Intelligent Design in Science Class - Sample curriculum please

First, let's just make sure we're clear that there is no chance of either Creationism or Intelligent Design ever being taught in at least any U.S. schools for many years to come.Check:
Edwards v. Aguillard {creationis}
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District {id}And also that there is no risk in evolution ever not being taught, as in Epperson v. Arkansas where a State was forbid from excluding evolution from schools.This is good if you're living here in the States and if you go to a public school.But we cannot just conclude that the courts have always decided what's best, so there is a chance that perhaps they are wrong and we should teach ID/Creationism. But the fact that even a judge can see the obviously religious influence behind both these theories should say something.You lot seem to have quite a discussion going on the scientific validity of ID, so I'm not going to try to jump in, but just thought I'd add my 2 worth .Trék

quote:

---

A study of the history of ID would, for the most part, be one of religious, not scientific, efforts.

---

Or, like I just pointed out, perhaps for study in a law class.

quote:

---

I believe that ID is followed by Creation is followed by Evolution. For this to make sense leave out religion.

---

I'm nearly speechless to read something like this! Are you trying to say that evolution (with a lowercase 'e'!) spawned Creationism? This is only somewhat true. First off, you must realize that Creationism is a PURELY legal movement, as is ID. They deviate here and there in an attempt to hide their hidden agenda. Evolution is a scientific theory. Darwin didn't wake up one morning and go "Golly gee, it must be evolution." and then start lookking for the evidence. He saw the evidence and then concluded it was evolution. (read my signature) Creationists/ID theorists start with a belief that the Bible is true, and then set out trying to prove it. Even if it's not religion, that right there makes it anything but science. And, if anyone's unsure of it: only science belongs in the science class. Personally, I would've been urked to no end if I would've found out that I was going to have to learn Creationism/ID in my science class.Evolution is not in conflict with God, but it does pretty much make His existence quite unnecessary, and it is in conflict with the Bible. But, you can believe in a god of somesort if you wish, but as far as we can all tell, he has had no hand in the creation of anything and certainly ought not have a hand in science education.

quote:

---

the Bible is wrong.

---

You've got my full support there.

quote:

---

The result? Enforced ignorance, repression of intellect. The dark ages!

---

Are you sure? I was always taught that the Dark Ages were a result of the collapse of the Roman Empire, which left the whole of the known world ununited, leading to local control by feudal lords. The church didn't so much put a start to the Dark Ages as it did work to keep the whole world in them when scientists wanted out.

quote:

---

100,000 belivers are the mental equivalent of 1 thinker.

---

And in which group do you fall?I don't quite understand where you stand on the issue.And like I've said many times where I work: yeeha!Trékedit: fixed emoticonThis message has been edited by Invictus, 05/07/2006 02:11 AM

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species

Okay. Yes, I see I misunderstood your order on the evolution from Creationism thing. However, even the way you put it doesn't work, because to believe what you've said, we would have to first believe that ID/Creationism are real in the sense that their teaching of history is the true one. I don't think you'll find many scientists agreeing with you there.

quote:

---

I believe in God.

​

I believe that God:

​

A. He/She Intelligently Designed

​

followed by

​

B. He/She Created (first creative act we surmise as "the big bang",
(not a porno movie)

​

followed by

​

C. evolution (with a small "e" which continues to this day...

​

...that should be clear

---

You really think it would be, but it's not at all. Points A & B are clear (though I don't agree with them), but point C doesn't make any sense. Read the sentence "I believe that God...evolution..." What do you believe God did with evolution? Started it? Steered it? You need a verb, and then you'll be clear on this point, though I think it was probably just a typing error.

quote:

---

"creation" (small "e") is just a word which I use to identify a process.

---

Well, crEation doesn't make much sense, so I can see why you would want a small "e" (once again, I think another typo).

quote:

---

I see a matter which must be clarified and this one is my fault.

