ID: Coming to Your State Soon!

[robtex]

What is the big deal if it is passed and does spread to other schools? Isn't is better for children to be given both theorys and be given the oppurtunity to think for themselves? Everyone is so quick to throw up a red flag and say that it infringes on the seperation of church and state. (Which was taken from a personal letter, not the Contsitution or Bill of Rights mind you) Both theorys are Science and religion, if not then why was the I.D. theory in Science Textbooks 80 years ago?

Adam can you please explain to us ID using the scientific method:

• Ask a Question
• Do Background Research
• Construct a Hypothesis
• Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
• Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
• Communicate Your Results

Steps of the Scientific Method

so we can understand why you think it is equally a science-based theory as evolution?

The part I am most interested in is do you have research that isn't in your holy books and can you validity draw a science acceptable conclusion without physically manifesting a God?

Also in regards to your quote "think for themselves" ID is a faith based idea. Nobody is saying it should be banned reading but if you want to parade your religion around do it in Church and if you find evolution or other secular classes offensive home school your kids.

Religious study in the secondary school level at the cost of important classes like economics, political science, physical science, history, math , english is ridiculous. Where do we draw the line? Do we have classes on Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and Wicca too and cut more classes out of current curriculum too? Do we have classes on Catholic Canon and Mormon religion too just to make sure that many of the major denominations of your faith is taught?

ID/Creationism and religion at the secondary level can be taught on church as many days of the week as your faith feels is necessary to appease you God. Pushing it on children who may or may not have your faith in lew of more critical classes to function in society negligent is unacceptable.

 

[McBell]

What is the big deal if it is passed and does spread to other schools?

Because it is not science.
I fail to understand why so many people have such a hard time understanding why people do not want non-science theories presented in a science class and some of them even wanting it presented AS science.

Isn't is better for children to be given both theorys and be given the oppurtunity to think for themselves?

Yes.
however, they should not be taught non scientific theories in a science class.

Everyone is so quick to throw up a red flag and say that it infringes on the seperation of church and state. (Which was taken from a personal letter, not the Contsitution or Bill of Rights mind you)

Because it does infringe on it.

Both theorys are Science and religion, if not then why was the I.D. theory in Science Textbooks 80 years ago?

No they are not.
That is why ID has been removed, it is NOT science.

 

[robtex]

Because it is not science.
I fail to understand why so many people have such a hard time understanding why people do not want non-science theories presented in a science class and some of them even wanting it presented AS science..

I don't know in Adam's case but I think the bulk of ID proponents are well aware it isn't science but have a hidden agenda to present it as such as an attempt to make religion a core curriculum in secondary schools. The formal term for it in religious circles is the
"Wedge theory"

see notes on it below: 1 2 and 3 are the same outline 4 is wiki summarizing it.

The Wedge Strategy - Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture
The Wedge Strategy - Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture
http://www.sunflower.com/~jkrebs/JCCC/05 Wedge_edited.pdf

Wedge strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[rocketman]

Do you think the Louisiana ID initiative poses a threat to science education?

Honestly? No.

At the end of the day the kids will still have to demonstrate that they understand the basic principles of the mainstream scientific theory of evolution. There is still no religion allowed into the classroom with this bill.

I don't see what all the fuss is about.

 

[Father Heathen]

in fact as your country becomes increasingly fundamentalist I bet you'll see more and more parents homeschooling their kids this gibberish.

Yep, and then we end up with a chunk of the population totally unprepared for the real world. The state of education in this country is bad enough compared to the rest of the developed world, and here we have these fundamentalist who want to drag us down even further. :no:

 

[Sunstone]

Yep, and then we end up with a chunk of the population totally unprepared for the real world. The state of education in this country is bad enough compared to the rest of the developed world, and here we have these fundamentalist who want to drag us down even further. :no:

I don't see what all the fuss over education is about. So what if we regress a wee bit. The Middle Ages weren't all that bad.

 

[Father Heathen]

What is the big deal if it is passed and does spread to other schools? Isn't is better for children to be given both theorys and be given the oppurtunity to think for themselves?

Perhaps we could teach "intelligent falling" as an alternative to the theory of gravity. After all, we want kids to think for themselves, right?

Everyone is so quick to throw up a red flag and say that it infringes on the seperation of church and state. (Which was taken from a personal letter, not the Contsitution or Bill of Rights mind you)

Check out this nifty link: Is America a Christian Nation?

Both theorys are Science and religion,

Um, no. If The Theory of Evolution has anything to do with religion, then so does the theory of gravity and every other scientific theory. But they don't. The idea that the universe was instantaneously pulled out of some god's *** is the very antithesis of science. Do you think we should teach homeopathy, phrenology, trepanation and astrology in science class as well? Afterall, if creationism is science, then so too are they.

if not then why was the I.D. theory in Science Textbooks 80 years ago?

Society was a lot more backwards and ignorant and far less developed and advanced than is it today. We've progressed a long way, thankfully.

