New Pro-Intelligent Design Rules for Teachers

[La8pv]

Louisiana Creates: New Pro-Intelligent Design Rules for Teachers

Last year, Louisiana passed the Louisiana Science Education Act (http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=503483), a law that many scientists and educators said was a thinly veiled attempt to allow creationism and its variants into the science classroom. On Tuesday, the state's Board of Elementary and Secondary Education adopted a policy that sharpens those fears, giving teachers license to use materials outside of the regular curriculum to teach "controversial" scientific theories including evolution, origins of life, and global warming. Backers of the law, including the Louisiana Family Forum, say it is intended to foster critical thinking in students. Opponents insist its only purpose is to provide a loophole for creationists to attack the teaching of evolution.
"We fully expect to see the Discovery Institute's book, Explore Evolution, popping up in school districts across the state*," says Barbara Forrest, a philosopher at Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond. The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank, is a proponent of Intelligent Design. In a statement on the institute's Web site, its education analyst Casey Luskin hailed the new policy as a "victory for Louisiana students and teachers." The policy will now be printed in the Louisiana Handbook for School Administrators, which public school officials use as a guide.

State education officials tasked with translating last year's law into policy drafted a document that explicitly prohibits teachers from teaching intelligent design, but on 2 December, board members deferred a scheduled vote. Forrest says the advocates of the law used the delay to pressure education officials to remove that language and a disclaimer saying that religion should not be taught under the guise of critical thinking. On 13 January, the 11-member board unanimously approved a policy that contains no such caveats.
Education officials have defended the revision, arguing that it already includes language barring the use of materials that promote any religious doctrine. But Patsye Peebles, a retired science teacher who served on a committee that helped the education department draft the original policy language, thinks otherwise. "The creationists got what they wanted. We will have to redouble our efforts to educate our teachers and get them to teach good science," Peebles says.

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/01/louisiana-creat.html


I can sense Louisiana students getting smarterrofl


On a serious note: :cantbeli:

[Hellfish]

Well... nobody expects much from Louisiana anyways.

[tsuri]

"controversial" scientific theories including evolution, origins of life, and global warming
Ok.. One might swallow that a 150 year old theory that has stood the test of time is supposedly controversial. One might also accept that abiogenesis might be insulting to people who prefer an old man with a beard to have done it but why is "Global Warming" even in there with all these things that might question children's belief in gods?

Global Warming is being observed, there are several hypothesis on the floor as to why it gets warmer (and as a result colder in some places) and considering the evidence we have, it is quite strange to even teach it. What are they going to teach anyway? "Earth's Climate is changing, we may or may not be responsible for it "
I can just sense an industrial lobby trying to make up the minds of the voters of tomorrow..

[Invisigoth]

I blame George Bush.

[Flagg]

I think we should just get it over with and start worshipping Gaia and her only chosen son Al Gore.

Creationism is so yesterday...the new religion is carbon neutrality.......the Quakers' sense of suffering and sacrifice gets a version 2.0 upgrade....with a cool powerpoint presentation.

[MichaelF]

Louisiana: Preventing Mississippi from taking 50th Place....

[el borracho]

You guys should watch "No Intelligence Allowed" by Ben Stein. It doesn't promote Intelligent Design, per se, but it documents the systematic repression of that theory in academia. Many prominent professors who don't even buy into the theory lost their positions and tenure because they mentioned it in lectures or publications. He trapped one expert in his theory, who said he was a devout atheist but when asked about the origins of life he said they must be extraterrestrial. Stein turned the tables and said something like "so you don't believe in God but you believe that an intelligent race of aliens designed all life on earth?" At the end of the film you weren't expected to be a bible thumping Christian, but it did a good job of showing the hypocrisy of scientific thought in modern schools.

That being said, 99% of the time intelligent design is taught in public schools it is religiously based. Until both sides shed themselves of the dogma in their theories, the debate can never move forward.

[el borracho]

Louisiana: Preventing Mississippi from taking 50th Place....

In '04 or '05, when I was living in Georgia, the results came out which put Georgia at 49th place and South Carolina at 50th. The Georgians were gloating because the places were reversed the previous year, so they reaching 49th was an improvement.

[La8pv]

You guys should watch "No Intelligence Allowed" by Ben Stein. It doesn't promote Intelligent Design, per se, but it documents the systematic repression of that theory in academia. Many prominent professors who don't even buy into the theory lost their positions and tenure because they mentioned it in lectures or publications. He trapped one expert in his theory, who said he was a devout atheist but when asked about the origins of life he said they must be extraterrestrial. Stein turned the tables and said something like "so you don't believe in God but you believe that an intelligent race of aliens designed all life on earth?" At the end of the film you weren't expected to be a bible thumping Christian, but it did a good job of showing the hypocrisy of scientific thought in modern schools.

That being said, 99% of the time intelligent design is taught in public schools it is religiously based. Until both sides shed themselves of the dogma in their theories, the debate can never move forward.


From issue 2651 of New Scientist magazine, 12 April 2008, page 46


THE highly controversial documentary Expelled: No intelligence allowed, is full of surprises, not least of which are endless clips of Nazis from the second world war.

Nazis? What have Nazis to do with a film about the "conflict" between evolution and intelligent design? Everything, apparently. The film-makers' logic is that by teaching evolution, the US public school system is telling children that there is no God, morality or free will. And this can lead to only one thing: Holocaust.

But fear not, Ben Stein is here. Those who love 1980s teen cult films will remember him as the monotone economics teacher in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Stein was also a game-show host and speech-writer for Richard Nixon. Even more oddly, Stein, a Jew, is now a shining star among evangelical Christians who argue that intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory. Maybe the film-makers thought they would get away with problematic references to the Holocaust if the narrator was Jewish.

Expelled is pure propaganda, its style reminiscent of a sub-standard Michael Moore flick complete with voice-over narration and lots of aimless wandering around. Its selling point is that academic freedom in the US is threatened by a vast conspiracy of atheist scientists, hypnotised by what Stein labels in the film the "Darwinian gospel". Supporters of ID are fired from their institutions or denied tenure, the film argues, while journalists who report on ID are silenced or shunned. This is an old trick. By claiming their views are suppressed, proponents of ID hope to be protected from criticism. When someone argues that ID is bogus, all they need do is yell: "See? Suppression!"

But why worry about such a silly movie, which makes absurd claims about threats to academic freedom? Could it really affect the public perception of evolution or ID? Just possibly - and here's how.

For starters, the film will open on 1000 screens in the US, a lot for a niche documentary. Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 opened on 870 screens, while Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth opened on just four. Then there's the Stein effect. Most Americans know Stein from his Bueller days, not as a creationist. There's a good chance many who have not given the ID issue much thought will be drawn in unsuspectingly.

But perhaps the biggest way in which the movie seeks to manipulate - and one to which we are all vulnerable - is by appealing to raw emotion. Consider Stein's interview with biologist Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is shown in the make-up chair, a move calculated to demean since surely everyone else, including Stein, is powder-puffed off-camera. The interview itself, accompanied by foreboding music, is shot in a low-lit room using sinister camera angles.

