Here is the problem: How do we determine the curriculum in public schools when it is determined by a vote via democracy? The majority will always control what will be taught, even if it is mysticism.
We need to democratically decide to instate a meritocracy.
Here is the problem: How do we determine the curriculum in public schools when it is determined by a vote via democracy? The majority will always control what will be taught, even if it is mysticism.
We need to democratically decide to instate a meritocracy.
Don't worry. When I become Supreme Benevolent Dictator, I'll make Scott my Minister of Kicking Ass and Andrew my Minister of Taking Names.
Here is the problem: How do we determine the curriculum in public schools when it is determined by a vote via democracy? The majority will always control what will be taught, even if it is mysticism.
We need to democratically decide to instate a meritocracy.
Don't worry. When I become Supreme Benevolent Dictator, I'll make Scott my Minister of Kicking Ass and Andrew my Minister of Taking Names.
Obviously you are not looking to instantiate a pure meritocracy in which Reggie would hold both of those positions, and I would be emperor of the universe.
Here is the problem: How do we determine the curriculum in public schools when it is determined by a vote via democracy? The majority will always control what will be taught, even if it is mysticism.
Why is this a problem? One of the big advantages of living in a place like the States is that people (in theory) will leave you the hell alone as you go about doing whatever weird thing it is that you do that alienated your group from the folks in the Old Country. I'd say, stick to reforming education in your city, or your county, or your state, and let everyone else do what they want.
Why is this a problem? One of the big advantages of living in a place like the States is that people (in theory) will leave you the hell alone as you go about doing whatever weird thing it is that you do that alienated your group from the folks in the Old Country. I'd say, stick to reforming education in your city, or your county, or your state, and let everyone else do what they want.
Yes, we both agree in the freedom of people to do as they please as long as they aren't hurting others. So why is it a problem? I'll tell you why. There are two reasons.
Reason number one, they can't do their crazy shit with my tax dollars. Want to believe a crazy religion? Fine. I'm not going to force you to change your mind, but you sure as hell aren't going to teach that shit in a public school that is paid for with tax money. That amounts to state-sponsored religion, which is unconstitutional, and bad for many other reasons.
You might think now that it is ok as long as they teach it in a private school. Wrong again. Remember, it's ok as long as nobody gets hurt. Well, teaching crazy batshit in any school is hurting the children. Just because you are a crazy nutjob who believes in magic fairy land doesn't mean you can force your children to believe the same shit. In a free society children need to have a complete secular education to be given their equal chance of success in society. How can you expect to have a free society if you allow children to live without going to school and learning that they are free?
Just because we can show transition and evolutionary process doesn't negate the idea of a creator.
What negates the idea of a creator is the complete lack of evidence for one coupled with the plentiful evidence of the secular origins of these myths.
But that's Philosophy class, not science class.
You might think now that it is ok as long as they teach it in a private school. Wrong again. Remember, it's ok as long as nobody gets hurt. Well, teaching crazy batshit in any school is hurting the children. Just because you are a crazy nutjob who believes in magic fairy land doesn't mean you can force your children to believe the same shit. In a free society children need to have a complete secular education to be given their equal chance of success in society. How can you expect to have a free society if you allow children to live without going to school and learning that they are free?
When it comes to private schools you get the best and the worst of education. Complete freedom within the general curriculum leaves the opportunity for exploration, but also for the introduction of the crazies into the classroom. I was at a private Christian school for a year as a teacher. Boy, was it fun teaching a lesson on Catholicism in a school sponsored by the Church of Christ. They were not pleased with me at all. But, at least while I was there, the science and religion curricula were kept apart.
...Why have I not seen this video before. My hat is off to you sir. Though they probably shouldn't have put so much emphasis on college educated people. As this video is probably highly offensive to non college educated people. I personally know someone that ive talked to about questions like this in my class. Its always the same dead end conclusion. "God works in ways we cant understand, can an ant understand you?". This is, perhaps, the PRIMARY reason no form of religion should be taught in school. When taught religion at a young age you FORCE the information on a developing brain. So the people believe the religion irrationally later on in life (not the case for all people but many, some just go "this doesn't make sense" and stop believing). Teaching someone religion at a young age is not an act of free will, its an act of programing. A free will method would be to teach them in an agnostic sense with no mention for or against god and let them decided what they believe at an appropriate age (whats appropriate...lets say 18, just throwing out a number). Why doesn't this occur? Because I guarantee the vast majority of people would not believe in a God if they were told it existed after growing up having no teachings for or against a God. All intelligent religious people (intelligent in the sense that they understand how the world really works in terms of education and getting people to believe things) realize this and as such it is in their invested interest to get God into schools at as low of a grade level as possible. The longer you wait, the less likely you are to indoctrinate.
