20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum

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

I think your post has two questions, related but separate. Firstly, what do the Creationists and ID proponents want and secondly if they get what they want, where would the USA be in 20 years.
To determine what they want can be difficult, but a good place to start is with some of the testimony given at the Dover trial by IDists and Creationists. From my reading of the transcript I would suggest the following1. A widening of the definition of scientific theory so as to include certain subjects currently not included.The current definition from the National Academy of Sciences is This does not include ID so to get it included, the definition would be widened to What is meant by this new definition is apparent in the following exchange, which follows straight on from the above quote. 2. The inclusion of God into the science curriculumThe Discovery Institute's own document, known as The Wedge Document states in it's "Five Year Plan Summary" that the Intelligent Design Movement's goal is to replace science as is currently practiced with "theistic and Christian science". The full text of The Wedge strategy can be found at the following linkhttp://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html3. The inclusion of morality in science curriculaThis is one of the points stated as a five year objective in The Wedge Document So, to try to answer the second part - where would the USA be in 20 years' time if the Creation/ID "science" became the law of the land?It's difficult foretell the future, but I predict that critical thinking skills would decline. New information which came to light would be assessed, not on evidence, but on whether it "fitted" with the ID/Creationist agenda. Inconvenient evidence would be quietly ignored. Whole areas of research would be off-limits because it would not conform to the ID ideas, areas such as abiogenesis. Transitional fossils would be off-limits since, by the definition of the IDers, they don't exist.Areas of medical treatment and research which deal with positive views of homosexuality or supported abortion would be off limits (and possibly contraception, maybe).If the definition of science was changed to include such subjects as astrology, then I believe that science education in the USA would end up an international laughing stock. While it's one thing to use analysis of the position of the planets and moons when working out the best time and route to get the next NASA probe to Saturn , or to determine the best time of year to count the number of eggs laid by a given species of bird, or when a woman's next period might be due, I do not believe that it will help in determining the causes of cancer or discovering cures for HIV. Neither do I believe that it will give more accurate data with regard to paternity testing or disease susceptibility testing.If the cdesign proponentists get their way, science will suffer, medicine will suffer and people will suffer. People will suffer because if they don't agree with what will be taught, they will be ostracised as atheists - this has in fact already happened in some cases. This false dichotomy will cause society to split along what will appear to be religious lines. Taken far enough, this may even lead to genuine, "old-school" (for want of a better word)scientists being barred from employment in scientific fields.To finish on a lighter note, the IDists can't tell you when the next bus is due, but the ToE can make a fair stab at what species you'll be when the bus finally turns up

I can think of one better way and they did that in Dover. If you want to discuss that, why not post in the Significance of Dover thread, after all thats what you seem to be discussing here.

Yes, buz, I did see the post you direct me to, however it wasn't the one I was replying to. I was replying to Post 41 your entire text reads I am providing a suggestion to the statement you make which says My reply is very specific to that statement and refers to absolutely nothing in the post that you directed me to.

Still waiting for a reply to my message 42

You didn't really just say this, did you? Let me get this straight. You're suggesting that the first casualties of a flood would be those creatures who, in your eyes, were designed specifically to live in water i.e., fish!!!It's the first time I've ever come across the argument that fish are more susceptible to death by water than any other creatures. In fact, prior to your statement, I actually thought that fish would survive water better because they live in it, can move through it and can get oxygen from it via things called gills. Just shows what I know. Prior to your revelation, I honestly believed that the relationship between availability of water and piscean death was more of an inverse relationship i.e., very little water, oodles of fish death. I see I'll need to revise my thinking!This part of your statement has been addressed on the forum before, many moons ago The suggestion put forth was that those creatures who could run away would run uphill and be discovered in the upper layers - we never did get an explanation of how grass managed to outrun many of these aforementioned creatures. We did, however, get an explanation of why birds (and I think it was referring to flightless ones, but it could have been all of them) appeared above dinosaurs. I'm sure it can be found in the archive, but it's not really worth the effort. The explanation given was that birds and dinosaurs headed for the hills and as the flood waters rose and the dinosaurs could go no higher the birds perched on the heads of the dinosaursI'm off to pat the goldfish dry, just in case.

