Why should ID be taught in science classes...

...when there are many other fringe-scientific theories and ideas that have been pushed for far longer than ID. Surely, if science teaching is going to open to multiple opinions, we should give them first crack before ID?For example, back around 1990, a researcher from the Maharishi's university produced work showing how all divine principles and their interconnections with our chakras were manifestly portrayed by the Lagrangian of N=8 SuperGravity (a potential theory of everything at the time). I still have the paper. If true, this would have a profound effect on our view of spirituality and would lead to the possibility of making actual calculations of our spititual condition.When not teaching the conventional science syllabus, how much time should be apportioned to ID and how much to the Maharishi's work? On what basis would you make these apportions?{First appeared here: Message 191, but is rather off-topic. Education and Creation/Evolution?}

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I think that ideas such as Biblical Creationism, ID or the Maharishi's university work showing how all divine principles and their interconnections with our chakras were manifestly portrayed by the Lagrangian of N=8 SuperGravity should be taught in Science classes.Since there is not time to teach all it might be a good idea to have a list of such examples that the students could choose from.One important thing to learn about science is how mistaken ideas are tested against the evidence and rejected.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

when i was in high school i was taught inteligent design. i grew up in canada and being so close to what is just south of us gives us all the heebie jebbies a bit about such topics in the classroom, so this was not part of the cirriculum.how i was taught it was through a good teacher. the thing about school kids is that they are a bit stupid. and the thing about teachers is that they are sometimes also a bit stupid. stupid kids and stupid teachers have enough of a hard time with basic physics, like the trajectory of a thrown object for example. i do not think we should bog down the cirriculum with a topic as inhernetly impossible to understand as the possible existence and manifestations of god.however, it only takes one good teacher to lets kids discover the connections. most kids will have alteast one good teacher, and it need not be a science teacher who opens their eyes to the living force all around us. would not the study of literature and symbol be a good way to start really relating to the holy books?the possiblity of id or a living god is too important to be placed in the hands of a footballocentric gym teacher who this year has to teach biology as well. and at the same time a good teacher will open the door to amazing new possiblities.p.s. my teacher did try to teach some of us some basic superstring theory and believed he one saw a spaceship while he was relaxing in his hottub. thats what i call a quality education...

Well the simple fix to that problem is to keep religion in the church and/or home where it belongs.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

It is obvious that such religions and beliefs are descended from the Sumerian super human alien miners who created humanity to be slave workers.We must teach that before it's spin off faiths.

Ok, so maybe i'm like the slow kid in the corner. I have trouble seeing how your question could be anything but rhetorical. But for a moment i'll assume its not and that...
This isn't a debate about what view is correct but simply a question as to why ID should be taught over other theories that have been fighting longer(i'm not familar with what that could be). I would say that the main reason is that ID was originally taught and only replaced by evolution through false evidence in a court case. And by this i'm referring to the "Nebraska Man".

Not really. The point regarding seniority was merely to counter claims of pre-eminance of ID. However, you actually make this claim by equating ID with classic "design arguments", something with which the major proponents of ID would take issue.Now hopefully you wil forgive my unfamiliarity with US educational and legal history (I'm only really interested in what is taught NOW), but the only court case of which I am aware is the Scopes Trial, under which Scopes was found guilty of teaching evolution. Was Nebraska Man ever mentioned? And what effect did it have?Anyway, even if ID was being taught as the standard back in the early 1900s, it had almost certainly replaced the teaching of Biblical creationism at some point. Why did that occur? What evidence led to Biblical creationism being rejected in favour of ID?And let's not forget that the Scopes Trial was actually defending Biblical creationism, not ID, from evolution. ID, as its major proponents at the Discovery Institute testify, is simply an injection of a detectable intelligent agent into the wokrings of common descent. No douby if Scopes had been teaching ID, he would have been found similarly guilty.