I think it is a problem because the US is lagging behind Europe and Japan when it comes to science.
And we're ahead of Russia and Mexico. It was a race during the cold war because everyone was worried the Soviets would nuke our asses if we couldn't keep up. I guess you could just replace the Soviets with some other group, but that's kind of a pessimistic view of the world... maybe it's a realistic one, I dunno.
Why is this a problem? One of the big advantages of living in a place like the States is that people (in theory) will leave you the hell alone as you go about doing whatever weird thing it is that you do that alienated your group from the folks in the Old Country. I'd say, stick to reforming education in your city, or your county, or your state, and let everyone else do what they want.
Yes, we both agree in the freedom of people to do as they please as long as they aren't hurting others. So why is it a problem? I'll tell you why. There are two reasons.
Reason number one, they can't do their crazy shit with my tax dollars. Want to believe a crazy religion? Fine. I'm not going to force you to change your mind, but you sure as hell aren't going to teach that shit in a public school that is paid for with tax money. That amounts to state-sponsored religion, which is unconstitutional, and bad for many other reasons.
Ok, no federal funding if they won't play by the national rules, and no state funding if they won't play by the state rules. Sounds fair.
You might think now that it is ok as long as they teach it in a private school. Wrong again. Remember, it's ok as long as nobody gets hurt. Well, teaching crazy batshit in any school is hurting the children. Just because you are a crazy nutjob who believes in magic fairy land doesn't mean you can force your children to believe the same shit. In a free society children need to have a complete secular education to be given their equal chance of success in society. How can you expect to have a free society if you allow children to live without going to school and learning that they are free?
I dunno... having the federal government take peoples' kids away for "re-education" doesn't sound very free to me... How would that work, exactly?
I dunno... having the federal government take peoples' kids away for "re-education" doesn't sound very free to me... How would that work, exactly?
Who said anything about that? All we do is require that all kids go to school of some sort. We also require that there are certain things that must be taught in all schools. That's it.
I think that video makes all sorts of false assumptions about the various believes in God. For example, I agree with every single one of those questions, yet he says "All "gods" are imaginary." Though I go to church and call myself a Christian, I don't believe there is a God who answers prayer. I believe it's simply meditative; it allows you to realize what you really want. I believe in some sort of force that controls us and guides us. That's what "god" is to me. I see certain bizarre things that science can't explain, mostly having to do with the power of communal humanity and interactions between natural processes that form certain patterns. For example, sometimes something just feels right, almost like it's instinctive and natural, almost like deja vu. Or certain human emotions such as awe or understanding. These aren't great examples, but I think you see what I mean. It's far more contextual. And the possibility always remains of a Truman Show -esque situation; are we really in control? What if this information is just a "plant"? Do I devote myself to this? No, but I haven't ruled the possibility of it existing out like the rest of you seemingly have. As for evolution, I'm just skeptical about it, partially because of the arrogance I see out of both sides. There, rant over.
As for it's place in schools, there's obviously not a perfect solution, so I guess evolution being taught is good. If you want your child to learn it, you can always teach them. After all, if they are "rational and somewhat intelligent", they should believe you, right? You can't hide creationism from them forever.
All you have to do is say that intelligent design is a theory in which all life was created by a higher power and move on. That's how it went when I was taking biology and nothing terrible happened.
All you have to do is say that intelligent design is an unevidenced hypothesis in which all life was created by a higher power and move on. That's how it went when I was taking biology and nothing terrible happened.
Though I go to church and call myself a Christian, I don't believe there is a God who answers prayer.
Then you are not a Christian, by definition.
I see certain bizarre things that science can't explain, mostly having to do with the power of communal humanity and interactions between natural processes that form certain patterns.
