If ID is allowed in science classes...

[doppelganger]

2) creationism - ID. this is not a science it is a belief, and it should be tought in RE classes instead of science - but i still think it should be tought in school.

In practical effect if a particular religious viewpoint is considered appropriate for a public school curriculum, would you likely have educators that denigrate and de-emphasize science in order to proseletyze studends using public money? In some places they do everything they can to do it already even religious dogma is not supposed to be taught in public schools.

 

[Mike182]

In practical effect if a particular religious viewpoint is considered appropriate for a public school curriculum, would you likely have educators that denigrate and de-emphasize science in order to proseletyze studends using public money? In some places they do everything they can to do it already even religious dogma is not supposed to be taught in public schools.

i would hope that RE teachers teach a non biased curriculum - but i accept that may be too much to ask for.

from my experience, i was tought big bang with no aspect of ID or creationism. i had questions i wanted to ask, questions of a religious and spiritual nature, and a science teacher really was not able to point me in the direction of research and reading etc. an RE could do that, it's their job!

 

[YamiB.]

Sorry I was unclear. I meant that Gene seemed to be implying that allowing ID to be taught in science class would mean that other things would be taught in the science class as well and I was arguing that it was not a sufficient reason to disallow the teaching of ID in science class.

I don't think that is the real point. It is just a comparison to show who ridicolous it would be to have ID in a class.

 

[N00bPwnr]

The big problem with ID is deciding if it should be taught in a science class or not. I would not have a problem if it was taught in a religion class or something like that, I just think it should not be taught in a science class.

 

[des]

I hadn't thought of the lack of a mechanism. I think there can be no mechanism. If you argue that some Intelligent
Designer (and I do not think ID people are really arguing it is the Giant Spaghetti Monster) created humans, then how did he/she do it? What was the process? Saying it appeared, is indeed "magic".

If you wanted to argue that God had somethign to do with it (even allowing for evolutionary theory), as I think many Christians do, then that is clearly not really science. It possibly is in the area of philosophy or something. Perhaps even cosmology (there is a scenario in cosmology that says that 'we" are the reason for the universe, basically). But it's a "why" question, not a "how" question. And therefore, it isn't a science question.

I actually think philosophy is a good place for it. Or current events. Yikes, as a high school teacher, would I touch this? Not in a million years!

--des (glad I am teaching special ed. )

Agreed, des. ID is not only not falsifiable -- and therefore not within the purview of science -- but it does not describe a mechanism. It just alludes to a Mechanic. It is a "theory" of Who, not how.

In English an unknown and unknowable mechanism of action is defined as "magic."

ID boils down to an assertion that a a very clever and powerful personage created everything by magic.

This is not science.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

The ploblem with teaching intelligent design is that it is not a very substantial class, it could conflict with many other religions and it is not a science. Science clonflicts with all religions but that's ok because it is science and scientists only use one scientific perspective, of course. Besides, creation is discussed in theology classes so I don't understand why anyone is complaining.

If creationists want it to be taught in science class, then they need to work on a scientific theory.

So don't hold your breath.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

The ploblem with teaching intelligent design is that it is not a very substantial class, it could conflict with many other religions and it is not a science. Science clonflicts with all religions...

Funny, the head of the Vatican Observatory - who also happens to be an astrophysicist - didn't seem to think science conflicted with his religion when I was watching him talk about ID on the tv last night. In fact, he went on to say that in his opinion the people behind ID will end up destroying both science and religion if they get their way.

 

[gnostic]

Funny, the head of the Vatican Observatory - who also happens to be an astrophysicist - didn't seem to think science conflicted with his religion when I was watching him talk about ID on the tv last night.

I saw half of that last night too, QtR.

If ID is allowed in science classes...

But that is hardly a reason to stop ID from being taught in the science class.

No. ID is not science, so it shouldn't be in science classroom, or be taught as science.

The classes should be called "theological discussion" or something like that.

