20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum

I am just curious randman, have you read either the decision or the trial transcripts in its entirety?Do you know of an understand the controversy regarding the "cdesign proponentist" situation that was uncovered during the trial?This does relate to this thread because as we saw in Dover, IDers first attempt to inject ID into the classroom after rebranding the movement choose "Of Pandas and People" as their first text. This is the kind of thing we would expect to see, at least at first, if IDers got their way. 20 years from now it might be different but this is where it would likely begin.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I don't think that creation would survive 20 years in the event that it might "win" the argument and get let into schools. Setting aside the fact that in order to do that they would have to get one of the most significant amendments of the Constitution overturned, creationism and ID are so superficial as to be laughable with respect to their educational depth.First of all, they could not make any inroads into college biology, geology, or astronomy. You might get a little bit of ID but where reality is concerned, it is poison to pseudo-science.Worse case, what you really get is an elimination of science from K-12. I mean, how long does it take to say "godditit"? Rather than 2-3 years in high school dedicated to each of the main science fields you would just have 1 very superficial general "science" class that give basic neutral facts and then the creo or ID evangelizing. What text book are they going to use. Pandas is CLEARLY inadequate yet the only evidence we have of creationists trying to introduce an actual curriculium. If that is the best they have, then it is pretty much sad.After that, market forces take over. As less and less US students are graduating with advanced science degrees the money will go elsewhere where they are not retarded enough to let religion into the science classroom. Either the US at that point would reject the dogma or fall into scientific obscurity.Real conservatives would not let it get that bad and real liberals would be fighting it the entire time. As soon as it starts obviously affecting the bottom line, you will get people in the middle, the ones who maybe lean towards ID or creo but are not dogmatic about it, to get serious about kicking the priests and charlatans out of the education system.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

The point distilled from that which is on topic is simply that the only evidence we have of IDers trying to get into the classroom is by mandating a rebranded creationist text.So the only thing we can hypothesize about is that the first year of the 20 years would be more of the same. It may grow and change after that, if it could survive external pressures, but the beginning would basically be long-refuted mischaracterizations of evolution.So Dover gives us one ancedote about what kind of "critical thinking" ID would encourage if it was let it. What makes you think this sort of approach would be better? What alternative would your propose and how likely do you think it would be that the ID community would take your approach as opposed what they did in Dover?I'll either bump or start a thread where you can answer questions specific to your knowledge of Dover. We can discuss Dover however as an example of what the ID movement would likely do in this imaginary 20 year scenario.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I don't want to debate ABOUT Dover in this thread. I started a PNT regarding the Dover specific questions I asked you earlier.But I see no reason why we cannot use Dover as evidence of what the ID movement would do if they win.Dover is what they tried to do. Why if in this hypothetical would they do something different? You basically ignored all my rational for how this is on topic.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

It might be nice if you could "slip into admin mode" to rule on weather my line of questioning that USES dover as an example to address the OP as topic.This way randman cannot dodge the questions by appealing to dubious off-topic status.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)