ID: Coming to Your State Soon!

[Sunstone]

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?

 

[Engyo]

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........

 

[Draka]

I think that any state that this nonsense would pass in would have to be considered backwards by any other state. I can say this because I don't honestly believe that Iowa would do such a thing. Iowa has some of the highest records for education marks in all grades in the country. I just don't see how they'd purposely dumb-down their students. At least, I hope they wouldn't. )(

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

It's definitely a threat to science education in Louisiana. Beyond that... I doubt it would set a legal precedent, but it would help to encourage the ID movement, and the more jurisdictions that allow it being taught as science, the more "reasonable" it would seem to do so.

 

[Runlikethewind]

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

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

 

[3.14]

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.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Why not learn about theology and science? Both are valuable in many ways.

 

[Father Heathen]

If they teach intelligent design in science class, they might as well teach homeopathy, phrenology, trepanation and atrology while they're at it.
Sure, there is nothing wrong with objectively teaching theology as long as it's not a veiled attempt at proselytizing to students, or promoting any particular belief above others. But it has no place in science class, as it's not science nor an alternative to it. If they actually do teach ID in science class, they should teach it in math class, as well: 2+2=goddidit, 13x7=godidit, 635-44=goddidit, etc.

 

[Runlikethewind]

If they teach intelligent design in science class, they might as well teach homeopathy, phrenology, trepanation and atrology while they're at it.

That is just the sort of idea I was getting at in my last post. Now I will grant that a high school biology class, for example, is not neccessarily the appropriate place to discuss these and other psuedo-scientific/failed sciences. But I certainly think that discusing the history and philosophy of science can be a fruitful and productive excercise. It can show us the right way and the wrong way of doing science. Who knows, if they had been discussing alchemy in science classes 30-40 years ago, then maybe the scientists of our day would have a better understanding of whether ID is true science or not. In the end what I am arguing is that science education should be more than just teaching science, it should be about creating scientists, and that requires more than just memorizing the brute facts of scientific observations and the theories and interpretations that go with them. It requires a firm understanding of the nature and limits of the scientific method and things of that nature which can often best be taught by looking at the mistakes made in the past.

Sure, there is nothing wrong with objectively teaching theology as long as it's not a veiled attempt at proselytizing to students, or promoting any particular belief above others.

I can get behind that.

But it has no place in science class, as it's not science nor an alternative to it.

Sure, theology is not an alternative to the natural sciences. But I think that our definition of science has become too narrow and too confined to one particular type of scientific enterprise, namely the natural science. In a broader sense of the term, theology can be seen as a science in that it employs similar methods of hypothesizing, argumentation and such. Now I am not trying to equate theology with the natural sciences at all. I am just trying to point out that in a broad sense of the word, theology is a true kind of science. This of course would also require a firm understanding of what we mean by theology. There is a lot of theology out there that is by no means true to any sort of scientific method and that does not stand up well to criticism. But seeing theology as a science and really trying to work theology as a science in that way would, I think, lead to more open mindedness and more fruitful benifits from the theological process.

PeAcE

 

[Willamena]

Perhaps we're going about this all wrong. Perhaps the way to defeat ID is to allow it in the science classroom, and then when it is crushed under the weight of comparison to scientific theories, it will be gone forever.

 

[Halcyon]

It seems to me that the issue of ID is never going to go away for you guys, in fact as your country becomes increasingly fundamentalist I bet you'll see more and more parents homeschooling their kids this gibberish.

I think the best thing to do would be to have Creationism taught as an optional extra class, so that all kids get taught science in their science classes, but the ones who want their minds numbed somewhat can take an optional ID class too. Then everybody should be happy.

 

[McBell]

It seems to me that the issue of ID is never going to go away for you guys, in fact as your country becomes increasingly fundamentalist I bet you'll see more and more parents homeschooling their kids this gibberish.

I think the best thing to do would be to have Creationism taught as an optional extra class, so that all kids get taught science in their science classes, but the ones who want their minds numbed somewhat can take an optional ID class too. Then everybody should be happy.

Perhaps they can even get Kent Hovind to teach it......

