I changed my mind. I support teaching ID in public schools.

[scotth]

I think ID should be taught in every biology class. I say lets let the religious push ID into the science curriculum.

Now, having said that, there are a couple stipulations.

1) Science text books (all of them) are to written/reviewed by scientists. Real ones, not some ID lacky with a mail order PHd.
2) The scientist get to state what they really believe about ID.
3) Every detail in which ID fails as a scientific hypothesis can be laid out.

Hell, using these rules, we can teach (use) ID in philosophy/history of science classes as an example of how not to do science.

Science teachers regularly teach discredited ideas in all the scientific disciplines. Looking at how we got it wrong in the past (or today) can be invaluable for teaching critical thinking and how to recognize fallacies, etc.

So I say, let them put ID in the class room, just don't let them pick the book which will present it. Hey, it is a science class, is it too much to ask that scientists write/approve the material in it? You want ID covered in school, fine, we'll cover it, truthfully.

Actually, reading the Dover trial transcripts might be a great place to start covering ID in school.

[jmercer]

Agreed. Today's kids are sharp and more than willing to reject authority; put ID in front of 'em - take it out of the context of religion - and they'll laugh themselves silly over it. :D

[scotth]

Oh, I bet a big bunch of would be screaming bloody murder over it.....

but, I hope you are correct about the bulk of them. I bet the percentages you get of each type of student would vary predicably by geography.

[ponderingturtle]

I think ID should be taught in every biology class. I say lets let the religious push ID into the science curriculum.

Now, having said that, there are a couple stipulations.

1) Science text books (all of them) are to written/reviewed by scientists. Real ones, not some ID lacky with a mail order PHd.
2) The scientist get to state what they really believe about ID.
3) Every detail in which ID fails as a scientific hypothesis can be laid out.


Flawed. Then all you need to do is get some real PHd's who believe in ID and you will see text books strongly supporting it. And there are enough of them out there, people who's religious convictions where not shaken even through getting an advanced degree.

[drkitten]

I think ID should be taught in every biology class. I say lets let the religious push ID into the science curriculum.

Now, having said that, there are a couple stipulations.

1) Science text books (all of them) are to written/reviewed by scientists. Real ones, not some ID lacky with a mail order PHd.
2) The scientist get to state what they really believe about ID.
3) Every detail in which ID fails as a scientific hypothesis can be laid out.

I appreciate what you're trying to do. But it won't work.

The problem is that in many cases, the science teachers won't teach the material properly. They may not understand it -- and some will outright lie in the name of Jesus.

[scotth]

It certainly seems fair to me that if you we are forced to teach ID in a science class, we should be able to tell the trush about it and demonstrate how ID fails as a science. It should be an easy point to make in a SCIENCE class.

[scotth]

ah. let me dream guys.....

It'll never happen for politcal reasons...... but it could an interesting card to play while debating the people pushing for ID in the classroom.

[Meadmaker]

Scotth,

You are telling fibs for Jesus. Ask drkitten. She can explain.

However, I agree with both you and ponderingturtle. If we allow your approach, we will open the doors to people who support ID. I say that's fine. In a fair fight, evolution wins.


(She could have at least accused me of fibs-for-G_d.)

[scotth]

Scotth,

You are telling fibs for Jesus.

You tell me why, you said it.

I don't believe in Jesus in the slightest. I completely support evolution. I can't make sense of that statement at all.

[ponderingturtle]

Scotth,

You are telling fibs for Jesus. Ask drkitten. She can explain.

However, I agree with both you and ponderingturtle. If we allow your approach, we will open the doors to people who support ID. I say that's fine. In a fair fight, evolution wins.


So how do we make creationists fight fair?

[drkitten]

So how do we make creationists fight fair?

That's the problem. Meadmaker, and creationists like Meadmaker, lie.

[Meadmaker]

You tell me why, you said it.

I don't believe in Jesus in the slightest. I completely support evolution. I can't make sense of that statement at all.

Me too, but see Drkitten's last response for the explanation.

I believe that the only way to defeat intelligent design is to allow teachers to discuss it. The inevitable result is that some will say it's correct, and some will say it's false. The ones who say it is correct will use such incredible, convincing arguments such as "Oh come on, you don't really believe eyes popped out of nowhere, do you?" The ones who think it is false will present the ID argument, and point out errors, where there are any. In some cases, the arguments don't always have factual errors, but they are arguments from ignorance, and the teachers will point that out, too. I think that will work better than what we are doing now.