CaveDiver I must apologize for my narrow view. I automatically assumed you were talking about the us. But yes I was refering to the 1925 scopes trial. What was its affect?
the only court case of which I am aware is the Scopes Trial, under which Scopes was found guilty of teaching evolution. Was Nebraska Man ever mentioned? And what effect did it have? Of the fifteen states with anti- evolution legislation pending in 1925, only Arkansas and Mississippi followed through with laws restricting teaching of Darwin's theory. While I personally believe that evolution should be taught in schools (along with ID) I don't believe in any theory I have seen on macro evolution. The scopes trial had a rather large effect on the school system here in the US. And it was based largely on a pig tooth that was thought to be the missing link. The discovery institute? I'm sorry but I am not familiar with them so I would have trouble making an argument for something they have said (man, its hard enough to defend the things I say )

Welcome to the fray EpicThought Please define "macro"evolution - so we can be sure we are (a) talking about evolution and (b) we are talking about the same thing.Also define "micro"evolution just to be sure we are talking about something different.It should be easy eh?. What facts can you teach about ID?Enjoy

---

ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:Edited by RAZD, : added idded

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

You didn't really respond to cavediver's questions here. The so-called "Nebraska Man" (to give it its proper name, Hesperopithecus haroldcookii), was not used as evidence during Scopes. In fact, there was no scientific evidence of any kind used during the trial. In any event, by 1927 H. haroldcookii was relegated to the dustbin through additional field work. It was a five-year sensation at best, and was related more to wishful thinking than anything else. (Damn Europeans have all these neat hominids, how cum us Americans don't got any? )

That's fine, but we are talking about should be taught in science classes. The overwhelming majority of scientists on the planet believe the Theory of Evolution to be best theory (and actually not far off the only theory) we have to explain the origin of species on the planet. There are a relatively microscopic number of scientist adherents to ID. So why should ID get some special treatment to be taught alongside the Theory of Evolution as some sort of equal possibility? As I mentioned in my opening, there are many fringe concepts in science and a very crowded school curriculum (in the US as well as the UK). Why should ID qualify for special status? If you think that this constitutes the basis (or in fact any part) of evidence for the Theory of Evolution, you have a couple of years' reading ahead of you!

'Nebraska Man' and pig teeth had nothing to do with the Scopes trial (1927).
http://www.law.umkc.edu/...rojects/FTrials/scopes/scopes.htmThe Scopes trial was not about the Intelligent Design movement, which is of recent origin.
Intelligent design movement - WikipediaThe landmark case for Intelligent Design is Kitzmiller versus Dover Area School District (2005).
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - WikipediaYou do have some reading to do. __

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

evolution at the species level or above evolution belowe the species level At first I thought of listing all the facts (from my knowledge and veiws at least) one by one. But this would do nothing but duplicate the point for the entire forum. And more importantly it really doesn't answer the question. I'm really not sure what the core of ID curriculem should be. A very good question. It might make for an interesting debate between the people that think ID should be taught at all. I would have sworn that I read that the "Nebraska Man"(to give it its proper name, Peccary) was used in the trial. But you are right I was greatly mistaken. LOL Thanks for the correction. Well because it is the correct theory of course... WAIT DON'T SHOOT! I'm just kidding. Well at least kind of kidding. With out getting into a debate about the specific facts that is really the argument for either side to be taught. They both argue that they are right. Both sides come to different conclusions over the same facts. And some people from both sides try to ignore some facts and throw other ones in (Nebraska man used in the scopes trial as an example). But what I would think to be a good reason from the evolutionist's view point is
1)The large number of the population that is Christian... And largly unable to give a reason for there belifes.
2}Because of this (and assuming you are correct) it would give evolution a much better chance of being accepted by the general population.
What part of the population believes ID over evolution or visa versa depends on what part of the world you are in. But I think that people of science often forget about the average person. Which is really what public education is aimed at. Simply teaching evolution won't change what a person's home or cultural teachings have brought them to believe. To do this you have to address the specific facts that they base there belifes on. While I did base the begining of my argument(ok fine, the whole argument) on an ignorant statement, i'm not quite ignorant enough to think that peccary plays a role in the "evidence" for or against evolution. While I was wrong in stating that it was used in the trial it is a huge assumption and leap to read beyond that. But yeah lol I do have some reading to do. And I suspect I always will. I already addressed this above. But I might as well indulge you.... Your absolutely right. I was sadly mistaken and even worse wrong! I didn't mean to present it as such. But rather as part of the (US)legal history. But I think that fell apart since peccary wasn't used in the trial anyway. I haven't had time to look at this yet. But I definately will. Thanks for the link!!I hope that I have done this in the correct format. I did a general reply since I was responding to more than one post. But if I need to do individual replies just let me know. Also thanks for the tip about quote boxes. We will see if I did it right.

Being a Christian does not equal supporting ID.I agree that the Creationist movements and ID proponents have done a great job of framing the issue in the terms of "Accepting Evolution means denying God".The question is, at least for me, of how to best teach that accepting evolution does NOT mean denying God.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion