A very reasoned and meticulous response! I don’t say the following to counter anything that you have said, but to expand on it.

There are several primary difficulties with acceptance or encouragement of a faith system in areas that fall outside of science, and most of these have repercussions that affect faith itself, as well as human interaction.

1. Encouraging, even in a small sense, the idea that the answers might be “unknowable” encourages the idea not to look for them – in other words, failing to seek a natural, rather than supernatural, explanation. Case in point is the “angel” in BA’s later post. A lot of effort (including mine) was put into investigating the possibility that it was only a moth or bird, a highly likely theory. Skeptics may view these efforts as a demonstration of critical thought and analyzing your surroundings. Believers may view these efforts as desperate denial. In this cute little case, not much will become of it all. In past cases, similar “manifestations” have been catalysts for bloodshed on a grand scale. Critical thought is a safety valve for actions that may be detrimental to survival.

2. As you say yourself, faith is a method of justifying something we want to believe, do, or happen. And in fact, without evidence or facts or science, that’s really *all* it is. By allowing “faith” as an answer, you discourage the introspective examination of motives. “Do I hate homosexuals because they are an abomination against [deity], or because they creep me out due to the fact that I have been raised to embrace (heh!) brutish behavior in the support of dominant masculinity and to avoid being ostracized by my peers? Good gravy, am I that pathetic?”

3. The definition of “faith” is individual, yet this is rarely recognized. You mentioned the validity of faith as a means of knowing, yet to me this is a contradictory statement (and it’s clear you know this viewpoint very well). But how many others will stop to ponder this distinction? Humans are lazy and insecure, and thinking for ourselves is often an activity that is practically shunned – this can be seen easily in everything from political campaigns to fashion. We want someone to tell us the correct answer. And most especially, we want it told to us in terms that are unambiguous. Even more sinister, we want it to allow us to do the things we like, to support our base emotions.

4. Leaders throughout history know very well that there is no greater power than faith, and use this to their advantage at every opportunity. You cannot drive your people to slaughter over a foreign trade proposal – you *can* drive them to slaughter the infidels. Which is why Behe and Dembski, the leading proponents of Intelligent Design, are paid through the Discovery Institute, a distinctly conservative think-tank. Because if religion can be increased within this country, then that’s lots more sheep for faith-based initiatives.

By encouraging the idea that “faith” may provide in circumstances where science cannot (and I personally have yet to find any such circumstance), you open up the concept that selfishness is okay, answers can be simple, and leaders are follwing a divine plan. You can, in theory, draw a line that should not be crossed, but humans, as a whole, aren’t too good at making that distinction.

And in order to make that distinction, you have to introduce critical thought, and we know where that leads

>So we have both sides, each saying that the other side is anti-science. I assume this is down to whether you can factor in the “supernatural” element. One side, (creationist), allows it and the other side, (evolutionist) does not.

The problem is that one side is presenting a bunch of “proofs” that are locigally and scientifically flawed. Example, that Big Bang counterargument you listed. That is a ludicrous analogy for the Big Bang, one that Creationists love because of the vibrancy but fail to grasp the inapplicability.

>I have on tape a presentation given, where the speaker, a food microbiologist, took us through the various creatures that were on the road to becoming man and at the end showed that they were either entirely apes or entirely human with no intermediary.

Again, this is a flawed understanding of biological phylogeny. Classification systems are inherently designed to make categories and draw solid lines when the topic is ultimately a continuous spectrum.

Beren said:
>I always thought that a comparative theology course would be a fair place to discuss ID. I even think it would be a valid use of high schoolers’ time, if it was done correctly. Americans, as a rule, are reasonably familiar with Christianity but pretty ignorant of other religions. We could certainly stand to know more about how other cultures operate, and learn to respect the things they’re getting right that we (as a culture) aren’t so good at.

There are problems. One critical one is that it is difficult to get adherents of one religion to treat that religion on equal footing with all others. When you can’t get them to accept it as Mythology, you can’t put it on equal terms with Greco-Roman or Norse mythologies. You can try to put on comparative terms with Islam, Hinduism, Chinese ancestor worship, etc, but ultimately you have to defeat the presentation by the adherents of one sect emphasizing that sect. Which leads to problem two: how do you spend all week teaching that each religion is equivalent with every other and none have a special place or preferential justification, then one day a week teach them that this religion is the only true one and all others are false? That puts an unbearable strain on adults, much less children who haven’t formed their worldviews. That is why religious people are leery of teaching true comparative religion.