Drkitten thinks no one really believes that, so I must be actually a creationist in disguise, lying about my beliefs. She has accused me of telling fibs for Jesus.

As I've said several time, please don't tell the Rabbi, he thinks I'm agnostic.


As for presenting ID, I've thought about another argument why it's a good idea. How many Bible-thumpers have actually read the Bible? Not many, right? And when they do, does it tend to deepen their faith? Go to the religion section, and search for threads about how people "converted" to atheism. A lot of responses, including mine, will say that they were religious, and started studying the Bible, and discovered that the Bible didn't really say the things they were taught in church. Confronted with the conflict between the Bible and their faith, which taught them that the Bible was True, they realized the contradiction, and threw their faith out the window.

So it would be with ID. A lot of people who support ID have no clue what ID supporters really say. All it would be to convince some of them would be to actually present the arguments, and a few of them would say, "Hey wait a minute, I don't believe that." Others will take a bit more prodding. When the creationist points out that the second law of thermodynamics proves evolution is untrue, the teacher can tell them what the law really says, and some of them will realize not only that the argument is wrong, but that the creationists didn't do their homework. As it is, we're trying to win by default, using the incredibly convincing argument of "It's illegal to teach that hogwash because it really isn't science anyway." It's not working. We should switch tactics.

(Of course, the last two paragraphs are all lies, brought to you by Fibs-for-Jesus, practicing the Ministry of Denial since 1962.)

[Meadmaker]

So how do we make creationists fight fair?

I must admit, I don't know if it's possible. You've discussed in the past how some people propose laws that require ID and/or creationism to be presented on equal terms with evolution. That, I agree, is absolutely unacceptable, and counter to what I'm thinking. I think academic freedom, within some constraints, is the answer, and telling teachers they have to present some theory, any theory, uncritically, restrains academic freedom. I believe that even if an individual didn't "fight fair", the collective fight would be fair.

Would it even be possible to write legislation and/or court decisions to do what I'm proposing. Perhaps not. I think it would be possible, but it would be a very tricky tightrope to walk, I agree.

Nevertheless, keep in mind the basic problem. What we are doing now isn't working. I, for one, reject the theory that it isn't working because people are too stupid to see the truth. Rather, I think the problem is with our approach, not the stupidity of the audience.

[ponderingturtle]

I must admit, I don't know if it's possible. You've discussed in the past how some people propose laws that require ID and/or creationism to be presented on equal terms with evolution. That, I agree, is absolutely unacceptable, and counter to what I'm thinking. I think academic freedom, within some constraints, is the answer, and telling teachers they have to present some theory, any theory, uncritically, restrains academic freedom. I believe that even if an individual didn't "fight fair", the collective fight would be fair.

How, please cite one example of a supporter of ID who could even admit that their theory does not even meet the criteria for a scientific theory? Look at the other thread about the biology professor who is a creationist.

Fighting such strong delusions as this is not and never will be a fair fight, becuase only one side has to behave rationaly.


Nevertheless, keep in mind the basic problem. What we are doing now isn't working. I, for one, reject the theory that it isn't working because people are too stupid to see the truth. Rather, I think the problem is with our approach, not the stupidity of the audience.

They can't recognise a scientific theory, how can you let them make an informed decision when they are clearly incapable of being informed?

[HappyCat]

How, please cite one example of a supporter of ID who could even admit that their theory does not even meet the criteria for a scientific theory?

Rothschild told the court that the US National Academy of Sciences supplies a definition for what constitutes a scientific theory: “Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”

Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not be included in the NAS definition. “I can’t point to an external community that would agree that this was well substantiated,” he said.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178&feedId=online-news_rss20
I don't know if this counts as admitting that ID is not a scientific theory, since the rest of his testimony was about redefining what a scientific theory is, changing it to a definition that would include astrology and other woo crap :-)

[scotth]

I, for one, reject the theory that it isn't working because people are too stupid to see the truth.

So, a (probably correct) theory should be scrapped and replaced with something else? Something that would be presumed to be wrong from the outset? We should do this because some major fraction of people in this country (but not in most of Western Europe for contrast) are too stupid, or brainwashed, or mentally ill to get it?

You are suggesting that we discard a theory for a reason other than that it has been shown to be inconsistent with reality.

