|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Bush promotes ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
Bush is a moron. But that implies even less about the opposition who is routinely outwitted and outmaneuvered by Bush. Aside from that, I don’t believe ID should be taught in public schools because there is nothing scientific to teach. It’s a belief. That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a discussion about it. A discussion on ID is not the same as a fully developed lesson plan on ID. How should ID be treated in schools when a kid in biology class asks about it? It seems to me that a discussion is inevitable and needed. Teachers should be prepared to address the EvC controversy. I don’t see how it can be avoided.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
I am more interested in the influence the christian right is having on the republican party. Wait, I thought the topic was about ID in schools? There are other threads about the christian influence on the republican party.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
I would say, there is nothing to censor, ID is bunk and proven so. Would you call it censoring if a teacher chose to teach geocentric theory as an "aleternative" to heliocentric? Look at the semantics. I believe there is a big difference between formally "teaching" and informally "discussing". Kids are going to ask about it, so shouldn't it be discussed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
However ID has no more place in a science class than astrology or alchemy Then you believe ID should be censored? Ok, then what should the teacher say when kids ask about it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
Go ask your priest Nice and glib reply, but not practical. Take it a step further. When the kids ask why, what is the teachers reply to that? And so on and so on. Guess what? It becomes a discussion. It can't be avoided.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
I agree that it should be discussed, as long as it is discussed in a scientific context. It should be explained that it is not science, because there is no eveidence to support it. They should explain the polatics involved etc. etc. We agree. The teacher should explain that ID, creationism, etc. is not science but part of many religious belief systems. There's no need to call it "bunk" or characterize it using any number of derogatory adjectives, any more than teachers should call Islamism "bunk". I believe it's sufficient to note that many people do not agree with all facets of evolution despite its scientific basis because of their religious beliefs. I believe this can be done without bringing politics into the mix.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
That it isn't in the syllabus and they will not be tested on it. We may be posting past each other. Read my message Message 16. We basically agree, but I don't believe one sentence will be sufficient.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
Ann Coulter is a right wing blow-hard anyway. Extreme right wing, but entertaining nonetheless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
I usually agree with O’Reilly, but in this case, his defense of the President was not accurate. In the article, O’Reilly said:
quote: Bush didn’t say equal standing for ID per se, but he did agree with the reporters question who asked if ID should be taught in school. That’s unfortunate and I disagree with it. Here’s part of the transcript:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
Jar writes: I certainly would agree that ID should be taught. and would go so far as to suggest that it should be taught in the science classes. Very few subjects would be a better medium to show how totally lacking in foundation a subject can be. You know, that sounds good when posted on a forum, but it doesn’t wash as a viable approach. I can’t envision a teacher spending time to develop a false curriculum, then proceed to teach it in the classroom just to prove a point, especially when the teacher does not hold it to be truthful to begin with. It’s a waste of time. It’s like spending time in the classroom trying to show that God cannot be proven to exist through the scientific method. Why go through that sort of exercise when all it would do is generate bad publicity and irate parents. It would not benefit the students and no school administrator in his/her right mind would expose the school to that. As I’ve said up thread, I believe the reasonable approach is to have a discussion about the controversy. It can’t be ignored, OTOH, valuable class time shouldn’t be spent to debunk it. It’s sufficient to discuss that many people object to certain facets of evolution based on their religious beliefs and end it there. BTW: That must be the first time you agree with Bush. This message has been edited by Monk, Wed, 08-03-2005 03:50 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
What would make ID more respectable is if IT was seen not as Gross grossly spun in a no spin zone but as the "yes" that is larger than the "no" &&&&&WHETHER OR NOT&&&&&&&&&some one first answers yes OR no! Sometimes, on occasion, I get real close to understanding your posts, but then......alas......it slips away. It's sort of like chasing a feather in the wind. There's a song in that thought somewhere. The answer my friend is blowing in the wind, the answer is ....... Dylan?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I think.
