Bush Advocates Intellegent Design Curriculum

[Prometheus]

Story by TIME: http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...089733,00.html

Bush wants ID to be taught alongside the science of evolutionary theory. Chalk another one up for a fundamentalist prez who can't see the difference between politics and religion. Just like his ridiculous stem cel stance.

My guess is that this will start a national debate like the one in Kansas.

I wonder is Bush is serious about pursuing this avenue.

[Jack]

So much for his concern about education. I guess it's more important to kowtow to the religious right than to ensure children are educated enough to know the difference between science and speculation. Oh, but wait, he doesn't even know the difference...and he got to be president. So I guess it's true that any ignorant little boy/girl can grow up to be president. Sad.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Isherwood any ignorant little boy/girl can grow up to be president

Dummies, OK. Unpriveleged, no...

[rcne]

ID can be the putty to fill the gaps between the stone cold pebbles of science, in which to form a Mosaic of our understanding.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: rcne ID can be the putty to fill the gaps between the stone cold pebbles of science, in which to form a Mosaic of our understanding.

But even here you admit that ID is not science. Science classes should teach science, not theology/philosophy. The "putty" can come from some other source if it is actually needed.

[rcne]

I was thinking this should probably been put in the philosophy section. The 'putty' of ID is just the wonder and complexity of the universe. We actually know very little, and there obviously is more that is unknown than what is known concerning the workings of the cosmos.

To think that this cosmos was created to entertain some on this little planet is absurd, yet I can't reconcile that the cosmos is just a result of a big bang and the second law of thermodynamics either - hence an intelligence of some sort.

[oranged]

Quote by: rcne ID can be the putty to fill the gaps between the stone cold pebbles of science, in which to form a Mosaic of our understanding.

Not everyone believes in "putty". It would be morally wrong to force beliefs on people woundn't it?

[Isaiah]

Quote by: Prometheus Story by TIME: http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...089733,00.html Bush wants ID to be taught alongside the science of evolutionary theory. Chalk another one up for a fundamentalist prez who can't see the difference between politics and religion. Just like his ridiculous stem cel stance. My guess is that this will start a national debate like the one in Kansas. I wonder is Bush is serious about pursuing this avenue.

Actually the ID movement (or whatever) does have one very good point - irreducible complexity. IR is actually a testable hypothesis, in many cases, and if it is sound then really all it says is that there are certain bimolecular structures that a gradualistic evolutionary approach cannot explain. Thus, I beleive, the extreme hatred of it by some.

Also, “religious activists” are not the only ones who think ID should be taught in schools as some of the key persons in the ID movement are not religious themselves. This can be seen William S. Harris’ (a Kansas City researcher who favors intelligent design) statement:

"Who's the designer?" asked Harris, a co-founder of Intelligent Design Network Inc. "I don't know."

Having heard some of the Kansas debate, I wouldn’t mind more of it, minus the incessant badgering of the witnesses by Irigonegaray.

I also think it is ironic that Jack Krebs said that the ID proponents “have created a straw man. They are trying to make science stand for atheism so they can fight atheism” when, in fact, he was building a straw man of ID. And also he said “It's clear from the beginning that this is not a real science discussion. This is a showcase for intelligent design” when it is clear that one of the reasons that this might not be a “real science discussion” is that he and his entire Kansas Citizens for Science boycotted the discussions. The anti-ID folks seem to be the ones not engaging is a science discussion here, not the ID folks, who attended the discussions and participated openly.

[bishop]

i don't have a problem with teaching ID so long as it doesn't include any specific reference to any religion. justifying ID by quoting the bible, for example, would be unacceptable imo.

but, it is a theory, just like evolution. if they were to teach it, they should give an honest criticism of ID as well as evolution. let each theory stand up to the test of scientific criticism and see which one holds up best.

[Isaiah]

Quote by: Isherwood So much for his concern about education. I guess it's more important to kowtow to the religious right than to ensure children are educated enough to know the difference between science and speculation. Oh, but wait, he doesn't even know the difference...and he got to be president. So I guess it's true that any ignorant little boy/girl can grow up to be president. Sad.

So are you saying that the current educational system does not “ensure children are educated enough to know the difference between science and speculation”? If it is then won’t students be able to see the difference and say of ID “It’s crap”? Or is there a fear that students will see the logic in some of ID’s points, especially irreducible complexity and question the absolute authority of evolution? What are we afraid of anyway?

From what I have seen, the school system has not done a good job of “ensure children are educated enough to know the difference between science and speculation” because many people still cannot tell the difference between actual facts obtained through research (results from amino acid synthesis experiments) and evolutionary speculations (abiogenesis).

[Starboy]

Quote by: Isaiah Actually the ID movement (or whatever) does have one very good point - irreducible complexity. IR is actually a testable hypothesis, in many cases, and if it is sound then really all it says is that there are certain bimolecular structures that a gradualistic evolutionary approach cannot explain. Thus, I beleive, the extreme hatred of it by some.

How can you test that something can't be explained?

Starboy

[Jack]

There's always a point in a child's life when they believe anything. They haven't yet learned the definitions that will aid them in discerning the difference between science and philosophy. From what I've been reading about ID, a good number of adults can't either. Whether they didn't pay enough attention in science class or they've decided to ignore the difference, I don't know. ID under any guise should not be taught as a science until its supporters can publish the results of their testing and observations, and those results can be replicated by other scientists. They also need to reconcile their beliefs with the existing evidence in other sciences like biology and archeology.