Is that really what you are saying?:jaw-dropp

ETA: Please read my sig, it IS applicable.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I believe that even if an individual didn't "fight fair", the collective fight would be fair.

I'm sure the fact that other people got a real education will be a great consolation to those kids who didn't because they were taught by the individual that didn't fight fair.

[Meadmaker]

So, a (probably correct) theory should be scrapped and replaced with something else? Something that would be presumed to be wrong from the outset? We should do this because some major fraction of people in this country (but not in most of Western Europe for contrast) are too stupid, or brainwashed, or mentally ill to get it?

You are suggesting that we discard a theory for a reason other than that it has been shown to be inconsistent with reality.

Is that really what you are saying?:jaw-dropp

ETA: Please read my sig, it IS applicable.

The theory that I am rejecting is not the theory of evolution.

A momentary digression, only slightly related to your post, if you will. I was using the word "theory" in the way that everyone in the world uses the word when they are not discussing the philosophy of science. When the vast majority of people in the world use the word, "theory", they are talking about something that someone thinks might be true. Look it up in the dictionary. That's what it means, today.

It has a couple of other, more specialized, meanings within the realms of science and mathematics, and both sides of the evolution vs. creationism debate try to exploit the differences between the meanings. Some creationists and their ilk like to say "Evolution is only a theory", deliberately or out of ignorance confusing the two meanings, suggesting that somehow "evolutionary theory" hasn't been confirmed. Anti-creationists like to look down on every use of the more common meaning as proof that the other side is unqualified to even speak to those who have a correct grasp of the "real" meaning of the term.

To an outside observer, both sides look like asses.

Now, back to your post.

No, I did not mean what you thought I meant. There is a basic observation that a lot of people in the United States reject the theory of evolution. Why? What causes them to reject it? One possible explanation, advanced by a lot of people, and a high percentage of JREF participants, is that people are too stupid to see the obvious truth of evolution.

I reject that theory.

I believe that people are, in fact, smart enough, and open minded enough, to actually accept evolution, if only someone were to present it to them. Of course, we do present it to high school students, but only as a set of "facts". "It happened, trust us." We do not ask them to critically examine it and make any sort of determination of the theory's validity. That is unfortunate, because until they do so, they can never internalize the theory, realize its validity, and accept it.

Instead, they see it presented only as an argument from authority. "Scientists and the government say this is what happened. It will be on the test." Any attempt to question it is met with ridicule. Unfortunately, even if they don't understand the rhetorical notion of the "argument from authority fallacy", American teenagers are very good at understanding, "Just because the teacher says it's true, that doesn't mean it's true." The educational system doesn't give them the opportunity to actually examine the validity of the theory and make the determination as to whether or not it's true.

In order to let them make that determination, you have to give them a chance to examine competing theories. (Ha! Take that you pseudo-linguists! I used "theory" the way the rest of the world uses the word! And there's nothing you can do about it!) Where I part company with the pro-ID crowd is they also want to grant some special status to creationism or ID, as well as to evolution. They want teachers by law to be required to present both theories, as if they were equally valid. That's a very bad idea. I want teachers to be required to present evolution, because that's part of the curriculum, and have the option of present others, and letting them have at either one as critically as they see fit. Which one do you think will win?

Now, let's step back to reality for a moment. If you do that, some teachers will give a very biased presentation and they will make ID look good, and some of the kids will buy into it. Also, some kids really are too stupid to understand evolution. I hope that doesn't make me too much of an elitist, but there it is. So, am I willing to let that happen? Yeah, I am. I think that if you just get the kids thinking, evolution will win a lot more often than creationism. The danger is in not getting them thinking. Our system today demands that they pass a test on evolution, not that they think about it. I believe this is why such a high percentage of the population rejects it. They could spit out the facts on the test, but they were never asked to think.

[Araneus]

I agree entirely with Meadmaker. As long as scientists fight to avoid any mention of ID in the classroom, the perception will be that ID is a dangerous alternative that scientists are scared to discuss for fear that it will undermine the status quo.

A good science teacher would be able to discuss ID and point out its flaws and why it fails as a scientific theory, using it to illustrate the difference between theory, hypothesis and dogma, therefore providing a better educational experience for his students than one that involves merely stating what is fact and what is not.

If I were a teacher I would even set them an assignment, in which they would have to write a scientific analysis of ID and justify it in front of the class. I would specifically give them the freedom to support or attack ID, but warn that they must do so with scientific arguments not dogma (which obviously gives the attackers a massive advantage, but that's just the way it is).