You seem to be saying that ID has a long way to go before it can comfortably fit in the larger conceptual framework and become a legitimate alternative to evolution. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the framework at all. That was Bush's point. It's possible that one day ID could legitimately grow more mainstream and eventually compete for science consensus. Therefore, despite it's obvious inadequacies, ID should not be discounted. My point is that because of these inadequacies, ID should not be taught in public high schools. As Jar pointed out, it's pseudoscience. I don't even know how it would be taught. The best I can come up with for the teacher of ID is:
What else can be said? Maybe I'm missing something, is there more to ID than that? I believe in an intelligent designer because I believe in God. But my belief, (or anyone else's) is not sufficient as a basis for a science curriculum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
You'll have to supply some evidence that Bush ever outwitted or outmaneuvered anyone.... Can you name one thing he has done, which has not involved either the sheer power of the office to overrule dissent, or the republican control of the rest of the federal govt to crush dissent? Hi Holmes, Bush’s selection of John Roberts for SCOTUS is one example. That choice was clever and shrewd because he selected a conservative who has impeccable credentials, extensive experience arguing before the SCOTUS, and one who has already been through the process and accepted by the vast majority of Democrats. Because of this acceptance, Bush has basically outmaneuvered opposing Democrats by removing most of their arguments. Sure, they can drum up new opposing arguments, but then they will be forced to explain their support for Roberts three years ago when he was overwhelmingly approved for the DC Court of Appeals by the same judicial committee. This message has been edited by Monk, Thu, 08-04-2005 09:34 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
We are in agreement on this issue. I don’t believe that ID should be taught in high school science classes because I consider it pseudoscience. In my message 67, I was attempting to understand Brad’s post by paraphrasing his comments
Holmes writes: He was not advocating that if a child brings it up, then a teacher should say it isn't a scientific theory at all, but rather a religious belief that might one day get enough evidence and its devotees actually construct a theory around that evidence to create an alternative to the TOE. I provided the transcript of what Bush actually said and it had nothing to do with questions from a student. Again, we are in agreement, because I have stated upthread that although I don’t believe it should be taught as a bona fide science topic, it will at least need to be discussed because kids will ask about it if the teacher does not bring it up.
He was stating quite clearly that it should be discussed as a different idea within a science class. ID is not a different idea than the TOE in a science class, it is an errant and incomplete idea and therefore deserves no mention in a science class. Not true. IF Bush has said ID should be discussed as a different idea or part of a variety of ideas in opposition to evolution, then I might have agreed with him. But he didn’t say that. A reporter asked him point blank if ID should be taught alongside evolution and Bush said yes it should.
I understand that a reponse from a teacher to a student needn't be overtly poisonous, but it should be overtly negative. ID is not a theory as it has no model. Neither does it work with modern scientific methodology or accepted forms of logic. It is a political and religious movement. You seem to want to pick a fight with me. Perhaps it’s a carry over from our previous joists. But again I agree with you. ID is not science and shouldn’t be taught.
Because of this it is almost obscene for a president to suggest it should be discussed in a science class. And I would add it is false for you to state that it would naturally be brought up. It would only be brought up because politicians and religious zealots (like Bush) are pushing that "question" into the public spectrum. Teach the controversy... that they created. And then force people to discuss its possibility because it is a controversy? The genie is out of the bottle on this, Holmes. Kids will ask about it sooner or later. Maybe not in every single biology class, but it will happen and teachers should be prepared to address it. I don’t think it needs special attention at all. IMO it can be lumped together with creationism as a broad category of opposition to evolution based on religious beliefs. Call it the opposition if you like, but the controversy should be addressed.
If I make a big push for that such that kids will ask about it, would that make it right to be discussed? Yes. If you can develop a theory that has wide spread support as does creationism or ID such that kids in many biology classes across the nation are likely to question their teachers about it during the course of evolutionary teachings, then yes, it would be correct to discuss it. Got any ideas? This message has been edited by Monk, Thu, 08-04-2005 08:58 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3955 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
I agree with most of your posts. The term theory has several meanings and while ID and creationism has not been tested or shown to be falsifiable, they are still theories in the sense they are unproven beliefs.
But I don't think there needs to be class time spent on proving why ID or creationism fails as a bona fide science. Why go through the exercise at all? As I've said many times, all of these can be grouped into the category of opposition to evolution on the grounds of religious beliefs. Religion is not science. That's all that needs to be said. It is pointless to go through each opposing theory, (or "topic" if the term "theory" used in connection with ID is offensive), and prove that religious beliefs are not supported by the scientific method. I believe a teacher can handle the situation without condemning religion and thereby avoid a potential controversy. BTW: I'm not sure most of us are in agreement in this thread. Jar and Omnivorous support Bush's position.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024