ID: Coming to Your State Soon!

[Dirty Penguin]

I am not sure if I agree or not.
If you were to specify that it has no place in science class until it meets said requirements, I agree completely.
However, to say that it does not belong in schools at all..I am not so sure on that.

This is why I said it should be in the history class and not the science class. Not in the science class, at least not right now....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not my take.

Then whose is it?

Perhaps you are not familiar with how such legislation works. You have to understand that laws do not work in isolation. You must take this Act in conjunction with existing Acts which lay down the requirements for education standards in that state. You need to know that all of the existing State Board limitations still apply.

Don't worry - I'm familiar with how legislation works.

Taken as a whole therefore what I said is true. You can check the bill again for yourself and see that there are no strikethroughs of existing law. The whole thing is supplemental in nature and tightly controlled. And bravo I say.

I disagree: the new bill specifically removes control. It explicitly permits any material that the local board sees fit to use unless specifically prohibited by the state board.

And you also provided the answer: "....and thereafter..." in legal speak and in conjunction with existing laws it says what I said.

I don't have access to the standard textbook, but I did manage to find the State of Louisiana DOE content standards for teaching evolution in the science classroom. Here's what it says is the required content regarding evolution:

3. biological evolution, which includes:
a. LS-H-C1: exploring experimental evidence that
supports the theory of the origin of life (1, 3);
b. LS-H-C2: recognizing the evidence for evolution
(1, 3, 4);

c. LS-H-C3: discussing the patterns, mechanisms,

and rate of evolution (1, 3, 4);
d. LS-H-C4: classifying organisms (1, 2, 3, 4);
e. LS-H-C5: distinguishing among the kingdoms
(1, 3, 4);
f. LS-H-C6: comparing and contrasting life cycles
of organisms (1, 2, 3, 4);
g. LS-H-C7: comparing viruses to cells (1, 2, 3, 4);

That by itself does not ensure understanding of the "standard models". This new law ensures that once these bare minimum requirements are met, school boards can spend the rest of the class time instilling in their students a misunderstanding of the history of life based on bad science.
​

​

​

According to your own quote: Evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.....
You have highlighted the word evolution in bold implying that means ID. In this bill what it actually means are any elements of ID (or anything else) that provide critical insight into standard models.

It does mean ID. I think it's naive to believe otherwise.

Be very careful here my friend. By that logic one could say that " an ordered-looking structure doesn't automatically imply that it was deliberately designed by some intelligence, but it's a good first step..." You keep reinforcing my point over and over. I think Michael Chrichton was on the right track about SETI.

Let me re-phrase: if you want to find a deliberately ordered signal from aliens, a good first step in doing this is screening out as much unordered noise as possible to get a "short list" for further analysis. This decision isn't based on any sort of guarantee that alien signals definitely aren't in the "noise" that's screened out of further analysis (there could very well be alien signals in there), or the presumption that alien signals might be in the stuff that's selected for further analysis (it's not presumed, and my bet is that the vast majority of stuff they analyze will turn out to be naturally occurring)... it's based on pragmatism: because the researchers can't analyze everything, they pick the bits of data that they figure have the best likelihood of having what they're after.

Is picking one signal over another particularily scientific by itself? No. Is it a necessary step before performing an analysis using the scientific method? Yes.

This is completely analogous to archaeology: where you choose to dig may be based on nothing more than educated guesswork and if you don't dig up what you're looking for, you don't get the chance to do the actual science, but you can't analyze the artifact if you don't dig it up and you won't dig it up if you don't pick a place to dig.

It seems like you're deliberately trying to mischaraterize SETI. The hoped-for end result is not "aha - we found this neat looking signal, therefore aliens!" It's "aha - we found this neat looking signal, therefore let's look more!"

???????????????? Beeeeeeeeeep Uh oh, my double standard alarm just went off.

SETI is looking for something that simply may NOT EVEN BE THERE. It is not looking for the cause of an effect, because it still hasn't found the EFFECT.

So? Yes, aliens might not exist. If we were sure whether they did or didn't exist already, there wouldn't be much point to SETI, would there? But how does that make it not science?