 

[Halcyon]

Perhaps they can even get Kent Hovind to teach it......

I don't know who that is, but I reckon they could have whoever they wanted teaching whatever fairytales spring to their minds so long as its in an optional extra class and the kids still get a good scientific education.

Chances are that the kids who are going to believe that man descended from play-doh will sleep through a science class anyway, but at least this way normal kids won't run the risk of being taught Canaanite flood mythology as genuine science.

 

[McBell]

Here is a link to Kent Hovind's Ssite:
Creation Science Evangelism - Creation, Evolution, Dinosaurs, and the Bible.

 

[Draka]

It seems to me that the issue of ID is never going to go away for you guys, in fact as your country becomes increasingly fundamentalist I bet you'll see more and more parents homeschooling their kids this gibberish.

I think the best thing to do would be to have Creationism taught as an optional extra class, so that all kids get taught science in their science classes, but the ones who want their minds numbed somewhat can take an optional ID class too. Then everybody should be happy.

If some people want to have it as an optional class in a private religious school then by all means go ahead and dumb down their kids. If they want it in public school, even as an optional class, then I want to see optional classes available on herbalism, astrology, numerology, water divination, meditation practices, spirit communication methods, vision quest methods, candle making, and so on and so forth. Why should one religion get to teach children what they think just because they throw a big temper-tantrum? I think they should be told that if their class is allowed in the schools then the other classes will be allowed right along-side them. See what they think of that.

 

[robtex]

If they teach intelligent design in science class, they might as well teach homeopathy, phrenology, trepanation and atrology while they're at it.

I think Father Heathen phrased this really well . One of the things about a junior high school, high school education is that opportunity cost is a heavily weighing factor in the decision making process. A student will have 6-8 classes of which 5-6 will likely be mandatory and the rest electives. The decision on what makes it in the curriculum both mandatory and elective is prompted on what will help those kids adjust and succeed knowledge wise after school. We have to keep in mind that many of these kiddos are not going to further their education much or at all after high school. I can say with great confidence that most of the people I met either took 1 year of college and dropped out or went straight into the work force or took a specialized classed in a particular field and went into that field. For most of the kids the math, science, english, history, political science, economics, they get in junior high and high school will be all they ever get expose-wise in those areas. Areas like the one Father Heathen mentioned and Creationism & ID are not widely accepted by professionals as valid in the fields those ideas associate themselves with. To slip classes like that in a finite learning environment is to deny more solidified fields of study and is negligent and callous on the part of education systems that do insert them.

Sure, there is nothing wrong with objectively teaching theology as long as it's not a veiled attempt at proselytizing to students, or promoting any particular belief above others. But it has no place in science class, as it's not science nor an alternative to it. If they actually do teach ID in science class, they should teach it in math class, as well: 2+2=goddidit, 13x7=godidit, 635-44=goddidit, etc.

Well put ! :clap

 

[robtex]

It seems to me that the issue of ID is never going to go away for you guys, in fact as your country becomes increasingly fundamentalist I bet you'll see more and more parents homeschooling their kids this gibberish.

Paul I think you are going to be correct on this prediction. I wish the Christians would just home-school their kids and not wage wars on the education system. Homeschooling is becoming quite popular in the USA .

I think the best thing to do would be to have Creationism taught as an optional extra class, so that all kids get taught science in their science classes, but the ones who want their minds numbed somewhat can take an optional ID class too. Then everybody should be happy.

I would rather they took the home school option. If parents can't accept their children in a secular learning environment I think the better option is to pull them out as opposed to trying to intragrate secular education with religious education/religious divine revelation.

 

[Apex]

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?

I wouldn't give a second thought. If that kind of legislation begins to pass then we are going to have bigger problems to worry about.

 

[ADAM5]

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?

 

[Gentoo]

As an aspiring Biology teacher, movements like this disturb me. I wouldn't teach creationism in the classroom as a part of my curriculum. I don't believe that this "theory" belongs in a scientific arena, I highly agree with Runlikethewind, teach it in a philosophy class. Or maybe better, in a mythology class right next to other creation stories.