[ponderingturtle]

I agree entirely with Meadmaker. As long as scientists fight to avoid any mention of ID in the classroom, the perception will be that ID is a dangerous alternative that scientists are scared to discuss for fear that it will undermine the status quo.

A good science teacher would be able to discuss ID and point out its flaws and why it fails as a scientific theory, using it to illustrate the difference between theory, hypothesis and dogma, therefore providing a better educational experience for his students than one that involves merely stating what is fact and what is not.

And what about proper christian teachers who teach science as god intended it? There are a fair number of them with at least the degree's to sound impressive

[jmercer]

PonderingTurtle has a good point. Check out this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64908) thread.

[Araneus]

And what about proper christian teachers who teach science as god intended it? There are a fair number of them with at least the degree's to sound impressive

That's always going to be a problem. All the legislation in the world isn't going to make bad teachers into good teachers, or to prevent them from introducing their own ideology if this is what they are determined to do.

[scotth]

The same thing that prevents them from introducing their own ideology today, requirements.

Are the always followed today, nope. We know better than that. But, they are followed pretty well. Not following them is certainly ground for dismissal.

We are only talking about updating the requirements. If a teacher can't follow them now or in the future, they don't need to be teaching.

[T'ai Chi]

Crazy how some call it "religious", in a derogotory manner of course, to merely ask the question 'Is object X designed?'

[Meadmaker]

The same thing that prevents them from introducing their own ideology today, requirements.

Are the always followed today, nope. We know better than that. But, they are followed pretty well. Not following them is certainly ground for dismissal.




Those requirements have existed for at least 30 years. Are they working?

[scotth]

Those requirements have existed for at least 30 years. Are they working?

Pretty well, yes. Perfectly, no.

Thus the battle in the various states to change them to require teaching ID and creationism.

[Questioninggeller]

I think ID should be taught in every biology class. I say lets let the religious push ID into the science curriculum.
...
1) Science text books (all of them) are to written/reviewed by scientists. Real ones, not some ID lacky with a mail order PHd.

Becareful what you wish for. People like Kurt Wise (Answers in Genesis fellow) are PhD's who studied under Gould and are creationists.

[ponderingturtle]

Crazy how some call it "religious", in a derogotory manner of course, to merely ask the question 'Is object X designed?'

No they just realize that the people doing it are going to move the goalpost when you show that object X was not designed and could have evolved naturally. A number of specific things claimed to be irreducibly complex have been shown not to be.

So for that to be a valid scientific question instead of the random kind of question like "when did you stop molesting farm animals?" it needs to be able to produce definite results in both a positive and a negative fashion. Until ID supporters propose some experiment that will either confirm or refute ID and be willing to accept the result it is entirely non-scientific

[Meadmaker]

Pretty well, yes. Perfectly, no.

Thus the battle in the various states to change them to require teaching ID and creationism.

According to a link posted earlier in this thread, 46% of the US population believes YEC. That's working perfectly well?


(I suspect the number is inaccurate, based on suspicious question wording and/or interpretation, but the number right around 50% is what I have seen for people who don't believe in evolution. That isn't quite as bad, but I still wouldn't say our educational methods are working "perfectly well".)

[Meadmaker]

Short bit of google research. In the UK, they take an approach very much like the one I am advocating. In fact, they are a bit more liberal about allowing teaching creationism or ID than I would be, since they allow it as an option, to be taught side by side as part of an official curriculum. Also, state funded schools teach the Christian religion, and there is nothing at all much like separation of church and state.

In the UK, 22% of the people polled said they accepted creationism.

That's a bit of google research. It's hardly definitive. It would be interesting to me to see something more authoritative. It seems to me that in the US, we have the strictest separation of church and state, and the strongest possible rules against introduction of creationism into classrooms. Despite that, we have the highest rate of belief in creationism.

Despite that, or because of that? You be the judge.

[firecoins]

ID belongs in a comparative religion class not a science class. It is a religious idea and is not scientifically based. ID does not belong in a science class.

[scotth]

According to a link posted earlier in this thread, 46% of the US population believes YEC. That's working perfectly well?


Well that number sucks... but it has little to nothing to do with the effectiveness of education standards on what it actually taught.

Many of those YECs never had a biology course in their life. Of the one's that did, I am sure many received appropriate schooling and still believe otherwise.

[Meadmaker]

Well, we are beating Turkey. That's something, I guess.

http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=060810_evo_rank_02.jpg&cap=A+chart+showing+public+acceptance+of+evolution +in+34+countries.+The+United+States+ranked+near+th e+bottom%2C+beat+only+by+Turkey.+Credit%3A+Science

[BrianSI]

Short bit of google research. In the UK, they take an approach very much like the one I am advocating. In fact, they are a bit more liberal about allowing teaching creationism or ID than I would be, since they allow it as an option, to be taught side by side as part of an official curriculum. Also, state funded schools teach the Christian religion, and there is nothing at all much like separation of church and state.
...

But they probably aren't conflating science and religion. Otherwise I agree with your argument. Sort of. If educational curriculum decisions were kept at a more local level, experimental education could work, provided students (their parents really) had a choice of which school to attend, in case there was a poor science teacher (teaching religion) at one, and a good teacher at another. But with so many educational decisions being made at state levels, with plenty of trend inertia towards the federal level, I would say it's not a good time to try, and that tax payers in the US should not be supporting the (potential) teaching of religious faith.

As far as teaching kids to think rather than just gobble facts, I 100% totally emphatically agree, which is why I also agree with scotth on using ID as an example of psuedoscience. It happens to be a perfect example.

[ponderingturtle]

But they probably aren't conflating science and religion. Otherwise I agree with your argument. Sort of. If educational curriculum decisions were kept at a more local level, experimental education could work, provided students (their parents really) had a choice of which school to attend, in case there was a poor science teacher (teaching religion) at one, and a good teacher at another. But with so many educational decisions being made at state levels, with plenty of trend inertia towards the federal level, I would say it's not a good time to try, and that tax payers in the US should not be supporting the (potential) teaching of religious faith.


So how many hours on a bus should second graders spend? Me it was an hour and a half each way. BUt I was going to a different school so that is all perfect I guess.

ANd of course all the schools can mandate teaching of scientific creationism instead of geology and biology if that is what a slight majority of the voteing populace wants.

[T'ai Chi]

Until ID supporters propose some experiment that will either confirm or refute ID and be willing to accept the result it is entirely non-scientific

Kinda like saying life came from non-life, or there exist a Darwinian pathway between any two biological things?

[CFLarsen]

Crazy how some call it "religious", in a derogotory manner of course, to merely ask the question 'Is object X designed?'

Why is it not "religious"?

[T'ai Chi]

Why does one have a strong nagging dogmatic belief that asking 'Is object X designed?' is a religious question?

[ponderingturtle]

Kinda like saying life came from non-life, or there exist a Darwinian pathway between any two biological things?

No, you see there is this thing called evidence, I am sure you are not that farmilier with it, but you see evolution makes a number of predictions about how things came about, you look into those predictions and if they happened that way, you are supporting the theory.

ID made a number of predictions about features that are irreduceibly complex and they where shown to have functional intermediate steps. THat disproved the theory. The problem is that when ever one of the items held to be irreducibly complex is refuted they just say "well we never really ment that anyway".

So really nothing like that.

[ponderingturtle]

Why does one have a strong nagging dogmatic belief that asking 'Is object X designed?' is a religious question?

And how is the concept of a privileged designer not a religious statement? As any such designer would eventually have to be exempt from the need to be designed.

[T'ai Chi]

And how is the concept of a privileged designer not a religious statement?


Asking if an object is designed doesn't have anything to do with religion.


As any such designer would eventually have to be exempt from the need to be designed.

Says... who exactly?

If there was an object X, and we are asking if it was designed, and we infer that yes X is designed, the argument about X's designers is moot.

[T'ai Chi]

No, you see there is this thing called evidence,


Sure, people just interpret it differently.


ID made a number of predictions about features that are irreduceibly complex and they where shown to have functional intermediate steps.


Such as... ?

[ponderingturtle]

Asking if an object is designed doesn't have anything to do with religion.

It does when you start atributeing super natural abilities to the designer it does.


Says... who exactly?
The very theory of ID. An inteligent being requires a designer, all saying aliens did it is bring back "It's turtles all the way down" back. Life needs a designer except for the orrigional designer who is priviliged from that nessecity.

All the people trying to say ID makes anysense with out god are doing it pushing back the need for a divine entity. THey are still requireing a being that violates the laws that they are postulateing to exist in some fashion.

If there was an object X, and we are asking if it was designed, and we infer that yes X is designed, the argument about X's designers is moot.

