Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Merlin Mercer on June 17, 2011 at 1:27pm

"...I think we need to stop babying the religious and teach the FACTS!"

Preach it sista!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pope OoO (Out of Order) on June 24, 2011 at 4:57pm

I'm trying to find out what the curriculum for an ID class would be.

 

How much time do you have? The Discovery Institute is at the forefront of the attempt to spin science into myth. Here's a list of resources they recommend.

I'm only pessimistic in the short run about their success. I believe in the long run that the more they can push their agenda, the more they'll eventually be exposed as ignorant or frauds. A state with ID in its curriculum could eventually produce the most vehement supporters of evolution, sort of like how Catholic school can produce vehement atheists.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rosemary LYNDALL WEMM on June 24, 2011 at 10:00pm

I am not so confident.  If ID is the only thing taught, which is what the Religious Fright want, then the area will end up with the worst-educated students in the country and the developed nations.  The students might not even know enough to realize that they have been mis-educated.  I recall the case a few years back where students from a Christian school whose science coursework was not approved for entry to Berkely University accused the university of religiously discriminating against them.

 

I think the only way that families and students will be forced to confront the effects of such mis-education is if entry to all American tertiary education is dependent on nationally set science examinations with specific content and curriculum, as is the case in the rest of the developed world.  If all students were forced to demonstrate an understanding of the current model of evolution and the ability to tell the difference between real science and pseudo science before graduating from American High School then there is room for spending some time critically examining the claims of  ID along with the claims of other scientifically abandoned hypotheses about how nature works. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Raymond Gellner on June 17, 2011 at 1:40pm

The only way ID should be mentioned in a science class is to show how unscientific it is and use it as an example of how one should remain skeptical of everything people claim to be science. 
In the end the scientific method will weed out idea wilth no scientific basis, but students must be taught the scientific method first and foremost.  Lack of understanding of the scientific method is our biggest problem and it must be focused upon in science curricula.   

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rosemary LYNDALL WEMM on June 17, 2011 at 2:21pm

Exactly, Raymond.  Bringing up ID in the science classroom is an excellent way to teach or review the scientific method as distinct from a set of rote learned "faith based" scientific facts that is the usually taught curriculum in American classrooms.  The lesson can be applied to all kinds of examples of pseudo-science and pseudo-medicine.  Kids can be equipped with a method to evaluate the claims of these ideologies and recognize the tricks played by marketing consultants.

 

Imagine the effect that this would have on American teaching and educational credibility if it were to become the norm! 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rosemary LYNDALL WEMM on June 17, 2011 at 2:07pm

If I were asked to teach Creationism I would set out the claims made by the IDiots and then calmly show why they did not meet the criteria for a "science".  I would then quiz the kids on the elements of the scientific method and get them to confirm that the ID claims do not fit this model.   I would then say that since ID  isn't a science it does not rate being discussed at any length in a science classroom instead of evidence-based material that is obtained as the result of correctly applying the scientific method. And it certainly does not qualify as a set of claims that should be considered as equal to any real science-based facts and information.

 

Finally, I would claim that the scientifically obtained evidence overwhelmingly concludes that the two Genesis creation stories are both myths - one from the north of Israel who worshiped the El god and one from the south of Israel who worshiped the Yahweh god.  I would say that reputable historians and archeologists provide evidence that these myths were borrowed from the Caananites (or was it the Babylonians?).  On the grounds that History is more of an art than a science and should therefore not be taking up time in the science classroom,  I would offer to provide a simplified overview of the historical evidence to anyone was prepared to stay after school for an hour or two. 

 

I would finish by saying that science deals in facts, not mythology and mysticism.  If anyone feels that the scientific facts do not support their religious beliefs then it is up to them to fit their beliefs around the facts, not for science to accommodate their religious beliefs.  ID has not provided any legitimate facts to support its claims; it has only provided specious objections to the extremely well-supported explanation of how evolution works (the Theory of Evolution).  If anyone thinks that they know of actual facts supporting the Creation Claim then they are free to present them and allow the class to test them to see if they actually meet the criteria for an evidence-based scientific "fact". 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeff Anderson on June 28, 2011 at 6:37pm

I don't like to use the term "Intelligent Design" because that is just creationism repackaged with a new title (after creationism was shot down in Dover)

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page