Should ID be taught in public schools?

[tomspug]

I'm pretty sure High School textbooks are not as well-thought out in their publication as we would like to think. Last time I checked, they didn't really use references for what was written. But times may have changed since the 90's.

Last time I checked, history books are still telling our kids that Columbus discovered that the world wasn't flat.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm pretty sure High School textbooks are not as well-thought out in their publication as we would like to think

Who thinks this? :biglaugh:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Last time I checked, history books are still telling our kids that Columbus discovered that the world wasn't flat.

The version I was given was that scholars generally knew that the world was round and even had a good idea of its diameter, all of which was known to Queen Isabella's advisors. IIRC, Columbus fudged his numbers: he used an estimate of the Earth's diameter that had been generally refuted (but which also gave very small diameter) to substantiate his claim that he would be able to sail all the way from the west coast of Europe to the east coast of Asia without running out of food and fresh water. The advisors all disagreed, saying that Columbus would die of dehydration or starvation long before he ever arrived.

As it turns out, Columbus was wrong and the advisors were right, but the lives of Columbus and his crew were saved by the existence of a continent that nobody knew about.

So... that's what I learned in school on the subject, and it's been a long time since I was in a classroom learning about Columbus.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

As it turns out, Columbus was wrong and the advisors were right, but the lives of Columbus and his crew were saved by the existence of a continent that nobody knew about.

A happy coincidence.

 

[gnomon]

I'm pretty sure High School textbooks are not as well-thought out in their publication as we would like to think. Last time I checked, they didn't really use references for what was written. But times may have changed since the 90's.

Last time I checked, history books are still telling our kids that Columbus discovered that the world wasn't flat.

I second Daddy's comment. Who believes this?

School textbooks are atrocious when it comes to history. You can thank...ahem...the state of Texas and the Semblers for that. They are not alone. The battle over textbooks has made them bland and practically useless.

 

[Alceste]

As it turns out, Columbus was wrong and the advisors were right, but the lives of Columbus and his crew were saved by the existence of a continent that nobody knew about.

... Except the vikings, a few random explorers, the Chinese and millions of people who already lived there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

... Except the vikings, a few random explorers, the Chinese and millions of people who already lived there.

Yes - maybe I should have said "... that neither party to the discussion knew about" instead.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm sure you know that Faulkner does not teach a flat earth in any of his circles. 99.9% of creationists don't teach it either. I fail to see why you even introduced the term.

Because it's Biblical.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

What it makes it is not science. Which is why it shouldn't be taught as such; it would be a lie.

 

[Autodidact]

The more I think about the existence of Dr. Danny Faulkner, the less I can figure out how he can accept literal Genesis and be a practicing astronomer. I mean, really basic concepts to modern astronomy include the idea that the universe is billions of years old, that stars formed out of elements formed during the Big Bang, that stars are themselves billions of years old, that they have a life cycle of several billion years each, are born and die, that we can observe this happening in various stages, that our sun is a minor one of those balls of burning gas which will one day explode, encompassing our earth, that our planets coalesced during the early days of our solar system, that the universe is expanding, and this expansion can be measured, that there are billions of galaxies, each one containing billions of stars, that it is not possible for the sun to stop in the sky, that the earth and other planets revolve around the sun, etc. etc. etc. None of these are supported by Genesis and most directly contradict it. So how on earth do you believe Genesis and teach modern astronomy? I'd love to learn more about the guy; it's utterly fascinating. I mean, does he simultaneously believe opposite things, or buy everything about the universe but think the earth is young, or what? Does anyone know more about him?

 

[Autodidact]

Why else would we teach it in school?

Because it's the currently accepted best operating state of current scientific knowledge. Ten years from now we will teach different things, because that knowledge will have advanced and both refined and refuted certain things we now accept.

 

[Autodidact]

Because science aggregates the best successfully tested descriptions currently available.

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

Which ID isn't.

 

[Autodidact]

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

Pretty much. Like, y'know at one time we taught that atoms had little electrons zinging around them in neat little circles. Now we know it's much more complicated than that, and we try to convey quantum mechanics.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So how on earth do you believe Genesis and teach modern astronomy?

I assume it's done in a similar fashion to how YEC petrogeologists somehow manage to find oil, or YEC geotechnical engineers can recognize some soil sample as overconsolidated, understand what this means, but still ignore the implication that the soil they're looking at was covered by glaciers tens of thousands of years ago.

I can only assume that they use some sort of mental compartmentalization to keep different sets of knowledge from intruding on each other.

 

[Wandered Off]

I can only assume that they use some sort of mental compartmentalization to keep different sets of knowledge from intruding on each other.

Well there's also that well-known Satanic trick of putting stuff out there to trick the unsuspecting. Like how he planted dinosaur bones and made them look old, and only the YECs are onto his plot. They tried to warn us, but nobody listens.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This is poor research on your part. The ID crowd don't argue for a young earth. You have them mixed up with YECers.

Ahhhhh....I see what you mean.....but it is without a doubt that YECers....(ARE) proponents of ID.....

You may not agree with their view on the age of the earth and how some of them believe dinosaurs walked with man but at the end of all that..they believe it all was designed by God (The Intelligent Designer)

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Young Earth Creationism is a subset of Creationism, which is a subset of ID. All YEC's subscribe to ID; not all ID proponents subscribe to YEC.

Thank you....:clap

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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.

exactly...this is what I'm saying.

 

[rocketman]

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.

When I say ID I am refering to the modern philosophy. You seem to have this confused with the two english words that go into its title. What you have there is a coincidence of words, not a coincidence of substance. This is an important point. The concept of apparant design has been around forever and a day. Such a concept almost always implied an intelligent designer, but it also implied a talented designer, an artistic designer and any other favourable adjective you care to add. Your argument based on the title alone does not work.

The modern philosophy of ID is inherently agnostic. It makes no difference if the people behind it are theists, because that doesn't actually change what the philosophy is in isolation. It is impossible to seperate the agnosticism from the rest of ID. If it were possible then there would have been no need for a new design philosophy in the first place. The problem with claiming that "all YECers subscribe to ID" is that such a statement makes no distinction between the apparant design aspect of ID and it's inherently agnostic standing. A far better phrase would be to say that YECers are sympathetic to the infered design elements of ID, natural theolgy etc.

The relationship between OEC, YEC and ID is like three points on a triangle. Each of the three contains at least one bullet to the head of it's opposite two points. Each point on the triangle connects back to the other two by way of some linkage, but each point cannot exist at another point, period; the points being forever held apart. This is why we need to be careful when making sweeping declarations about these three distinct movements.

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.

Except when it comes to telling us what their opinion of ID is. Did you expect me to ask some random person off the street instead?

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.”

I'm not sure your 'either/or' argument will hold much water with thinking theists. By your reasoning, these people, indeed anyone, who believes in a miracle (eg: Jesus ressurection) that runs in opposition to the laws of physics in turn explicitely rejects science. Yeah right. I'm glad you're the one telling them.

 

[rocketman]

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:

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

If you follow the link you'll see that there was another option discussed, and even then he admitted that it might be incorrect. He doesn't claim to have all the answers. He's a good example
of how creationists should conduct themselves.