"The film manipulates by appealing to raw emotion"

Later, Stein wanders through the Dachau concentration camp, face in hands, bemoaning the nightmare he claims Darwin wrought. At the end, Stein walks alongside the Berlin wall: cue footage of people tearing it down plus triumphal music. Even the wary might feel the urge to start cheering.

For the converted, a DVD for "teachers, parents and faith leaders" accompanies the film. Included is a weblink to the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, leading champion and financial backer of the ID movement. One of Expelled's producers, Mark Mathis, insists there are no ties to the institute, but is coy about where the $3.5 million of funds for the film came from. Interestingly, the institute has teamed up with Motive Marketing, marketers of Expelled, to promote a bill they have named the Academic Freedom Statute on Evolution. If passed, it would protect teachers from any negative consequences of expressing anti-evolution views in the classroom.

This seems to be the next step in sneaking ID into schools after the Kitzmiller vs Dover case saw the compulsory teaching of ID ruled unconstitutional in 2005. Last month, a press conference held by the Discovery Institute to promote the proposed bill included a screening of Expelled.

Ultimately, the Discovery Institute's support may be the film's undoing. The institute has argued long and hard that ID is not about religion, yet in the film the connections are explicit. If challenged on this, the institute may have to distance itself from the film, discrediting Expelled in the process.


http://www.expelledexposed.com/

You should really check your sources.

[tsuri]

You guys should watch "No Intelligence Allowed" by Ben Stein. It doesn't promote Intelligent Design, per se, but it documents the systematic repression of that theory in academia.
There is no such theory. A theory is a hypothesis that can be falsified and that has stood the test of time. Intelligent Design is not repressed in academia, it simply does not exist as an academic concept. Those that are complaining about their loss of academic standing were too busy complaining than to submit actual science to the peer reviewed scientific community.


He trapped one expert in his theory, who said he was a devout atheist but when asked about the origins of life he said they must be extraterrestrial. Stein turned the tables and said something like "so you don't believe in God but you believe that an intelligent race of aliens designed all life on earth?"
Or he actually lied to him and instead asked him under which circumstances intelligent design would have to occur. And then he cleverly edited it to make it look like different. A trick you obviously fell for. Congratulations.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins


At the end of the film you weren't expected to be a bible thumping Christian, but it did a good job of showing the hypocrisy of scientific thought in modern schools.
The hypocrisy is to expect everyone else to believe in something that cannot be tested, cannot be observed and sounds too ridiculous to have actually happend..

[Jobu]

The hypocrisy is to expect everyone else to believe in something that cannot be tested, cannot be observed and sounds too ridiculous to have actually happend..


Creationism doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Adam and eve or any religion at all.

For example, if you can accept that there may be multiple universes, with ours being the one (or not?) in which the major forces are in perfect proportion to allow the universe to be aware of itself, did it happen by coincidence, by statistical inevitability, or by design?

The only honest answer is, "we don't know." Can it be tested? Nope, not yet anyway. But that's no reason to bar such examples from being discussed in the science classroom. String theory is untestable at the present time yet it has been discussed in classrooms for, oh, about 30-40 years.

So the hypocrisy is not that anyone "expects everyone else to believe in something" it is that something is not allowed to be discussed.

[el borracho]

From issue 2651 of New Scientist magazine, 12 April 2008, page 46



http://www.expelledexposed.com/

You should really check your sources.

What difference does that make? I know the issue is debatable but that won't prevent me from at least seeing it for myself. I don't believe in intelligent design, I'm not even religious, but that doesn't mean I'm not willing to hear the other side. At the end of the film I was far from convinced that intelligent design deserves equal merit with evolution but they did make some interesting points.

[el borracho]

.So the hypocrisy is not that anyone "expects everyone else to believe in something" it is that something is not allowed to be discussed.

That is exactly the point I was trying to make, thank you. If a theory is solid, it should be evident. If not, then a debate should be allowed. Systematically eliminating all forms of dissent (on either side) is not teaching science but dogma.

[Koppo]

Evolution is a biological theory and therefore it's science. If you add creationism to biology it becomes something else than science. There are tons of proof that evolution works and it has been tested in laboratory conditions as well. We actualy know why and mechanism how organisms diversify i don't really understand why you need to add religion to it when you can explain it with science. Perhaps that's why creationism isn't discussed in universities (not atleast here in Finland in my university). As for origins of life you have archeological proof that leave hardly no gaps supporting transition to diffrent species. Too often people who support intelligent design just aren't educated enough on the subject or simply choose not to be educated/ignore the facts.

[Bringer of Greater Things]

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y109/callmechuck/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster_2.jpg

[seraosha]

Folks...Louisiana has "Parishes", not counties.
And a large measure of kids out there are getting their early education through Catholic schools.

It's not a difficult leap to see why creationism is getting some time in the classroom. But stereotypes aside, no one from Louisiana is going to be swayed one way or the other.

Remember, they still get a week off of school for Mardi Gras ;-)

[tsuri]

For example, if you can accept that there may be multiple universes, with ours being the one (or not?) in which the major forces are in perfect proportion to allow the universe to be aware of itself, did it happen by coincidence, by statistical inevitability, or by design?

We do not know if other universes exist, if the same natural laws apply or if that has any relevance to us.
If the forces were not in the proportion they are in, we would not be having this conversation. That is akin to asking why water was made so perfectly for fish to survive in.

We can talk about creation by other intelligent life forms. Which will then result in these life forms having evoled somewhere. As long as there is no evidence to falsify that WE were the ones that evolved, creation is an unneccesary layer of complexity in a pretty simple world.

It is simply unscientific to do that. It has nothing to do with eliminating dissent. People who do not like evolution have been asked to prove it false for 150 years. It was impossible. If tomorrow someone manages to falsify evolution, it would be dropped totally. Thats how science works.
We cannot however allow any alternative only because someone may feel uncomfortable with the laws of nature. Science is no show of hands and does not work that way.

String Theory is a real extreme example and quite opposite to creationism, it does not seek to replace an established theory with a more complicated one and instead fills a gap that would otherwise exist. As long as it does not violate our present theories and as long as it has not been falsified, it will pretty much remain as it is.

[California Joe]

So now they're legislating retardation instead of just allowing it to flourish naturally?

[eskachig]

That is exactly the point I was trying to make, thank you. If a theory is solid, it should be evident. If not, then a debate should be allowed. Systematically eliminating all forms of dissent (on either side) is not teaching science but dogma.Here's the problem: ID is not a theory by any sort of definition. There is simply nothing to debate. It's kind of a random "what if...." scenario.

String theory, on the other hand is a theory, but its chief weakness is that nobody knows how to test it with modern technology. In the classroom it's usually discussed as an example of a abstract theory that people are trying really hard to figure out how to test.

The problem with ID isn't that it's a bad theory - it simply isn't a theory at all. There isn't any science or scientific method involved.

Edit: As for the "aliens" thing, that is just red herring. First, it doesn't disprove evolution because evolution != abiogenesis. Regardless of how the first simple forms of life appeared on Earth, we evolved from them, and evolution aims to describe that process.