No because you are explicitly stateing that any thing that can be a designer must have been designed. It is like saying that robots build cars so the robots are the designer, you are not answering the question "where did machines come from" you are just dodgeing the issue. ANd in that case from a machines point of view humans and organic life would be priveliged, as we follow different rules. But why is it so wrong to call any being that so violates the very nature of our universe god?

[T'ai Chi]

It does when you start atributeing super natural abilities to the designer it does.


OK, so we've agreed that just asking the question 'Is object X designed?' is not religion.

So.. let's let X range over various objects: a pen, something that looks like modern art, that lump of rock, you and I.

Still not religious.


, all saying aliens did it is bring back "It's turtles all the way down" back.


The alternative is naturalistic turtles all the way down. You keep going back until you can't explain it, then you just conclude that it MUST have a naturalistc explanation (even though going really far back some physicists say that the laws of physics did not apply at that singularity).


It is like saying that robots build cars so the robots are the designer, you are not answering the question "where did machines come from" you are just dodgeing the issue.


As far as I can see you're failing to grasp the discussion. The issue is if it was designed, yes or no, not who designed.

[CFLarsen]

The issue is if it was designed, yes or no, not who designed.

You can't separate the two.

If you assume a designer, you have to answer who the designer is.

If you refuse, you are making a religious argument.

[.13.]

The issue is if it was designed, yes or no, not who designed.

Do you mean that the designer is outside the scope a generic design theory in the same way that abiogenesis is outside the scope evolutionary theory?

I don't think it's not quite the same though. Evolution theory is indipendent from the method of abiogenesis, whether it's a supernatural creator or natural mechanisms. But the designer can't be seperated from the design in the same way.

[ponderingturtle]

OK, so we've agreed that just asking the question 'Is object X designed?' is not religion.

So.. let's let X range over various objects: a pen, something that looks like modern art, that lump of rock, you and I.

Still not religious.

It is religous when only a god can have the required atributes for a designer.

Is this a bad definition of ID "Life especialy inteligent life can not be created by any thing other than a designer"? It seems to fit. THe problem is that your designer is outside the scope of the theory.


The alternative is naturalistic turtles all the way down. You keep going back until you can't explain it, then you just conclude that it MUST have a naturalistc explanation (even though going really far back some physicists say that the laws of physics did not apply at that singularity).

Um no, you are seriously mixing your scientific areas here. ID is supposted to be in biology, not physics, and then it is getting even more into matters of religion


As far as I can see you're failing to grasp the discussion. The issue is if it was designed, yes or no, not who designed.

And you are failing to grasp that you need positive evidence to show a designer, ID would need to actively say "X is designed and is rigorusly shown here" and not "you haven't fully explained X yet, so it must be designed" All ID does it take the gaps of human knowledge and try to put god into them.

And who designed it is important, all you are doing in saying that it isn't is falsely trying to make a religious statement sound not religious. That is entirely dishonnest.

Of course god could be part of science, all you need to do is show definite proof of its existance, and it becomes a matter for science and not religion. Of course that is positive proof not negative proof of "you haven't proven god doesn't exist" as that is not logicaly possible to do.

[BrianSI]

So how many hours on a bus should second graders spend? Me it was an hour and a half each way. BUt I was going to a different school so that is all perfect I guess.

ANd of course all the schools can mandate teaching of scientific creationism instead of geology and biology if that is what a slight majority of the voteing populace wants.

But there would at least be public debates over curricula, which is more important than who wins, in my opinion. How many kids who have learned the right facts of science can tell you why they are right? And if a parent has a problem with the local schools, there's still a chance they can live in the same state if the decisions are more local. However, like I say, we are at a point where far too many unwilling people would be (and are) under educational requirements they don't agree with due to the state and federal handling of such matters. I am speaking hypothetically about an ideal situation quite remote from current reality. I certainly don't think public schools should teach faith when so many kids would be stuck without an alternative.

But teaching ID as pseudoscience still seems a good idea to me. But I also wouldn't leave it to politicians to figure out how to make it come out that way.

[ponderingturtle]

But there would at least be public debates over curricula, which is more important than who wins, in my opinion. How many kids who have learned the right facts of science can tell you why they are right?
That is what is happening now, except that the courts said that giveing equal time(or only teaching) creationism was wrong. So you really want to increase and return creationism to the classroom in its full glory not hidden as ID?