---

You've certainly muddied the water for me.

quote:

---

Most people use the term "Evolution" and what they really mean is someting like: all from nothing... no God or god... random chance mutations.... etc. These I take to be atheists.

---

People who take it to mean that are taking it to mean what it doesn't mean. If you're arguing with them, you're arguing with the wrong people. Evolution has nothing to do with creation, God/god.

quote:

---

I believe in God but not religions or dogma.

​

I've never heard of another expressing this view. Even you mistook me for an athesist (evidenced by your last paragraph).

---

I've heard MANY PEOPLE who express that view; don't think you're the only one. And I'm not sure what in my last paragraph led you to believe I thought you were atheist. Please do tell me what it was that I said that led you to that belief.

quote:

---

Another point might be: I truthfully am impatient with those who quote another man's writing (from ages past) in offering evidence to support their position on an argument. If the argument is academic and the subject is that author then this is OK. If the argument is scholastic we may each have our own platform and who will say that it is less valid that one from antiquity? Plato, after all, wrote many opinions and should we accord his work the status of benchmark knowledge. We all have the same abilities and access.

---

I didn't qoute Darwin in an attempt to prove the truthfullness behind evolution. What I was trying to do was give you an example of how he was thinking when he came up with the theory so that you would understand that it was not just developed out of the blue. Darwin very much believed in the 6-day creation, and it took all the evidence he found to convince him otherwise.

quote:

---

Thank you for your kind response. It's good to know I'm not the only old man who stays up late at night pretending to be wise.

---

I'm not so much an old man, and I'm not trying to pretend to be wise. I'm simply puting out my opinion and the facts which support it.Do you see now, "dude"?Trékedit: the code has gone all hay-wireedited to respell "quote" by AdminPhatThis message has been edited by AdminPhat, 05-07-2006 02:30 AM

quote:

---

I know. You are correct. My ideas of meanings of terms are different than mainstream and that fact promotes misunderstanding. I suppose the main part that is so hard to "see" is that, as humans, we tend to polarize issues. We divide into camps and erect banners. Here we do this by separating into groups of "create" vs "evolve". My mind works differently.

---

The problem here is that "create" deals with the origins of life, whereas "evolve" simply explains why it is so diverse. To seperate into camps like this doesn't make sense, since these two things explain something different.

quote:

---

My "default position" is that if we bring everything to the center there are agreements to be discovered, and perhaps consensus.

---

That's backwards. We don't go to the centre and then find agreement, we must first find agreement and then move to the centre. Of course, like I said before, create and evolve explain two different things, and so they wouldn't be working toward the same centre anyway.

quote:

---

Agreement by scientists? I think they are mostly very spiritual people. Trained to think, they surely must agree that there is something which seems to be "always just out of reach". And, maybe that something is God. Of course they are also trained not to hypothesize unless there is some firm evidence. So they remain silent. I don't blame them.

---

Want to find me a scientist claiming that? Oh wait, your response will be: "No scientist will claim it because they 'remain silent.'" Which basically means you can make that statement and never have to back it up. Well, I guess I'd like to ask some scientists to say otherwise (proving both that they do not think God is the higher understanding they seek and that they don't "remain silent.") One stone for two birds... I'm feeling quite economical today.

quote:

---

Another appropriate thought might be: If we discover that there is a God what will we do with scientific investigation? Shall we give up and say: "God did it and that's good enough for me".

---

IF, IF, we discover there is a god, then the best thing to do would be to try to understand it, just like we tried to understand the atom when we realized its existance. And besides, who's to say that what one person might consider a discovered "god" really isn't a god at all. I mean, if we do discover this god, how will we know we have discovered it? You're giving a name to something that we haven't even discovered yet (sort of like Columbus leaving Spain saying "I'm off to America."--it just doesn't make sense).

quote:

---

Ahhh, solice in a flagon of ale! The sweet kiss of oblivion.

---

If you're trying to make a point with this, I certainly don't see it.