Ok. Why not. Let's teach ID in Science class!

ID is a philosophy at it's core, that looks for scientific validity of the philosophical concepts.In this regard science is a tool of ID -- if properly pursued (see {Is ID properly pursued?} forum thread for more).To me this is like the relationship between math and physics. Physics uses math, but does not tell mathematicians what is good math or bad.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I don't think it's quite that bad, though I do disagree with Crashfrog about the limits of what can be taught.What are the elements of "Critical Thinking" then?I'll throw in:Any others?Certainly Logic can be taught as easily as math, but can you really teach skepticism? It seems to me there needs to be some inate mental ability level as a foundation, some threshold ability for Critical Thinking.Lets look at a recent example here, Message 28 where the writer accuses another poster of the " ... arrogant condescension of ad hominem attack ... " even though the evidence shows that (1) ohnhai (Message 10) was responding to Crashfrog by saying that " Holocaust denial and Flat-Earthism are not held up as shining examples of science that YECs want taught in schools." (ie noting that YECs are not advocating the teaching of these concepts) and (2) Crashfrogs comment (Message 8) was: " It's as much a waste of time to teach ID, even as a negative example, as it would be to examine Holocaust denial or flat-Earthism."Neither poster is saying that YECs or IDists or anyone else in the creationist fold is advocating the teaching of Holocaust denial or flat-Earthism.Now we could say that the conclusion posted by John Jaeger (aka Mirabile_Auditu, SpiderMBA and more) was due to either ignorance (difficult in this case as it is easily "cured" by reading the posts and following the links between them to see the argument), stupidity (for not being able to see and understand the points being made), insanity - including delusion - (not in touch with the reality of the posts or focusing on certain words to the exclusion of others and the meaning of the sentence), or maliciousness (intentionally baiting and using the logical fallacy "argument of prejudicial language" just to insult others by association or to disrupt the thread in the manner of internet trolls) ... or we could say there are other reasons for the post that John made here.But what we cannot say is that it is the result of "Critical Thinking" - not just because it is so obviously wrong, but because some of the elements noted above are absent: logic, review, deduction - and possibly others should they be added to the list. True, however, he is noted for saying that his definition of (scientific) theory would include astrology: (Quote from "Astrology is scientific theory, courtroom told" article on NewScientist.com)Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

this leads to the question of what are the minimum number of dots needed to connect the reality we know.is 1+1 really 2?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Yes, I have seen that. More in the spring than in the fall .Perhaps it is due to the absence of value placed on education in the society as a whole? Why do something with no percieved value attached?As a side note, college students don't appreciate older students that come back to learn ... because they are the ones that want to learn and they skew the curves for those who are there to please their parents, to get a good job down the line, meet mates, party, etcetera. Interested in how you came to that conclusion.And both what? The scientific theory of evolution and the creation story are two different things altogether - and which creation story do you like: Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, American Indians (several), Greek, Roman,Eegyptian, Norse, Sikh, Baha'i, Jain, Cao Dai, Rastafarian, Tenrikyo, Aztec, Confuscian, Taoist, Pagan, Bantu, other African (several), Zoroastrian, Deist, Mayan, Inca, Australian Aborigine, Weaver, Crocthor, Southern Cross and Beer, Oz, Gog\Agog ...... have I left anybody out?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.