Having done a Google search, I came across a wonderful page. Unfortunately the page is no longer available, but, oh joy of joys, Google still listed it's cached vesion from 18.01.2008 and I have had the satisfaction of copying and pasting the full text straight from the cache into Microsoft Word.Sadly the whole mess runs to 24 pages in Word, but it is one of the most hilarious conversations I've seen for a while. Basically, it is a discussion between various Creationwiki people and Ray, attempting to get Ray to edit his article for them. Now, note this carefully;THIS IS CREATIONWIKI!By definition it's a creationist website. Ray ends up calling some of them atheists for asking him to support his assertions in his article!!!You couldn't make this up!!Now I really don't think that Admin would appreciate me pasting the entire text in this thread, however I will post the link to the cache for anyone who wants to try and access it. arwin]-->Cached Google Page of Talk: Darwin himself was a racist (Talk.Origins)If it disappears, I have a copy of the page saved in html format so that I can't be accused of having changed anything. If anyone wants a copy and can't find it, feel free to ask me to e-mail it to you, either in html or Word format.There may be some problems with the link because if I put the entire link here, in the part which says "Talk : Darwin" I end up with "Talkarwin". I've had to put extra spaces in to get rid of the laughter icon . Even using the link shortening code, I still end up with a little laughing smilie. Rather appropriate, but inconvenient in a linkie.This article highlights exactly what fellow Creationists think of Ray's frothings and how even discussion with fellow Creationistsdescends into accusations of inability to refute, Godsense removal, atheist etc, the usual Ray Martinez MO.Edited by Admin, : Fix link by using dBCodes and disabling smilies.

Just for the record, when you say I would just like to point out that you were wrong the first time you said I was an atheist, you were wrong the second time, you were wrong the third time....you were wrong the 20th time......and you're wrong this time. I am a Christian, although I fully expect you to tell me I'm not....again.Heaven is going to be very empty if you're right - just you and Gene Scott. I myself prefer to let God be the judge of that.

No, Ray, I don't argue against the Bible, I argue against you and the last time I checked, YOU were NOT the Bible. And before you acuse me of arguing against God, the last time I checked, you weren't God either.As I said, Heaven is going to be mighty empty if you're right. I wonder if Jesus would actually get in under your rules?

So, Beretta, you agree that to get ID included as a science, we have to change the definition of what science is. Surely that, in and of itself, admits that, as things stand at the moment, ID most definitely is NOT science. Therefore until the definition of science is changed, ID has no place in the science class.In changing the definition of science to encompass ID, Michael Behe admitted, in court, under oath, that the definition which he proposes in order to include ID will also include Astrology. Do you believe that Astrology is a scientific theory on par with ID? In 20 years will science teachers be hired based on their star sign?You may not realise it, but that is what you're proposing. Instead of redefining science to include ID, why do IDists not set about gaining scientific credentials for their theory? If it is a science, then that shouldn't be too difficult. If, however, it truly is on par with Astrology, then there may be some problems with scientific research which would support ID, ie it will be non-existent.Idists claim there is much scientific evidence for ID, but when asked to provide examples, they refuse or provide examples which are most definitely NOT scientific. Can you provide any? Can you provide any evidence of ongoing scientific research in the field of ID? I don't want links to opinions, arguments, logical expositions, I want links to the actual, ongoing scientific, laboratory research. Heck, I'm not even asking for published research, just ongoing research. If you can do this, then ID may fnally be making an attempt to prove its claims of being a science.Asking for a redefinition of science is admitting that ID is NOT science!!I'll correct any typos later if I have time.

To save you looking it up, here's the part of the Trial transcript in question.The questions are asked by Eric Rothschild for the Plaintiffs (on cross)and the answers are given by Michael Behe (Expert Witness for the Defense). I've taken this directly from the official court transcript, Tuesday October 18th 2005, 1.25pm, Afternoon Session, Honorable John E. Jones III presiding. You will find the pdf file herePage not found | ACLU Pennsylvania Behe then goes on to give explanations, but he doesn't retract his statement.You can read the entire Dover transcriptPage not found | ACLU PennsylvaniaSo under the definition which allows ID to be taught in the science class, astrology can be taught too!I have to ask this question again. Why have IDists failed to familiarise themselves with the court transcript, especially when they want to dispute what it says?So, CTD, there you have it. In 20 years time, Astrology will be taught as science in science classes if IDists get their way since it's as valid as ID under Behe's definition and as explicitly stated by Behe in open court, under oath, as an expert witness and recorded in the transcript of that day's proceedings by the court stenographer.So, in response to your statement No-one is trying to build an association between ID and astrology. It has already been built, demonstrated and declared in public by one of ID's most vocal supporters. It only fails if you are prepared to accept that Behe's redefinition of scientific hypothesis fails and if you accept that, you accept that ID isn't a scientific hypothesis and shouldn't be taught in science classes.