 

[Father Heathen]

There is still no religion allowed into the classroom with this bill.

But the concept of deities (i.e. the "intelligent designer") is purely a religious concept, unless you have a vial of god juice down at the lab.

I don't see what all the fuss is about.

The fuss is that people are trying to teach kids that it's okay to substitute an actual understanding of how things work in the world with untenable and unsubstantiated whimseys. There is nothing wrong with the latter per se, but it cannot serve as an alternative to the former.

 

[Sunstone]

How can you teach a kid intellectual honesty by teaching him ID?

 

[rocketman]

But the concept of deities (i.e. the "intelligent designer") is purely a religious concept, unless you have a vial of god juice down at the lab.

ID does not necessarily require a Diety.

The fuss is that people are trying to teach kids that it's okay to substitute an actual understanding of how things work in the world with untenable and unsubstantiated whimseys. There is nothing wrong with the latter per se, but it cannot serve as an alternative to the former.

Then the fuss is misguided. The bill does not call for alternatives. It merely allows for weaknesses in existing theories to be discussed, but not at the expense of a regular understanding of the mainstream models. Please see my next post to Sunstone.

 

[rocketman]

I don't see what all the fuss over education is about. So what if we regress a wee bit. The Middle Ages weren't all that bad.

If the kids still have to demonstrate that they understand the basic principles of the mainstream scientific theory of evolution (they do), then where is the regression? Where is the threat to science education? The bill does not allow ID to be taught as fact per se, rather it allows the idea to be discussed in a supplemental fashion, along with global warming ideas, cloning ideas and so on, without the teacher having to fear a lawsuit. Ideas belong in classrooms, even science classrooms. A currently accepted example of a classroom-allowable but proof-free topic would be SETI. Like ID it has absolutely no proof but it is still worth discussing in a science class. Furthermore, the bill does not seek to allow religion into the classroom, only the non-religious aspects of ID can be discussed under it, which at this point amounts to finding fault with the current mainstream model. None of this changes the fact that the kids have to show they understand the basics of TOE, climate change, genetic engineering and so on. Hardly a return to the Middle Ages. Again I ask Where is the threat to science education?

I think it's great that critical thinkers are trying to rise above political correctness, which is an old enemy of science.

As long as science and religion are kept separate, I hope they succeed.

No offence, but it seems to me that the silly 'culture wars' over there in the US have tainted everything.

If anyone is interested, here is section D of the Act: "..shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion"

 

[Father Heathen]

ID does not necessarily require a Diety.

What then is the "intelligent designer" if not a god of some sort?

 

[rocketman]

What then is the "intelligent designer" if not a god of some sort?

Strictly speaking, it also allows for intelligent aliens to have engineered life at some point in the past.

 

[Father Heathen]

Strictly speaking, it also allows for intelligent aliens to have engineered life at some point in the past.

Would the aliens have designed themselves as well?

 

[rocketman]

Would the aliens have designed themselves as well?

You'd have to ask the ID crowd about that one. My point is ID does not necessarily have to be religious. And even if it were, in the context of the proposed bill, any religious aspects would not be allowed in the classroom.

 

[Willamena]

You'd have to ask the ID crowd about that one. My point is ID does not necessarily have to be religious. And even if it were, in the context of the proposed bill, any religious aspects would not be allowed in the classroom.

Seriously, if it was aliens from outer space, would there be this much fuss to get it into the classrooms?

 

[rocketman]

Seriously, if it was aliens from outer space, would there be this much fuss to get it into the classrooms?

I hear you. And yes, far and away the majority of IDers are theists or deists or whatever. But on the other hand, your observation highlights a very large bias against religion these days. The fact that the bill explicitly prohibits anything religious or unscientific seems to have been lost on the opposing side. I respectfully submit that bias has something to do with that.

 

[Willamena]

I hear you. And yes, far and away the majority of IDers are theists or deists or whatever. But on the other hand, your observation highlights a very large bias against religion these days. The fact that the bill explicitly prohibits anything religious or unscientific seems to have been lost on the opposing side. I respectfully submit that bias has something to do with that.

Bias against? or for? (/me hugs her highlighter)

 

[rocketman]

Bias against? or for? (/me hugs her highlighter)

Against religion. But, please don't get me wrong, I realise that those in the trenches are so used to the ups and downs of the so-called culture wars that it may be more habit than bias at work. Regardless, the number of smart people robotically saying that this is a trick to get religion into the classroom is disappointing. The bill is nothing like that. I still don't see what all the fuss is about or where the threat to science education is coming from, if it even exists.

 

[Willamena]

Against religion. But, please don't get me wrong, I realise that those in the trenches are so used to the ups and downs of the so-called culture wars that it may be more habit than bias at work. Regardless, the number of smart people robotically saying that this is a trick to get religion into the classroom is disappointing. The bill is nothing like that. I still don't see what all the fuss is about or where the threat to science education is coming from, if it even exists.

Could you explain to someone from another country (namely me) what you see as the alternative to "robotic saying" is?