Should ID be taught in public schools?

[blackout]

On the other hand, ID is not a credible scientific theory. There are no proposed experiments that can prove or disprove ID. There are no experiments that support ID. I could go on, but I think that you get the picture.
.

But just because science cannot "propose" (put forth) experiments to (theoretically) prove, disprove or support any particular concept/idea, it does not make that concept "a lesser concept" by default. It only means that science does not have the tools to "measure/proof" it. Just because a theory cannot be elevated by scientific standards to the status of "scientific theory", it should not be "automatically" tossed out of the "possibilities" pool.

Again, not defending ID in particular.
Just speaking in generalities.

 

[Sunstone]

I believe the United States should devote massive educational resources to teaching public school students ID, right along with my own theory that there's an elf at the bottom of my garden. Both are equally possible.

 

[fantome profane]

*Sigh*

You said: "All YEC's subscribe to ID"

Your statement is an all-inclusive statement, which means it is false. ID is more than just a claim about IC. Creationists have plenty of reservations about ID, regardless of what they have in common. Some direct quotes (from among many) via the links I posted earlier from one of the largest creationist groups:

Can you name me one Young Earth Creationist who does not believe that the universe or parts of it were intelligently designed? Can you even think that it would be possible to consistently hold such a position?

I have always thought of I.D. as being a subset of creationism (I.D., YEC, OEC etc), but I now think that is wrong. Autodidact is exactly right, YEC is a subset of I.D. All YEC’s must believe that the universe was at least partially (and most likely totally) intelligently designed. All YEC’s subscribe to I.D.

And btw, just so you understand, the opinion of the largest creationist group to the contrary does not alter the correctness of autodidacts statement. The largest creationist group is wrong about just about everything.

ID allows for death before the fall, which completely cuts the legs out from under YEC.

True that I.D. allows for death before the “fall”, but this is not a defining aspect of I.D. I.D. allows for a lot of things, including YEC. It allows for divine creation, and space aliens. One of the main defining aspects of I.D. is how incredibly vague it is. It is defined by being undefined.

But while we are here, can you think of anyone who can really hold that the concept of no death before the “fall” is consistent with scientific understanding. Certainly this concept runs in direct oppostion to all known laws of physics as well as all observable evidence. In other words this concept must “explicity reject all of modern Geology, Cosmology, Paleontology, Archeology, Anthropology, Astronomy and Biology.”

You wouldn't have to compromise anything. In fact, you could have your doubts while simultaneously and with intellectual honesty humbly teach mainstream science and even write several mainstream scientific papers, just like Dr. Faulkner does. To say that someone like the Dr "explicity rejects all of modern Geology, Cosmology, Paleontology, Archeology, Anthropology, Astronomy and Biology." isn't true, not even in the sense that he is looking for holes in it. It doesn't matter why he is looking for holes, what matters is that he is not compromising science. If you were talking about someone like Kent Hovind on the other hand, I would be inclined to agree with you.

Well three cheers for cognitive dissidence. But Autodidact is still correct. The part of the good doctor’s mind that believes that the universe is merely a few thousand years old and life was created in pretty much it’s current form must reject pretty much all of modern science. And the part that teaches astronomy and physics at a secular university and publishes papers in scientific journals must reject the nonsense of creationism. (this assessment is based on what you have said about him, I am not familiar with Dr. Faulkner).

 

[Alceste]

For the record, I also think ID should not be taught in a religion class because it is specifically pretending not to be religion. On purpose, I might add, carefully constructed by some very clever propagandists for the sake of conditioning people, especially children, to be as receptive to religion as as they are to scientifically testable facts of nature, which we can understand by observation, logic and reason. If ID were to drop the charade of pretending to be something other than theology I would have no objection to it, but as long as it pretends to be science and uses propaganda techniques to obscure public perception of its meaning and motives, I will fight tooth and nail to keep it away from impressionable kids.

