The Education Wonks
I see no porblem exposing kids to different theories in school. Besides in some cases ID makes since, explain supermodels using evolution/natural selection. If you want even more of a challenge explain the people on the other end of the spectrum that weren't phased out by evolution/natural selection.
Non sequitor - human intelligence and medicine change the playing field; traits that in a 'pure' environment would be maladaptive are less of an issue for humans. As a side-note, it's pretty well-established that sexual selection and natural selection can exist in tension anyway. You don't think male peacock feathers help them escape predators, do you?
We shouldn't be teaching ID in science class for the same reason we shouldn't be teaching Last Thursdayism - it's not science. No theory of mechanics, no testable predictions, no falsifiable statements.
One of my favorite quotes on the issue:
"The female figure is the greatest known evidence that there might be a God...but the female psyche is an indication that this God has a very sick sense of humor.""
Perhaps ID vs. Evolution as an issue should be taught via current events/ social studies?
There is just no way I see states adding ID to their state testing requirements for science......
I've noticed that the Adminstration has something to say regarding intelligent design and plenty more to say about the need of schools to work harder in order to leave no child behind but they have nothing to say about the need of students and parents to take some responsibility for their own success. Nor do the folks in Washington ever address the huge amount of waste, fraud, abuse, and cronyism that's to be found in a great many school districts, both large and small.
Good thing waste and fraud don't occur in the Los Angeles Unified School District.
Okay try and say that with a straight face.
Just as Intelligent Design is not science, Evolution is not Theology.
Intelligent Design is not an "alternative" to the science of evolution. It is necessarily based in faith, or at minimum, personal verification that cannot be proved to another.
But scientists cross the line as well when they claim in any way that evolution and science has anything to say about Intelligent Design. To claim evolution is an accident or without intelligence is likewise a "leap of faith."
Let's face it. Science is ill-equipped to prove or disprove Intelligent Design.
Peronally, I marvel at people who can point to a little girl's doll and say, "Intelligent design" and then point to the girl and say, "Accident."
I found an interesting cartoon at another blog which I then shamelessly stole for my own. Come visit, it addresses this "teach both theories" topic perfectly.
"Let's face it. Science is ill-equipped to prove or disprove Intelligent Design."
Spoken like a true non-scientist.
Scientists aren't trying to "disprove", or for that matter "prove" ID or evolution, that's not the point. They're merely trying to come up with an explanation for how life has developed that doesn't rely on "God did it". Now inasmuch as God is a concept that escapes objective proof it only makes sense that we come up with a theory that doesn't rely on something we can't prove exists. Those that do are practicing something called faith, which as we all should know isn't science.
Now could God have done it? Well, indeed he/she could, but we can posit very good explanations within the context of Darwin's theory that don't include God. This of course doesn't exclude God, it just merely makes the case that we don't need to fallback on the almighty for an explanation in the matter of evolution any more than we do in the matter of how to cure someone with a deadly disease.
The main problem is that ID is not a theory, it's at best some version of a hypothesis and that doesn't make it scientific in the least. ID meets none of the criteria for anything scientific, though many ID exponents well go to great lengths to provide much to make what they say seem like science. No IDers have published in reputable journals, and while they'll surely claim that they'll never get a fair shake in one of them the fact is the only way ID merits being a theory is if it plays in the ballpark of science, something the ID movement hasn't been able to do up to now and I seriously doubt will ever be able to. IDers want equal treatment, and that's understandable, but first they have to meet the same rules to play and they're nowhere near close to that.
Sigh. I actually attended parochial school and if Mr. Bush gets his way, my publicly schooled children will have more exposure to ID/creationism than I did. Keep the Sunday School mythology at Sunday School.
While we quibble over whether or not God did it, other countries continue to actually, I don't know, RESEARCH and TEST new technological breakthroughs as we fall further and further behind as a great scientific super-power.
You can believe Vishnu or God or Diana had a hand in the creation of the unverse without time or money being wasted on that discussion. Science class teaches what has been tested and generally accepted as fact. The fact so many American's still have no concept of this very basic concept scares the heck out of me.
Science Question on the 2006 State Standards Assessment:
2. How did Life on Earth begin?
a. God created it, in seven days.
(see Chpt. One of your Holy
Bible)
b. It is, as it always will be,
a great gift from our creator,
Allah, may our lips ever be in
praise of him.
c. In a big explosion that
released the stuff needed for
life to begin in a swirling
cloud of cosmic stuff.
d. Like, it happened out in space
a really long long, time ago?
OF course, in the interest of political correctness, ALL of the above answers are correct. Therefore, no student who answers the question will answer it incorrectly. Therefore, test scores will go up and show that NCLB is truely working.
This conversation is going great. I just want to say a few things.
ID is not creationism and they shouldn't be confused.
I don't think ID is science.
Evolution, ID and creationism are not mutually exclusive.
The President didn't say to teach it as science, people assume too much.
Carl Sagan who didn't believe in an afterlife non the less wrote his novel "Contact" on the concept of Intelligent Design. If all you saw was the movie, read the book.
Science and theology both stumble over the question of how anything exists. You know the paradox... if god created the world who created god, If a big bang created the universe where did the stuff come from to form into a big bang?
What came first the chicken or the egg?
Bottom line is exposing people to various schools of thought whether science or philosophy is a good thing.
Well that's my 2 cents.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
