ID: Coming to Your State Soon!

[rocketman]

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

By that expression I meant the apparant (to me anyway) parroting of the idea around the web and other media that this bill will introduce religion into the classroom, which is a patently false idea as far as I'm concerned. Those opposed do not appear to be doing their homework. Compare the section of the act I posted earlier with some of the opinions doing the rounds and you'll see what I mean (hopefully).

 

[fantome profane]

Intelligent Design is not science. If it were to be taught as science in a science class then the teachers would be required to deceive their students. This is what I have a problem with. For me the religious issues are secondary.

 

[rocketman]

Intelligent Design is not science. If it were to be taught as science in a science class then the teachers would be required to deceive their students. This is what I have a problem with. For me the religious issues are secondary.

But the bill doesn't let them teach it as science. It only allows teachers to point out any weaknesses in the current theory. They can mention ID as 'just an idea' in the same way they can mention SETI (which has no proof either), but they must not stray from, or waste time in making sure kids can demonstrate that they understand the basic principles of the mainstream scientific theory of evolution. That's what the bill says.

 

[The_Her3tiK]

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.

To me, it seems as though the issue with ID is similar to the "domino effect" the western world feared during the Cold War. If one state allows ID, especially a notoriously religious state, to be taught in classrooms, then soon other topics will have to stoop to the level of "science" that ID is. If we allow this one victory, the advocates of ID will push their agenda further, which many of the opposition believe to be the establishment of a Christian nation and belief system. Don't get me wrong, I agree that both sides should be taught, but ID has been repeatedly shown to have no scientific validity (I recommend the film "Expelled" if you want to see such an attempt backfire), and should therefore be kept separate from scientific studies. As has been said repeatedly on this thread, the concepts behind ID should be taught by the parents of the students in question, seeing as the alien theory, instead of a "divine" creator, will probably not be well accepted by the majority of ID supporters (I have had several people tell me that aliens are the "devil's agents).

 

[fantome profane]

But the bill doesn't let them teach it as science. It only allows teachers to point out any weaknesses in the current theory. They can mention ID as 'just an idea' in the same way they can mention SETI (which has no proof either), but they must not stray from, or waste time in making sure kids can demonstrate that they understand the basic principles of the mainstream scientific theory of evolution. That's what the bill says.

SETI is a poor analogy. SETI is not pretending to be a scientific theory. SETI is an attempt to explore the universe. SETI involves actual scientific research. I.D. is religious pseudoscience. A better analogy would be to point out the weaknesses on astronomy and then mentioning astrology.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Hullabaloo

The Louisiana Coalition for Science is asking for national support to defeat this latest attempt to introduce ID into the classroom via political means, rather than through scientific channels. They argue that if the ID initiative is not defeated in Louisiana, it will spread from there to other states.

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

Well.......To me it makes no sense to teach it...

I work here in my local school district and I'm having a hard time trying to figure out that if such legislation is passed allowing teachers to teach it....which version of the creation myth will they be using...?

Will they be using the judeo/christian/islamic version, a hindu version or some tribal creation myth? Will they be teaching the Sumerian Creation Story (most likely where the biblical story evolved from)?

If they solely adopt the biblical myth then who's to say that is a valid one since there are so many other creation myths?

 

[rocketman]

If one state allows ID, especially a notoriously religious state, to be taught in classrooms, then soon other topics will have to stoop to the level of "science" that ID is.

Good point but the bill does not allow full-blown religious versions of ID to be taught. Far from it in fact. As I keep saying, the primary task for teachers under this bill is to make sure that the kids demonstrate that they understand the basic principles of the mainstream scientific theory of evolution.

 

[rocketman]

....which version of the creation myth will they be using...?

*Sigh* None.

From the proposed act (again): "..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"

 

[lunamoth]

*Sigh* None.

From the proposed act (again): "..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"

OK, so it introduces no science, and no religion. What is the bill needed for again?

 

[rocketman]

SETI is a poor analogy. SETI is not pretending to be a scientific theory. SETI is an attempt to explore the universe. SETI involves actual scientific research. I.D. is religious pseudoscience. A better analogy would be to point out the weaknesses on astronomy and then mentioning astrology.