Anything that fits the scientific method is science. The scientific method is a matter of formulating a falsifiable claim (e.g. "intelligent aliens exist"), deducing a repeatable prediction that would prove the claim (e.g. "if intelligent aliens are beaming messages to us, then intelligent aliens exist"), and then testing it (e.g. "let's find some signals that may contain an alien message - SETI - and then analyze them to figure out if they do contain one - stuff after SETI).

Science seeks to explain. SETI is exploration not explanation.

That's a narrow, and IMO incorrect, view of science.

And just how on earth are they going to do that within the legal framework the bill provides?

The legal framework allows ID to be introduced to schools, and ID is religion. ID is also factually incorrect and has at its core misrepresentations of actual science; therefore, teaching it to kids undermines science education.

 

[McBell]

Exactly what did I say that wasn't true?

Please see posts 101, 107, and 109.

 

[McBell]

I'm not saying that it's non-religious as a whole DP. I'm saying that there are elements of it that are non-religious that might be worth discussing, like the paper I cited.

And I linked to show that most of it is not even science.
So it fails on both counts.
Go figure.

 

[rocketman]

Then whose is it?

The law's.

I disagree: the new bill specifically removes control. It explicitly permits any material that the local board sees fit to use unless specifically prohibited by the state board.

You still don't get it. There is no such thing in the bill that permits 'any' material.

That by itself does not ensure understanding of the "standard models".

You seem to be suggesting that the kids are not currently required to understand evolution. If that's true then you have far bigger problems to worry about than this new bill. Meanwhile, back in the real world, let's not go second guessing the biologists who recommend these programs. And the overarching requirements that these things must be demonstrated and tested still stands.

(e.g. "let's find some signals that may contain an alien message - SETI - and then analyze them to figure out if they do contain one - stuff after SETI).

Um, you don't seem to understand that none of the currently looked-for signals would falsifiably prove the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, and no amount of analysing them would change that.

The legal framework allows ID to be introduced to schools, and ID is religion. ID is also factually incorrect and has at its core misrepresentations of actual science; therefore, teaching it to kids undermines science education.

Read the bill again. No one is allowed to teach ID. The only thing they are allowed to do is borrow it's critical questioning and apply it to what they have already learned, and only if time permits and it doesn't step outside of the current state standards.

 

[rocketman]

Please see posts 101,

See post 116

107,

See this post

and 109.

Same again.......

And I linked to show that most of it is not even science.
So it fails on both counts.
Go figure.

Most is not all. Go figure.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... The only thing they are allowed to do is borrow it's critical questioning and apply it to what they have already learned, ...

Close call on that one, Rocket. There for a minute, I was afraid you would have to slice that hair a little thin.

 

[LittlePinky82]

The Dover case proved this was nothing more than religion. I believe it was PBS's program "Nova" that had a special on this and showed it. It was really excellent. I'm sure you can find it on their website. I think it was called "ID On Trial" or something like that. I'm sure it'll be an easy find. The whole thing with Creationism is you can't prove anything with it. That's why it's called faith. I have strong faith in God and my faith but I can't prove anything with it. Not like science when with that you can touch, smell, see, experiment. Science is always changing and a lot of the times for the better. Just because I believe in science doesn't make me any less of a Christian. Something interesting is in my brother's Bible it has foot notes and information in it and in his Bible it states that it's the thought by theologians that the seven days of creation were actually generational and not days since the other side does not have time so that makes more sense in that regard. Doesn't that just prove evolution's side? In my high school (I graduated in 2001) we had a class called "Bible History" which was split in the old and new testament and you could choose to take the class or not. Personally I think something like that is okay as long as it's not preaching. At the beginning of the class the teacher said how she couldn't preach and all that. There was people in there who weren't Christian and seemed to pass. But this is forcing people who don't believe in one thing to take it. That goes against the first amendment and the separation of church and state we're supposed to have.

 

[LittlePinky82]

I dunno if it would spread; here in Texas, we consider LA to be a foreign country in terms of education.

"Yep, sendin' my kid overseas to go to school." "Where?" "LSU."

Not that I'm bragging about Texas' education system, mind you........

Hmm maybe that's why Britney Spears thought Canada was over seas?

 

[LittlePinky82]

Depends on the way that it (ID) is taught. I believe that it is possible for the ID issue to be intelligently discussed in a classroom setting in such a way that it would enhance one's undertanding of the nature of science and the way in which science is done among other things. However, I am willing to bet that the Louisiana initiative won't be addressing the issue in such a way.

