Perhaps then you are more of a scientist than I previously realized.Who is teaching such things?
Perhaps your previous and/or existing narrow minded misconceptions extend to more areas than you can imagine.
There is no science curriculum I know of which does so.
A teacher teaches, not a science book. Books don't answer questions directed to them, they don't provide explanations when asked.
Parents hear when their kids come home from school what their children heard the teachers say, and what the teachers are teaching.
But I do hear and see religions telling children their religion can only be the correct one and others are wrong.
A parent has that right, the public schools do not have the right to push religious or atheistic principles or ideas onto children. I certainly hope that you are not comparing parents and what they do, and what public schools should be doing.
Not understanding the atheism of scientists is akin to not understanding the theism or agnosticism of scientists.
The atheism or theism of scientists or teachers should not be a factor at all, or influence children one way or another in their learning of scientific principles or the practice of science.
The personal beliefs of a teacher are not what the school system is paying the teacher to present to children.
It should not matter what their personal beliefs or non beliefs are.
It absolutely should not matter, and a theist and atheist should teacher science exactly the same way...leading children to no conclusion of their own making. Their job is not to load the pitch with their own spit.
"I know God does not exist" is a personal statement, not a scientific one.
Of course. Just as someone who says "I know God exists" is a personal statement, not a scientific one.
One could though make a reasonable argument for the
probability of God existing through the logical and reasonable process of induction and inference.
To be asked to think without giving information would not be offering much freedom to learn or arrive at a conclusion.
Agree, so to ask science to deliver a conclusion to the nature of life without having all the information is to ask people to guess without sufficient evidence.
Scientific dogma is falsifiable if not accepted or believed.
Scientific dogma is just that, dogma.
Theistic dogma is heresy if not accepted or believed.
Only among those who are judging the religious beliefs. Deists and other religions don't get into the heresy business.
Just like democrats don't get into "you are not patriotic unless you believe what I believe" business. We see the totalitarian thought process lots of places.
Inserting ID into biology class would be pushing theistic thinking on the child.
I do not agree. Offering ID as an alternative explanation, i.e. that life is a result of intelligent design, not random ignorant chance will only stimulate children to think. Providing more than one possible and reasonable choice is what stimulates thinking, not limiting explanations to only a narrow point of view.
Biology has no religious connotations unless they are artificially introduced.
Strict facts of biology do not. Theories do. Going forward with the move in genetic engineering and other advancements have deep ethical issues, and as such have profound religious and spiritual import.
If a teacher were to introduce theistic or atheistic viewpoints into biology class, they should be firmly dealt with.
Teachers have contracts. They can also subtly influence children by many means. To think a teacher doesn't have power to shape the ideas of a young mind is unrealistic.
The biology should not be altered to include an ID theistic viewpoint.
I don't agree. Offering alternative viewpoints is what learning is all about, and learning to make choices is what ecuation is all about.
In my opinion you would teach very little if anything at all under those circumstances.
Yes, your opinion.
Getting a theist to agree with an atheist before something considered as fact can be taught, would deprive all children of learning.
Facts of life are not the problem, theories are the issue.
Science and biology do not deal with proving things of God.
Science is not supposed to deal with proving of non God, but we all know that is the agenda of many in the scientific community.
Religious study class say they know how to do that.
They may say that....
The ID movement is trying to force science and biology to include messages to do with religion.
The ID movement is trying to give children more choices before the children reach their own conclusions and form their own opinions.
Biology and science do not teach about God or religion.
Not directly, but the agenda is quite clear that many in the scientific community are tyring to make the case for non God, using Darwinism as a cornerstone of their belief system.
ID wants them both to start doing so.
No, ID wants to give more than one theory, let the children then decide.
Teaching scientific Theory was what they were doing.
Teaching one scientific theory is what they are doing. They are afraid of teaching an alternate point of view.
Why is that? Why should the scientists fear the teaching of an alternate point of view?
ID wants to alter the nature of scientific Theory by introducing non-scientific ideas into it.
Not non scientific, but ideas that come from observation of the nature of life, and then logical induction to the concept of an intelligent design in nature.....not a biological world that is devoid of intelligent planning behind it.
If it is logical possibility, if not a reasonable logical probability that there is an ID, why not offer it as an alternate theory?
Scientists who are too much in love with a scientific Theory can be tested for the accuracy of their love affair.
And how do you test for a non God theory in biology?
ID theists too much in love with their God claim their idea to be above all understanding.
Some ID theists do, some don't.
That would mean turning ID notions into scientific Theory.
Certain aspects of ID theory are quite reasonable, and rely on repetitive observation, verification of that observation, and then a probabilistic theory as to the possible reasons for what is observed.
There is a danger in this alternate theory? I don't see it.
So far that has been impossible to do.
So far it has been impossible to show how Darwinism can be proved, yet it is still taught.
Science is only ever true as far as it can be falsified.
How do you falsify science itself?
ID and religion are only ever endorsed as being true.
This is not a true statement. Some simply think that ID may be true, or probably is true, and that it makes sense. As it makes sense that it is a viable explantion, they offer it up to children to let them come to their own conclusions.
There has been no argument that I have seen that shows ID is not possible, or that a creative force behind our world is improbable. It is more probably that all this order is a result of programming than random chance.
Evolution is a biological process.
Change and adaptation is a biological process, factually observed.
Evolution of Darwin, which is what most people understand by the word evolution as it relates to species is not a factually observed phenomena. It is a guess.
What has become to be known as the Theory of Evolution and Darwinism has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of a designer or not.
Then there will be no harm or threat to Darwinism to suggest that the programming behind the nature of biological organisms may be a product of a programmer, not random chance.
Such notions to do with creation itself are pure speculation, for or against, spun off from the facts and information contained within biological science.
Such notions that a so called evolution goes along without any guidance or planning is pure speculation.
ID latched onto the spin offs and from that try to gain entry for their personal beliefs by altering biology away from the science.
Not at all.
Then keep giving them the information science has to offer and the information religion has to offer in separate classes, and let them make up their own minds.
Teaching the equal possibility that life is the result of ID or a non ID will allow children a choice. Teaching them only one possibility affords no such choice.