Abiogenesis is a very interesting topic in itself, but Charles Darwin didn't need an explanation for it 150 years ago to present his theory, and neither do we to teach it in the classroom.

[Jobu]

We do not know if other universes exist, if the same natural laws apply or if that has any relevance to us.
If the forces were not in the proportion they are in, we would not be having this conversation. That is akin to asking why water was made so perfectly for fish to survive in.

We can talk about creation by other intelligent life forms. Which will then result in these life forms having evoled somewhere. As long as there is no evidence to falsify that WE were the ones that evolved, creation is an unneccesary layer of complexity in a pretty simple world.

It is simply unscientific to do that.

String Theory is a real extreme example and quite opposite to creationism, it does not seek to replace an established theory with a more complicated one and instead fills a gap that would otherwise exist. As long as it does not violate our present theories and as long as it has not been falsified, it will pretty much remain as it is.


To quote Ed Witten:


You have to be open-minded because ideas come from different places. You can think about something in one way for a long time and it seems like the only way to think about it, but it really isn't. Somebody could make a suggestion that really sounds naïve. It might even be naïve, but it could have an important element of the truth in it. And it could be truth that one's overlooking. So it's really hard to state a general rule. If one could say the general rule about where to find inspiration, we would just teach it to our students and then science would be much more straightforward.

And to quote another genius (Ogre from revenge of the nerds):

What if c-a-t really spelled dog?

That's silly of course, right? It does not spell dog. But in Portuguese dog is spelled cão which is pretty close. At first it appeared to be a stupid question, but you ended up learning something from it. I think maybe people can learn something from discussing intelligent design as well.

[eskachig]

For example, if you can accept that there may be multiple universes, with ours being the one (or not?) in which the major forces are in perfect proportion to allow the universe to be aware of itself, did it happen by coincidence, by statistical inevitability, or by design?

The only honest answer is, "we don't know." Can it be tested? Nope, not yet anyway. But that's no reason to bar such examples from being discussed in the science classroom.This is conjecture, not a hypothesis, and of course there is a reason to bar this discussion from the science classroom - it's not science.

String theory is untestable at the present time yet it has been discussed in classrooms for, oh, about 30-40 years.The "at the present time" is key - if string theory was untestable by definition it would never have been seriously accepted. As such, the biggest debate on string theory is whether it's testable or not - and if the consensus is that it actually isn't it will cease to be a scientific theory.


At first it appeared to be a stupid question, but you ended up learning something from it. I think maybe people can learn something from discussing intelligent design as well.Whatever you learn will not be science, that's the problem. Save it for a philosophy class, although even there ID would flounder.

[Jobu]

This is conjecture, not a hypothesis, and of course there is a reason to bar this discussion from the science classroom - it's not science.
The "at the present time" is key - if string theory was untestable by definition it would never have been seriously accepted. As such, the biggest debate on string theory is whether it's testable or not - and if the consensus is that it actually isn't it will cease to be a scientific theory.

Whatever you learn will not be science, that's the problem. Save it for a philosophy class, although even there ID would flounder.



Well sorry but you're wrong.

We simply don't know yet what may be learned. Nor do we know whether one idea or another is untestable "by definition". We may believe these ideas are untestable at the time, but we don't know what breakthroughs in the future will allow for testing. Someone may see the problem from an entirely different angle and devise a way to test or measure it. So in science you cannot close your mind to an idea simply because it doesn't fit into your small little world of what is acceptable and what is not. You have to allow people, especially science students, to explore different avenues, even those that may seem to lead to a dead end, to you.

Science progresses when some naive idiot refuses to accept the established theories and creates one of his own. The naive idiot then goes down in history as a visionary genius.

[Clayton Gold]

Science progresses when some naive idiot refuses to accept the established theories and creates one of his own. The naive idiot then goes down in history as a visionary genius.

Usually these "visionary" ideas are taught to our kids after they are proven.

Otherwise, it should be saved it for a university philosophy class.

I don't need some crackpot corrupting my kids with his/her "theories", under the guise of "scientific exploration". That's not what public school is for.

[eskachig]

We simply don't know yet what may be learned. Nor do we know whether one idea or another is untestable "by definition". We may believe these ideas are untestable at the time, but we don't know what breakthroughs in the future will allow for testing. Someone may see the problem from an entirely different angle and devise a way to test or measure it.

I'm sorry, but you have a strange idea about how science works. Without testability it simply isn't science. And yes sometimes things can't be tested right now and that's not the end - people say "I need equipment capable of *blank* at *blank* resolution and then I expect to see *blank* results." But if you come out with something without at least describing an idea of how this could be tested nobody is ever going to take you seriously.

Because there is no difference between what you said and "invisible unicorns are everywhere and we can't see them".

Seriously, you need to go over the scientific method and understand what's involved.


So in science you cannot close your mind to an idea simply because it doesn't fit into your small little world of what is acceptable and what is not. You have to allow people, especially science students, to explore different avenues, even those that may seem to lead to a dead end, to you.

Science education is about teaching people how to be scientists, as well as expose them to the results of recent research. I'm pretty open to teachers setting up the class how they want to - as long as they're teaching science. Seriously, I don't think it's that limiting considering how widespread the world of modern science really is.

Note: if there were alternative competing theories of evolution (like the current GUT situation) I'd be all for them being covered. There just aren't any - and for a good reason.


Science progresses when some naive idiot refuses to accept the established theories and creates one of his own. The naive idiot then goes down in history as a visionary genius.That is of course correct. Though these people are rarely naive or stupid.

[jokuvaan]

In Finland there's biology classes and religion classes. Everybody stays on own yard.

[Anthropologist]

Well sorry but you're wrong.

We simply don't know yet what may be learned. Nor do we know whether one idea or another is untestable "by definition". We may believe these ideas are untestable at the time, but we don't know what breakthroughs in the future will allow for testing. Someone may see the problem from an entirely different angle and devise a way to test or measure it. So in science you cannot close your mind to an idea simply because it doesn't fit into your small little world of what is acceptable and what is not. You have to allow people, especially science students, to explore different avenues, even those that may seem to lead to a dead end, to you.

Science progresses when some naive idiot refuses to accept the established theories and creates one of his own. The naive idiot then goes down in history as a visionary genius.

Science is necessarily rational and empirical. That means that whatever we believe isn’t a matter of choice; its an obligate condition imposed upon us by our knowledge of the evidence, and that position will only change in accordance with our understanding.

[Bia]

So the hypocrisy is not that anyone "expects everyone else to believe in something" it is that something is not allowed to be discussed.That's why we need to save scholastics for school and magical creators for sunday school.

You cant say "anything is a valid discussion in public schools" because I can list many that have no place there.

[tsuri]

You have to be open-minded because ideas come from different places. You can think about something in one way for a long time and it seems like the only way to think about it, but it really isn't. Somebody could make a suggestion that really sounds naïve. It might even be naïve, but it could have an important element of the truth in it. And it could be truth that one's overlooking. So it's really hard to state a general rule. If one could say the general rule about where to find inspiration, we would just teach it to our students and then science would be much more straightforward.
Wow, way to misunderstand him.
The "naive suggestion" that a god or multiple gods or perhaps another person have created us, was not only a suggestions. It was established knowledge.
Then someone makes the actual open minded notion, the truth that everyone has been overlooking, that it would have been possible for all different species to form on their own, without any foreign involvment.
And Bam! our understanding of life has changed and we moved on.

