‘Intelligent design’ faces first big court test

What is it with American schools and their desire to teach worthless science to the children entrusted to their care?
 
I think Hitler said it best Eon. Something along the lines of "control the education of the children and you can control the masses". Im sure that is not exact but it is the same idea. As for what you consider worthless science, hopefully you are speaking of Darwinism. :)
 
In order for evolution to be truly scientific, it must be tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty). Unless competing theories of the history of life are taught, then by default the school system is teaching evolution as certainty.

If you want to truly educate your children, you teach them all the evidences for all (or at least the widely held) theories, test their knowledge on those theories and let them form their own opinions based on the information at hand. That would be truly scientific.

Not offering the option is the only truely worthless science being taught.
 
Last edited:
Gods_Peon said:
In order for evolution to be truly scientific, it must be tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty). Unless competing theories of the history of life are taught, then by default the school system is teaching evolution as certainty.
Click to expand...

Where did you get the notion that evolution was a certainty? It IS called a theory, is it not? Plus, you have to consider the differences between micro and macro evolution.

Does ID admit that it could be incorrect?

If you want to truly educate your children, you teach them all the evidences for all (or at least the widely held) theories, test their knowledge on those theories and let them form their own opinions based on the information at hand. That would be truly scientific.
Click to expand...

I TOTALLY agree.

Not offering the option is the only truely worthless science being taught.
Click to expand...

Opponents of ID aren't saying that it shouldn't be taught outright. They are saying that ID shoudl be taught as part of the philosophical curriculum and not as science, because it is NOT a sound scientific theory.
 
One of the problems I have is with the textbook they want to use, "Of Pandas and People". The book was originally titled, "Biology of Origins" and used the term creationism almost exclusively. They later changed the title and replaced "creationism" with "intelligent design". Not exactly intellectually honest.
 
I think Intelligent design can mean many different things. Im not saying this is what they are teaching, just what I know of other definitions of intelligent design. That being that the soup that was here was aided by an outside force, i.e. little green men with too much time on there hands. Also it can mean creation by God. One im surprised they havent included is panspermia. Im sure that will be showing up soon the more we explore the rest of our solar system. Unfortunately only one is a creationist viewpoint, the rest simple move the point of origin to another palce without thoroughly explaining where that life came from.
 
They don't include the things you mention because this is not an intellectually honest science. This is creationism with God removed, to be used as a Gateway doctrine.

Arkanjel, the General of the Jesuits also said "Give me a child for the first seven years and you can do what you like with him afterwards". I think they were talking about educating him, but as they're catholic there is SOME grey area there. :)

Darwinism as you call it, the theory of Evolution, is the ONLY scientifically credible theory for the origin of species on earth. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that SO FAR it is the only rigorously tested scientific theory that stands up. It doesn't stand up 100% of the time as written, but it's in the 90's. Compared to that, the other "theories" are the scientific equivalent of High School Science Fair projects.

I'm not married to Darwinism as the answer - but it is a scientific answer and therefore deserves to be taught in SCIENCE. The world turtle myth, Genesis and the forming of the world from the remains of the slain earth giant - these are philosophical creation stories and they deserve to be taught in PHILOSOPHY or RELIGIOUS STUDY. That's really all I want.

Adding ID to the science curriculum is like saying that Pi is 3 and that Genesis should be taught in science class.
 
Where did you get the notion that evolution was a certainty? It IS called a theory, is it not? Plus, you have to consider the differences between micro and macro evolution.

Does ID admit that it could be incorrect?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that if the theory of evolution (which oddly enough was never referred to as theory when I was indoctrinated in it) is the only theory of life origins being taught, then the education system is teaching it as a certainty by default.
 
Not if it's doing its job right it isn't. It should be teaching the THEORY of evolution as the best fit according to what we know to be true right now.

If it isn't doing that then it's no more science than creationism.
 