I'm wondering exactly what these bizarre things are. You see, science can and has explained the patterns you see in communal humanity. Just because you are ignorant of that science does not mean all of us are.
Do I devote myself to this? No, but I haven't ruled the possibility of it existing out like the rest of you seemingly have.
We haven't ruled out the possibility either. I haven't ruled out the possibility of the flying spaghetti monster either. Remember, anything is possible. Absolutely anything. Therefore, if you go around believing in things just because they are possible, that's not very rational. You need to have a higher standard for what to believe. Creationism may be possible, but evolution is probable. Intelligent design is ludicrously improbable. There is a huge difference between possible and probable. Learn it.
As for evolution, I'm just skeptical about it, partially because of the arrogance I see out of both sides.
This is the logical fallacy of ad-hominem. Just because someone presenting an argument might be an asshole, that doesn't mean the argument is wrong. If the nicest person in the world says the world is flat, and the world's biggest douchebag says the world is round, guess who is right? You need to judge ideas based upon the supporting evidence alone, and ignore the meaningless bullshit.
You can't hide creationism from them forever.
You say that like creationism is some secret that we're trying to keep our kids from learning about. Like somehow if they discover the secret they will realize we were lying to them all along. That is not the case at all. We simply do not want public tax dollars going towards religion, and we don't want the government lending validity to crazy ideas. You call yourself Christian, what if the government taught the hindu creation myth in the science classes? Would you be pissed? I bet you would. You wouldn't want the government endorsing that. This is why the government should not endorse any religious ideas, only secular ideas. Secular ideas are supported by evidence, and therefore are the only ideas suitable for teaching with government money.
Let me explain something to you, that you probably won't understand. Did you ever wonder why it is that so many atheist people appear arrogant? There must be a reason, right? Have you ever tried to explain something to someone who didn't understand it? Maybe you watched someone play a video game you were really good at, and you tried to tell them what they were doing wrong. They listened to you, but they kept doing it wrong anyway. Isn't that a frustrating feeling? Doesn't it make you angry?
This is how we feel talking to you. This is why you think we are arrogant. You are seemingly ignorant when it comes to understanding logic, reason, and science. We explain it to you, and you still don't understand it. Your ignorance and lack of intellect frustrates us, and thus we appear arrogant to you. You have to believe this, it is the truth. You are ignorant. You don't know science. You don't know reason. You are an illogical and irrational human being. This is the truth of the world. It doesn't matter if you refuse to accept it. That is the reality of the world as much as gravity is the reality of the world.
However, there is one key difference. You may not be able to change gravity, but you can change your ignorance. You can learn science, logic, and reason. You can do research and learn the scientific explanations for these supposedly bizarre things that you experience. The sciences of neurology, psychology, and psychiatry have answers to all or most of these things you seem to think are magical. Just because you do not know those answers does not mean that it must be magic or must be god. Accept the fact that you don't know, and that will allow you to learn. As long as you insist that god is the answer, you are closing the door to knowledge. If you answer questions with "I don't know" you open yourself to the possibility of finding the real answers. If you answer questions with "god", you will never learn, you will only excuse yourself from learning, and intelligent rational people will continue to appear arrogant to you.
Sometimes I think that things like creationism are just an excuse for laziness. With science we must work hard to find out the answers to everything. With Creationism and the like, all you have to say is,"God did it" You can answer a lot of questions like that, and to an ignorant person both can seem pretty valid.
I dunno... having the federal government take peoples' kids away for "re-education" doesn't sound very free to me... How would that work, exactly?
Who said anything about that? All we do is require that all kids go to school of some sort. We also require that there are certain things that must be taught in all schools. That's it.
Well... how is this going to work if things aren't done democratically?
Imaginary scenario:
You are president. President Scott. W00t x2. You read a study that notes that the Japanese are number one in martial arts literacy, while the U.S. is in the low 40s, somewhere above the Dominican Republic and France. This concerns you.
"Gosh darn it," you say to your aides, "how can we spread democracy and freedom if we're no good at flipping out and killing people?" So, you dictate that from now on the educational system in the States must include martial arts. Actually, ninjutsu. Specifically, the Iga school of ninjutsu. No, no Koga school. No, you can't swashbuckle instead. Effective immediately.