Trying to go back to the old dogma and continously suggesting an idea that has been debunked more than a century ago, is not science, it will not reveal more truth and it will not enable us to learn more about the world.

It is ridiculous to be even debating this, we are not having this conversation about Gravity, even though everyone knows that God is pushing everyone down to earth. But those evil scientists persecute everyone who wants to show an alternate viewpoint!

Evolution provided us with a simple solution for the question: Why are there so many different species.

Ask yourself. What will creationism solve? I only see more questions. What is the identity of our creators? Where are they now? How were the creators created? Possibly other creators created our creators which would lead us to the question of who created them. This creates an endless loop that can only be solved with... evolution.
More questions: How were we created? Was it just simple life that was artificially constructed? Then why are there so many species? If all species were made, why are we observing errors and obvious mistakes that rule out any deliberate design?

Intelligent Design is only a glorified way of saying: "A wizard did it".

[RS_Leo1A5]

Ask yourself. What will creationism solve?
From the POV of its inventors and supporters? Get fundamentalistic Christian teachings (disguised as "science") into public schools. Brainwash children until faith is as important or even more important than reason. Lay the foundations for finally turning the USA into the Christian theocracy "God" always wanted it to be.
Then go out into the world and crush the infidels with sword and fire...


I say this as a scientist, a biologist and as someone who believes neither in the Christian god nor the bible: Intelligent Design is garbage! Pure and simple. It is not a "scientific theory", it isn't science at all!
Discuss creation stories in religion classes, ponder creation ideas in philosophy classes - but keep them put of natural science classes! They don't belong there.

[Jobu]

Usually these "visionary" ideas are taught to our kids after they are proven.

Otherwise, it should be saved it for a university philosophy class.

I don't need some crackpot corrupting my kids with his/her "theories", under the guise of "scientific exploration". That's not what public school is for.



Once again, for the umpteenth time, I'm not saying teach these "crackpot" theories to our children as if they were readily accepted in the scientific community. I'm saying don't prevent "crackpot" theories from being discussed.

I'm not really sure why some of you fail to see the difference. It's very closed minded and it does a disservice to our kids and to our society. We need to let students know, science students in particular, that it is okay to explore ideas outside the established norm. Not only is it okay, we should encourage it.

[Jobu]

Ask yourself. What will creationism solve?

I don't know that it will solve anything. But maybe discussing it will inspire some young student who is interested in the origins of life to look at it from a different perspective and lead to a breakthrough.

There should be no taboos in the science classroom.

[bigvig]

It has nothing to do with science. It's a trojan horse intended to bring in full-blown Genesis based creationism into public schools. Lets stop pretending its of any value.

[Hellfish]

I don't know that it will solve anything. But maybe discussing it will inspire some young student who is interested in the origins of life to look at it from a different perspective and lead to a breakthrough.

There should be no taboos in the science classroom.

I hear you can masturbate onto a pile of dog **** and it will spawn giraffes. I think that should be taught in classrooms. YOU CAN'T DISPROVE IT.

[Jobu]

Science is necessarily rational and empirical. That means that whatever we believe isn’t a matter of choice; its an obligate condition imposed upon us by our knowledge of the evidence, and that position will only change in accordance with our understanding.

You're wrong.

Science is very much about imagination. Imagining new ways to think about the universe and new ways of testing those ideas. To paraphrase Feynman, it is the belief in the ignorance of the experts. You have to be bold enough to say "I'm going to try this a different way" and that's where the real breakthroughs come.

[Jobu]

It has nothing to do with science. It's a trojan horse intended to bring in full-blown Genesis based creationism into public schools. Lets stop pretending its of any value.

After WWII we stopped pretending eugenics had any value (because of the NAZI connection) and yet today we routinely screen embryos for selective breeding.

[Jobu]

I hear you can masturbate onto a pile of dog **** and it will spawn giraffes. I think that should be taught in classrooms. YOU CAN'T DISPROVE IT.

You can disprove it but in doing so you may also learn something from the fungi, bacteria, or other microorganisms you encounter along the way.

[Hellfish]

You can disprove it but in doing so you may also learn something from the fungi, bacteria, or other microorganisms you encounter along the way.

Are you questioning my faith? I'll sue your ass like the Mormons.

[Jobu]

Are you questioning my faith? I'll sue your ass like the Mormons.

I question everything. Your faith, your sanity, your motives, your use of shampoo bottles.
But I like to keep an open mind about what the answers to those questions might be as I suspect the answer to at least one is "beer."

[bigvig]

After WWII we stopped pretending eugenics had any value (because of the NAZI connection) and yet today we routinely screen embryos for selective breeding.
There is no supernatural phenomenon involved in eugenics. Completely different from ID.

[Rudolph]

^
Churchill was a big supporter.

Read Methuselah's Children. Entertaining and interesting book by Robert Heinlein.

[Clayton Gold]

Once again, for the umpteenth time, I'm not saying teach these "crackpot" theories to our children as if they were readily accepted in the scientific community. I'm saying don't prevent "crackpot" theories from being discussed.

I'm not really sure why some of you fail to see the difference. It's very closed minded and it does a disservice to our kids and to our society. We need to let students know, science students in particular, that it is okay to explore ideas outside the established norm. Not only is it okay, we should encourage it.

"Teaching" our kids about the beliefs of some as if it is accepted scientific truth does a disservice to our kids and our society.

Anyone who wishes that their kids be taught myths and legends has the option to send them to whatever religious school they choose.

My kids are taught to explore ideas every day. This is philosophy, not an issue of "open minds". You can't teach "science" that does not exist - it really is that simple.

[Jobu]

There is no supernatural phenomenon involved in eugenics.

Whatever breakthrough may come from a student inspired by a discussion of the origins of life or the universe isn't limited to the supernatural simply because the discussion included reference to a possibility that things are the way they are by design. Nor is "by design" necessarily supernatural, it may be very natural. We just may not see it yet, that may be our limitation. Let's not be so closed minded and arrogant as to assume our own limitations will not be overcome by our children or grandchildren.

So yes these ideas are crazy, but are they crazy enough to be true? Let's discuss 'em and find out, and who knows what else we will find in the process. (yes that was a bastardization of Bohr)

[Rudolph]

What else is eugenics but applied evolution?

[Jobu]

"Teaching" our kids about the beliefs of some as if it is accepted scientific truth does a disservice to our kids and our society.

Anyone who wishes that their kids be taught myths and legends has the option to send them to whatever religious school they choose.

My kids are taught to explore ideas every day. This is philosophy, not an issue of "open minds". You can't teach "science" that does not exist - it really is that simple.


Either your reading comprehension is terrible or you're just refusing to accept what is written. There's a difference between "teaching" our kids to accept a theory and discussing a theory.

It really is that simple.

