Is it? I'm honestly curious because this would be the first I've heard of it. Every call for ID taught in public school simply asks that when evolution is taught that some mention of an alternative in which some form of intelligence may have guided development be included. I suppose it's possible that some would like to see a Genesis account included, but I've yet to even see proposed ID curriculum, so we'd just be speculating, wouldn't we?
In this case who I was arguing was important. Alma is a Christian, he was arguing from that perspective. It was important to shoot down his platform, which is the bible. Plain and simple.
Not at all. But that's not what you argued. You argued that it was wrong because the biblical account in Genesis is wrong if taken literally. You then argued that most of the people proposing ID believe in said biblical account, and assumed that this meant that any inclusion of ID in public school would therefore include their personal beliefs and only their's. But that's an assumption, isn't it? Can you accept the possibility that many religious people don't care if students learn about any specific creation story, but are merely exposed to the idea that creation is a potential alternative explanation to the question of "how did we get here?".
I've said before, it does not matter what religious people want. Whether they want a specifically Biblical creation story or some other ambiguous Intelligent Design hypothesis presented is irrelevant. Students in a science class room should be taught science. There really are people still in the world who believe that the Sun goes around the Earth. This does not mean that we should suggest to students that there is a possibility that this is the case.
In the context of a world where evolutionary science is often pushed with a markedly anti-religious agenda attached to it (ie: you either reject religion or you reject science), it's not really surprising or unusual for religious people to want to prevent the public school system from teaching the exact science used to make that argument as sole and undisputed fact. Just look at this thread and your own assumptions about creationism and evolution being incompatible. Where did that assumption come from? Given that assumption you make yourself, why be surprised if religious people want to make sure kids are taught that there is an alternative explanation?
My point is there isn't an alternative explanation that holds any kind of water when subjected to scrutiny. Again, it does not matter that they want. Wanting something really badly does not change the facts.
Not even remotely. Trust me on this.
An assumption, perhaps, but not a baseless one. The onus is not on me to prove there isn't, it is on the proponent of ID to prove there is. That is how the scientific method works. It's kind of like someone saying that I can't prove that Unicorns don't exist so I can't say they don't, even though there is no documentation to support their existence. That's a Non sequitur.
But you attempted to make that argument anyway. Hence, my point. You attempted to argue that since evolution is fact, and evolution and creationism are incompatible, therefore creationism can't be true. There are massive gaping holes in that logic *and* it's an unprovable direction to go. But you did it anyway, didn't you?
This isn't remotely the same thing. Evolution is a fact, it happens. So, spontaneous creation of life is incorrect. These are non-overlapping magisteria.
Possibly not. But that's also not sufficient by itself. I'd suggest you look up Occam's Razor to understand the principle. Simply arguing that something can't be true because it can't be proven to be false doesn't work. You have to also show why there's no value to assuming that it is true. ID simply doesn't add anything except complexity.
I'm familiar with Occam's Razor. Again, using it against someone like Alma would be a waste of time.
I assume you meant "literalist". Of course I can.
Typo, it's late/early.
I think you're getting ahead of the argument. While I'm sure the ultimate goal of ID proponents is to get more people to believe in their version of god at some point in the future, the actual instruction is based on simply questioning assumptions about evolution. I'll repeat that I've yet to read any proposals demanding specific biblical accounts be taught, but merely that their arguments that there must be an intelligent designer to the world be taught. Again, that's clearly aimed at opening the door for people to later enter into a belief in god, but the instruction in the school doesn't make any pronouncements about the specific form the intelligence would take.
Perhaps I was jumping ahead, but can you see why this does not belong in a Biology class?
I just did. They propose teaching a curriculum in which flaws in evolution are taught, and evidence of intelligent design are taught. I've seen nothing to indicate that they intend for any specifics regarding the nature of said intelligence to be taught as part of public school curriculum. But you go ahead and knock yourself out trying to find it. So far, what I see is assumption by you that it's all some plot to sneak bible instruction into public school. Never mind that in the US, that would not be allowed, so the second they "snuck" it in there, the jig would be up, so to speak.
They seek to portray Evolution via natural selection as a theory in crisis. You know with snappy catchphrases like "Teach the controversy". Then, 'suggesting' ID as an alternative. They seem to want to use supposed "gaps" in the theory of evolution as proof of ID. ID has no evidence supporting it under it's own merit. This is the main reason it is not taken seriously by the vast majority of scientists.
Sure seems like a lot of effort to go through just to have the first class which includes Genesis in their classroom instruction to result in a court case which would eliminate all their work. I'm going to go with the assumption that they don't feel they need to do that and are satisfied with simply opening up students minds to the possibility of an intelligence behind creation.
I didn't say it was a good plan.
But for religious people, it's not about the details of the stories, but the messages and meaning contained within.
You should rephrase that to "most religious people".
And it certainly seems like most atheists aren't just against a literal interpretation of the bible, but are opposed to religious belief itself.
Personally? I don't care what people believe so long as they don't try to use it to pass legislation that infringes on the rights of others. You know like anti-abortion laws or prohibiting teachers from discussing sexuality with their students even if directly questioned. Unfortunately, some believers won't be happy unless I believe it too.
How many times have you heard someone make a disparaging remark about anyone who believes in a "man in the sky"? Lots of times. I've never heard an atheist say that religious belief is just fine as long as the religious people don't take their bible literally. What they do is point out inconsistencies and problems with said literal interpretations and then use those to prove that the entire belief system must be wrong.
Which makes them as bad as those they claim to oppose. There's irony there IMO.
How many times have you heard someone make a disparaging remark about how non-believers are going to, and quite rightly, tortured forever after we die? I'm sure just as much.
Most atheists are of the position that religious belief is fine, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
Not really, at least we don't threaten people with eternal damnation or fly planes into buildings if you disagree with us. We just argue a lot. Fun, isn't it?