What exactly do you consider a non-full-blown religious version of ID? Can you give an example?
Thanks for taking time out to respond, although I get the feeling you may not have had time to read my earlier posts, so a quick summary: ID is only an idea. The bill allows benign and legitimate criticisms of standard models to be discussed after the conventional coursework has been nailed, time permitting - but it does not allow any of ID's or anyone elses' religioisity or psuedoscience to be used. The bill allows for the state school authority to veto any dubious materials, which rules out most current ID books. It will not be a free for all and it will not be at the expense of the current requirements. The kids absolutely first and foremost have to demonstrate an understanding of the standard models before all else.
I must insist that the title of this thread, and the call-to-arms it cites are both disingenuous in using the term "ID", which is not even mentioned in the bill. No dangerous aspect of ID or anything else is allowed under this bill.
In contrast, the SETI studies do not implicitly claim that a sufficiently complex signal from space implies aliens; the actual claim is that sufficiently complex signals warrant further study, which is something very different, IMO.
The choices of signature that SETI seeks derive from educated guesswork. I have no complaint with that, after all, that's how hypotheses begin, but we must be honest about the testability of this one: there is no scientific way to determine what would constitute falsifiable signs of alien intelligence short of them actually showing up - just as there is no way to scientifically determine what would constitute a sign or mark of an inteligent designer, short of one showing up and telling us. Both camps are following hunches. The SETI crew are explorers that happen to be exploring in a way that can only be done by scientists at this point. Aware of what you've done or not, you have shown what SETI is, and you showed why it is still just an exploratory idea, like ID, string theory, and so on. Thank you.
The idea of ID is that evolution was physically impossible, and ID relies on bad data and faulty assumptions to reach this conclusion. How is this useful in a science classroom?
In actual fact, many IDers accept much of standard evolutionary theory, far more so than most YECers. Regardless, the only aspect of it allowed under this bill is where it highlights possible difficulties with the standard model. Nothing more than that - indeed, the critical questions can come from any source provided nothing is introduced that interferes with the kids current education.
What do you see as the hypothesis of ID, and what sort of proper test do you think could ever validate or falsify it? Feel free to imagine whatever future technological improvements you want.
Keep in mind that I never said there was one. Keep in mind that I was showing that there are already ideas in the classroom that can't be falsified, like SETI. The companion question I asked was what would happen if we found a natural source of the emissions that SETI is looking for. Both questions should be taken together if you want to see my point.
No, the bill is about stuffing religion into public education, wrapping it in lies and misrepresentations to make it seem like it isn't religion.
I'm sorry but I don't believe you. I think you may have confused that which some hoped/dreaded the bill may have represented with what actually passed almost unanimously through both houses.
Cheers.