Arkanjel said:
I think Intelligent design can mean many different things. Im not saying this is what they are teaching, just what I know of other definitions of intelligent design. That being that the soup that was here was aided by an outside force, i.e. little green men with too much time on there hands. Also it can mean creation by God. One im surprised they havent included is panspermia. Im sure that will be showing up soon the more we explore the rest of our solar system. Unfortunately only one is a creationist viewpoint, the rest simple move the point of origin to another palce without thoroughly explaining where that life came from.
Click to expand...

This is very true, but as I have stated, the textbook they are trying to push was a creationist book that has had a very thin lacquer applied to it to disguise it as intelligent design.
 
Gods_Peon said:
I'm saying that if the theory of evolution (which oddly enough was never referred to as theory when I was indoctrinated in it) is the only theory of life origins being taught, then the education system is teaching it as a certainty by default.
Click to expand...

INDOCTRINATED? :rolleyes:

Would you say you were "indoctrinated" into believing physics or trigonometry?

The theory of evolution can be evaluated by use of the scientific method, which is why it is taught as part of the science curriculum.

ID can NOT be evalutated by the scientific method. Are there any other theories that can be?

I don't believe evolution is being taught as the ONLY explaination for the existence of life. Granted, it may have been at one point, maybe during your period of "indoctrination". If you can find me evidence of a textbook, IN USE, that states that, I'll believe you. Until then, I think it's just wild speculation.
 
Its indoctronated when no other option is available.

I'll do better then provide you with a text book, I'll link you directly to the Alberta high school science (specifically grade 11 and 12 biology) ciriculam.

http://www.education.gov.ab.ca/k_12/curriculum/bySubject/science/sci2030.pdf

What options other then evolution are taught ... hmm, only evolution. The only time a term other then evolution is used is, Punctuated Equilibriam (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html) which is in a nutshell a theory to fill in holes that evolution can't explain because the fossil record doesn't actually conform to evolution. For example the sudden introduction of new species without intermediary transitional fossils. But it is not a competing theory of the history of life. Evolution is still part of PE.
 
I requested a textbook because I didn't believe your accusation that a declaration of evolution being the only valid theory in existence was stated within the text. I may have read that wrong though, I thought that's what you were implying.

Again, if there is another theory that can be analyzed with the scientific method, let me know. ID is not such a theory.

You state that you want options, but what other SCIENTIFIC options are there?

If you add ID, where do you STOP? Do we teach the Enuma Elish as well? What other options should we add?
 
Last edited:
Let me also add a little something.

Christianity has had it's time in the sun. That meaning, Christians have been in control of the scientific realm for quite a long time, by its veritable throat. Anyone remember what happened when you spoke against the Church's teachings, scientific or otherwise? And what exactly did that get us? Believing the world was flat? The Dark Ages?

Let's not be hypocrites here. Does anyone actually remember what the Scopes Trial was about? A biology teacher was on trial for going against the Butler Act law which forbade the teaching of "any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals."

How, exactly, do you scientifically teach THAT?

Sheesh! And you have the nerve to talk about indoctrination???
 
And how is ID any different?

ESPECIALLY since it can't be backed up by scientific principles.

Even in the link that Peon sent, evolution is noted as a THEORY

Students should be able to demonstrate the
interrelationships among science, technology and
society, by:
· understanding the significance of the fossil
record in indicating how the environment and
life forms have changed on Earth; the role of
inherited variations and the theory of evolution
in explaining these changes; and by assessing
traditional and alternative views of evolution,
within the context of...
Click to expand...

So much for your...theory.
 
I think that part of the problem is the word "theory". Gravity is a theory, as well, since we don't have the ability to "prove" it into a law and don't know exactly how it works on all levels. Evolution, still being in question, IMO should still be a "hypothesis", since there are still many strong scientific challenges as to it's validity. Teaching it as a "theory" puts it on the same plane of certainty as gravity, which even the most ardent evolutionists will admit is simply not the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top