[Stainless Steel Rat]

Jobu, you keep saying you want to have an 'open mind'. While this is generally a good thing, one must be cautious that ones brain does not fall out. <I keed, I keed!!>

Look, Intelligent Design/Creationism is not science. Science begins with observable events (apples falling from trees, fossil bones, people getting sick) and leads to hypotheses (gravity, evolution, germs for instance, but also moving towards their natural place, creationism, and 'humors' were hypotheses). As evidence accumulates, sometime over centuries, hypotheses are discarded or modified to meet what the evidence shows.

Eventually the evidence is overwhelming enough that one Theory is accepted by Science as being the best explanation of all the known evidence. But even then a Therory can be changed or even rejected if new proof or evidence is found. For example, for much of history the continents were thought to be unmoving and stable. But a guy named Wegener in 1912 proposed that continents moved. Because he could not explain how they moved, his therory was widely ridiculed by Science. But as the tools became better and the evidence was collected, it turns out old Wegener was right after all and today in Geology classes worldwide Plate Tectonics is standard.

And that is how science works: take evidence, propose hypothesis, collect and test evidence, discard hypothesis that don't fit, and develop a Therory that fits the evidence, subject to change as knowledge increases.

Science, in the end, is Evolutionary.

Intelligent Design, nee Creationism, works in exactly the opposite way. It establishes a final conclusion (either 'God did it' or 'Life is so complex there must have been some intelligence directing it') and then goes out to find evidence for it. Of which there is none, BTW; most ID writings are solely Evolution-bashing or appeals to authority, not scientific works. They look for the small cracks in Evolutionary Therory, while ignoring the massive holes in theirs. They are not looking for the truth; they KNOW the TRUTH already.

ID/Creationism is not Science: It is Dogma.

And that is why things like the Louisiana stuff is dangerous--for to paraphrase the late Carl Sagan, Science is like the Candle in the dark; a strong wind may snuff it out if we are not careful to conserve and protect it.

OK, Rant over.


PS--Just FYI. There are differences between the beginnings of life (Abiogenesis, which is still open for discussion on many fronts) and the Evolution of said life (Evolution is considered factual; Natural Selection is the Therory)

Press on.

[Clayton Gold]

Either your reading comprehension is terrible or you're just refusing to accept what is written. There's a difference between "teaching" our kids to accept a theory and discussing a theory.

It really is that simple.

Simmer down there sparky - Perhaps you should learn to read as well, because that is exactly what I am saying.

What you speak of is not education. It is not "teaching". It is scientific exploration and/or philosophy, which I have not argued against - if you care to read carefully. However this is also not what I send my kids to school for everyday.

Do you have kids ? Serious question, not flaming.

If you think that this has a place in public schools, basically indoctrinating young kids to Christian beliefs, it shows a larger agenda than "expanding your mind." Save it for the mature kids, who are able to debate back if they so wish.

[Jobu]

Well sorry but you're still wrong.

Sometimes science begins with an idea.

[Rudolph]

Well sorry but you're still wrong.

Sometimes science begins with an idea.

I think what they're trying to say is that you don't teach ideas.

[Jobu]

Simmer down there sparky - Perhaps you should learn to read as well, because that is exactly what I am saying.

What you speak of is not education. It is not "teaching". It is scientific exploration and/or philosophy, which I have not argued against - if you care to read carefully. However this is also not what I send my kids to school for everyday.

Do you have kids ? Serious question, not flaming.

If you think that this has a place in public schools, basically indoctrinating young kids to Christian beliefs, it shows a larger agenda than "expanding your mind." Save it for the mature kids, who are able to debate back if they so wish.



Scientific exploration is teaching. And you obviously are still missing the point with the bolded part. You seriously cannot see the difference between a discussion and an indoctrination?

[Jobu]

I think what they're trying to say is that you don't teach ideas.

You discuss ideas. Yes, even in the classroom. Especially in the classroom.

[el borracho]

I don't agree with "teaching" creationism or ID in schools, but it can be at least mentioned. Despite the Louisiana example, most schools in the US are highly secular (and rightly so). Because of upbringing, some kids may not even be familiar with the ID argument. I have no problem with a teacher explaining why ID won't be taught in the classroom and at the end of the day students can believe what they want...or more unfortunately what their parents or community may force them to accept, as in this case.

[Clayton Gold]

Scientific exploration is teaching. And you obviously are still missing the point with the bolded part. You seriously cannot see the difference between a discussion and an indoctrination?

I can obviously see the difference - it seems you refuse to, since you happen to agree with said theory.

"Teaching ideas" is simply philosophy. This could have a place in many schools; as long as they were teaching the ideas of all religions, and as long as they were doing it with students mature enough to form an opinion on said topic.

"Discussing" the views of only Christians, while questioning real scientific achievements = indoctrination.

"Discussing" these myths as truth with my 5 year old in public school = indoctrination.

Creating legislation to allow teachers to "discuss" whatever religious topic they wish in a public school classroom is irresponsible and obviously designed for promoting religious views - not simply "discussion".

[el borracho]

This reminds me of all the "Intro to Islam" classes that sprouted up after 9/11 to introduce kids to the new problems the world was facing. If ID/creationism is presented as a way to inform kids of what others believe I have no problem with it. In that sense, ID does have a place in schools. However it shouldn't be taught as truth with no mention of evolution. Schools teaching only ID/creationism are doing their students a huge disservice because they will have no way to fully understand the evolution theory which is accepted by the worldwide scientific community.

[Clayton Gold]

I just think that there is a time and a place for these types of subjects.

Introducing legislation to give teachers a free hand is not the right way.

[eskachig]

I'm perfectly ok with science teachers discussing why ID isn't science - it's a good illustration of what science is and isn't.

And Jobu, nobody is against teachers talking about alternative theories. But ID isn't a theory - scientific definition of a theory is different than the common usage of the word.



Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

...

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes.

ID isn't even a hypothesis, much less a theory.


If ID/creationism is presented as a way to inform kids of what others believe I have no problem with it. In that sense, ID does have a place in schoolsThat discussion doesn't belong in a biology class though - perfect for a philosophy topic though.

[Alpheus]

I wonder if Jobu would be okay with astrology being taught in classrooms, because according to a leading ID proponent, it is also science.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8178-astrology-is-scientific-theory-courtroom-told.html

[Jobu]

I can obviously see the difference - it seems you refuse to, since you happen to agree with said theory.


No I don't.

That was a stupid assumption on your part.

[Jobu]

I wonder if Jobu would be okay with astrology being taught in classrooms, because according to a leading ID proponent, it is also science.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8178-astrology-is-scientific-theory-courtroom-told.html

Teaching astrology as if it were something officially endorsed? Nope.
Discussing astrology, even if only to show how it fails to survive testing? Yes.

Catching on yet?

[Jobu]

I just think that there is a time and a place for these types of subjects.

Introducing legislation to give teachers a free hand is not the right way.



I think teachers should have more freedom in what they can discuss in class. I believe one of the reasons why our schools are failing so dramatically is because we tie the teachers' hands. To a harmful extent, we insist that they stick only to the accepted curriculum and do not allow them to stray.

The best teachers are not the "by the book" robots. The best teachers are the ones who encourage students to go beyond what the book says. Boot camp may make a great soldier but it makes a crappy scientist.

