Summations Only

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 Teaching about this is not what the D.I. people want, of course, because the truth is that their pet theories are outdated history, and that truth goes directly against their attempts to present them as exciting new science.With Creationists in the U.S. constantly trying to get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:

---

In order to pass the B.A. examination, it was, also, necessary to get up Paley's Evidences of Christianity, and his Moral Philosophy. . . The logic of this book and as I may add of his Natural Theology gave me as much delight as did Euclid. The careful study of these works, without attempting to learn any part by rote, was the only part of the Academical Course which, as I then felt and as I still believe, was of the least use to me in the education of my mind. I did not at that time trouble myself about Paley's premises; and taking these on trust I was charmed and convinced of the long line of argumentation.

---

Charles Darwin. AutobiographyPaley'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.

Either you've fallen under pwnagenpanda's influence, Percy, or that was a rather misleading typo. (If you edit it, do wipe this post).

It certainly does. Science requires evidence. Faith isn't good enough, but teaching things based on blind faith can be and is done in Sunday schools, Koran schools, etc.

Which creation account? There are many creation mythologies. bluegenes, ye olde wise seer writes:

quote:

---

God didn't create the heavens and the earth, and here we are...

---

I just wrote that, so because it's written down, it must be up to date evidence, mustn't it? Are you implying that something cannot come from nothing? Then all Gods must themselves require creators.Edited by bluegenes, : punctuation

My point was, and it would be obvious to most people, that because something is written down does not make it evidence.You seem to be one of these strange people who are suffering from the fixed delusion that words written in a book thousands of years ago by people who couldn't even map a tenth of this planet have some special, magic truth and knowledge of the secrets of the universe in them.If that's the case, what makes you think an ancient book is magical? Who proposed that life originated from nothing? Certainly not me. It did not, in my opinion, and also according to every abiogenesis hypothesis I've ever heard of.

Evidence, please. The book isn't magic, remember, so why should its authors know the secrets of the universe? These are people who didn't know how many continents there are on this planet, remember.And if your semi-coherent ramblings are supposed to be support for the idea of teaching I.D. in schools (the topic) then try and explain how on earth they're supposed to do that.

It's because physicists present evidence for their theories, and all you present is one of the many ancient creation mythologies, apparently full of the magical stuff common in superstitious cultures which you yourself seem to describe as childish in a post above.You need to present evidence for talking snakes if you want people to teach about them in science classes.Science requires evidence.It would be perfectly O.K. if your book was presented as fiction in the English class, and kids could enjoy the magic as they do with their Harry Potter books. Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.Edited by bluegenes, : extra word

In any education system, the idea is to teach science in the science class, history in the history class, French in the French class, etc.I was at in High School in the U.S. for a few years, and that's what you guys used to do, and presumably still do.So the real question for this thread is "Is I.D. science".My answer to that would be that, because there is no direct evidence for the intelligent designers, then the I.D. people would have to show very strong indirect evidence for their existence to get started as a science, and that is what they are trying to do.That means demonstrating that some natural phenomena cannot be produced naturally, within the laws of the universe.So, far, they haven't done this, so I.D. isn't science.Decisions on what is and isn't taught in any discipline in any epoch can only be made by the experts in that discipline. The historians decide what the priorities are in history, the geographers in geography, etc.So, the I.D. scientists should be doing what everyone else with a new hypothesis in science does; trying to convince their peers that they're on to something important.But they can't do this, because scientists are sticklers for evidence, and they haven't actually got any yet.But they're religious evangelists, and all such people seem to know instinctively that religions need to indoctrinate young minds in order to survive. So they're trying to skip convincing the scientists, and get in the classrooms.The funny thing about this is that if I.D. was taught in the classroom, then all science teachers could do is outline the idea, then tell the students that there's absolutely no evidence for it. In other words, no evidence of the existence of a great intelligent designer in the sky.Which is why it's funny, because that's the last thing evangelical Christians want taught in schools. And that's partly why the smarter Christians don't want anything to do with I.D.So, I.D. isn't science at this point in time, so it shouldn't be taught in science classes, with one slight exception, which I think I mentioned way back at the beginning of this thread somewhere.That's when the history of science is being taught. Then, the early nineteenth century William Paley version should certainly be taught.How else will students understand why Richard Dawkins would entitle one of his books "The Blind Watchmaker", and what the real and important meaning of that (excellent) title is?

Thanks for the links, anglagard. It's not a big issue, here, really. You hardly ever hear about it.If a significant proportion of U.K. parents were really serious about having their children taught creationism, they could always get off their arses, and go to church once in a while, couldn't they? (5% regularly attend religious services, and if it's Church of England or Catholic, they're not creationists in the sense that we use the word on EvC, anyway).I think it's funny that the creationist movement has wasted money on what must've been tens of thousands of DVDs.Edited by bluegenes, : bad spelin