ID rears its head.....again

[Hapexamendios]

The Church of England's head of education, the Reverend Jan Ainsworth, has said that intelligent design can be taught in science classes under the auspices of 'history of science' according to this morning's Guardian newspaper (can't post a link sorry due to my newbie status, maybe someone else can do the honours?).

Rev Ainsworth is responsible for 4,600 schools here in the UK and stated that "you would get howls of protest from the scientific community, which would say there is absolutely no place for it in the curriculum. But you could do it in history of science".

I agree with the notion that ID can be used in lessons as a prime example of how NOT to do science, but is it pushing it too far to include something in 'history of science' that isn't, nor ever was, scientific?

[Tumblehome]

That was my first reaction. The Immaculate Deception belongs in a history of non-science.

I wonder if the good reverend would agree to teaching science in religious classes.

[ImaginalDisc]

Raaaaawwwwr!

I have awakened from my slumber, and I desire the flesh of human sacrifices! Deliver me such pleasing youths as will slake my appetite or I shall - Oh, you weren't talking about me.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I don't think History of Science is quite right ... Perhaps History of Religion would be better.

~~ Paul

[Slimething]

I was thinking that it is a concept that is accepted by more than two people so it has a place in the curriculum somewhere. Not in a science course but I wouldn't object to teaching it in a philosophy course. As science was once called "natural philosophy" perhaps it's not too outside the study of the history of science.

Let's face it. How complete would a history of science be without mentioning spontaneous generation, homunculi, succubi, aether, phlogiston, trephining and all the other stuff that's been thoroughly discredited over the years? ID has certainly earned a place for itself among all those.

[SusanB-M1]

she was interviewed on 'Sunday' (BBC Radio 4) this morning at about 7:45. I thought that Jane Little didnot push her hard enough on her answers though.

[Hapexamendios]

I was thinking that it is a concept that is accepted by more than two people so it has a place in the curriculum somewhere. Not in a science course but I wouldn't object to teaching it in a philosophy course. As science was once called "natural philosophy" perhaps it's not too outside the study of the history of science.

Let's face it. How complete would a history of science be without mentioning spontaneous generation, homunculi, succubi, aether, phlogiston, trephining and all the other stuff that's been thoroughly discredited over the years? ID has certainly earned a place for itself among all those.

I would personally have no objection to it being taught in a philosophy or religious education class, as a theological/philosophical concept it goes back at least to the ancient Greeks.

In the current climate, with ID proponents essentially engaging in a PR war with scientists and secularists with little actual research being done it could also be argued it has a place in media studies courses! :)

[e-sabbath]

I think part of the issue is 'Intelligent Design' vs 'Intelligent Design (tm)'.

Intelligent Design is what people believed until quite recently, that God made the world and the people on it.

Intelligent Design (tm) is a belief system being pushed by that darn institute which is trying to be shoved into schools.

Being British and slightly separated from the debate, she may be missing that point.

[Segnosaur]

I agree with the notion that ID can be used in lessons as a prime example of how NOT to do science, but is it pushing it too far to include something in 'history of science' that isn't, nor ever was, scientific?

Wouldn't it depend on how the course was taught?

A "history of science" class might teach some of the examples where "bad" ideas (flat earth, sun revolves around earth, etc.) got replaced by proper scientific principles, yet nobody would assume the school supports the idea of a flat earth. (And, learning exactly how science overcame the bad ideas in the past is a good thing to discuss in a history of science course.). Similarly, any discussion of ID could be used as an example of Bad ideas getting rejected by the scientific community.

[Spindrift]

It should be taught, alongside such hoaxes as the Piltdown man, crop circles, ufos and the Bermuda Triangle.

[Azure]

That was my first reaction. The Immaculate Deception belongs in a history of non-science.

I wonder if the good reverend would agree to teaching science in religious classes.

No, it belongs in a theology class.

[Darat]

Wouldn't it depend on how the course was taught?

A "history of science" class might teach some of the examples where "bad" ideas (flat earth, sun revolves around earth, etc.) got replaced by proper scientific principles, yet nobody would assume the school supports the idea of a flat earth. (And, learning exactly how science overcame the bad ideas in the past is a good thing to discuss in a history of science course.). Similarly, any discussion of ID could be used as an example of Bad ideas getting rejected by the scientific community.


Not really because ID is just Christian creationism with a different name, so its place is where you would discuss other aspects of Christianity e.g. a religious or a history of religion lesson.

[athon]

Not really because ID is just Christian creationism with a different name, so its place is where you would discuss other aspects of Christianity e.g. a religious or a history of religion lesson.

Yet socially it was spread as a scientific concept, in spite of it not being one.

I used the Kitzmiller trial as the focus for a science assignment to have kids evaluate an evolutionary dispute. The responses I got were far more hardcore in terms of denouncing ID than I ever could have taught. The kids were amazed that such nonsense could be sold as science.

I'm thinking of transferring the assignment into a science philosophy unit I'm looking into making.

Athon

[Wainscotting]

You would have to teach it alongside Alchemy, geocentricism, homoeopathy, astrology and a whole plethora of false scientific ideas. There would be no time to teach it in a science class. Just focus on teaching science, teach them how to question; the students will figure out what is good and bad themselves.

[Lensman]

Anybody notice that the letters ID are at the front of IDIOT? ;) :D

[Wainscotting]

Anybody notice that the letters ID are at the front of IDIOT? ;) :D

Next time I go to the pub, I'll have to say "No. I'm an evolutionist; I don't believe in ID.":newlol