[Clayton Gold]

Bottom line for me:

Religious subjects have no place in public schools, particularly those trying to pass themselves off as "science". Philosophy is a different issue, as I have explained, and I don't think grade-school is the place for this.

Parents have the option to send their children to whatever faith-based school they choose.

If religious mythology (ID) is to be included in any public school curriculum, it should discuss the "science" of every religion. Otherwise, you have Christian indoctrination.

I'm glad we don't have this ID issue in Canada. Here the debate is about faith-based school funding; and the fact that only the catholic school boards receive public funds. The Ontario conservatives got pounded in the last election over this issue.

[Alpheus]

Teaching astrology as if it were something officially endorsed? Nope.
Discussing astrology, even if only to show how it fails to survive testing? Yes.

Catching on yet?

Just getting a mention of ID into classrooms is the first stage. Read what the ID proponents want to do, it's all in their "wedge" strategy.

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

Read that, and you'll see that getting ID into schools is just the first step in their "overthrow of materialism".

[gazell]

Boot camp may make a great soldier but it makes a crappy scientist.

You seem to be the latter, in fact, you have presented in this thread that you have no clue whatsoever, what science is, you think it's about my opinion against others, you fail. I don't even see why people are being so nice to you on this, you are a flat-earther nutjob on this one, simply.

[Jobu]

You seem to be the latter, in fact, you have presented in this thread that you have no clue whatsoever, what science is, you think it's about my opinion against others, you fail. I don't even see why people are being so nice to you on this, you are a flat-earther nutjob on this one, simply.



Bzzt wrong.

I'm no proponent of ID, nor of astrology, nor of Hellfish's masturbating on dog crap.
What I am a proponent of is encouraging discussion of non-mainstream ideas/theories in the science classroom. I think those of you with such closed minds are selling our science students short. They should be encouraged to discuss alternatives, always.

Any monkey in a lab coat can be taught to take measurements and record observations. The real genius of science is in the ideas that fall out of the norm.

[Jobu]

Just getting a mention of ID into classrooms is the first stage. Read what the ID proponents want to do, it's all in their "wedge" strategy.

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

Read that, and you'll see that getting ID into schools is just the first step in their "overthrow of materialism".

Sounds like a bit of paranoia to me.

Even if it were true that this is the motive of some holy rollers, there's no reason why it would play out that way anyway. A mere mention of ID in the classroom does not set in motion a defined sequence of events where the country suddenly turns into a theocracy.

[gazell]

Any monkey in a lab coat can be taught to take measurements and record observations.

Sure, it's just that not any monkey can make sense of those readings, BTW, what's ID's readings, so we know.

The real genius of science is in the ideas that fall out of the norm.

Yes, not as you present it though, nothing to do with 'naive idiots', very well knowledged people in main stream science, more likely.



Sorry, but I really agree with keep a very open mind and your brain falls out, on the other hand, you seem denying it, but you come across as for teaching unsubstantiated bollox in schools.

[Clayton Gold]

So now... What "science" is there behind ID, besides religious philosophy ?

[tsuri]

What I am a proponent of is encouraging discussion of non-mainstream ideas/theories in the science classroom. I think those of you with such closed minds are selling our science students short. They should be encouraged to discuss alternatives, always.

What would there be to discuss with 8th graders then? Leave the debate to those who know what they are talking about.
Debates must be taught, they are a part of science. But a school kid has not the time, nor the knowledge to actually discuss a scientific theory that is so extremely detailed as this.
We cannot discuss why some people dislike the periodic table of elements in Chemistry. We teach it and then we use it. School classes teach the contents of established science to hand out basic knowledge.

Biology classes must not be turned into a debate of ID vs Evolution. Because thats apples and oranges, it cannot be compared in a reasonal way. It will only enable stupid teachers to unload "alternative" material on their students.
For all the other teachers, the "debate" would be over within one sentence. "This is what some people believe but in 150 years they have not found the time to produce a working hypothesis and they have no evidence to present. But look at the pretty drawings of Darwin as a monkey!"
Biology classes are there to teach Biology. Not more and not less. debating endlessly about an established theory will only cost time and effort.

[Jobu]

Sorry, but I really agree with keep a very open mind and your brain falls out, on the other hand, you seem denying it, but you come across as for teaching unsubstantiated bollox in schools.

Only if you have trouble with reading comprehension.

I've said several times it's not about teaching these ideas as though they were endorsed, it's about encouraging discussion. ID may be a crackpot idea but I bet there's still a lot to learn by delving deeper into the questions asked by the "is this all by design" argument. Some young student may be inspired to do just that.

Keeping a narrow "by the book" approach to science is stupid. It's not all about the process, it's also about the ideas, some of which are so crazy that they are dismissed only to be resurrected later when process catches up.

[Jobu]

What would there be to discuss with 8th graders then? Leave the debate to those who know what they are talking about.
Debates must be taught, they are a part of science. But a school kid has not the time, nor the knowledge to actually discuss a scientific theory that is so extremely detailed as this.
We cannot discuss why some people dislike the periodic table of elements in Chemistry. We teach it and then we use it. School classes teach the contents of established science to hand out basic knowledge.

Biology classes must not be turned into a debate of ID vs Evolution. Because thats apples and oranges, it cannot be compared in a reasonal way. It will only enable stupid teachers to unload "alternative" material on their students.
For all the other teachers, the "debate" would be over within one sentence. "This is what some people believe but in 150 years they have not found the time to produce a working hypothesis and they have no evidence to present. But look at the pretty drawings of Darwin as a monkey!"
Biology classes are there to teach Biology. Not more and not less. debating endlessly about an established theory will only cost time and effort.


I don't think anyone claimed there should be an "endless debate" about each idea in the classroom. I certainly encourage the discussion of some of these "crazy" ideas but nowhere did I say such a discussion should take a disproportionate amount of time or energy away from the basics.

[Clayton Gold]

How much time and energy would it cost?

The fact the you dismiss the obvious moral implication of "discussing" these things with young children with no background, shows that you have not thought about this properly.

I'm all for your "open mind/consider everything" POV, but the way in which you advocate it is irresponsible.

[bigvig]

This is such a bull**** discussion. ID has no place in any SCIENCE class whatsoever. THEOLOGY? Probably.


AN EXAMPLE OF A NON-MAINSTREAM SCIENTIFIC idea being discussed in SCIENCE class would be something like discussing Multiregional theory along with Out-of-Africa.


ID is not science. If something isn't science, it doesn't belong in science class.

[Wrangel]

So now... What "science" is there behind ID, besides religious philosophy ?

What is "religious philosophy" behind ID?

Do you consider modern science and its theories as religiously neutral?



Not more and not less. debating endlessly about an established theory will only cost time and effort.

For your consideration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology



Phrenology (from Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language): φρήν, phrēn, "mind"; and λόγος, logos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos), "knowledge") is a defunct field of study, once considered a science, in which the personality traits of a person were determined by "reading" bumps and fissures in the skull.

P.S



Biology classes are there to teach Biology.


Agreed,but is Evolution just about biology?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocultural_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_evolution

[Clayton Gold]

What is "religious philosophy" behind ID?

