ID rears its head.....again

Hapexamendios · 2nd June 2007, 07:57 AM

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 · 2nd June 2007, 10:46 AM

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 · 2nd June 2007, 04:15 PM

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 · 2nd June 2007, 04:35 PM

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

~~ Paul

Slimething · 2nd June 2007, 04:45 PM

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 · 3rd June 2007, 02:15 AM

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 · 3rd June 2007, 03:30 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 3rd June 2007, 04:03 AM

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 · 3rd June 2007, 04:04 AM

Originally Posted by Hapexamendios

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 · 8th June 2007, 08:36 AM

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

Azure · 8th June 2007, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

No, it belongs in a theology class.

Darat · 8th June 2007, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

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 · 9th June 2007, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

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 · 9th June 2007, 05:11 PM

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 · 11th June 2007, 11:28 AM

Anybody notice that the letters ID are at the front of IDIOT?

Wainscotting · 12th June 2007, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by Lensman

Anybody notice that the letters ID are at the front of IDIOT?

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

2nd June 2007, 07:57 AM	#1
Hapexamendios Student Join Date: May 2007 Location: Satan's Holiday Cottage Posts: 39	ID rears its head.....again 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?

2nd June 2007, 04:15 PM	#3
ImaginalDisc Proactive Untwister of Octagonal Hippopotamus Pants Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Miami, Fl Posts: 10,225	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.
	__________________ Definition: 'Love' is making a shot to the knees of a target 120 kilometers away using an Aratech sniper rifle with a tri-light scope. Statement: This definition, I am told, is subject to interpretation. Obviously, love is a matter of odds. Not many meatbags could make such a shot, and fewer would derive love from it. Yet for me, love is knowing your target, putting them in your targeting reticle, and together, achieving a singular purpose, against statistically long odds. *-HK-47*

2nd June 2007, 04:35 PM	#4
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,592	I don't think History of Science is quite right ... Perhaps History of Religion would be better. ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny

3rd June 2007, 03:30 AM	#7
Hapexamendios Student Join Date: May 2007 Location: Satan's Holiday Cottage Posts: 39	Originally Posted by 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. 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!
	Last edited by Hapexamendios; 3rd June 2007 at 03:31 AM. Reason: punctuation

3rd June 2007, 04:04 AM	#9
Segnosaur Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 6,072	Originally Posted by Hapexamendios 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.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff) I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy

2nd June 2007, 10:46 AM	#2
Tumblehome Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Beside the point Posts: 1,445	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.

2nd June 2007, 04:45 PM	#5
Slimething Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Arizona USA Posts: 3,727	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.

3rd June 2007, 02:15 AM	#6
SusanB-M1 Incurable Optimist Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Almost in the New Forest, Hampshire, UK Posts: 2,867	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.

3rd June 2007, 04:03 AM	#8
e-sabbath Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 321	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.

8th June 2007, 08:36 AM	#10
Spindrift Enturbulator Extraordinaire Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Right here! Posts: 8,461	It should be taught, alongside such hoaxes as the Piltdown man, crop circles, ufos and the Bermuda Triangle.
	__________________ I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.

8th June 2007, 12:51 PM	#11
Azure Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Alberta Posts: 2,538	Originally Posted by 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. No, it belongs in a theology class.

8th June 2007, 01:10 PM	#12
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,804	Originally Posted by Segnosaur 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.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

9th June 2007, 03:33 PM	#13
athon Kowalski Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: gone Posts: 9,286	Originally Posted by Darat 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

9th June 2007, 05:11 PM	#14
Wainscotting Scholar Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Narrow it down by finding all the places where I don't live. Posts: 69	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.

11th June 2007, 11:28 AM	#15
Lensman Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Caerphilly Posts: 1,411	Anybody notice that the letters ID are at the front of IDIOT?
	__________________ When the chips are down, the buffalo is empty. I have learned that if you upset your wife, she nags you. If you upset her even more you get the silent treatment. Don't you think it's worth the extra effort?

12th June 2007, 12:02 AM	#16
Wainscotting Scholar Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Narrow it down by finding all the places where I don't live. Posts: 69	Originally Posted by Lensman Anybody notice that the letters ID are at the front of IDIOT? Next time I go to the pub, I'll have to say "No. I'm an evolutionist; I don't believe in ID."