Well I for one know that I have a heavenly father who loves me and has a home for me when I pass out of this world as hes done for my father and uncle who have passed recently. And for that I am thankful, I know he loves me because he can not for what I do.

What is being controlled. With specific examples.

But test, how are they to be taught? As valid science? Does creationism have valid science backing it up? If so, sure, teach it. But to this day, no one has tested any hypothesis about intelligent design or creationism successfully. So tell me how and why it should be taught in the science classroom. Shouldn't these ideas (they are not theories) be taught in humanities classes?

Apparently your mind mind and that of a couple other posters in this thread, for a few specific examples.

Typical. Very typical. All I'm asking is for your arguments. But you can't provide any. The entire movement of those who want creationism taught in school (like the Discovery Institute) depends on people like you.

Edit: Sorry about that. I'll try not to resort to personal attacks again. But if anyone wants to argue the merits of why or why not creationism should be taught in the public school system, then I'm ready.

I was speaking specifically of those closed-minded individuals such as are posting in this thread who advocate censoring ideas other than their own. Is that not enough?

No, it's not. I want to know what you think is being censored. Are you talking specifically about not teaching creationism in school?

And I have another question for you. Do think that the theory of evolution should not be taught in public school science classes?

Yes, that is what dmead was advocating in posts above. I see test54 said all ideas should be taught, but dmead's thoughts were much narrow.

Do you think teaching subjects in science class should be held to high scientific standard and be testable and researchable? I'm just asking. I don't know why creationism should be taught, in science class, because it cannot be tested. That's all I'm saying. And until such time that it can be and stand up to scientifice scrutiny, then it should not be taught.

Roger that. The scientific process is a very specific process, and to be eligible for instruction in a science class that process must be adhered to with considerable rigor.

Ideas are ideas, and are therefore also valuable, but just because any specific individual is convinced that an idea is "truth" does not make it truth in a scientific sense; it makes it their personal truth. In that context, however, I would add that teaching intelligent design even in a course on humanities would probably open up the necessity of teaching Muslim, Hindu, etc., perspectives on the origins of the universe.

And on a related vein, many of the very devoted scientists that I know are also quite religious within the Judeo-Christian -- largely because they have spent time understanding philosophy of science. The two are not at all incompatible

It appears to me that some individuals don't understand the potential difference between how and why in this "debate". One book seems to have a interesting desciption of how and the other has an interesting desciption of why. The real problem, in my opinion, is that there is a misunderstanding by some of the true age of the universe. The earth is made up of parts of an exploded star. Think about it.

well, I think science class is by default where it will come into play. Ideas or theories, thats fine as long as the students can be presented with the ideas.

Wow T, you care to expand on that? Not quite sure what you're getting at. I think I do, but come on man, tell us more.

A voice of reason. (y)

There's a very fine line test. It should be ideas that can be tested. That's what science is all about. Testable, researchable ideas turn into hypotheses. Hypotheses can be rigorously tested and proven over time to fit within a framework of ideas. If an idea has merit, then researchers will test it, plain and simple. This is clearly where the evolution of form sits now. Down to the molecular level. There's just nothing that can be tested with the notion of intelligent design. If there was, and proof could be achieved, there would be Nobel prizes in order.

yes i am being closed minded to a great extent, but then you can send your children to a school of your choice. you don't have to send them to the schools that don't teach your ideals. my point earlier is that you have a choice in what you want taught to your child by way of which schools you send them to.

mriff, to see some of how it is taught or comes across, look no further than this thread.

"the bible is as much fairy tale"

your own reference to "You forgot the Flying Spaghetti Monstors. :smile:" with the URL to the site which is pretty much in its entirety an attack on Christianity and clearly labels Christians as fools.

"please keep your hyprocricy out of my schools. and that is aimed at the entire christian right"

"evolution is fact" (hmm, but the scientific community calls it a theory)

Now, let me put my engineer hat on for a moment and call you out on one thing.
So you really are claiming that evolution explains why the starting point (apes) remains, but any and all midpoints have disappeared? Enlighten me! ;-)

And you wish to have the government support and fund those that teach what you wish, but not any others?

There you go! That's what should be being taught in schools! Stop the polarization that this thread clearly shows from BOTH sides! (y)