I'm not sure what you are missing. While we can both agree that ID is just a version of Creo, the ID theorists have as part of their literature that it is absolutely not. They also state that anyone who claims ID is a variation of creo is an evo who is lying.
Well, the ID theorist can state anything they want. But since we agree that ID should not be taught, then there is no need for the teacher to get into the details of the subject.
Thus for a teacher to answer a student's question that ID is a variation of creo, will fall right into that trap of the next question and the next question as well as accusations. You don't think the DI will sue teachers for misrepresenting ID to students?
I was offering a broad solution to the topic of ID being taught, it should not. I did, however, propose a brief amount of class time to address all objections to evolution, ID and creationism included. The specifics of how the teachers should treat the topic during these class discussions should be worked out with the school administrators to ensure legal requirements.
It may well be the case that lawyers for ID proponents would take issue with any form of discussion. School administrators could determine the topic to be off limits for fear of lawsuits. In this case, ID would essentially be censored.
ID is a specific manifestation with specific claims that are not part of creo and not simple enough for a child to have come up with.
You say child, but the reality is that young adults who take freshman biology class have access to the internet, can read and reason, and can certainly bring some of the ID arguments into the classroom on their own. You don’t give kids much credit, I do.
Yes, one can argue that it is basically a religious movement and so should not be taught. I am arguing something else on top of that. Regardless of religious content it is not even science, as it does not contain a coherent model and rejects modern scientific methods.
Glad we agree, sort of. As I previously stated, the school administrators need to determine the content of these discussions.
You said, You don't think the DI will sue teachers for misrepresenting ID to students?, but now you seem to be arguing that teachers should go beyond merely stating ID as a religious movement. Wouldn’t this increase the chance of a lawsuit that you’re concerned about?
Yes, but dealt with how? My initial reaction would be the same as yours with the exception of we now have a history of what they do with such reactions. If one states that ID is Creo, then one gets in trouble for misrepresenting ID. Then they make even more noise about a controversy which makes for reasons why it must be taught clearly to the kids.
I already told you on numerous occasions how it should be dealt with. I’ll say it again. Have a brief discussion about it, I said perhaps one class period or a class period. Have the kids ask questions but in the end have the teacher point out that both ID and creationism are based on religious beliefs and as such are not appropriate for a high school science classes.
I notice you avoided my direct and real example of ebonics. If an ebonics institute began calling for it to be taught and that everyone should be taught the controversy, would you agree that a teacher should deal with students questions on the topic of ebonics in class, or state that it is not part of standard english curricula and move on?
I didn't address ebonics because you bring up the same point over and over again dressed in different clothing. If ebonics becomes controversial, begins appearing in the media on a regular basis, then yes, the english teacher will need to address it. The same for your hooskido or Holmes secret plan or anything Holmes, anything that is germane to the school subject being taught and is generating a lot of controversy outside of the classroom such that kids begin asking a lot of questions about it. Care to come up with some more examples? My comment will be the same.
I don't think it should be discussed in a science class. It could certainly be discussed by science teachers before or after class, or in a history or philosphy of science class. It just shouldn't be injected into a science class. I know when I or others had off topic questions the teachers would deal with them and I do agree should deal with them. They almost universally stated to talk about it before or after class. Is there something wrong with that?
So now you have answered your own question as to how it should be dealt with. Your approach is simply a variation of what I have been saying all along. I’m not a teacher nor a lawyer and from a legal prespective it may not be prudent for the school to allow discussions inside the classroom. It may not be acceptable outside of the classroom either. I have always suggested that a small amount of class time should be allocated for it. If that’s not possible, so be it.
You are holding a conflicting position here. First you say the teacher should answer questions, and here you say the teacher can end on any question and its over. If this is true, why can't a teacher nip it right at the first question saying:
"Well that's an interesting issue, and a complicated one, but the end result is it has no direct bearing on science or legitimate scientific theory and so I'm not going to use time on that issue during a science class. If you want to discuss it after class that would be fine."
There is no conflict. Your approach is a possibility. My approach is a possibility. These are all options that individual school districts will need to determine if they haven’t already done so. Perhaps neither approach is acceptable from a legal perspective.
™ Version 4.2