There are many laws in place that only work because everyone agrees to abide by them. Since people often resent being told what to do by some central authority from thousands of miles away, (especially when they had no part in the process) there will probably be some resistance to your decree. So how would you enforce it without resorting to drastic measures?
There are many laws in place that only work because everyone agrees to abide by them. Since people often resent being told what to do by some central authority from thousands of miles away, (especially when they had no part in the process) there will probably be some resistance to your decree. So how would you enforce it without resorting to drastic measures?
Wow, just wow. You just don't get it do you. Making a law that requires children to learn science and history doesn't need enforcement. It enforces itself over time. Even if the government doesn't actively enforce the law with police and such, over time the world will enforce it. If our nation turns into a bunch of morons who don't understand science, and don't understand our own history and politics, then the nation will crumble on its own. We don't need to force this to happen, because if it doesn't, the consequences will come naturally. Your martial arts analogy is flawed because, unlike more important subjects, the well-being of the country does not depend on our martial arts skills. If somehow martial arts were as important as science, then yes, they would be mandatory for all children.
Despite the fact that such laws are self-enforcing, it is extremely easy to enforce laws regulating education. If a school teaches crazy stuff, the government cuts funding. No money, no school. If parents send their kids to a crazy school that isn't teaching necessary things, take the kids away. There are very simple solutions here. The fact that you present this problem as if it is so difficult to answer is a testament to your lack of understanding.
If parents send their kids to a crazy school that isn't teaching necessary things, take the kids away. There are very simple solutions here. The fact that you present this problem as if it is so difficult to answer is a testament to your lack of understanding.
Duly noted. Now is the part where I get to say
I dunno... having the federal government take peoples' kids away for "re-education" doesn't sound very free to me... How would that work, exactly?
I guess not. I've got parents who would probably make me.
You see, science can and has explained the patterns you see in communal humanity. Just because you are ignorant of that science does not mean all of us are.
First of all, stop acting like science can prove everything. If it could, why are we still discovering things? Secondly, has science explained deja vu? Has it explained the purpose of dreams or the inner conscience? Have you ever had the feeling that you're being watched? Why do humans have goals? Why do we experience emotions such as awe and wonder, and how do we internally define it? Why does will have such an effect on others in some cases? Why does it seem like you never win unless you believe that you will? There is so much about the brain we still do not understand. Haven't there been cases of certain electrons moving in a synchronized pattern from miles away? What about all of the theoretical stuff about other dimensions? What if our human thoughts compose frequencies in those other dimensions that are unconsciously picked up by our brains? I still am settling for an "I don't know", but I have a feeling that this sort of discovery won't happen.
There is a huge difference between possible and probable. Learn it.
How can you assign a probability to something that may be possible? You cannot say "there is x% it is possible and x% it isn't. It either is or it isn't, we just don't know. I'm not arguing for intelligent design or creationism. I'm not saying "I'm right." I'm saying "I don't think evolution is the end-all solution for how we evolved." Evidence? I have none except for my own interpretation of how evolution works. It doesn't seem optimal for this kind of evolution to be it.
You need to judge ideas based upon the supporting evidence alone, and ignore the meaningless bullshit.
That doesn't give you the right to be an arrogant asshole. At least I'm willing to change my perspective.
Like somehow if they discover the secret they will realize we were lying to them all along.
I didn't say that. Everyone else was just saying that evolution should be it.
You call yourself Christian, what if the government taught the hindu creation myth in the science classes?
Maybe, but I'd do more research if I didn't believe it.
Secular ideas are supported by evidence, and therefore are the only ideas suitable for teaching with government money.
The government should teach what people want them to teach.
that you probably won't understand.
Not helping your case.
There must be a reason, right?
People think they're right, or else they wouldn't believe what they do.
lack of intellect
Arrogant.
You don't know reason.
You don't even know me. Arrogant.
illogical and irrational human being
Arrogant.
you seem to think are magical
Putting words into my mouth.
you don't know
I did. I don't know.
As long as you insist that god is the answer, you are closing the door to knowledge
You're getting hung up on the word "god". How is my belief any more "god" than yours? I have something I can't explain, so I say I don't know. Maybe I don't believe in god. I believe in something big that we haven't discovered, which by definition is unexplainable by science (since it hasn't been discovered). "God", unexplainable by science.
intelligent rational people
Assuming you're right.