Hi FP. As you know from the past I don't want ID taught as science until it actually becomes science. But that is not what this bill is about. It's about discussion of supplemental ideas, but only as long as the regular ciriculum is not affected. I used that SETI analogy becasue they are both a search for signs or marks of intelligence, both based on the hypothesis that there is (or was) a particular intelligence, the physical signs or marks of which can be detected, and both have explicitly failed so far. I do not to see the difference in terms of hypothesis/test between the two. One group thinks there are aliens, the other, God(or aliens). Both are working on purely human hunches without any evidence. Using a radio telescope does not mean there are aliens anymore than using a microscope means there are ironclad examples of irreducable complexity. By the way, if the former is scientific research then so is the latter.

 

[The_Her3tiK]

Good point but the bill does not allow full-blown religious versions of ID to be taught. Far from it in fact. As I keep saying, the primary task for teachers under this bill is to make sure that the kids demonstrate that they understand the basic principles of the mainstream scientific theory of evolution.

If that's all they need to demonstrate then why bring in a defeated alternative like ID? Evolution is easily taught without going into other explanations to how we got here, and it has done so with an efficiency and lack of loopholes that ID has yet to match amongst any scientific minds.

 

[lunamoth]

There are ways to test for the presence of extraterrestrial life.

Are you really suggesting that there are comparable tests for the presence of God? If so, what are they?

ID is not science. And it's bad theology. Time for this one to be thrown on the scrap heap of "bad ideas throughout history," right next to Lysenkoism.

 

[rocketman]

OK, so it introduces no science, and no religion. What is the bill needed for again?

Academic freedom. Basically it means you can tell the class (after they have finished the mainstream work and only if there is time) that there are other ideas out there in the world regarding things like abiogensis, global warming, cloning and evolution etc, and not have to worry about being sued for stepping outside of the school ciriculum. Any material must be approved and cannot be on the state-banned list (that includes many ID 'textbooks'). It allows teachers to say that there are some issues with some current theories without losing their jobs. Under this act the kids cannot be assesed on what they believe, and religion is strictly forbidden. It is as much a backlash against political correctness as anything.

 

[rocketman]

If that's all they need to demonstrate then why bring in a defeated alternative like ID? Evolution is easily taught without going into other explanations to how we got here, and it has done so with an efficiency and lack of loopholes that ID has yet to match amongst any scientific minds.

ID will only be allowed to be mentioned in the context that as amovement it says that there are some issues with theories like evolution and hypotheses like abiogenesis and the big bang, and here is what they are "a,b,c,d" etc. No religion, no psuedoscience. But ideas are ok. Discussion is ok. But only after the main work has been done.

 

[lunamoth]

Academic freedom. Basically it means you can tell the class (after they have finished the mainstream work and only if there is time) that there are other ideas out there in the world regarding things like abiogensis, global warming, cloning and evolution etc, and not have to worry about being sued for stepping outside of the school ciriculum.

What "other" scientific ideas are currently not mentioned?

Any material must be approved and cannot be on the state-banned list (that includes many ID 'textbooks'). It allows teachers to say that there are some issues with some current theories without losing their jobs. Under this act the kids cannot be assesed on what they believe, and religion is strictly forbidden. It is as much a backlash against political correctness as anything.

You are kidding, right? ID does not have any scientific evidence, and any constructive counter-evidence to evolution is already welcomed by the scientific community. I taught science (biology) for a number of years and part of the method of teaching was to point out how the models for explaining evolution (and everything else in biology) were continuosly corrected as new evidence was found, or weakness in the current model were detected. It's the very basis for how science progresses.

ID has nothing to offer.

But, for the record, I believe God did it. God created it all and it was good, what we understand as well as what we don't yet understand, and those things we may possibly never understand.

 

[Runlikethewind]

For me, after studying the arguments from both sides for some time now, I am not sure one way or the other about the scientific validity of ID. Right now I tend to think that it is an inference that is drawing metaphysical conclusions from physical data. Which would make it philosophy as I implied earlier. Yes it is certainly possible that aliens could be the intelligent designer but even a 5th grader will ask the obvious question as to who designed the aliens? Or did they evolve naturaly? So in the end, to avoid an infinite regress, some kind of god-like entity will have to be discussed as an option for the designer. What this means to me is that the inference which says that an intelligence had an influence on some aspects of the natural world is a philosophical inference and not a scientific one.

But how about this, one of the main thrusts of the ID movement is the claim that chance and necessity are noe sufficient causal forces and that some other force of some kind is required for certain aspects of the universe to be as they are. Now up to this point it seems to me that this is purely a scientific pursuit. A question is asked, are chance and necesity sufficient causal forces? Research is done and biological structures such as the bacteria flagellum are studied. An hypothesis is raised that evolution by chance and necesity alone is an insufficient explanation, the hypothesis is criticized by other scientists who say that evolution by chance and necesity are sufficient explanations. Now doing experiments in this field are difficult if not impossible because the we are talking about events that happened in the past, causal forces in the past that lead to current structures. But this all seems very scientific to me. BUT when someone makes the further inference that if chance and neccessity are insufficient then intelligence must be involved, I think we have moved out of science and into philosophy.