Do you consider modern science and its theories as religiously neutral?



Do you really consider ID religiously neutral, or scientific ?

Perhaps you could elaborate if you have a point you are trying to make.

Otherwise, see my previous posts.

[Wrangel]

Do you really consider ID religiously neutral, or scientific ?


No,I don't consider it scientific...

Now,you can answer my question:


Do you consider modern science and its theories as religiously neutral?

[Clayton Gold]

I see any scientific discussion based on the scientific method; meaning physical or empirical properties - without mention of an 'unknown creator' to be religiously neutral.

I don't have much more to say on this topic than I've already said, so my previous posts should have answered your question.

But you're obviously going to go into a semantic argument - so hit me, I'm all ears.

[Wrangel]

I see any scientific discussion based on the scientific method; meaning physical or empirical properties - without mention of an 'unknown creator' to be religiously neutral.


Do you consider these movements as religions according to your own standard?:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_(religious_group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_%28religious_group))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C3%ABlism


And most important:

Have modern science proved claims of Biblical fundamentalists of literal 6 day creation to be false?
Have modern science proved claims of Biblical fundamentalists that earth is about few thousand years old to be false?
Have modern science proved claims of believers that God created man by his own image to be false?
Have modern science proved religious claim of resurrection and miracles to be false?

[Clayton Gold]

Do you consider these movements as religions according to your own standard?:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_(religious_group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_%28religious_group))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C3%ABlism

Perhaps a cult, but this seems irrelevant within the context of this discussion.

What does this have to do with religious subjects in public schools ?

Lay off the loaded questions and get to the point, or get back on topic.

[Wrangel]

Perhaps a cult, but this seems irrelevant within the context of this discussion.

It's relevant about what "religious" is.

UFO religions believe in aliens who are living,empirical,physical beings that live inside our universe (at least what most of them believe)..although more scientifically advanced,who are bound to same natural laws as we....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_religion

On other hand,some may believe in existence of supernatural God,creator,and yet be non religious:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Now can you answer me this:



Have modern science proved claims of Biblical fundamentalists of literal 6 day creation to be false?
Have modern science proved claims of Biblical fundamentalists that earth is about few thousand years old to be false?
Have modern science proved claims of believers that God created man by his own image to be false?
Have modern science proved religious claim of resurrection and miracles to be false?

[Anthropologist]

Now can you answer me this:

Magic man did it?

[Clayton Gold]

It's relevant about what "religious" is.

UFO religions believe in aliens who are living,empirical,physical beings that live inside our universe (at least what most of them believe)..although more scientifically advanced,who are bound to same natural laws as we....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_religion

Modern science has proven that there is extraterrestrial life. At the very least, proven biologic processes.

This is what is taught to children - not cult beliefs.


On other hand,some may believe in existence of supernatural God,creator,and yet be non religious:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeismThis would be a great topic, for a philosophy class.


Now can you answer me this:

Have modern science proved claims of Biblical fundamentalists of literal 6 day creation to be false?
- yes

Have modern science proved claims of Biblical fundamentalists that earth is about few thousand years old to be false?
- yes

Have modern science proved claims of believers that God created man by his own image to be false?
-depends on your beliefs, according to mine - yes

Have modern science proved religious claim of resurrection and miracles to be false?
- same answer as above
So you're making the case for teaching religious belief in public schools, simply because some believe that science has not proven their beliefs beyond a doubt.

For these people, there are religious schools. I have already stated my argument for this point, in this thread.

Unless you are going to dedicate time in school, to examining doctrine and beliefs of all faiths, there is no good argument for having this in a public school.

BTW - debating a point by repeatedly demanding one answer questions is arrogant and childish. I won't be addressed in such a manner - so make your points, and get on with it.

[Wrangel]

Modern science has proven that there is extraterrestrial life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_life


Extraterrestrial life is life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life) originating outside of the Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth). It is the subject of astrobiology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrobiology) and its existence remains hypothetical, because there is no credible evidence of extraterrestrial life which has been generally accepted by the mainstream scientific community.
This is what is taught to children - not cult beliefs.

My point is that there are religions that believe in and worship aliens,from distant places in universe,with rituals and belief system that is not about supernatural God,yet they are religions.



Now can you answer me this:

Have modern science proved claims of Biblical fundamentalists of literal 6 day creation to be false?
- yes

Have modern science proved claims of Biblical fundamentalists that earth is about few thousand years old to be false?
- yes

Have modern science proved claims of believers that God created man by his own image to be false?
-depends on your beliefs, according to mine - yes

Have modern science proved religious claim of resurrection and miracles to be false?
- same answer as above


So basically science proved them to be false-falsified them?
If so does this means that religious claims are scientific in nature?

[Clayton Gold]

My point is that there are religions that believe in and worship aliens,from distant places in universe,with rituals and belief system that is not about supernatural God,yet they are religions.

These are called "cults", not religions; and their beliefs are based on stories and myth, not science afaik.

And is this taught in schools ? No.

Are you arguing that it should be taught in schools ?

If yes - see previous replies
If no - Your posts don't seem to have any point - make it, or get back on topic.


So basically science proved them to be false-falsified them?It means that I believe in the science used to make such claims, while many who are religious, choose not to. Also - see my previous reply about being questioned as such. I already answered your question.

Nice that you edited your post about not having a real point to your argument before I could quote it and reply.

Unless you are willing to openly state your opinion about teachers being given a free hand to teach what they wish - not only regarding religious matters - but other frivolous unproven theories, like global warming - I will not waste time with your meandering questions.

This is not only about religion. It just seems to have dominated this thread thus-far because it provokes so many, myself included. p-)

EDIT: (to add your 3rd edit)


If so does this means that religious claims are scientific in nature?This has been answered directly in this thread, multiple times by multiple members, including myself.

Read the thread, and then we can discuss.

[eskachig]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_(religious_group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_%28religious_group))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C3%ABlism
I do, but I don't really see your point


Have modern science proved claims of Biblical fundamentalists of literal 6 day creation to be false?
Yup, that's a falsifiable assertion and we have a lot of evidence that shows the process took billions of years.


Have modern science proved claims of Biblical fundamentalists that earth is about few thousand years old to be false?
Ditto.


Have modern science proved claims of believers that God created man by his own image to be false?
Unfalsifiable since it's easy to hide behind "it's allegorical" defense. We have a pretty good idea that man didn't spring up overnight, but science cannot say whether the process was guided by a spiritual entity to shape a desired image.


Have modern science proved religious claim of resurrection and miracles to be false?
No, though really the people claiming the miracles took place are generally supposed to do the proving. Try proving that I didn't turn water into wine and then back again yesterday in my room.


Modern science has proven that there is extraterrestrial life. At the very least, proven biologic processes.
Not to my knowledge - still looking. But current knowledge of the universe makes it really unlikely that this is the one planet with life among trillions.


It's relevant about what "religious" is.

UFO religions believe in aliens who are living,empirical,physical beings that live inside our universe (at least what most of them believe)..although more scientifically advanced,who are bound to same natural laws as we....They still believe in unsubstantiated nonsense with no basis in fact. I still fail to see the relevance.