You say Can I point out and paraphrase Shakespeare in the process There actually is, or has been
1. Voodoo
2. Witch pricking
3. Palmistry
4. Alien abduction
5. Crystal Ball GazingJust because they exist(ed) and can be investigated scientifically doesn't mean that they are science. They have been scientifically investigated and discovered to be bunkum. The same can be said for Astrology. So it shouldn't be taught in science class as an alternative theory.ID, on the other hand, can't even measure up to the five examples above because it can't even be tested in the first place

You said Read more closely. The lawyer asked the question and Michael behe answered in the affirmative. At the risk of spoonfeeding, the questions were asked by the lawyer - they are prefixed by "Q".The answers are given by Michael Behe - they are prefixed by an "A".The words were spoken by Michael Behe, the answers were given by Michael Behe. How is this deceit by the lawyer? Is he a ventriloquist? Nowhere in Michael Behe's definition of science is there a requirement for scientific testing. If you don't like the way ID is being touted, take it up with the ID movement itself.Something being amenable to scientific testing is only the first step. The next step is to test it and if it fails the test, it's out. That's what's happened to Astrology - it can be scientifically tested, it has been and has been shown to be so much marsh gas.We can't test ID because it, as defined by cdesign proponentsists, can't be tested. So it's in a worse position than Astrology was. Now, while ID hasn't suggested that Astrology be taught in science classes, what I'm trying to point out is that Michael Behe has admitted that his argument for including ID in science classes, also holds true for Astrology.You can guess folks are just parroting Michael Behe's words, instead of thinking for themselves. I would suggest to you that if Michael Behe and the other cdesign proponentsists had done a bit of thinking instead of making such idiotic faux pas in court, ID wouldn't be the laughing stock it is at the moment.Can I say that I'm one of many people who have read over that court transcript and judgement very carefully. Why is it that those people who wish to deny that certain things were said in open court, fail to read the transcript? Read the transcript, become informed, then come back and try again.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix first quote box by adding the "/" to the quote closer.

Since Behe admits that ID isn't science as science is currently defined, do you want to change the definition of science to get it in or do you want to see the work done that will make ID fit under the current definition?

You're getting mixed up with hyopthesis and theory. We have a hypothesis, we test it scientifically. If it passes it may just become a theory and we can teach it. Astrology is a hypothesis, we test it scientifically AND IT FAILS therefore it is not a scientific theory, therefore we don't teach it as such.Behe, knowing this, has proposed a definition of scientific theory WHICH ENCOMPASSES FAILED HYPOTHESES!!No-one is suggesting that Behe lied, just that his definition of scientific theory will encompass failed hypotheses. He also volunteered that his definition would encompass the ether theory of light propagation which has been discarded. Do you really want to teach childen hypotheses which have been shown to be erroneous?As for your statement Behe accepted the extrapolation to falsified scientific theories. If you can't see that this proposed definition of scientific theory will cause all sorts of problems, I don't know how I can help you.Let's try this. The whole point of the definition is to determine what counts as science and cn be taught in science class. When you define a word or term, you have to make sure that everything which that definition encompasses should be encompassed. Behe's definition, by his own admission, encompassses astrology. Should astrology be encompassed within the definition of scientific theory? I suggest the answer is "No", so that shows that there is a problem with the proposed defiiton. The problem is that if the definition is tightened up, ID becomes a casualty as well as astrology.Can you come up with a definition of scientific theory which encompasses ID, but not falsified hypotheses. In doing this, remember to take into account the difference between hypothesis and theory. If you can, you should let Behe and the ID movement know because they have been hunting for one for a long time without any success.