20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum

Modulous was quoting the Wedge Document from the Discovery Institute, which they never put online at their own website. Someone somewhere got a copy of it and scanned it in, and that's the version that appears at many websites. Modulous was cut-n-pasting from one of these websites.--Percy

I think Jazzns is aware that Dover is off-topic, because he said in the very message you replied to: --Percy

I don't think it takes a moderator to see that taking the plans Dover was putting in place and projecting them forward in time has got to be one of the most valuable ways to see what things might be like in 20 years.--Percy

I haven't been keeping up with this thread, so maybe someone has mentioned this already, but I wonder if a curriculum that included creationism/ID might cause science-minded parents to begin abandoning the public school system, switching to home schooling and to private schools with quality science programs.There's a related aspect to this. Creationism/ID would have to overcome a number of court challenges before becoming part of the curriculum, and these challenges would likely continue long afterward. Such an outcome would likely mean a dramatic reinterpretation of the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state, and this would likely have wide-ranging ramifications beyond school systems. The 10 commandments would be permitted in courthouses, as would creche displays on public property. Bible study classes might become part of school curriculums. The religious conservative assertion that we are a Christian nation would have become a reality.--Percy

Hi Beretta,You're right, the details of ID theory are not the topic of this thread, but I think at least an outline is appropriate in order to develop a better picture of what would be taught in a creation/ID curriculum. For instance, do you think that in 20 years ID advocates would still be saying that the designer and how he worked cannot be known? Will concepts like specified complexity and irreducible complexity have been given a scientific underpinning? Or will ID still be teaching that the wonder and complexity of nature is all the evidence needed to conclude design.--Percy

Fixed the link, that was precious!The creationist admins Ray was dealing with were patient, rational and sought evidence. They'd be great members here anytime.CreationWiki's website doesn't seem to be working very well these days, I'm using the http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/ link, maybe it's moved?--Percy

The interpretation of the 1st ammendment would be a great topic for a new thread.--Percy

It's being argued that if ID becomes accepted into the curriculum that other sciences of questionable legitimacy, such as astrology, would also. You seem to think that wouldn't happen, so I guess the question is what is it from the perspective of science that differentiates ID from astrology?I think you already answered this question when you said in Message 204 that, "life clearly exhibits all the traits of things that only arise by intelligent design, and should therefore be classified as one of these things," but don't you need more than this? The appearance of design is sufficient for forming a hypothesis, but building a theory requires experiment, observation, analysis, replication and consensus building within the scientific community, something the field of ID has yet to do. The same is true of astrology.So if ID were to be added to the curriculum, it's being argued that astrology can fulfill any scientific criteria that ID does.--Percy

Hi Beretta,This thread isn't about how wrong evolution is or how wonderful ID is, but about what public school science education might look like 20 years after ID is allowed into the classroom. That's why people are asking for some details about ID. After you finish saying, "The evidence matches the theory which is why it is infinitely more satisfying a theory," then what do you say in the rest of the lesson?--Percy

But science is, by definition at the present time, naturalistic. Is it your view that the acceptance of ID into the classroom would be accompanied by a fundamental change in the definition of science to include non-naturalistic explanations?--Percy

Hi Beretta,Once again, this thread is not about evolutionary theory's flaws. It's about ID in the classroom.--Percy

No one from the ID side made any serious attempt to tackle the issues surrounding what America might be like in 20 years if ID were permitted into public school science classrooms. Conclude from that what you will.--Percy