Personally I think that proponets of ID should, if they want to see ID taught in schools, move to get ID discussed as part of a philosophy curiculum. Bringing philosophy into the public schools has a number of advantages not the least of which being the ability to address questions of God in a non "religious" setting.

PeAcE

For that to happen you have to prove without a doubt that it is not religious. Good luck with that.

 

[LittlePinky82]

its useless to teach id in classrooms. although im all for lessons you can sleep though id is one of those things that just make you wanna doubt the knowlege of the teachers.

Beats falling asleep in history class! (Yes I did that often my junior year lol but I still passed!)

 

[McBell]

See post 116

See this post

Same again.......

Most is not all. Go figure.

Nice.
As long as ID in the classroom you don't really care?

 

[rocketman]

Nice.
As long as ID in the classroom you don't really care?

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried to be.

Let's get it right: As long as there is even a small chance that an educator can be sued or prosecuted for talking about something that warrants consideration, even brief and fleeting consideration, then we are all the poorer for it, I believe. Academic freedom is worth fighting and legislating for, providing it is done appropriately.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm not saying that it's non-religious as a whole DP.

But that's the point. It is underneath the subtle wording of this bill. This bill is no different than what people were trying to put forth in Dover. The difference is, in Dover the creationist got caught lying. This subject needs to be in a history class due to the sheer fact that there is more than one creation myth. With that in mind we're going to have to re-write the science books to include all of the other creation myths. It has no place in a school science class. We certainly can keep it at college in a comparative religion class.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried to be.

Let's get it right: As long as there is even a small chance that an educator can be sued or prosecuted for talking about something that warrants consideration, even brief and fleeting consideration, then we are all the poorer for it,

If they're teaching psudeoscience then they need to be slapped on the hand for it.

I believe. Academic freedom is worth fighting and legislating for, providing it is done appropriately.

As do I and that is why this ID (in disguise) is not allowed in the classroom.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The law's.

No, I read what the law said, and I read what you wrote. You put your own definite spin on it.

You still don't get it. There is no such thing in the bill that permits 'any' material.

The bill specifically says that a teacher:

may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board unless otherwise prohibited by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

The "may" explicitly indicates permissiveness, and the law specifically places only two restrictions on the teacher in selecting the material:

- local public school board requirements.
- the State Board list of prohibited instructional materials, should the Board choose to create one.

There is no requirement for the supplementary material to be part of any curriculum, be complementary to the standard curriculum, be relevant, be accurate, or even be related to science at all.

You seem to be suggesting that the kids are not currently required to understand evolution. If that's true then you have far bigger problems to worry about than this new bill. Meanwhile, back in the real world, let's not go second guessing the biologists who recommend these programs. And the overarching requirements that these things must be demonstrated and tested still stands.

Back in the real world, as you put it, these standards are not made in a vacuum. I have a sneaking suspicion that while certain specific benchmarks have been selected, the content standards were created with the inherent assumption that the kids would spend the time they spend in their biology class actually learning biology, even after the benchmarks are taken care of.

Normally, this assumption would be fairly safe. With this law, the assumption no longer holds.

Um, you don't seem to understand that none of the currently looked-for signals would falsifiably prove the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, and no amount of analysing them would change that.

I do understand that. You don't seem to understand that this doesn't matter. SETI is not the repeatable, falsifiable experiment, it's the step that allows the repeatable, falsifiable experiment. SETI is the process by which an overwhelmingly large (and mostly extraneous) body of data gets whittled down to a manageable size, which lets the real science happen.

SETI is an excellent example of the sort of things you need to do when you decide to verify the hypothetical and theoretical by experiment: you need to worry about what your technical limitations are.

Read the bill again. No one is allowed to teach ID. The only thing they are allowed to do is borrow it's critical questioning and apply it to what they have already learned, and only if time permits and it doesn't step outside of the current state standards.

Are you serious? The bill is loaded with buzzwords and code words of the ID movement. On top of this, the stated intent of the bill makes no sense: how exactly are critical thinking, logical analysis and open and objective discussion not permitted under the current system? This bill specifically creates an ID-shaped hole in the public school science curriculum and lets local boards put whatever they want in it.

