Should ID be taught in public schools?

[Alceste]

It's a shame really, but you are completely right here.

The bigger shame is that blaming liberals for all these problems seems quite fashionable these days, among the "religious right", which leaves the door wide open for further pillage of the poor by the rich.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

ID is a fraud. It is not philosophy, and it is certainly not science.

As for teaching it in school, would someone like to suggest a 6-12 session curriculum? For example ...

Session 1

1. God did it.
2. Let us pray.

Session 2

1. Recall session 1.
2. Let us pray.

Session 3

• etc.

Perhaps we could fill in the remaining time with discussions about alien abduction ...

 

[Hexaqua_David(II)]

I'm not sure about teaching it in any other class, but it certainly should NOT be taught in science lessons. Kenneth Miller pointed out the stupidity of the suggestion once by comparing two models - the process of scientific ideas becoming accepted and taught in schools, and the process ID proponents seems to think is better.

Science = A hypothesis - experimentation - papers - peer review - more experiments etc - more peer review etc - accepted - taught in science classes.

ID = A hypothesis - taught in science classes as if it were a real theory.

If they want it to be taught in science classes they should do research, publish papers, go to conventions and share their work. If they say it is a scientific idea then why don't they write for Nature more often? Convince us, people.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

ID = A hypothesis - taught in science classes as if it were a real theory.

ID doesn't even have that going for it. In the science classroom, a claim must be testable for it to qualify as a hypothesis.

 

[blackout]

Probably no one will agree with me,
but in my mind the primary "job" of the schools
should be to encourage and teach children & young adults
to think (clearly & critically) for themselves.

To not just assume because you read something,
are told something, are taught something,
see something on "the news",
read something in a text book,
or a script (ure) "book",
hear something from a politician,
a "scholar",
or a youTube video,
that it is true..."fact"... "unspun"
(or relevant)

School is a lot of memorizing "facts".
Spit back the (expected) "right" answers,
and you are rewarded. A success! "true"? or "false".

Personally I think a great deal of it winds up being a colossal waste of time and effort
for many many people.

I mean HOW MANY things can one person "know about". really.

Learn to think for yourself, learn to question what you are told,
learn to make your own decisions, and do your own thing,
and that sets you upright for whatever paths you might take.

This approach is not beneficial to the school system itself however.

I personally am not threatened by anyone telling my kids...
"this one says this" and "that one says that".
So what? If they learn to think for themselves,
they will come to their own well thought out conclusions
and become personally discerning people.

 

[Alceste]

I personally am not threatened by anyone telling my kids...
"this one says this" and "that one says that".
So what? If they learn to think for themselves,
they will come to their own well thought out conclusions
and become personally discerning people.

I agree, but I don't believe religious propaganda qualifies for this treatment. Propaganda should be handled much differently precisely because of its deleterious effect on critical thinking - it is designed to make you stupid, and it works. Even adults have difficulty distinguishing between fact and opinion when propaganda gets a foot stuck into society.

Put another way, a big part of critical thinking is understanding that there is a genuine hierarchy of credibility - evolutionary biologists are more credible than preachers regarding the fundamental mechanisms of live. Likewise, preachers are more credible than evolutionary biologists regarding the finer points of Bible study and prayer. Just as I wouldn't hand my child a Dawkins book if she was curious about religion, I wouldn't hand her an ID book if she was curious about the mechanisms of life.

 

[fantome profane]

Probably no one will agree with me,
but in my mind the primary "job" of the schools
should be to encourage and teach children & young adults
to think (clearly & critically) for themselves.

Well you are wrong about one thing. Many people will agree with you, and I am one of them. Critical thinking is the most important thing we can teach students.

But what you must understand about Intelligent Design is that the only way for it to be taught as science would be to deliberately lie to students and mislead them. And this we should not do. You only need to take a critical look at the kind of deceptive techniques used by I.D. proponents when they try to push it as a scientific alternative to see the kind of unethical things we must not allow in the classroom.

With that being said I think teaching I.D. properly in other classes where it is not presented as a scientific alternative could be a wonderful way to teach students critical thinking.

 

[rojse]

Not outside of religious education, no.

 

[Sunstone]

I am opposed to teaching ID as either a science or a philosophy. It's clearly not up to the standards of either. If you want to teach it, teach it in a logic class as an example of what not to do.

To me, though, the real issue is not whether to teach ID, but whether to teach evolution. Currently, evolution is not being well taught in the public schools. Kids are graduating from high school with a reprehensible lack of knowledge about evolution. So I think it needs both to be taught much better and to be taught much sooner. We should begin teaching kids about evolution when they are seven, eight, or nine years old. And we should continue teaching them about evolution through high school.

Evolution is a core theory in science. Kids that don't understand it don't have the means to understand several sciences today, to say nothing of human nature.