Intelligence is subjective. IQ tests are still objective. Understanding is subjective; think about inside jokes. Certain words mean different things to you because you have different experiences. A certain piece of art may appeal to me in a different way that it does to you. Maybe most people have the same appeal to the piece of art. That doesn't necessarily make my understanding of it wrong, nor does it make it "probable" that I am wrong. My way of understanding may just be different to the point that you can't understand it in the same way. You seem very scientific; you seem to understand things by way of specific processes, not unlike a computer. Correct me if I'm wrong. While I have always been above average in math, I do not think via processes. I think in more artistic and abstract terms. Think archetypes, literary devices, the "human experience" sort of thing. I'm guessing you never really enjoyed this kind of thing (correct me if I'm wrong). Just because I am not strictly factual doesn't mean that I entirely "lack reason." Just because I'm not the same doesn't mean I'm an idiot.
I'll take your stance. I'm sure that you, as a "rational and intelligent" person (which I believe you to be, or else I wouldn't waste my time righting my views in your eyes) understand the concept of left brain-right brain. The Spinning Dancer Test is a quick way to tell which one you are. I cannot see the dancer rotate counter-clockwise. I am "intuitive". I am "believing". I am "philosophical". It's just the way I am. Am I wrong for understanding science through abstract means? I believe in some sort of force that carries through "the human experience". Maybe that's the result of evolution, but it makes sense to me. I'm not going to argue about this with you any longer. I accept that your views make sense and contain specific evidence. I accept that you are "probably" right in your own perspective. I just want you to accept that I have my own way of understanding that reality.
First of all, stop acting like science can prove everything. If it could, why are we still discovering things?
You contradict yourself. The fact that we're still discovering things means that science could and can, given an infinite amount of time, explain everything in the physical world.
How can you assign a probability to something that may be possible?
Do you understand what probability and statistics are? You can only assign a probability to something that could be possible. Hence the root "probable" in "probability".
Have you ever had the feeling that you're being watched?
There's a great video on the subject somewhere but I can't find it, but the gist is that we only tend to remember or think about these things when we are right. You remember all the times when you "felt" someone watching you and turned your head to discover you were right, but you don't think about all the times where you thought someone was watching you and found you were wrong. There have also been many studies on the subject, none of them showing more than the predicted fifty/fifty chance of the person being right. I'll find them later if I can remember the technical term for this phenomenon.
There isn't really more to address since the rest of your post is full of stuff that, as One Sin pointed out, involves philosophy. Science doesn't try to explain questions of morality, only the physical world.
I would also like to point out the careless and childish ad hominems that are being thrown around by a few individuals in this thread. Seriously, there is no place for that in an intelligent debate.
You see, science can and has explained the patterns you see in communal humanity. Just because you are ignorant of that science does not mean all of us are.
First of all, stop acting like science can prove everything. If it could, why are we still discovering things? Secondly, has science explained deja vu? Has it explained the purpose of dreams or the inner conscience? Have you ever had the feeling that you're being watched? Why do humans have goals? Why do we experience emotions such as awe and wonder, and how do we internally define it? Why does will have such an effect on others in some cases? Why does it seem like you never win unless you believe that you will? There is so much about the brain we still do not understand. Haven't there been cases of certain electrons moving in a synchronized pattern from miles away? What about all of the theoretical stuff about other dimensions? What if our human thoughts compose frequencies in those other dimensions that are unconsciously picked up by our brains? I still am settling for an "I don't know", but I have a feeling that this sort of discovery won't happen.
There are people that may agree with your conclusion, but not necessarily with your reasoning in getting there. It's important not to take shortcuts.
Take for instance the phrase, "If science could prove everything, why are we still discovering things?" If someone were to say, "science does prove everything", you'd be able to use the line of questioning you did. If someone says, "science can prove everything," the counterpoint is a bit different. You'd have to bring up things that science not only can't prove, but never could prove due to limitations built within the structure of how science is done. This cancels out the force of many of your questions.
There is a huge difference between possible and probable. Learn it.
