basically means that you'd be turning kids away from lots of facts about our planet, which is the opposite of the goal of an education.

Answer 8

ID was proposed solely to present arguments against the Theory of Evolution. It was never intended to advance knowledge - it was intended to protect dogma.



It has no place anywhere near a science class.



Science ethics classes are already available and do a far better job than an ID-based course ever would.

Answer 9

My daughters were taught it where it should be taught in comparative religious studies. There is no science in it at all and should not be confused with empirical knowledge. Religion does not teach love or understanding to children, parents do: Christian parents and atheists parents. They learn what is right and what is wrong not in the classroom but at home. Any failure we see in our children or our society is not the failure of the children or society, but those who guided the children and built that society: us.

Answer 10

Those who need a book or a religion to be "moral" are pathetic. Teaching it in school only proves your lack of an inner moral compass, which normal people possess without having to be indoctrinated.

Answer 11

That's ridiculous since 2/3rds of the world doesn't believe in the Christian god, and they are moral too.



Religion doesn't belong in science unless there is proof and a testable hypothesis, which it doesn't.

Answer 12

Religion doesn't belong in public schools, particularly science class, it should stay in the church. I don't see any correlation between moral responsibility and science.

Answer 13

"What if the name of a unit on intelligent design was changed to "Science and Moral Responsibility"."



Intelligent design isn't being taught in schools, so isn't this a moot point?

Answer 14

I don't see what religion, (and most importantly, which one would you teach?), has to do with good morals. Obviously religious people, and yourself, according to your insults, have a different idea of what good morals are. And what does science have to do with it?

Answer 15

it's not a matter of HOW you CALL it, the problem is what is teached within.



Wold I have to teach a religious basis for morality, but of WHICH religion? The catholic morality? I abhor it.

Answer 16

Is the actual point of this question to count the amount of conspiracy theories inside?

Answer 17

...and this is, children, one of the millions of reasons why being homeschooled is bad, mkay?



Questions, anyone? Yes, Timmy?



No, Timmy, no, he is not retarded...why do you say that? Don't be mean!....yes, I know, but that doesn't give you the right to call people names....not good, not good....

Answer 18

Footprints, I feel the same, pass the soap!

Answer 19

Now I gotta go wash. I got stupid all over me.



"Intelligent design" is a religious belief, nothing more, and will never be taught in public schools.

Answer 20

See that, Song? We're all laughing at you. You're stupid. Your ideas are stupid. You shouldn't post them.

Answer 21

Religion doesn't belong in schools period.

Answer 22

NO RELIGION IN SCHOOLS.

Answer 23

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaachu!

Answer 24

LOLOLOLOL.