"it is injurious, and unneighborly, when zealots try to compel public education to infuse theism into scientific education. "

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

George Will, on the Kansas Board of Education's decision last week to allow its schools to teach "intelligent design":

ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111601883.html

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 17 November 2005 13:57 (twenty years ago)

Thanks for pointing that out, George.

― D.I.Y. U.N.K.L.E. (dave225.3), Thursday, 17 November 2005 14:05 (twenty years ago)

This could be solved by teaching such things in "current events" or "contemporary issues" other civics classes, instead of in science classes. Why can't proponents of intelligent design accept that?

― duke of marlboro (mickeygraft), Thursday, 17 November 2005 14:53 (twenty years ago)

Because part of what they want to do is discredit the theory of evolution in science.

This could better be solved by teaching critical thinking, so that people might realize that the Bible is symbolic and not literal.

― D.I.Y. U.N.K.L.E. (dave225.3), Thursday, 17 November 2005 15:03 (twenty years ago)

Teaching critical thinking will never be part of the public (or virtually any) school curriculum.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 17 November 2005 16:55 (twenty years ago)

Wot Alfred said. These folks ain't too big on the whole "critical"/"questioning" thing.

― kingfish hobo juckie (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 17 November 2005 17:15 (twenty years ago)

errr, Alex, not Alfred.

― kingfish hobo juckie (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 17 November 2005 17:16 (twenty years ago)

KINGFISH HAS SPOKEN

― _, Thursday, 17 November 2005 17:21 (twenty years ago)

Exactly. Thank you.

And now, for the musical portion of my act, time for a song...

― kingfish hobo juckie (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 17 November 2005 17:27 (twenty years ago)

http://giftcorpshop.com/ImgUpload/P_499733_1075956.JPG

― KSTFUNS (Ex Leon), Thursday, 17 November 2005 17:54 (twenty years ago)

i thought that said "a world of hanks" and i thought, what's a hank? i don't get it.

― andrew m. (andrewmorgan), Thursday, 17 November 2005 18:00 (twenty years ago)

Why can't proponents of intelligent design accept that?

Simply put, the fundies have conceded that science has accumulated large amounts of prestige and credibility, while Biblical literalism has suffered ridicule and damage. By disguising their Bible-based beliefs as science, they hope to neutralize the advantages real science has earned through its model of careful observation, measurement, repeatability and peer review.

― Aimless (Aimless), Thursday, 17 November 2005 18:37 (twenty years ago)

I would be content for every school in the U.S. to teach a reasonable, practical curriculum including "intelligent design," which in my opinion would look like this:

- Two weeks: Full course on actual scientific theories of human origin, from pre-Darwinian notions to Darwin to modern-day evolutionary theory and biology
- Ten Seconds: "Oh and by the way this has no particular scientific application but you should be aware that some people still think it's logical to infer that some higher power must have created life. Have a good weekend, guys."

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 17 November 2005 19:57 (twenty years ago)

When Jimmy Carter was interviewed on NPR the a couple weeks ago, he said the very sensible thing: Evolution and Creationism are completely compatible and non-exclusive theories; one is taught in science class, and one is taught in church or in the home. Can we elect him again?

― andy --, Thursday, 17 November 2005 20:02 (twenty years ago)

I mean okay kidding but the thing that interests me is that you can't teach Darwin without already teaching intelligent design -- just not as some workable modern-day theory (because it's not). But in order to create the appropriate context to explain why Darwin's important, you have to explain first that one theory of "intelligent design" -- the Christian one -- had been accepted in Europe for a very long time. If you want to talk about Darwin's contemporaries, you have to go into how the design of the eyeball was considered proof of intelligent craftsmanship, pretty much the same argument being advanced now. And then, presumably, you have to explain how the notion of evolution has produced testable hypotheses that have built their way toward a coherent understanding of the history of life on this planet, and that arguments for design remain much-believed by many reasonably-intelligent people, but don't have much in particular to contribute to any system of scientific inquiry, and remain pretty much just an interesting theory that a lot of people like.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 17 November 2005 20:03 (twenty years ago)

Seems like in Kansas, the science teachers could use ID by saying, "this is mandated by the state that we teach (this shit.) ..And these are the principles behind scientific method. Here's your exam: Write five pages explaining why ID is or is not science."

Also, be sure to teach about Galileo being thrown in jail for declaring that the Earth orbited the Sun.

― D.I.Y. U.N.K.L.E. (dave225.3), Thursday, 17 November 2005 20:09 (twenty years ago)

I heard a teacher on the radio a few weeks ago complaining about how she'd been reprimanded for teaching the "pros and cons" of evolution in a science class. She basically said she spent ONE class teaching both evolutionary theory and the "holes" in it and "questions" about it and then told students "make up your own mind." So somehow in the space of 50 minutes she claims she adequately explained the science of modern evolutionary biology and all the holes and questions.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 17 November 2005 20:16 (twenty years ago)

i thought that said "a world of hanks" and i thought, what's a hank? i don't get it.

http://img293.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tomhanks19mo.jpg

― monkeybutler, Friday, 18 November 2005 01:50 (twenty years ago)

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/161/tomhanks19mo.jpg

― monkeybutler, Friday, 18 November 2005 01:50 (twenty years ago)

Why not just bring up Creationism IN THE CONTEXT of Darwin's contemporaries? Viz. - they all used to believe this shit and now, well, most people don't. That way, you're folding in the historical aspect (which is important, too) AND appeasing the IDers. I mean, you're going to mention it at some point (the historical context), may as well kill two dodo birds with one stone.

― giboyeux (skowly), Friday, 18 November 2005 01:52 (twenty years ago)

nothing will appease the I.D.ers short of prayer in the classroom. Oh sure there are some other religious types (notably Vaisnavas, who shouldn't actually care, only one of their own is a leading light in anti-Darwin/"mechanist" theory - Michael Cremo aka Drutakarma Das) who are down with I.D. but for the most part the whole point is to make this a Xian nation "again"

― Banana Nutrament (ghostface), Friday, 18 November 2005 02:21 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.