And if a parent has a problem with the local schools, there's still a chance they can live in the same state if the decisions are more local.

And if they can't afford to move? How long is acceptable for a transit time for a second grader? Who pays for the transporation? No one seems to be offering to accept the higher taxes that it would require.

However, like I say, we are at a point where far too many unwilling people would be (and are) under educational requirements they don't agree with due to the state and federal handling of such matters. I am speaking hypothetically about an ideal situation quite remote from current reality. I certainly don't think public schools should teach faith when so many kids would be stuck without an alternative.

And no one seems willing to put their money there and fund a system that would work. You are trying to do alot more, it will cost more and everyone is agaist that.

It reminds me of the people in a fast growing county, in the past 15 years it went from something like 9,000 to 250,000. THey where saying about how their taxes keep going up, and how new construction should have to pay for infarstructure improvements, but are not putting their money up and paying for the infarstructure needed to support their houses to make it so it is not a tax payer burden, only the new people have to do that.

CHoice would be good, but no one seems serious at actualy provideing a real method of choice to poeple. I was in a program where I attended out of district schools, hence the 3 hour comute to second grade.

[BrianSI]

So you are debating politics, and legalities, not whether ID can be a useful item in a science class. That was the OP if I read correctly (scotth?).
But I will indulge ...

[potential further derail]
What we have costs more because bureaucrats are deciding the curriculum and trying to assess its results through artificial means. It's the state and federal bureaucracy that costs so much money. Because they are trying to find a one-size-fits-all solution to education. That is the basis for my advocating parental involvement in curriculum decisions at a lower level.

The debates you bring up are happening too far away for people to be aware of them. You and I are aware, and fundies are aware, but that's because we are concerned with the issue. Most people have no clue. That would happen less if it was a local decision. The noise would be more audible.

And no, I'm not advocating creationism. I'm advocating democratic choice. The price of democracy is that I have to deal with people who have different values than I have making the rules. But I have every opportunity and right to speak my mind regarding the rules. And the lower the level those rules are made, the more options I have, and the more chances there are that there will be a place I can live that shares my values, while retaining my US citizenship. And I'm not talking about kids deciding for themselves to move when they are in the second grade. That's silly. You did have some sort of parental guidance right? They cared about your welfare, right? I surely hope so. If not you were a special case, and special cases by definition are not the norm. So, no, there won't be a ridiculous increase in cost just because a few have to travel farther to get what they want.

The reason the ID movement is so scary to me is because the curriculum is NOT decided by the people, and therefore the people who argue the best (or most deceptively) are going to win the cowtowing of politicians, regardless of the reasons that science is better at answering questions about nature (the arguers for science may not have presented their reasons as eloquently).

And furthermore, the ID vs. evolution legal debate is not the same as the scientific one. The former is a 1st amendment issue. The second is an academic one, although certainly important. I hereby profoundly state that I support the 1st amendment in all its glory. But it is in the federal constitution. There is no entitlement to live wherever you want and not be offended by the local sensibilities.

And finally, this is a philosophical debate. The pragmatics of creating the situation I'm arguing for are a completely separate issue. And if you want me to admit they seem highly unlikely and difficult, I absolutely do. But that's no reason for me not to try for them.
[/potential further derail]

I still think ID is a great example of psuedoscience and a teacher should have the option of discussing it in that light. "Should."

[Meadmaker]

But they probably aren't conflating science and religion. [/political]



Actually, they are. (Assuming that teaching creationism as science is conflating science and religion.) They are doing exactly what most people here think would be a total disaster. A school in the UK has the option to teach evolution and creation alongside each other as two valid theories. And yet, they're way up on the charts when it comes to acceptance of evolution, and we're one step higher than Turkey.

Maybe their kids are just smarter?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Actually, they are. (Assuming that teaching creationism as science is conflating science and religion.) They are doing exactly what most people here think would be a total disaster. A school in the UK has the option to teach evolution and creation alongside each other as two valid theories. And yet, they're way up on the charts when it comes to acceptance of evolution, and we're one step higher than Turkey.

Maybe their kids are just smarter?

Or maybe religion plays a far, far smaller part in UK than in US society, therefore separation of church and state is not needed as church is not strong enough to significantly influence state.

[ponderingturtle]

So you are debating politics, and legalities, not whether ID can be a useful item in a science class. That was the OP if I read correctly (scotth?).
But I will indulge ...

