Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Teaching Intelligent Design

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,03:13    Within the scope of K-12 education which option would you choose: A) teaching ID in science classes as an alternative to the current theory of evolution, B) teaching ID in philosophy and humanities classes in the context of theism, atheism, etc, C) opposed to both. I'll post the results and then discuss the implications.

ScaryFacts Posts: 337 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,05:04    Over the last few weeks I have begun looking at the claims the ID folks and Evo folks make.  As a Christian I was pre-disposed to the ID claims—after all, if ID “fits” the scientific facts, it has far fewer negative consequences to me on a personal level. What I have consistently found is ID folks appealing to speculation, mined quotes, irrelevant analogy, willful half-truths and flat out dishonesty.  At the same time I have seen the Evos point to studies, established science and peer review.  I have even seen them question their own results when things didn’t turn out as planned. So, when you ask which I would choose of the above options it really looks like this to me: A) Teaching 2+2=5 in math classes B) Teaching that some people believe 2+2=5 in a humanities class in the context of religious mathematics, etc. C) Opposed to both Forgive my sarcasm, but I feel lied to.  While I have had the motivation to look a little deeper, millions of people are being deceived into ignorance.  At some point the deceived (and their children) will realize they’ve been lied to and will be ill prepared to integrate their faith and their newfound truth.

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,05:11    Easy: C. ID certainly shouldn't be taught in science class. Typically, ID makes no scientifically testable claims. In that case, it's not science. In the rare cases where there have been testable claims related to ID, they've either been wrong or not different than what TOE predicts. There is no sense in which ID is a valid scientific alternative to TOE. ID shouldn't be taught in philosophy or humanities either. At least, not as a valid philosophy. While it's true that ID's claims are philosophical not scientific, ID is dishonest. It dishonestly claims to be science, when it's real goal is to force religion into the classroom. The only way I can see teaching about ID in a classroom is to analyze its use in the 'culture wars.' That could be appropriate in a suitable university level humanities class. To summarize, ID has no place in public school, because it's not science and it's dishonest. Our kids deserve better.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,05:57    teach ID in school and you might as well teach scientiology too. or spagettimonestrism. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,06:02    ScaryFacts I need a vote and Oldman I'm going to interpret that as a C unless you tell me otherwise. So far: A - 0% B - 0% C - 100%

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,06:08    c, of course. but i would point out that you cannot even teach something so neblous as ID. even it's creators cannot agree on what exactly it is, and if on the stand and pinned down it's an equal with astrology, who could even begin to argue for it to be taught in schools? should we sit 5 year olds down with tarot cards? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,06:37    The questions themselves are meaningless, since there simply *is no theory/philosophy of ID* to teach, anywhere. ID, quite literally, says nothing at all. It is "god of the gaps".  Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,06:41    ID, which can be summed up as "Evolution didn't happen, Goddidit" is not science, and it's vague philosophy. It doesn't deserve any place in K-12 education. If anywhere, it belongs in college Philosophy of Science classes, as an example of how to use fake science to decieve people.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,06:45    i may rethink my answer IF you can provide the lesson plan for what would be taught in the lesson! -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

MidnightVoice Posts: 380 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,07:29    Within the K-12 sytem (with which I am only vicariously familiar) I would opt for actualy teaching comparative religion, whcih is where I would put ID. Failing that, I would also possibly support teaching ID in a class element entitled "What is, and is not, science, and why". -------------- If I fly the coop some time And take nothing but a grip With the few good books that really count It's a necessary trip I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

ScaryFacts Posts: 337 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,07:35    Sorry, thought it was obvious - c.

argystokes Posts: 766 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,07:46    Quote The only way I can see teaching about ID in a classroom is to analyze its use in the 'culture wars.' That could be appropriate in a suitable university level humanities class. I agree with this.  Maybe Kitzmiller could be mentioned in a civics class, but my vote goes for C. -------------- "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

Mark Frank Posts: 46 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,07:49    Actually I would vote for (b). Note that "teaching X" in a philosophy class is quite different from "teaching X" in a science class. All sorts of views are covered in a philosophy class, some of which are much nuttier than ID (solipism for instance) and ID raises all sorts of quite deep issues about probability, scientific explanation, and the relationship between religion and science. After all the argument from design has been covered in philosophy classes for centuries.

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,08:05    My answer is F for Failed. ID Failed as a long term political ploy to 1.Change the definition of science to include Unicorns/Mythology/Pseudoscience 2.Change the Constitution (not that that is going to stop them trying) 3. Introduce back door 'teach the contoversy'. 4. Produce peer reviewed 'scientific' publications. -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,08:33    Quote (Mark Frank @ Aug. 27 2006,12:49) Actually I would vote for (b). Note that "teaching X" in a philosophy class is quite different from "teaching X" in a science class. All sorts of views are covered in a philosophy class, some of which are much nuttier than ID (solipism for instance) and ID raises all sorts of quite deep issues about probability, scientific explanation, and the relationship between religion and science. After all the argument from design has been covered in philosophy classes for centuries. Teaching the argument for design in a philosophy class is fine, but skeptic asked about teaching ID. That's different. ID proponents claim that ID is science. If that were so, why would you teach it in philosophy class? Does anyone teach evolution in philosophy class? I doubt it. OTOH, if ID is really philosophy pretending to be science, why teach it that way in philosophy class? If you consider it equivalent to a legitimate philosophical argument from design, just teach that argument directly. Teaching it under the pseudoscientific guise of ID makes no sense. The truth is that ID is neither science nor philosophy. It's politics. Religiously & philosophically motivated, to be sure, but politics all the same.