 

[blackout]

For the record, I also think ID should not be taught in a religion class because it is specifically pretending not to be religion. On purpose, I might add, carefully constructed by some very clever propagandists for the sake of conditioning people, especially children, to be as receptive to religion as as they are to scientifically testable facts of nature, which we can understand by observation, logic and reason. If ID were to drop the charade of pretending to be something other than theology I would have no objection to it, but as long as it pretends to be science and uses propaganda techniques to obscure public perception of its meaning and motives, I will fight tooth and nail to keep it away from impressionable kids.

That is totally fair. If it's not science, why try and put it in a science class?

I just wonder, as I asked in another post... what kind of a "class" is for discussions of the speculative nature of "reality"? Would that be philosopy?

I really do not know how they catagorize certain things in "school" (especially high school)
and what kinds of things are given room for discussion, or not.

 

[Magic Man]

But just because science cannot "propose" (put forth) experiments to (theoretically) prove, disprove or support any particular concept/idea, it does not make that concept "a lesser concept" by default. It only means that science does not have the tools to "measure/proof" it. Just because a theory cannot be elevated by scientific standards to the status of "scientific theory", it should not be "automatically" tossed out of the "possibilities" pool.

Again, not defending ID in particular.
Just speaking in generalities.

Just because it's not scientific doesn't make it a "lesser concept". What it means, though, is that it should not be taught as science. It can be taught, but only as a concept to think about. Saying that it's not scientific isn't saying that it's not a possibility, just that it's not something intended to be accepted universally as true, as science is.

 

[Alceste]

That is totally fair. If it's not science, why try and put it in a science class?

I just wonder, as I asked in another post... what kind of a "class" is for discussions of the speculative nature of "reality"? Would that be philosopy?

I really do not know how they catagorize certain things in "school" (especially high school)
and what kinds of things are given room for discussion, or not.

In my experience, any class (in Alberta public schools) is a suitable forum for discussions of the "speculative nature of reality". My classes in just about every subject deviated from the subject matter into random conversations - I had one math teacher who couldn't help lapsing into fantastical musings about space travel for the last 20 minutes of every class. These discussions weren't part of the course, though - no study materials, homework or exams sprouted from them, no books were recommended or assigned, etc. I expect the guidance was quite strict on the form such discussions could or couldn't take, and that professionalism would require teachers to be clear about when "open discussion" was taking place, as opposed to "teaching".

The most likely forum for discussions of speculative properties of reality, IMO, would have been physics (in the context of things like string theory or multiverse theory), English (in the context of science fiction), or Social Studies (in the context of creation myths and anthropology).

We don't have religion or philosophy classes in public school - although there are publicly funded schools specifically for Catholics, I don't know what they learn there. Probably all the same stuff, plus religion and/or philosophy classes. I very much doubt ID is taught in Catholic schools because you just don't run into Canadians who advocate it. It's very much an American phenomenon.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The point is he doesn't have to reject every theory in order for him to have creationist questions. I was most impressed by this comment of his:

"Perhaps the most common idea is that God created the light in transit. I have a real problem with that one. For example, when a distant supernova explodes, there is all sorts of detailed information in the light—the speed of expansion, what isotopes are involved, even sometimes a reflected light echo from nearby gas. Yet if the light was created ‘on its way’, all this is phony information—nothing like it ever occurred. This reminds me of a fellow named Gosse who was saying over 100 years ago that God created fossils inside the earth ready-made. I think this ‘light created on its way’ idea is a first cousin of Gosse’s notion."

Link.

The way I see it, there would only be a few ways to explain how we can see stars that are tens of thousands of light years away or more if the universe were only a few thousand years old:

- The starlight was created in transit. the light we see was not created at the star itself, but at some midpoint (which Faulkner apparently has "real problems" with). The idea behind this is that observations cannot be trusted; this is equivalent to invoking the "noodly appendage" of the Flying Spaghetti Monster* and has just as much evidentiary support.
- The starlight travelled extra-fast to get here on time. The light we see originated at the star itself, but travelled faster than 3.00 x 10^8 m/s to get here, in contradiction of a huge body of physics that says this would be impossible.
- The star is closer that we thought. The light we see originated at the star and travelled at 3.00 x 10^8 m/s to get to Earth, but the star is much, much closer than normally assumed, in contravention of a huge number of astronomical observations and a huge body of knowledge of astrophysics.