 

[Runlikethewind]

For that to happen you have to prove without a doubt that it is not religious. Good luck with that.

I recognize that there are strong religious implications with ID and that it would be difficult if not impossible to seperate those elements out from whatever scientific merit the theory may or may not have. I keep reading through this thread and I keep seeing people say ID is not science, ID is not sciences, ID IS NOT SCIENCE! Frankly I am not fully convinced that it has no scientific merit. I have looked at the arguments and I feel that it's wrong to dicount ID out of hand as unscientific because of the metaphyisical/religious implications of the theory. I really think that some of the arguments may in fact fall within the realm of true scientific inquiry even if they fail at being good explanations. But this is a question I have struggled with for some time now. ID, science or not? I think I will start a new thread........

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I keep reading through this thread and I keep seeing people say ID is not science, ID is not sciences, ID IS NOT SCIENCE! Frankly I am not fully convinced that it has no scientific merit. I have looked at the arguments and I feel that it's wrong to dicount ID out of hand as unscientific because of the metaphyisical/religious implications of the theory.

Church-state separation does play a role in the desire to keep ID out of public schools, but there is more to it than that.

- what are the hypotheses of ID? Are they falsifiable?
- how would one go about testing them? Are the hypotheses of ID even testable? Are the tests repeatable?

I really think that some of the arguments may in fact fall within the realm of true scientific inquiry even if they fail at being good explanations.

Which ones?

Also, I think we should differentiate between two terms here:

- theistic evolution: the belief that evolution was a tool of God.
- Intelligent Design: the belief that life could not have arose as we see it by evolution alone, and therefore some outside intelligence acted on life at certain points in our history.

 

[Runlikethewind]

- what are the hypotheses of ID? Are they falsifiable?

The main hypothesis in my understanding is basically what you said

- Intelligent Design: the belief that life could not have arose as we see it by evolution alone, and therefore some outside intelligence acted on life at certain points in our history.

that chance and necessety are insufficient causal agents and that some intellegence was required.



That hypothesis can be falsified by showing that chance and necessity are sufficient causal agents. And if and when that fact is proven conclusively, that chance and necessity are sufficient in developing comlex biological structures, then I don't think that has any bearing on whether ID is scientific or not. Failed science is still science so long as it stays true to the scientific methodology.

- how would one go about testing them? Are the hypotheses of ID even testable? Are the tests repeatable?

I am not sure if testablility is that important in regards to natural history. We are talking about theories that refer to how things came to be as they are, past events that we cannot observe directly. Testability is more important for sciences like chemestry and physics. What kind of experiemnts can we set up to test what has already happened? How would we Go about testing to see if natural selection brought about the evolution of the complex biological structures that we see today? How could we repeat those experiments? The theory itself predicts that such large movements from simple to complex would take thousands if not millions of years of selective pressures and mutations to bring about. So if we started an experiment to day to see if we could get bacteria to evolve flagellum (one of the irreducibly complex biological structures cited by ID as not being able to develop by natural selection) using only selective pressures, it would take a few thousand years to do it once and a few thousand more to repeate it. But it would certainly put ID to rest once and for all. And what if we set up such experiments and never witness the development of complex structures by natural selection alone? Then ID would remain viable yet not proven. ID would still need more compelling evidence to suggest that intelligence is the answer.

In the end I am still not convinced either way whether ID is scientific or not.

 

[LittlePinky82]

I recognize that there are strong religious implications with ID and that it would be difficult if not impossible to seperate those elements out from whatever scientific merit the theory may or may not have. I keep reading through this thread and I keep seeing people say ID is not science, ID is not sciences, ID IS NOT SCIENCE! Frankly I am not fully convinced that it has no scientific merit. I have looked at the arguments and I feel that it's wrong to dicount ID out of hand as unscientific because of the metaphyisical/religious implications of the theory. I really think that some of the arguments may in fact fall within the realm of true scientific inquiry even if they fail at being good explanations. But this is a question I have struggled with for some time now. ID, science or not? I think I will start a new thread........

ID is not science. Their whole argument is a Creator did it all. How can you prove that? I do believe in God but I can't prove it can I? Not that I'm aware of. Check out the Dover case. They established that it's religious and nothing more with a new name to try to sound scientific. It's all about branding and that's it.