How can you assign a probability to something that may be possible? You cannot say "there is x% it is possible and x% it isn't. It either is or it isn't, we just don't know.
This point was done decently. Probability of possibility is not something that can be determined, since a probability can't be formed without a statistical record to back it up. I'd say that the trick to continuing this train of thought would not be to focus on probabilities or possibilities, but on what position one should take when an outcome is unknown.
I'mnotarguing for intelligent design or creationism. I'm not saying "I'm right." I'm saying "I don't think evolution is the end-all solution for how we evolved." Evidence? I have none except for my own interpretation of how evolution works. It doesn't seem optimal for this kind of evolution to be it.
If you claim that you have no evidence, you must understand that people will be reluctant to consider your way of viewing the world.
You need to judge ideas based upon the supporting evidence alone, and ignore the meaningless bullshit.
That doesn't give you the right to be an arrogant asshole. At least I'm willing to change my perspective.
I'll agree with you that tact is not a Scott trait. I started a thread on here about it. However, if you personally attack a person, they become less receptive to reading the things you have to say that are not personal attacks. This may not be rational, but it's certainly understandable. It's important to choose your words carefully.
Secular ideas are supported by evidence, and therefore are the only ideas suitable for teaching with government money.
The government should teach what people want them to teach.
Another good point. Be prepared for people to call you on it, though.
It's important not to be right for the wrong reasons, or the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater when you are discredited.
Who in their right mind brings philosophy into a science fight?
People who are told.
You have to believe this, it is the truth. You are ignorant.
That kind of language and thinking lead to terrible things.
In my own little opinion, the real issue here is there is currently no real outlet for religious thought and philosophy in our public school system. There should be classes about faith and philosophy so the kids can make their own choices about what and what not to believe in and not hate others for thinking differently. Schools should also be able to have the resources to hire a biology teacher that won't bring their faith and beliefs into the classroom in such a stupid way, but that's not how it goes.
In my own little opinion, the real issue here is there is currently no real outlet for religious thought and philosophy in our public school system. There should be classes about faith and philosophy so the kids can make their own choices about what and what not to believe in and not hate others for thinking differently. Schools should also be able to have the resources to hire a biology teacher that won't bring their faith and beliefs into the classroom in such a stupid way, but that's not how it goes.
Thats a nice ideal but that is not what the majority of ID advocates want. Real, full, and non biased faith classes show little annoying things like the obscene amount of evidence that Christianity is a man made construct that steals nearly its entire story from other previously existing religions. One of the worst things a "by the word" Christian can do is take a university level religion class, which is what an objective religion class looks like. You would get evolution taught for 100 years before you got an objective religion course common for all schools. With evolution you can plead ignorance, or ignore facts by pretending you don't understand it or that you don't agree with arguments that complex structures can form. When you learn about the origins of religion, you have to A) decide that historians are lying to you or change your faith such that your no longer Christiane and just believe in a "God". Which in that case you realize theres no more reason to go to church or do allot of the other things traditionally Christian because you understand its all BS reasons why you practice in that manner. ID is a push for Christiane faith being taught in schools. NOTHING MORE. Anyone saying otherwise is lying through their teeth or is ignoring the logical conclusions that must occur if you think about the topic objectively.
I also like how the forum derailed to an argument about why people believe/don't believe. A flame war that doesn't go anywhere, religious yell "arrogant" and atheist yell "ignorant" and both go home feeling good about themselves. Doesn't any of the religious advocates have anything to say that teaching religion at a young age is essentially programing a child to believe in something you cant prove and the child would be unlikely to believe in if left to there own devices till an older age. (where on the other hand if you were not taught about how algebra, or the Spanish language worked at a young age, then taught those things when you were 18, you would probably believe they work and are true.) Or that ID is by definition not scientific where evolution is so it being taught in science class rooms is ridiculous even if the parents "want" it. Just because you want doesn't mean you can dictate what science is/is not. Or that if ID was taught objectively you would have to bring up all the supporting evidence for evolution that explains that "irreducible complexity" is really bad argument for ID (though its the main and strongest argument I have seen). Or even worse, ID being taught objectively would belong in a philosophy religion class that would have to bring up all the evidences supporting secular origins to all religion. Theres some really hard questions to answer here as far as I can see. Id love for anyone to take a stab at them.
