An educational angle we all could live with? (Philosophy of Science)

I'm sorry, but philosophy has nothing to do with biology or theology, and certainly has nothing to do with field trips to the lab. Philosophy is in fact one of the most rationalist enterprises around (philosophers don't just sit around wondering about God). Much modern philosophy is concerned with language and the meaning of utterances. I have no idea why a philosopher would want to bother themselves with ID.Have you actually read any philosophy? quick example of the kind of things philosophers concern themselves with: Private Language (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) .edited to change topic titleThis message has been edited by mick, 05-15-2005 05:46 PM

Well, okay, I guess I overstated my point.Let me try to explain myself.My understanding of science is that it is an effort to make truth claims about the world. That is, it is an effort to make statements which are as close as possible to true statements about the natural world.My understanding of (modern/contemporary) philosophy is that it is an effort to characterize truth claims, understand the implications of what makes a truth claim valid, and to elucidate the kinds of truth claim that can validly made within some internally logical framework of axioms.Basically, scientists use the scientific method to make truth claims about the world.Philosophers do NOT make truth claims about the world. They only are interested in the formal properties of truth claims.Philosophers of science are interested in the formal properties of truth claims made by scientists operating under the scientific method.ID has excluded itself from science because it has (in my opinion ) abandoned the scientific method.By excluding itself from science, ID also excludes itself from the philosophy of science, except that a philosopher might say that ID is bad science.ID makes truth claims about the world. Therefore ID is NOT philosophy and shouldn't be taught to schoolchildren as such.Hope this makes sense!Mick