|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4864 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What's the problem with teaching ID? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. - Thomas Jefferson Unless you want my religious myths crammed down your throat, don’t try to cram yours down mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
As a biology major interested in teaching highschool students, I'm the last person who wants ID taught in biology ... In spite of this, I'm having a little trouble articulating to people why it is such a big deal. What are some of problems that teaching ID in a biology curriculum would lead to? It would require you to teach stuff you know to be false. Can you stand up in front of children and tell them that "irreducible complexity can't evolve", or that "mutations only destroy genetic information". Can you in conscience recite their stuff about intermediate forms or thermodynamics? Or advocate the Argument from Design without laughing? Could you do that --- just for thirty pieces of silver? Moreover, since these people mostly pretend they want you to "teach both theories", you yourself would have to reveal to the children every other lesson that you were lying in the previous one. To quote Steven Jay Gould: "Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise? Creationists can recite creationist nonsense in good conscience only because they know no better. But science teachers do. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2497 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
A number of people have given very good reasons for not teaching I.D. in science classes, but there is a place in education for teaching about I.D.
That place is in the history of science (or, more accurately perhaps, the history of philosophy of science) and it's very useful for students to see see an illustration of how one theory (evolution) replaced another (design), and the observations that led to the change. To leave it out would be a bit like teaching Big Bang theory without mentioning that the Steady State theory once predominated. It could also be taught in the history of theology and philoshophy, of course. We often talk about the modern U.S. Discovery Institute expression of I.D., but not so much about I.D. when it was in its prime, and was the view of the overwhelming majority. Teaching about this is not what the D.I. people want, of course, because the truth is that their pet theories are outdated history, and that truth goes directly against their attempts to present them as exciting new science. With Creationists in the U.S. constantly trying to get their foot in the science class door, the sensitivity to the subject of I.D. is understandable, but I would argue that if any history of science is being taught, then it should certainly get more than a mention. I.D. is ancient, course, but the best known "modern" expression came from William Paley in his "Evidences of Christianity" (1802). Here's Charles Darwin on the subject of William Paley.
quote:Charles Darwin. Autobiography Paley's attitude was taken "on trust" by most people at the time. Like pre-Darwinian evolutionary theories, Lamarckian, Saltationist, etc., it should be taught, and if it wasn't for the Creationist's efforts to get such ideas described as twentieth-first century ones, rather than ancient, they would be taught as history, and without controversy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4864 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
I would like to point out that this thread is over a year old and I didn't mean to imply that I thought ID should be taught in school.
I was giving a brief speech in Public Speaking and I wanted a survey of all the different reasons why it shouldn't be taught-and there's no better source than EvC members.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
pwnagepanda Junior Member (Idle past 6167 days) Posts: 7 From: Piedmont, California, USA Joined: |
It should be taught in a theology class or a critical thinking class. The best reason that Intelligent design sould not be taught is that A. it has been proven false and B. it is unfalsifiable, and therefore not science. However, It would be a good exercise in critiacal thinking if it were discussed in a class and then critiqued.
sorry, but science needs evidence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The best reason that Intelligent design sould not be taught is that A. it has been proven false and B. it is unfalsifiable, and therefore not science. Beg pardon? Want to try that one again? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
A. it has been proven false and B. it is unfalsifiable. I don't know how to put this tactfully, but ... have you ever considered the possibility that you might be an idiot? As I say, tact is not my strong suit. * bangs head gently against wall *
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Beg pardon? Want to try that one again? Ah ... that was tactful. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
pwnagepanda Junior Member (Idle past 6167 days) Posts: 7 From: Piedmont, California, USA Joined: |
let me clarify, it has not exactly been proven false, but the criticisms that it makes of evoltion have been thoroughly refuted
sorry, but science needs evidence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5928 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
pwnagepanda
The best reason that Intelligent design sould not be taught is that A. it has been proven false and B. it is unfalsifiable, and therefore not science. Do you read what you write or is your critical thinking cap at the dry cleaners today?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Let me clarify, it has not exactly been proven false,... being unfalsifiable.
but the criticisms that it makes of evoltion have been thoroughly refuted Being mostly rehashed PRATTs of creationists that is no surprise. And welcome to the fray Enjoy compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
pwnagenpanda writes: The best reason that Intelligent design should not be taught is that A. it has been proven false and B. it is unfalsifiable, and therefore not science. The inherent contradiction has already been noted, so I'll just explain the real reason why ID shouldn't be taught in science class. Science is a consensus activity. Accepted scientific theories form out of the scientific consensus. High school science curriculums are responsible for teaching the current consensus. Because ID is not part of that consensus, it shouldn't be taught in science class. But one might ask, is it therefore as unacceptable to teach string theory as it is to teach ID, since string theory is not at this point in time a part of the scientific consensus, even though it is an area of intense scientific study. Why is it okay for a science teacher, in response to expressed interest from the students, to devote a class or two to string theory, but not to ID? This is the kind of question where I find myself floundering. How long do I have to talk, how much do I have to write, in order to make clear why string theory is legitimate scientific investigation and ID is not? It's not that I can't explain it, because I think I can. It's just that way before I finish my explanation I will have lost my intended audience, for reasons ranging from short attention span to lack of serious interest to simple inability to grasp the concepts. This last is the most difficult to deal with, since how does one remedy a lifetime of ignoring science with a few posts on a message board? We need to somehow come up with as pithy and easy to understand (and accurate) answers to questions about creation and ID as the creationist's response to evolution, "You never get a cat from a dog." One could argue that you could just say about ID, "Scientists don't accept it, so we don't teach it." But the response will be something like, "Dembski's a PhD scientist," and now you're stuck explaining why Dembski isn't a scientist, but though his degrees are in math and theology this might be a tough argument to make, so you'd instead have to explain that Dembski doesn't really participate in the scientific endeavor, that what he's is doing is having no impact on the scientific consensus, and so forth, and you'd probably be largely unsuccessful at persuading anyone. I think we just have to admit that the creationist strategy of donning the trappings of science while not actually doing science is proving eminently successful at confusing the issue. The only place where we really win big is in court. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
pwnagepanda Junior Member (Idle past 6167 days) Posts: 7 From: Piedmont, California, USA Joined: |
I didnt really think before I wrote, but what i meant was that it had been discredited because although it does not make any real predictions, the critisisms of evolution that it makes are not valid
sorry, but science needs evidence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Why is it okay for a science teacher, in response to expressed interest from the students, to devote a class or two to string theory, but not to ID? Well, I think motive goes a long way. ID and creationism have been developed - openly, by their proponents - as a means to combat secular public education by creating a "wedge" issue they can use to insert official recognition of the existence of the Christian God in American public schools. String theory is just a way to reconcile the untenable number of "elementary" particles in the universe. While it's essentially evidence-free at this point, it's also ideology-free; it's not a political wedge issue. It's basically Trivial Pursuit for eggheads. Honestly I don't think creationism is completely out of place in the classroom; I don't think it would be inappropriate for a teacher, in response to a question about it, to inform students about what creationists contend and what evidence contradicts their view. I think, largely, teachers should concern themselves with true things; and to say that there are creationists, and that they believe such-and-such, are true things. Similarly, it's true that there is string theory, and it's proponents contend so-and-so, so I don't see that informing students of that is any big deal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
DivineBeginning Member (Idle past 6047 days) Posts: 100 Joined: |
And this is how the other theories could be taught:
"We weren't there...in fact nobody was there and we have no idea what the conditions were like, but we do know exactly what happened and can somehow prove it using mumbo jumbo and man made theories. So let's get to work.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024