Ohh, infinity. I hope you realize everything you brought up about feelings explaining god through being watched and deja vu are...really bad arguments. I truly hope your debating from ignorance because I cant even imagine what you were thinking bringing those up.
Comments
Reason number one, they can't do their crazy shit with my tax dollars. Want to believe a crazy religion? Fine. I'm not going to force you to change your mind, but you sure as hell aren't going to teach that shit in a public school that is paid for with tax money. That amounts to state-sponsored religion, which is unconstitutional, and bad for many other reasons.
You might think now that it is ok as long as they teach it in a private school. Wrong again. Remember, it's ok as long as nobody gets hurt. Well, teaching crazy batshit in any school is hurting the children. Just because you are a crazy nutjob who believes in magic fairy land doesn't mean you can force your children to believe the same shit. In a free society children need to have a complete secular education to be given their equal chance of success in society. How can you expect to have a free society if you allow children to live without going to school and learning that they are free?
As for it's place in schools, there's obviously not a perfect solution, so I guess evolution being taught is good. If you want your child to learn it, you can always teach them. After all, if they are "rational and somewhat intelligent", they should believe you, right? You can't hide creationism from them forever.
Let me explain something to you, that you probably won't understand. Did you ever wonder why it is that so many atheist people appear arrogant? There must be a reason, right? Have you ever tried to explain something to someone who didn't understand it? Maybe you watched someone play a video game you were really good at, and you tried to tell them what they were doing wrong. They listened to you, but they kept doing it wrong anyway. Isn't that a frustrating feeling? Doesn't it make you angry?
This is how we feel talking to you. This is why you think we are arrogant. You are seemingly ignorant when it comes to understanding logic, reason, and science. We explain it to you, and you still don't understand it. Your ignorance and lack of intellect frustrates us, and thus we appear arrogant to you. You have to believe this, it is the truth. You are ignorant. You don't know science. You don't know reason. You are an illogical and irrational human being. This is the truth of the world. It doesn't matter if you refuse to accept it. That is the reality of the world as much as gravity is the reality of the world.
However, there is one key difference. You may not be able to change gravity, but you can change your ignorance. You can learn science, logic, and reason. You can do research and learn the scientific explanations for these supposedly bizarre things that you experience. The sciences of neurology, psychology, and psychiatry have answers to all or most of these things you seem to think are magical. Just because you do not know those answers does not mean that it must be magic or must be god. Accept the fact that you don't know, and that will allow you to learn. As long as you insist that god is the answer, you are closing the door to knowledge. If you answer questions with "I don't know" you open yourself to the possibility of finding the real answers. If you answer questions with "god", you will never learn, you will only excuse yourself from learning, and intelligent rational people will continue to appear arrogant to you.
Imaginary scenario:
You are president. President Scott. W00t x2. You read a study that notes that the Japanese are number one in martial arts literacy, while the U.S. is in the low 40s, somewhere above the Dominican Republic and France. This concerns you.
"Gosh darn it," you say to your aides, "how can we spread democracy and freedom if we're no good at flipping out and killing people?" So, you dictate that from now on the educational system in the States must include martial arts. Actually, ninjutsu. Specifically, the Iga school of ninjutsu. No, no Koga school. No, you can't swashbuckle instead. Effective immediately.
There are many laws in place that only work because everyone agrees to abide by them. Since people often resent being told what to do by some central authority from thousands of miles away, (especially when they had no part in the process) there will probably be some resistance to your decree. So how would you enforce it without resorting to drastic measures?
Despite the fact that such laws are self-enforcing, it is extremely easy to enforce laws regulating education. If a school teaches crazy stuff, the government cuts funding. No money, no school. If parents send their kids to a crazy school that isn't teaching necessary things, take the kids away. There are very simple solutions here. The fact that you present this problem as if it is so difficult to answer is a testament to your lack of understanding.
