Post by a'Lan Mandragoran on Dec 14, 2008 23:13:33 GMT -5
First off, move this if you want to. I figured it'd go here as opposed to anywhere else on the board. If it should be put somewhere else, please, put it there. Secondly, this is a paper I turned in for a grade in my current philosophy class and got an F on it because accoding to the teacher, it dosn't support one side of the argument or the other. He asked for an opinion and I gave him one.
I would like your opinion on this paper. Also know that I may use your opinions in a rebuttal to get my grade changed.
edited for language
I would like your opinion on this paper. Also know that I may use your opinions in a rebuttal to get my grade changed.
Origins of life and how things came to be have always been topics of much debate. Peoples all over the world hold their own truths when it comes to these subjects. Some argue that an outside force created the world as it is and nothing really has changed except human understanding. Others say that all beings began as something else and slowly changed and mutated into what we see today. These two theories are true according to their proponents, just as they are false by their opponents.
Intelligent design is a modern take on creationism, the belief that life was created by a divine hand. Proponents of this side of the coin tend to see that life was created with a purpose. This belief is not based fully in science and should not be taken as such, however, there may be a truth in this. Life had to have had one full beginning at some point. What was that beginning?
Evolution is the other side of the coin. Life started from a puddle of innocuous goo made up of everything that the first life forms needed except that spark. Through random selection things changed and mutated. Most of the time the mutations lead to an improved being later on. It has been observed that creatures do tend to change over time. Certain creatures that have adapted to a jungle environment have cousins that have adapted to live the rocky shores of an island in the case of the iguana which can be found in the rainforests of South America as well as on the Galapagos Islands. While being based in science fact this does not explain the origin of the spark. What exactly happened at the dawn of life?
There are many truths. Truths can be held by societies or they can be held by individuals. A truth is a fact. It does not necessarily have to be “true” however. Truth defined in this way deals with fact rather than the accuracy of the fact. It is possible for someone to have been taught something, either at home, in school, or through their own understanding, that is completely wrong. It is a truth however, because it is what they know and hold as fact. In school, one should be taught correct and accurate facts. Truths are debatable but accurate facts are not. It is up to the individual to determine the difference.
In the case of intelligent design verses evolution, there are no reasons that both should or should not be taught because of the other. They are both theories to explain our origins. One is a scientific theory and would be better placed in a science classroom while the other is a theological theory and would be better taught in a class based on that context. In public schools, however, it would make better sense to teach both. The separation of church and state has nothing to do with teaching these two origin theories. You may teach intelligent design without naming deities. By teaching both in a scholastic environment, you are allowing students to make their own decision on which truth to believe. Also, you are allowing them to create their own truth to explain their views in this area.
Different people hold different attitudes towards these arguments and it would be hard to teach both theories objectively and without bias. This is one of the main reasons to teach both or neither at the same time. Because these are theories, teaching both would, as stated earlier, promote thinking on the part of the student. It would also allow for a more thought oriented scholastic environment in general. This would be a large benefit to all future generations because they would not be stymied as much by prevailing thought on most subjects.
With these two theories, both may be true, both may be false or one true and one false, however they will always be argued. Who's to say that a combination of both theories is not the accurate fact of the matter? Something had to have started the whole ball of wax rolling. Why can't there be room for both to be held equal in the classroom?
Intelligent design is a modern take on creationism, the belief that life was created by a divine hand. Proponents of this side of the coin tend to see that life was created with a purpose. This belief is not based fully in science and should not be taken as such, however, there may be a truth in this. Life had to have had one full beginning at some point. What was that beginning?
Evolution is the other side of the coin. Life started from a puddle of innocuous goo made up of everything that the first life forms needed except that spark. Through random selection things changed and mutated. Most of the time the mutations lead to an improved being later on. It has been observed that creatures do tend to change over time. Certain creatures that have adapted to a jungle environment have cousins that have adapted to live the rocky shores of an island in the case of the iguana which can be found in the rainforests of South America as well as on the Galapagos Islands. While being based in science fact this does not explain the origin of the spark. What exactly happened at the dawn of life?
There are many truths. Truths can be held by societies or they can be held by individuals. A truth is a fact. It does not necessarily have to be “true” however. Truth defined in this way deals with fact rather than the accuracy of the fact. It is possible for someone to have been taught something, either at home, in school, or through their own understanding, that is completely wrong. It is a truth however, because it is what they know and hold as fact. In school, one should be taught correct and accurate facts. Truths are debatable but accurate facts are not. It is up to the individual to determine the difference.
In the case of intelligent design verses evolution, there are no reasons that both should or should not be taught because of the other. They are both theories to explain our origins. One is a scientific theory and would be better placed in a science classroom while the other is a theological theory and would be better taught in a class based on that context. In public schools, however, it would make better sense to teach both. The separation of church and state has nothing to do with teaching these two origin theories. You may teach intelligent design without naming deities. By teaching both in a scholastic environment, you are allowing students to make their own decision on which truth to believe. Also, you are allowing them to create their own truth to explain their views in this area.
Different people hold different attitudes towards these arguments and it would be hard to teach both theories objectively and without bias. This is one of the main reasons to teach both or neither at the same time. Because these are theories, teaching both would, as stated earlier, promote thinking on the part of the student. It would also allow for a more thought oriented scholastic environment in general. This would be a large benefit to all future generations because they would not be stymied as much by prevailing thought on most subjects.
With these two theories, both may be true, both may be false or one true and one false, however they will always be argued. Who's to say that a combination of both theories is not the accurate fact of the matter? Something had to have started the whole ball of wax rolling. Why can't there be room for both to be held equal in the classroom?
edited for language