ID is definitely not science. They don't offer any explanation to their Designer theory, and offer ziltch in backing up their theories with evidences. Until they do that, it is simply philosophical discussion in lah-lah land. Even the Teletubbies have more substances than ID.

 

[painted wolf]

If we allow ID in science class we might as well let in Astrology in discussions of Astronomy and "evil spirits theory" vs. Germ Theory in discussions of Medicine.

Lots of people believe that God sends 'evil spirits' to people to punnish sin by making them sick. Yet few people would argue that Germ Theory isn't sound and that we should teach about excorsizing sin punnishing spirits in Medical School.

Germ Theory is about as old as Evolution, Germ Theory uses Evolution everyday to predict new and changing diseases.

wa:do

 

[UnTheist]

The short answer is no. ID is not a fact, science is. If they want Theology in science, then they should make their own Creation Science class.

 

[Tigress]

Because evolution conflicts with certain individual's views, what would be next?

Young-Earth science?
Flat-Earth?
Magik?
Panspermia?

I think ID should be allowed as a topic of discussion in science classes, so long as it's treated as a theory. I remember discussing ID in high school sciences, though not much time was spent on it.

 

[Valjean]

But it's not a theory.

Remember that, in science, a theory is not a conjecture or unsupported fact. Germs causing disease and the Earth revolving around the Sun are theories.
ID is no theory, it is an unsupported assertion of agency.

 

[gnomon]

I don't think there is any rational excuse for ID to be taught or even mentioned in a science course unless it is a history of science course. But that would actually but a history class and not a science class.

To be honest, I do not see any value in ID being taught in a philosophy course. Sunday school and coffee shops are the only proper avenue for such a concept.

 

[Willamena]

If ID is allowed in science classes...

...then science will have to be reinvented.

 

[gnostic]

I think ID should be allowed as a topic of discussion in science classes, so long as it's treated as a theory. I remember discussing ID in high school sciences, though not much time was spent on it.

I disagree. Students are busy enough handling science classes, to waste their time on ID.

If ID must become a subject in school and university, then it will have to be a class on its own, and it must not be compulsory (science) subject. In fact, ID shouldn't be called science whatsoever, because it has no scientific foundation. It's more of philosophical perspective, with underlying theological faith.

So to underline my points:

• ID should not be classified as "science". Any reference to it being science should be banned.
• ID discussion/class should not be made compulsory. People are free to take this subject or leave out altogether.

 

[painted wolf]

one quick point about the term "theory".

ID is a hypotheses, or "educated guess" about an answer to the question.
To make it to a theory the hypothesis must be able to make predictions and to have those predictions tested.

If the Hypothesis has been tested repeatedly for many years and has been shown to be accurate, then it can be called a "sceintific theory". (ID has not done any of these things)
The 'sceintific theory' is the best model we have for how the world works. Often times one 'theory' is the foundation for several more 'theories'.
ie, evolution, germ theory, genetics, and so on.

as one of my old Biology books put it.
"the external world, not internal conviction, must be the testing ground for scientific beliefs"

wa:do

 

[fantome profane]

one quick point about the term "theory".

ID is a hypotheses, or "educated guess" about an answer to the question.
To make it to a theory the hypothesis must be able to make predictions and to have those predictions tested.

If the Hypothesis has been tested repeatedly for many years and has been shown to be accurate, then it can be called a "sceintific theory". (ID has not done any of these things)
The 'sceintific theory' is the best model we have for how the world works. Often times one 'theory' is the foundation for several more 'theories'.
ie, evolution, germ theory, genetics, and so on.

as one of my old Biology books put it.
"the external world, not internal conviction, must be the testing ground for scientific beliefs"

wa:do

I am not sure if ID even reaches the point of hypothesis. It is still much too vague. ID tries to tell us that something designed something somehow.

First they need to tell us what designed what and how it did it, and then we will have a hypothesis. Then we can start looking for evidence that will confirm or negate it.

What we have now is so vague that it is not provable or falsifiable. It is not even subject to evidence.