Intelligence is subjective. IQ tests are still objective. Understanding is subjective; think about inside jokes. Certain words mean different things to you because you have different experiences. A certain piece of art may appeal to me in a different way that it does to you. Maybe most people have the same appeal to the piece of art. That doesn't necessarily make my understanding of it wrong, nor does it make it "probable" that I am wrong. My way of understanding may just be different to the point that you can't understand it in the same way. You seem very scientific; you seem to understand things by way of specific processes, not unlike a computer. Correct me if I'm wrong. While I have always been above average in math, I do not think via processes. I think in more artistic and abstract terms. Think archetypes, literary devices, the "human experience" sort of thing. I'm guessing you never really enjoyed this kind of thing (correct me if I'm wrong). Just because I am not strictly factual doesn't mean that I entirely "lack reason." Just because I'm not the same doesn't mean I'm an idiot.
I'll take your stance. I'm sure that you, as a "rational and intelligent" person (which I believe you to be, or else I wouldn't waste my time righting my views in your eyes) understand the concept of left brain-right brain. The Spinning Dancer Test is a quick way to tell which one you are. I cannot see the dancer rotate counter-clockwise. I am "intuitive". I am "believing". I am "philosophical". It's just the way I am. Am I wrong for understanding science through abstract means? I believe in some sort of force that carries through "the human experience". Maybe that's the result of evolution, but it makes sense to me. I'm not going to argue about this with you any longer. I accept that your views make sense and contain specific evidence. I accept that you are "probably" right in your own perspective. I just want you to accept that I have my own way of understanding that reality.
There isn't really more to address since the rest of your post is full of stuff that, as One Sin pointed out, involves philosophy. Science doesn't try to explain questions of morality, only the physical world.
I would also like to point out the careless and childish ad hominems that are being thrown around by a few individuals in this thread. Seriously, there is no place for that in an intelligent debate.
Take for instance the phrase, "If science could prove everything, why are we still discovering things?" If someone were to say, "science does prove everything", you'd be able to use the line of questioning you did. If someone says, "science can prove everything," the counterpoint is a bit different. You'd have to bring up things that science not only can't prove, but never could prove due to limitations built within the structure of how science is done. This cancels out the force of many of your questions. This point was done decently. Probability of possibility is not something that can be determined, since a probability can't be formed without a statistical record to back it up. I'd say that the trick to continuing this train of thought would not be to focus on probabilities or possibilities, but on what position one should take when an outcome is unknown. If you claim that you have no evidence, you must understand that people will be reluctant to consider your way of viewing the world. I'll agree with you that tact is not a Scott trait. I started a thread on here about it. However, if you personally attack a person, they become less receptive to reading the things you have to say that are not personal attacks. This may not be rational, but it's certainly understandable. It's important to choose your words carefully. Another good point. Be prepared for people to call you on it, though.
It's important not to be right for the wrong reasons, or the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater when you are discredited.
In my own little opinion, the real issue here is there is currently no real outlet for religious thought and philosophy in our public school system. There should be classes about faith and philosophy so the kids can make their own choices about what and what not to believe in and not hate others for thinking differently. Schools should also be able to have the resources to hire a biology teacher that won't bring their faith and beliefs into the classroom in such a stupid way, but that's not how it goes.
I also like how the forum derailed to an argument about why people believe/don't believe. A flame war that doesn't go anywhere, religious yell "arrogant" and atheist yell "ignorant" and both go home feeling good about themselves. Doesn't any of the religious advocates have anything to say that teaching religion at a young age is essentially programing a child to believe in something you cant prove and the child would be unlikely to believe in if left to there own devices till an older age. (where on the other hand if you were not taught about how algebra, or the Spanish language worked at a young age, then taught those things when you were 18, you would probably believe they work and are true.) Or that ID is by definition not scientific where evolution is so it being taught in science class rooms is ridiculous even if the parents "want" it. Just because you want doesn't mean you can dictate what science is/is not. Or that if ID was taught objectively you would have to bring up all the supporting evidence for evolution that explains that "irreducible complexity" is really bad argument for ID (though its the main and strongest argument I have seen). Or even worse, ID being taught objectively would belong in a philosophy religion class that would have to bring up all the evidences supporting secular origins to all religion. Theres some really hard questions to answer here as far as I can see. Id love for anyone to take a stab at them.
Ohh, infinity. I hope you realize everything you brought up about feelings explaining god through being watched and deja vu are...really bad arguments. I truly hope your debating from ignorance because I cant even imagine what you were thinking bringing those up.