So can it be possible to disscus in a secondary school science classroom the strengths and weaknesses of chance and neccesity as possible causal forces in nature without raising the possible alternitive force of intelligence as another possible causal force?

 

[The_Her3tiK]

Good point but the bill does not allow full-blown religious versions of ID to be taught. Far from it in fact. As I keep saying, the primary task for teachers under this bill is to make sure that the kids demonstrate that they understand the basic principles of the mainstream scientific theory of evolution.

ID will only be allowed to be mentioned in the context that as amovement it says that there are some issues with theories like evolution and hypotheses like abiogenesis and the big bang, and here is what they are "a,b,c,d" etc. No religion, no psuedoscience. But ideas are ok. Discussion is ok. But only after the main work has been done.

My high school biology teacher already said there were issues with evolution and she still has her job, but believe me, that statement would not be the reason she lost it lol. The problem is that ID IS pseudoscience as it has no scientific validity, which is something evolution has, even if there are missing links in the information. My personal issue with this is that my religious friends choose to focus on the discrepancies in evolution and use them as an argument for ID to be just as valid a concept, when it has been so clearly outlined that there is no contest between the two. And I realize I said 'religious friends', but they are the only people I know who think ID is worth mentioning as anything greater than a poorly formed hypothesis. Everyone who does not follow a set of religious beliefs that I talk to sees ID as a petty attempt by religious fundamentalists to dumb down society and convert everybody to Christianity, and I'm afraid that, as long as you cannot convince people like this otherwise, any attempt to merge ID and evolution into a science class to any degree will be met with stiff resistance.

 

[rocketman]

There are ways to test for the presence of extraterrestrial life.

Currently SETI monitors radio and optical measurements whith the assumption that if they meet a certain criteria then that qualifies as evidence extraterrrestrial intelligence. The fact of the matter is that the criteria would merely narrow the odds, not prove conclusively that there was extraterrestrial intelligence. Michael Chrichton famously called SETI an unprovable religion.

Are you really suggesting that there are comparable tests for the presence of God? If so, what are they?

Only if you are asserting that SETI's current criteria would prove extraterrestrial intelligence. Then, if we adopt those standards, we can say that an iron-clad example of irreducible complexity would prove ID 9not God btw). In reality of-course, it would only narrow the odds and not prove anything absolutely. But why is the idea of ID any less valuable for discussion as a supplemental topic than SETI? I can't even think of any fundamental differences between the two of them, frankly. [/quote]

 

[gnomon]

What a bogus bill.

It states....

D. This Section 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.

However, given the topics of human cloning, evolution and the origins of life I would ask those who disagree with the currently accepted mainstream scientific models what other models are there but religious models?

Non-religious ID? That would be space aliens or Lemurians. Let's see how well that goes over with the creationists when their kid comes home and starts talking about how the human race may have been created by an advanced species from Arcturus or by the ubermensch on Earth.

Why not phlogiston, Lamarckian evolution and spontaneous generation? Actually those are often brought as examples of where theories failed to adequately model observations. Maybe they can include ID in that category.

 

[fantome profane]

Hi FP. As you know from the past I don't want ID taught as science until it actually becomes science. But that is not what this bill is about. It's about discussion of supplemental ideas, but only as long as the regular ciriculum is not affected. I used that SETI analogy becasue they are both a search for signs or marks of intelligence, both based on the hypothesis that there is (or was) a particular intelligence, the physical signs or marks of which can be detected, and both have explicitly failed so far. I do not to see the difference in terms of hypothesis/test between the two. One group thinks there are aliens, the other, God(or aliens). Both are working on purely human hunches without any evidence. Using a radio telescope does not mean there are aliens anymore than using a microscope means there are ironclad examples of irreducable complexity. By the way, if the former is scientific research then so is the latter.

Sure but SETI are actively looking, they are not pretending to have already found signs of intelligence. SETI is not involved in political campaigns and mass marketing to try to convince people that there is intelligence in space. They are doing the research. In practice it is not at all the same thing as I.D. If the intelligent design movement put just half of the money the put into propaganda into actual research who knows what they might have found.