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,10:20    C and of course i predict that skeptic's "discussion" of the results will ignore the years of discussion already had on this very issue.  Which of course, like every other "issue" he has raised, he probably wouldn't have if he had bothered to actually review why scientists are actually opposed to teaching religion in science class to begin with, or teaching astrology, for that matter, or why teaching comp religion in k-12 is likely to fail miserably. Hey, maybe he'll prove me wrong, but going on the evidence presented in his first thread, I rather doubt it. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

don_quixote Posts: 110 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,11:18    I can only see it being of relevance in a sociology degree course, as part of the 'culture wars'. so therefore, I would have to choose 'C'. ===== BTW, I finally got round to watching Dawkins' "The Root of All Evil" today. Some of the people he interviewed made my blood boil! Whilst not a perfect look at the effects of religion on society, I would certainly recommend it. The links to download it are: Part 1 315MB Part 2 318MB You'll need Quicktime or VLC installed to play them.

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,11:45    C. but... If there were in the curriculum a generalized critical thinking unit, a discussion of various pseudo-sciences and how to tell the difference could be valuable. -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

Mark Frank Posts: 46 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,19:52    Quote ID proponents claim that ID is science. If that were so, why would you teach it in philosophy class? Does anyone teach evolution in philosophy class? I doubt it. OTOH, if ID is really philosophy pretending to be science, why teach it that way in philosophy class? If you consider it equivalent to a legitimate philosophical argument from design, just teach that argument directly. Teaching it under the pseudoscientific guise of ID makes no sense. I would not teach evolution in a philosophy class because it is straightforward science. However, it is important to understand why ID is not science. This is a philosophical matter and isn't straightforward. It builds on the standard argument from design but goes beyond it introducing quite subtle fallacies. It may also be politics - but the motives of the perpetrators do not change the arguments. I also think that a rational discussion of ID is one of the best ways to combat the politics. Just look at the success of Alan McNeill's class at Cornell.

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,20:00    Quote I also think that a rational discussion of ID is one of the best ways to combat the politics. Just look at the success of Alan McNeill's class at Cornell. are you the one masquerading as Pim over on PT? -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2006,22:29    A- no, definitely not. B- a little, in the appropriate class discussing religion, where it should be mentioned in its proper context, i.e. religion trying to masquerade as science.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,02:00    Quote (Mark Frank @ Aug. 28 2006,00:52) [ I also think that a rational discussion of ID is one of the best ways to combat the politics. Just look at the success of Alan McNeill's class at Cornell. Um, what success . . . ? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,03:55    I thought "b" was already being taught in most schools. Don't most of the basic philosophy classes cover ontological arguments? -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,05:46    Whether you teach it in philosophy class or science, I would not be happy about my children sitting in ANY class where the the garbage and dishonesty promoted by the Discovery Institute and lying douche bags like Slick Willy Dembski is taught.  Behe is a one man laughing stock so I want my children protected from him too. And would this IDiot class have supplimental course works such as the recent garbage by evolution expert Man Coulter? Does that shed some light on my own personal feelings?   In short I'd just have to say no to having my children subjected to perverse lies and distortions and fairy tales.  In fact I would pull them from any school that taught such nonsense.  Creationism has no place in public school, especially a brand that is so patently false and dishonest (ID). This thread is theally dumb but not quite as dumb as Intelligent Design creationism. Chris -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Mark Frank Posts: 46 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,06:43    Quote Just look at the success of Alan McNeill's class at Cornell. Um, what success . . . ? I don't think the blog added a great deal but I thought some of the papers produced at the end were excellent - although I admit the Broadhus paper was the only one I read completely. Did you not like it? The real answer as to what you cover in a philosophy class depends on the students and the context. I am a European, so I can't really judge for the USA, but I suggest that to ignore something so controversial and with such a high profile is like ignoring drugs in a citizenship class - understand it and deal with it - don't ignore it.

hereoisreal Posts: 745 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,16:02    I would go along with "C" only because Math was not an option.  In any study for truth, the #s should add up. See my blog at: http://www.bloglines.com/blog/hereoisreal Zero -------------- 360  miracles and more at: http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5) It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,19:08    Quote Did you not like it? the fact that both Pim and Allen held this up as a "good" paper was absolutely ridiculous to anybody who has actually studied behavioral ecology or ethology for more than a month. there is in fact, a great concern that Allen let quite a lot of factual and theoretical error slide by the wayside in favor of some semblance of subjective "clarity" that apparently only exists in his own mind. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I highly suggest you provide some input in the thread we created on Allen's course in this very forum. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Mark Frank Posts: 46 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,20:11    Quote If you have any evidence to the contrary, I highly suggest you provide some input in the thread we created on Allen's course in this very forum. Sorry. I just got a good impression that's all. Clearly it is more controversial that I thought. I haven't time to catch up on that thread.

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,20:16    well, if you decide to read the whole thread on PT first (which i recommend), best you pull up a comfy chair and nice hot cup of coffee to relax with; it's up to almost 400 posts now. I tried to sample some of the more relevant posts into the thread here on ATBC, but you still might want to bounce back to the thread on PT for context at least. enjoy. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

mcc Posts: 110 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,23:05    I would consider both A and B unnecessary. Intelligent design isn't particularly influential or well-regarded even from a humanities perspective; there are many much more important and interesting philosophers and theologians with writings on the subject of reason vs. faith.

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard