Can ID be taught in schools? What's ID's next move?

[claycad]

Okay, i know that the Dover trail made it illegal to teach ID in schools, but did it just oulaw it being taught as mandatory, or can some school districts choose to teach it if their community and teachers agree? I understand it to be that ID can't be taught period in public schools, I just want to be sure.

Also, if that is what the Dover trial did, then what is ID's next move? What are they up to now to get their "theory" taught to the masses?

 

[lunamoth]

What, exactly, does ID teach?

 

[YmirGF]

Also, if that is what the Dover trial did, then what is ID's next move?

One can only hope that the next move is extinction. :yes:

What, exactly, does ID teach?

I think one of the basic tenants of ID was that Elvis is alive and working at Taco Bell incognito.

 

[chaffdog]

My understanding of intelligent design is that it teaches that the universe and everything in it was created by a divine and all powerful being, that evolution is not a valid theory (despite the overwhelming evidence that evolution does happen), and that all this is supported by the idea that organisms are too complex to have evolved, all the evidence provided in favour of evolution is flimsy (even my two favorite studies: the spotted moths in Manchester, which changed from a majority of white to a majority of black as pollution increased, turning the surrounding environment black and making white moths more visible to predators, which demonstrates natural selection and adaptation; and a study of small fish, I believe in Africa, in which over a number of decades, researchers were able to observe changes in the characteristics of the species due to environmental change). I do not know the details of the Dover decison, but I am in favour of a total ban of the teaching of ID in schools.

 

[gnomon]

Also, if that is what the Dover trial did, then what is ID's next move? What are they up to now to get their "theory" taught to the masses?

Their next move is the same as their last move......

Misrepresentation to squeeze creationism into the classrooms.

Mississippi - a bill is introduced to require a disclaimer on textbooks stating that evolutionary theory is controversial. Hello, come on down to Cobb County, Georgia where they wasted time and money putting stickers on textbooks and then having to turn around and remove said stickers. I got to talk to some students who had to partake in that bit of idiocy.

Oh heck, rather than list them just check here for up to date news on how creationists try to subvert science education,
NCSE | National Center for Science Education - Defending the Teaching of Evolution in Public Schools.

Of course, public education is rather lacking even without the efforts of creationists. I blame that great nation of Texas and those pinko communists Mel and Norma Gabler.

 

[chaffdog]

For me, the teaching of ID in schools is a crime. It teaches impressionable children false ideas and instructs them to reject science. This is sad. Where the blazes would humans be if everyone was creationist?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What, exactly, does ID teach?

IMO, it has three main claims:

1. That evolution by itself is insufficient to explain the history of life, and that some other mechanism must have been involved.
2. That life was deliberately designed by an intelligent creator.
3. That the two claims above are scientific hypotheses that are supported (or supportable) by evidence.

I know plenty of Christians who hold #2 true as a matter of faith. I've got issues with #1, because it usually takes the form of an argument from ignorance ("I can't see how this could have evolved, so it can't have evolved"). I have major problems with the third claim, which is the one that's usually glossed over when people try to get ID into schools.

 

[Jose Fly]

The creationists' next move (which they're already making) is to push for "Academic Freedom" bills in various states. Scientific American recently had an article about this: http://http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-latest-face-of-creationism

 

[Elessar]

"The universe had or has an intelligent designer." That is a scientific hypothesis, put forward by intelligent design. It is a rather stupid one, since it (obviously) cannot be proven or disproven by current scientific means, but it is a scientific hypothesis.

It can neither be proven nor disproven. Until it can be proven, by independent, replicable experiments which have been undertaken by several unrelated scientists, and there is enough evidence that a significant number of scientists say it is "probable" it cannot be considered a scientific theory.

We don't teach scientific hypotheses in science classes, we teach scientific theories and scientific facts. There is not enough evidence to support the hypothesis to make it a theory. Thus, it should not be taught in science classes.

Now, as a matter of faith, I believe there is an intelligent creator, G-d, who formed the heavens and the earth. However, I do not put it forth as a scientific fact, because it cannot be proven scientifically. I do not put it forth as a scientific theory, because there is not enough evidence to show it to be true beyond reasonable doubt. Anyone who does put forth intelligent design as a scientific theory or fact is either a liar or deluding themselves.

 

[Ciarin]

ID should be taught in public just as much as Astronomy should taught in public schools.

 

[idea]

Okay, i know that the Dover trail made it illegal to teach ID in schools, but did it just oulaw it being taught as mandatory, or can some school districts choose to teach it if their community and teachers agree? I understand it to be that ID can't be taught period in public schools, I just want to be sure.

Also, if that is what the Dover trial did, then what is ID's next move? What are they up to now to get their "theory" taught to the masses?

I would ask what is the next move of the atheists? Are they going to start teaching multiverse stuff? An unobservable, improvable, wild speculation - the only one they have to counteract the "fine tuning" problem?
ID has more answers for the kiddos than science has been able to provide.

Anthropic Principle & Fine Tuning - Multiverse and/or Intelligent Design?

 

[vibise]

I would ask what is the next move of the atheists? Are they going to start teaching multiverse stuff? An unobservable, improvable, wild speculation - the only one they have to counteract the "fine tuning" problem?
ID has more answers for the kiddos than science has been able to provide.

Multiverse stuff?! The discussion has been about biology class.

What answers does ID have? Besides Goddidit, that is?

 

[Don Penguinoini]

ID should be taught in public just as much as Astronomy should taught in public schools.

I love astronomy. And i am still in school. I wish we were still taught it

 

[Storm]

ID should be taught in public just as much as Astronomy should taught in public schools.

Did you mean Astrology?

 

[painted wolf]

ID can not be taught in public schools.
Dover showed that it was no different than the previously disbarred "Creation Science"

The next move (and there are already several states attempting it) is "academic freedom".
Basically the premise is that to have teachers actually teach science is somehow a limit on their freedom.

The truth is that Creationists/IDers are free to do science and try to publish results of scientific experiments. However, they don't do this.

They want to be taken seriously as science, without any of the work of actually doing science.

My guess is that this too will fail the legality test... it is too broad to be useful as it would allow the teaching of questionable 'alternate theories' in many areas, such as history's Holocaust denial 'theories'.

wa:do

 

[gnomon]

I would ask what is the next move of the atheists? Are they going to start teaching multiverse stuff? An unobservable, improvable, wild speculation - the only one they have to counteract the "fine tuning" problem?
ID has more answers for the kiddos than science has been able to provide.

Anthropic Principle & Fine Tuning - Multiverse and/or Intelligent Design?

The moment Creationism meets the standard definitions of scientific then it can be taught as a scientific concept. Until then, the poor children of this nation will have to continue to attend there Churches on a regular basis and receive far more indoctrination over time to the creationist concept compared to the amount of science education public schools will grant them.

 

[YmirGF]

Did you mean Astrology?

My thinking exactly. It is precious when the blighters make Freudian slips as the comment cannot be taken seriously. :drool:

 

[rockondon]

Contrary to other posters, I see no reason why ID cannot be taught in public schools. However, it has no place in science class - except perhaps as an example of pseudoscience and discussed in a manner that shows what science isn't.

ID is of course, unscientific, but this does not preclude this from say, a philosophy or some kind of elective theology type of class.

Their methods probably won't change - propaganda, lies, deceit, misinformation, preaching to the choir by telling people want they want to hear while trying to make evolution appear ugly, appealing to the bigotry of others ("Do you WANT to be descended from a monkey? As if whether you want it to be true or not makes a difference on whether it is true), and so on. Its sad when you have to lie so blatantly and so often to maintain your belief system.

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy."

~Phillip E. Johnson, who is considered the 'father of the Intelligent Design movement', which also claims that ID is scientific.

 

[vibise]

Contrary to other posters, I see no reason why ID cannot be taught in public schools. However, it has no place in science class - except perhaps as an example of pseudoscience and discussed in a manner that shows what science isn't.

ID is of course, unscientific, but this does not preclude this from say, a philosophy or some kind of elective theology type of class.

Philosophy is an academic discipline with standards. ID would perhaps fit better in a comparative origins or theology class, or a social studies class.

 

[idea]

Multiverse stuff?! The discussion has been about biology class.

So we should talk about abiogenesis? There is another unproven wild speculative theory.

Really, there is enough science etc. out there to teach, none of this stuff needs to be brought into classrooms. Concentrate on the basics before confusing them with wild speculations. There is plenty of the basics to go around and fill up their days.

That people are trying to get this stuff into the classrooms - they are not trying to teach kids, they are trying to force their propaganda on them.