 

[Alceste]

But what you must understand about Intelligent Design is that the only way for it to be taught as science would be to deliberately lie to students and mislead them. And this we should not do. You only need to take a critical look at the kind of deceptive techniques used by I.D. proponents when they try to push it as a scientific alternative to see the kind of unethical things we must not allow in the classroom.

Exactly. ID uses every propaganda technique in the book. There's no reason it shouldn't be covered in school - in fact, I think it should, but in a class on propaganda and critical thinking. Where else could you legitimately cover the topic of religion pretending to be science? Even in a class on religion or philosophy would be a stretch, as it barely qualifies even for this. Learning about ID when you could be learning about Hildegard von Bingen, Voltaire or Henry David Thoreau would be a tragedy.

 

[Sunstone]

Among the best ways to teach critical thinking is to teach science.

 

[crystalonyx]

Depends where you are and what school you go to. My high school had World Religions as a senior level elective. I think a couple of the junior philosophy courses may have touched on religion as well, as did history classes.

Unusual, but ID should not be taught here either, as it is not a religion.

 

[Alceste]

We have "Social Studies" in Canada, which is a melange of current events, geography, cultural anthropology and history. Perhaps "ID" could find a place in Social Studies as a sub-topic of "the US fundamentalist movement", which could be a sub-topic of American politics, which is already taught in Canadian schools - at least the ones I went to.

 

[Panda]

It isn't Science so can't be taught there. I suppose it could be taught in Religious Studies or Social Education.

 

[Alex_G]

Kids can be taught of it for sure, but not taught it as a truth.

 

[fantome profane]

ID is a fraud. It is not philosophy, and it is certainly not science.

I am opposed to teaching ID as either a science or a philosophy.

Hang on. This is going to be one of the very rare posts (unique as far as I recall) were I actually argue in favour of teaching Intelligent Design. And in this I am not actually talking about the current pseudo-science nonsense that is being promoted by the I.D. movement (not that I would be opposed to a class on pseudo-science). What I am talking about is just the basic facts that many brilliant people, scientists, philosophers etc have looked out at the world that they could see and concluded that there must have been some form of design. And many brilliant people today still do (and I am not referring to creationists or “cdesign proponentsists”).

Personally I am one of those people who completely reject this idea in all its forms. But it is an idea that has been around for a very long time (long before it was even a twinkle in Behe’s eye). And it is an idea that has had influence and continues to have influence on our culture. And for these reasons I think it should be addressed.

 

[rocketman]

Hang on. This is going to be one of the very rare posts (unique as far as I recall) were I actually argue in favour of teaching Intelligent Design. And in this I am not actually talking about the current pseudo-science nonsense that is being promoted by the I.D. movement (not that I would be opposed to a class on pseudo-science). What I am talking about is just the basic facts that many brilliant people, scientists, philosophers etc have looked out at the world that they could see and concluded that there must have been some form of design. And many brilliant people today still do (and I am not referring to creationists or “cdesign proponentsists”).

Personally I am one of those people who completely reject this idea in all its forms. But it is an idea that has been around for a very long time (long before it was even a twinkle in Behe’s eye). And it is an idea that has had influence and continues to have influence on our culture. And for these reasons I think it should be addressed.

I concur with the spirit of this post, providing appropriate safeguards are in place. What you are talking about (as opposed to narrow ID) is one of the most universal ideas in all of history, and it would be dangerous (and frankly bizzare) if it were completely censored from discussion.

 

[blackout]

A little more discussion
and a little less "teaching"
would be a good thing.

IMHO

What subject should be taboo?
Talk about it all.
It makes life much more interesting.

 

[tomspug]

Hang on. This is going to be one of the very rare posts (unique as far as I recall) were I actually argue in favour of teaching Intelligent Design. And in this I am not actually talking about the current pseudo-science nonsense that is being promoted by the I.D. movement (not that I would be opposed to a class on pseudo-science). What I am talking about is just the basic facts that many brilliant people, scientists, philosophers etc have looked out at the world that they could see and concluded that there must have been some form of design. And many brilliant people today still do (and I am not referring to creationists or “cdesign proponentsists”).

Personally I am one of those people who completely reject this idea in all its forms. But it is an idea that has been around for a very long time (long before it was even a twinkle in Behe’s eye). And it is an idea that has had influence and continues to have influence on our culture. And for these reasons I think it should be addressed.

I wasn't aware that Intelligent Design was anything more than this, but then again, as I said in the OP, I really don't know much about the modern movement.

 

[rocketman]

I wasn't aware that Intelligent Design was anything more than this, but then again, as I said in the OP, I really don't know much about the modern movement.

ID goes one step further by claiming that the scientific method can back up their observation. I'm have no idea what hypothesis could truly be tested to show that ID is true, and ID currently can not back up it's claim.

For now .