No matter what, by accepting Young Earth Creationism, Faulkner is throwing out some set of well-supported scientific principles.


*In the original "Open Letter" of the FSM, it explains the fact that no trace of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has ever been found by saying that every time a scientist makes an observation, the FSM manipulates the gauges of his or her instruments with his invisible "noodly appendage".

*Sigh*

You said: "All YEC's subscribe to ID"

Your statement is an all-inclusive statement, which means it is false. ID is more than just a claim about IC. Creationists have plenty of reservations about ID, regardless of what they have in common. Some direct quotes (from among many) via the links I posted earlier from one of the largest creationist groups:

"However, the central problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation .. All other problems within the movement stem from this one."

"Proponents of ID fail to understand that a belief in long ages for the earth formed the foundation of Darwinism."

"Those within the ID movement claim their science is neutral. However, science is not neutral because it works with hypotheses based on beliefs or presuppositions. It is ironic that they refuse to see this about their own science, considering that they claim the problem with Darwinism is the presupposition that nothing supernatural exists."

"The ID movement’s belief in evolution also allows them to distance themselves from the problem of evil in the natural world."

And from this page:

"Consequently, it is not synonymous with biblical creation and is absolutely not a substitute for it"

And so on.

Creationist disagreements with aspects of the ID movement does not make Creationism any less ID. One is a subset of the other by definition:

- ID: an intelligent designer is responsible for at least some aspects of the universe and life as we see it now.

- Creationism: God is the intelligent designer, and He is responsible for all aspects of the universe and life as we see it now.

- Young Earth Creationism: God the intelligent designer is responsible for all aspects of the universe and life, and He caused them to happen in such a way that the Bible is literally true.

Young Earth Creationism is a subset of Creationism, which itself is a subset of ID.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Saying that it's not scientific isn't saying that it's not a possibility, just that it's not something intended to be accepted universally as true, as science is.

This is egregious. Where did you get this nonsense about science as that which is "to be accepted universally as true?"

 

[Magic Man]

This is egregious. Where did you get this nonsense about science as that "to be accepted universally as true?"

Why else would we teach it in school?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Intelligent Design isn't science, in my opinion. It is a perspective on science. Should students be made aware that this perspective exists? I'm not sure. What do you think? We teach the histories of religions in schools, don't we? Comparative religions?

I'm not sure. It's not science, so it doesn't belong in science class.

It's also not really a philosophy or a religion, either. We're lucky if we can even have students graduate from high school knowing how to read and how to add. Let's fry the big fish first before we start feeding them even more worthless crap than they already have.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I'm not sure. It's not science, so it doesn't belong in science class.

It's also not really a philosophy or a religion, either. We're lucky if we can even have students graduate from high school knowing how to read and how to add. Let's fry the big fish first before we start feeding them even more worthless crap than they already have.

Not just reading, writing, and simple arithmetic......but also being able to correctly locate the U.S. on a map.

 

[Wandered Off]

What's a map?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Not just reading, writing, and simple arithmetic......but also being able to correctly locate the U.S. on a map.

My wife teaches high school geography, and I grade most of her papers.

Students need, above everything else, a working knowledge of Willie.

 

[Magic Man]

Me not understand.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

What's a map?

Isn't that what you put under a table leg to make the darned thing stop wobbling back and furth?

I had a public school edumacation. And I'm 4'11". I'm not very intelligillent.

 

[tomspug]

What's a map?

What's arithmetic? Isn't that, like, a character in Final Fantasy VII?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Me not understand.

I Tarzan, you Jane.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Saying that it's not scientific isn't saying that it's not a possibility, just that it's not something intended to be accepted universally as true, as science is.

This is egregious. Where did you get this nonsense about science as that which is "to be accepted universally as true?"

Why else would we teach it in school?

Because science aggregates the best successfully tested descriptions currently available.

Where there are competing scientific theories, all are (and should be) taught and debated.

 

[Magic Man]

Because science aggregates the best successfully tested descriptions currently available.

Where there are competing scientific theories, all are (and should be) taught and debated.

So, we teach it because it seems to be true, and we can back it up with verifiable data, then?