[potential further derail]
What we have costs more because bureaucrats are deciding the curriculum and trying to assess its results through artificial means. It's the state and federal bureaucracy that costs so much money. Because they are trying to find a one-size-fits-all solution to education. That is the basis for my advocating parental involvement in curriculum decisions at a lower level.

The debates you bring up are happening too far away for people to be aware of them. You and I are aware, and fundies are aware, but that's because we are concerned with the issue. Most people have no clue. That would happen less if it was a local decision. The noise would be more audible.

And no, I'm not advocating creationism. I'm advocating democratic choice. The price of democracy is that I have to deal with people who have different values than I have making the rules. But I have every opportunity and right to speak my mind regarding the rules. And the lower the level those rules are made, the more options I have, and the more chances there are that there will be a place I can live that shares my values, while retaining my US citizenship. And I'm not talking about kids deciding for themselves to move when they are in the second grade. That's silly. You did have some sort of parental guidance right? They cared about your welfare, right? I surely hope so. If not you were a special case, and special cases by definition are not the norm. So, no, there won't be a ridiculous increase in cost just because a few have to travel farther to get what they want.

Of course I was a special case, but there is still need for much different infrastructure than currently exists for most schools. Kind of like when a failing school has to provide the option of busing to other schools in the new federal system, it is taking money from a school system that likely desperately needs it and spending it on moving children around. It is only in cities where this might work(and many already does as there are many cities with specialty high schools).

The reason for the hour and a half bus ride was that we stopped a three different schools and then went all over town dropping kids off at their homes. I was the first one on and last one off both ways, the school was only 20 minutes away.

You can rant and rave about bureaucracy and that might be true, but it is true that it would cost much much more to do that much more moving of children around in areas of lower population density.

The reason the ID movement is so scary to me is because the curriculum is NOT decided by the people, and therefore the people who argue the best (or most deceptively) are going to win the cowtowing of politicians, regardless of the reasons that science is better at answering questions about nature (the arguers for science may not have presented their reasons as eloquently).

It is decided by the people, specifically the ones voting in school board elections and the ones voted in. Are you suggesting that the curriculum should be voted on directly? Impossible to many details for that to work, so you still need people deciding on curriculum either way.

And furthermore, the ID vs. evolution legal debate is not the same as the scientific one. The former is a 1st amendment issue. The second is an academic one, although certainly important. I hereby profoundly state that I support the 1st amendment in all its glory. But it is in the federal constitution. There is no entitlement to live wherever you want and not be offended by the local sensibilities.
So in other words if the town you are living in decides by say 55% of the voting population to teach creationism they should be able to? You seemed to be saying that earlier. But that would be a violation of the 1st amendment.

And finally, this is a philosophical debate. The pragmatics of creating the situation I'm arguing for are a completely separate issue. And if you want me to admit they seem highly unlikely and difficult, I absolutely do. But that's no reason for me not to try for them.
[/potential further derail]

Talking about it as strictly philosophical is pointless, there are real issues and you need to address them. I agree in principle that such a system could be really good, the problem is that it would be much more expensive than the current system, or you need to clarify what you are cutting.

I still think ID is a great example of pseudoscience and a teacher should have the option of discussing it in that light. "Should."
Well I have said that, it illustrates what is and what is not a scientific theory, the problem it that actually attacking ID in the classroom would be a major problem for any teacher, with the likely lawsuits and all.

[tkingdoll]

If ID is allowed into the science classroom then it's only fair that science is allowed into the RE classroom, yes? So in RE, when origin stories from different religions are taught, the teacher must also present evolution as part of the same discussion.

[Zbu]

If ID is allowed into the science classroom then it's only fair that science is allowed into the RE classroom, yes? So in RE, when origin stories from different religions are taught, the teacher must also present evolution as part of the same discussion.

Not only that, but technically any creation story could be allowed of any religion. Hence the absurdity of teaching ID: not only do you have to do the Christian version, you'd have to do every version and then your science class becomes a mythology class. Hence, no longer about science, which is done in another class.

Not to mention that ID could use this as a way to avoid science by filling kids' minds with everything BUT science.

[Meadmaker]

Well I have said that, it illustrates what is and what is not a scientific theory, the problem it that actually attacking ID in the classroom would be a major problem for any teacher, with the likely lawsuits and all.

Indeed, that's the problem. What's the solution?


(In my opinion, the solution is get rid of the lawsuits.)