[gallo]

Quote by: Isaiah Actually the ID movement (or whatever) does have one very good point - irreducible complexity. IR is actually a testable hypothesis, in many cases, and if it is sound then really all it says is that there are certain bimolecular structures that a gradualistic evolutionary approach cannot explain.

Actually true. And IR has been debunked in each and every incarnation. Thus, claims for ID based on IR are bogus.

[rcne]

Quote by: oranged Not everyone believes in "putty". It would be morally wrong to force beliefs on people woundn't it?

On this I agree, the purpose of education is to present the differing theories equally. From that point it is up to the student to decide the pros and cons of the offered theories.

I don't agree with bias one way or the other when is a contained structured learning environment.

I really didn't intend to sound like a space cadet on the marvels of the universe, but at the time I was thinking of the vastness of it all and our petty little planet in the grand scheme of things.

[Starboy]

Quote by: rcne On this I agree, the purpose of education is to present the differing theories equally. From that point it is up to the student to decide the pros and cons of the offered theories.

So alchemy and chemistry should be taught in the same class as if they were on some level equally good explanations?

Starboy

[Jack]

And then we can include the laying-on-of-hands in medical school. Who would like to be first in line for a faith healing of their cancerous brain tumor?

[Killa Rawk Bot]

I think that this is an interesting topic. I've read all of the posts previous to this one, and everyone seems to be treating this as a black-and-white case based on their feelings toward religion. Personally, while I don't think ID should be given too much emphasis, if a large enough portion of the population believes in it, then I don't see any reason why the topic shouldn't at least be covered. The same goes for other religions as well. While I personally know next to nothing on religious studies, I think that having a mandatory course on the topic would be an excellent step to improving the school system in both the US and Canada. (my home) I think that an understanding of others' beliefs would help create a generation of youths with far more accepting cultural outlooks.

I would also like to address the amount of science currently taught in schools. A lot of people on this board have treated science as an indisputable collection of solid facts, when in fact it is not at all. Understand here that I have no religious afiliations whatsoever, and that I am an engineering student strongly considering doing a complementary major in physics. Much of what I learned in school about science and the nature of things is completely different from what my parents learned, due to changing theories. In fact, on certain topics they were very surprised to see how much things had changed. In addition, science is so broad that it is impossible to even cover every discipline to satisfaction. For example, I learned very about astrology, and most of what I learned about geology was not taught to me in class. Instead of the kinds of classes we have now, I would like to see far more of an emphasis put on critical thinking, philosophy, writing, and encouragement to learn independently. Learning a whole lot about biology or chemistry or physics isn't really going to benefit a person all that much in the long run. I would much rather have useful skills than a bunch of largely trivial and quickly forgotten knowledge that isn't even going to be considered "truth" when my kids go to school.

Sorry if this isn't really the place for that last paragraph, but it was something I wanted to voice my opinion on, and this seems as appropriate a place as any.

[rcne]

Quote by: Starboy So alchemy and chemistry should be taught in the same class as if they were on some level equally good explanations? Starboy

Quote by: Isherwood And then we can include the laying-on-of-hands in medical school. Who would like to be first in line for a faith healing of their cancerous brain tumor?

Actually I do think that for a well rounded education alternative ideas should be presented.

Starboy, chemistry is an outgrowth of alchemy, as I'm sure you know. The alchemist were interested in the properties of elements and the relationships between these elements. Modern chemist are still isolating elements in these 'old' medicinal plants to develop 'new' medicines.

Isherwood, Holistic medicine does serve a purpose now just as it has for centuries. Even in studies today, doctors will admit that a patients attitude helps with the healing process.
The power of the mind is little understood, I don't discount that there is 'something' there.

There may be something in nature, an alchemists element or combination of elements, that may reduce or prevent the growth of Isherwood's brain tumor example. Today, the brain tumor has to be removed with such advanced techniques as opening up the skull with drills and saws, then cutting the tumor out with a sharp knife.

I'm not saying replace todays knowledge with either, but I am saying that all things should be considered.

[MerlinsByte]

by starboy....How can you test that something can't be explained?

merlin writes...what would you like clarifed about abiogensis starboy?
I didnt vote for bush..... but i should have.

mb

[Starboy]

Quote by: rcne Starboy, chemistry is an outgrowth of alchemy, as I'm sure you know. The alchemist were interested in the properties of elements and the relationships between these elements. Modern chemist are still isolating elements in these 'old' medicinal plants to develop 'new' medicines.

Sure and astronomy was an outgrowth of astrology. So what? If the goal is to teach how we came to think what we do then that should be taught in a history class, but if the goal is to teach what we currently understand of reality then that should be taught in a science class and should cover the best explanations to date. Those that want the history should take a history class. When it comes to science, understanding how people came to think what they do doesn't explain why reality is the way it is, only the way we came by how we think it is. But that still doesn't change the fact that when it comes to science our goal is not to hold up a mirror and call it reality. Our goal is to remove the mirror as much as we are able and do our best to see it for what it is, not what we would like it to be. And the content of a science class is our best view of reality to date, not the view from a distant historical mirror.

Starboy