Merovingian said:
>The fact is that most of the discussion about it amounts to insulting and looking down on religious people.

Kedaver said:
> The thing I fail to understand in all of this is why all faith followers are lump to gether as anti-scientist. In every group of people; religious, scientist, sports fans etc. there are a small group of individuals that are fanatical. Not everyone who belives in God belives in ID.

skeptigirl said:
> This just isn’t true. The only ‘faith followers’ which are being included here are the ones which are anti-science. No one I’m aware of lumps all believers into an anti-science stereotype.

That’s not exactly true. There certainly is an element of disparagment of faith as a justification for belief. Especially where faith is in conflict with the conclusions from science. The issue that is at hand is the validity of faith as a means of knowing. As a path to information, it is diametrically opposed to the scientific mindset. Science is all about evidence, justification by testing, logical connections and verification. Faith is inherently about accepting without proof, without evidence – accepting because you want it to be true, you feel is should be true, you prefer the meaning it provides for it to be true. Some people think that in areas where science cannot address – issues that step beyond physical testing and evidence gathering – faith should be allowed as a valid belief basis. This is a philosophical point of contention. For those who hold that faith is inherently flawed when compared against evidence-based belief, then relying on it is relying on a known flawed tool. The counter argument may be “better a flawed tool than no tool”. That ultimately is a matter for preference. But in the physical arena, evidence-based belief is hands down the best means for reaching meaningful and conclusive decisions. That is why all faith believers are being lumped together – they are all advocates of a “belief system” that is demonstrably flawed and non-error correcting, usually at the expense of a “belief system” that is self-correcting and produces tangible results.

Kedaver, you are correct, I wish more believers realized the distinction between belief in God and believing in ID. The two are not equivalent.

james said:
>What stuck was: In context teaching of parables such as the good samaritan and the prodigal son (ie. they are pretty meaningless out of context), the five pillars of Islam, context based morality, and the roots of logic based philosopy.

There are some interesting moral lessons in religious texts, such as the parables you mention. Certainly the context is important to the meaning. There are also plenty of “moral lessons” that need some serious critical thought applied to them and what they actually teach. But ultimately, the moral lessons being taught are there in support of the mythology and heierarchical doctrines presented by the books.

mike said:
>One question: If evolution is correct, then why aren’t monkey’s turning into humans?

You are assuming that (1) evolution is directional and (2) there is only one path of development. Monkey’s aren’t turning into humans because we already fill that niche, and pretty effectively.

second lesson(s) – epistemology – how can we be said to “know” anything -phenomenalism, scepticism (in the philosophical sense), empirical realism etc ..

third lesson(s) – Ontology – nature of reality & theories of what ‘reality’ actually is.

Fourth lesson(s) – Philosophies of science – scientific methodologies and reasoning, Karl Popper’s “falsification”, Kuhn’s a paradigm change theories etc .. &/or Ideas of Human nature : Hobbes “evil” versus Roussaeu’s “good” versus a more complex potential for eitherview.

Fifth lesson – Ethics – what they are and some examples of major ethical systems starting with the abstract secular (utiliarian, absolute value) and then comparing and contrasting some the major philosophies dealing with ethics : Buddhism, the Abrahamic faiths (ie. Judaism, Christainity, Islam), pagan, indigenous and polytheistic cultures.

Teach all that and you’ve covered in a pretty balanced & ceratinly useful way everything worth teaching about Religious Education.

Such a course should make no or as few as possible indoctrination type statements on any particular philosophies or beliefs and illustrate different ways of thinking esp. on religion -advocating nobelief system and puttingall religions intheir historic and social context. No firm conclusions as to whether any of these are necessarily correct beyond their internal frameworks.

Kids should come out being able to spot flawed thinking and discuss cogently logical ideas & tell which ones are obviously illogical or at least unsupported by reasonable evidence.

That’s what I’d recommend and love to see put in place everywhere ..

Although one has to point out that we are infering a tree from spot points and trying to join the dots. In our own human history we have had creatures on the road to becoming man, only for later research to show that they were either human or knuckle walking ape. Which reminds me of that earlier quote from Dr Zukerman who spent his life working on the Austrolapithecines.

RE should never have been about indoctrination but about what drives people today.