20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum

I have been trying to understand what Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents really want.I just do not understand what vision they have of the future the U.S., if they are successful and their odd view of science education becomes the law of the land. Would science classes end up consisting of the kind of materials that are on display in the various creation/ID so-called “museums” i.e. dinosaurs and humans co-existing? These seem to ignore all the evidence, observations and conclusions that scientists have labored to use to describe the natural world for the past 150 years, so I assume none of that will be included in the science curricula.So let us try to imagine what America is like 20 years after the creation/ID science curriculum becomes the law of the land.Admin: I am not sure where this topic fits best.Edited by Tanypteryx, : Admin request

---

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty PythonYou can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

Would you be willing to express this much more neutrally? You're actually asking what a creationist or ID educational curriculum would look like, and this would go in the [forum=-4] forum, but it might be better to remove the "cdesign proponentist" references and to modify or trim out the negative characterizations. If you edit your Message 1 then just post a short note letting me know you've done so.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Percy, does this work better? I think I have a pretty good idea what their curriculum is. What I really want to know is how it would change America and why they would want that.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

quote:

---

Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God

---

They basically want a religious revival where materialism is rejected and everyone supports christian moral values - notably those regarding sexuality and abortion etc. As they say, they want...

quote:

---

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

---

They are running a bit behind schedule, but they were planning (by 2018) What they want is the religious right utopia. What we'll actually get? Well, I doubt it will be the collapse of civilization - but the US will have significant financial issues. I doubt it would affect just biology and who wants a non-materialist oil location company that uses the intelligent oil hider theory?We saw what happens when science is undermined by religious agendas (not personally) in what happened to the Middle East. Hopefully that isn't the future of the USA.

quote:

---

What they want is the religious right utopia.

---

But they would settle for a good old-fashioned theocracy.(Paging Nehemiah Scudder. Pick up the white courtesy telephone please.)

I do not envision this happening, unless they somehow do achieve theocracy, and then can enforce adherence to their rules.....a chilling thought.It would be a very odd world without scientific inquiry. Curiosity seems to be an inherent trait of humans. I am trying to imagine a society that stifles the need, by so many, to try and understand how everything works, from the universe down to the most basic biological processes.We can already see the level of frustration in scientists that depend on government funding who cannot carry out research because of an ignorant, uneducated, fundamentalist in the white house. I am glad that he cannot yet stifle privately funded research. I guess when the lights go out we can all pray for god to design new generators or better yet, to redesign our eyes to see in the dark. Or maybe stop "the sun from going around the earth" and make it daylight everywhere at the same time.....LOL

---

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty PythonYou can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

Or welcome to the year 1418

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

I think the ID camp wants students to develop critical thinking skills and so wants both ID and evo theories to be taught and examined critically. Frankly, I cannot fathom why anyone wanting students to be educated would balk at, for example, teaching criticisms of evo theory.

What the ID camp wants is covered quite well. You will find it at this site.Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - WikipediaYou can also read the entire court transcript and the judgement.Page not found | ACLU PennsylvaniaI know it appears to be a bare link, but the case is so well known that I don't feel that summarising it here will help. I'm supplying the link for information only, rather than colouring the issue with my own opinions.Edited by Trixie, : Edited to provide link to transcripts

quote:

---

I think the ID camp wants students to develop critical thinking skills and so wants both ID and evo theories to be taught and examined critically. Frankly, I cannot fathom why anyone wanting students to be educated would balk at, for example, teaching criticisms of evo theory.

---

The "criticisms" they want taught do not represent ongoing debate within the various fields of evolution as conducted, for example, in peer-reviewed technical journals.Rather, the "criticisms" are those found on websites such as Answers in Genesis and the like, or pushed by the Discovery Institute. The "criticisms" are clearly based on religion, not on science.I had a seminar near the end of my grad school days titled Problems in Evolution. Not one of the problems discussed were of the sort found on the creationist websites or pushed as "critical thinking.""Critical thinking" seems to be a code word for teaching religious belief in science classes. The funny thing though--if one were to apply critical thinking skills to such religious beliefs, one would be called an anti-religious bigot, or worse. From what I have seen, proponents of "critical thinking" want their beliefs taught as fact or truth (i.e., divine revelation), and they don't want them to be subject to challenge.Edited by Coyote, : Typo

I disagree. In fact, there are more, albeit few, ID papers discussing the tenets and ideas related to ID than there have been validating the basic tenets and assumptions of The Theory of Evolution. Admittedly, part of that is Darwinism was largely accepted outside the peer-review process as we understand it today.Nevertheless, there is quite a bit of publication related to ID, both in biology and other fields, as ID stretches past just biology.

Evos have resorted to the courts to silence criticism of their theory. Btw, Dover really settled nothing because the judge, obviously biased, just copied and pasted his ruling complete with typos from evo advocates. It was a sham and is viewed that way by everyone that isn't an evo.

I agree that students should be taught to think critically, especially when studying scientific theories. Science education in this country clearly is not succeeding in teaching students to understand the difference between science and pseudoscience or the definition of a scientific theory.I have seen no coherent ID theory put forward that can be critically examined.I have not seen anyone balk at the critical examination of the Theory of Evolution. Biologists and other scientists critically examine the ToE every time they make observations or conduct experiments.What we DO balk at, is criticisms of strawman versions of evolution being taught as legitimate scientific inquiry. The idea of teaching students (some of whom may someday become scientists themselves) that science or the ToE is flawed or invalid because it has not yet answered ALL questions is absurd.

---

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty PythonYou can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

Hello all!This is from the opening post: Please let's keep discussion focused on the topic. Those who view the scenario of this thread favorably should describe the favorable aspects, those who do not should describe the unfavorable aspects. For example, while Dover can provide some hints of the direction such an outcome might take when projected out 20 years, the judge's ruling in the legal case is definitely wandering too far afield, as is the existence of technical literature concerning ID.Just to be very clear, there are some members with a proclivity for using the slightest excuse to wander off-topic onto their favorite themes, and our reduced moderator team is not equipped to follow them all over the forums continually issuing off-topic warnings. Even worse, leniency is this regard as encouragement to other members to do the same. Please do not overburden the moderator team, or it will be forced to remove such members from the active roles for longer and longer periods, eventually permanently.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director