On other hand,some may believe in existence of supernatural God,creator,and yet be non religious:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
I'm a big fan of deism - it completely removes the idea of god somewhere so mystical and unknowable that it stops interfering with anything. Science can't touch god that doesn't interfere with the universe, and there is no dogma to interfere with science. Divine revelation is a bogus idea because God doesn't intervene. Deism is pretty awesome, and I think it's pretty cool that US was founded mostly by Deists, regardless of what the Evangelicals think. So... what's your point?


My point is that there are religions that believe in and worship aliens,from distant places in universe,with rituals and belief system that is not about supernatural God,yet they are religions.So that's your point? I still don't understand where you're going with this.


So basically science proved them to be false-falsified them?
If so does this means that religious claims are scientific in nature?All that drama for this? Religions used to make a lot of falsifiable claims, and they've been shying away from it lately because it messes up their credibility. Falsifiability alone doesn't make something a "scientific claim", hypothesis, or a theory - even if unfalsifiability instantly marks something as unscientific. Ever heard of "necessary but not sufficient"?

Examples:

Sky is red.
I can fly in earth gravity unaided.
I used to have two brains when I was younger.

All falsifiable, but not in the least bit scientific.

[eskachig]

These are called "cults", not religions; and their beliefs are based on stories and myth, not science afaik. I don't really see a categorical difference myself. Cult vs Religion is a question of mass appeal and success, it's not a philosophical distinction.

Romans thought Christianity was a funky cult at the beginning too.

I agree with you about everything else though.

[Wrangel]

These are called "cults", not religions; and their beliefs are based on stories and myth, not science afaik.

And is this taught in schools ? No.

Are you arguing that it should be taught in schools ?

If yes - see previous replies
If no - Your posts don't seem to have any point - make it, or get back on topic.


Point is that "religion" could be or not be about supernatural God.
Claiming that ID is religion,just because it infers supernatural God,the creator, is not quite true,since there religions who believe and worship natural entities.
As I shown there are believers in supernatural God,creator that are anti-religious.

While I agree that schools should be religiously neutral ground,without any interference of religion...that could be the case also when schools do not interfere in religious beliefs of pupils.


Nice that you edited your post about not having a real point to your argument before I could quote it and reply.

Post has been edited,when I realized that you have answered my questions in your quotation,which I somehow missed...:)

I was making questions,not making an argument...



Unless you are willing to openly state your opinion about teachers being given a free hand to teach what they wish - not only regarding religious matters - but other frivolous unproven theories, like global warming - I will not waste time with your meandering questions.
I'm against any ideological agendas in education...

[eskachig]

Point is that "religion" could be or not be about supernatural God.

Claiming that ID is religion,just because it infers supernatural God,the creator, is not quite true,since there religions who believe and worship natural entities.As I shown there are believers in supernatural God,creator that are anti-religious.ID isn't a religion, it's a tool used by some religious people to cast doubt on evolution in a vaguely pseudo-scientific manner.

I'm not saying ID is religion (if that was the case there wouldn't be a debate anyhow - this idea's main strength is that it's sufficiently vague as not to be religious), I'm just saying that it has nothing whatsoever to do with science. You know, the stuff they're supposed to teach at science classes.


While I agree that schools should be religiously neutral ground,without any interference of religion...that could be the case also when schools do not interfere in religious beliefs of pupils.That's silly - if teaching modern scientific knowledge interferes with someone's religious beliefs that's not the state's concern. Besides, the students are free to disregard anything they learn - as long as they do learn it.

It has come to people's attention that knowledge of modern biology makes our children more competitive in the world, just as mathematics, and reading.


I'm against any ideological agendas in education...
There is no ideology inherent in the theory of evolution. It's just what happened - if a teacher is using this to justify an ideological position that is a separate problem.

[Wrangel]

Yup, that's a falsifiable assertion and we have a lot of evidence that shows the process took billions of years.


Therefore this Biblical fundamentalist creationist claim is scientific in nature since it has been falsified.


Ditto.

So,this one was scientific as well.



Unfalsifiable since it's easy to hide behind "it's allegorical" defense. We have a pretty good idea that man didn't spring up overnight, but science cannot say whether the process was guided by a spiritual entity to shape a desired image.

Ok,then.


No, though really the people claiming the miracles took place are generally supposed to do the proving. Try proving that I didn't turn water into wine and then back again yesterday in my room.

If you believe in miracle,you don't need to prove it.
Only if I'm claiming knowledge,then I'm obliged to prove something.
Knowledge requires proof,not belief.

Much more mundane things are unprovable,for example:
"4 years ago,in January 19 i alone had sandwich for breakfast,at 9.14 a.m".
How can you prove this or disprove this?
You can only believe or not believe me....




Divine revelation is a bogus idea because God doesn't intervene. Deism is pretty awesome,

This claim is valid,only if you presume that Deism is correct.


So that's your point? I still don't understand where you're going with this.

That being "religious" does not always means belief in God.


Religions used to make a lot of falsifiable claims, and they've been shying away from it lately because it messes up their credibility.
What religions?
Taoism?
Hinduism?
Islam?
Christianity?

I was talking about Biblical fundamentalist creationists and about claims that creationist claims are not falsifiable,therefore not scientific.
Since evolutionists claim that their explanations are false,then they actually contradict previous claim.


Falsifiability alone doesn't make something a "scientific claim", hypothesis, or a theory - even if unfalsifiability instantly marks something as unscientific.

True,but if some claim has been falsified with another claim that is considered scientific,then this means that first claim was scientific in nature,since science was able to disprove it.



Examples:

Sky is red.
I can fly in earth gravity unaided.
I used to have two brains when I was younger.

All falsifiable, but not in the least bit scientific.

True,therefore you don't have scientific theories that disprove those claims...p-)

[eskachig]

Therefore this Biblical fundamentalist creationist claim is scientific in nature since it has been falsified.


True,but if some claim has been falsified with another claim that is considered scientific,then this means that first claim was scientific in nature,since science was able to disprove it.Where do you get this stuff? No it absolutely doesn't. I repeat again, falsifiebility is necessary but not sufficient. Just because you said it and it's demonstrably false doesn't mean it's science.

Now a disproven hypothesis really is science, and not even necessarily bad science. But a hypothesis, just like a theory has a precise definition.

Science is a precise methodology with precise rules, why do people not understand that? It's shown absolutely remarkable explanatory success up to now.


If you believe in miracle,you don't need to prove it.
Only if I'm claiming knowledge,then I'm obliged to prove something.
Knowledge requires proof,not belief.

Much more mundane things are unprovable,for example:
"4 years ago,in January 19 i alone had sandwich for breakfast,at 9.14 a.m".
How can you prove this or disprove this?
You can only believe or not believe me....True to an extent - but there is no reason to get so deeply into epistemology here. Science operates from a sceptical viewpoint anyway - if there is no evidence there is no reason to consider that something happened.

History isn't a science btw, and has different standards of proof.


This claim is valid,only if you presume that Deism is correct.Well yeah - I was talking about deism to begin with, and how much I like it because it does away with a lot of philosophically thorny questions that religion raises.


That being "religious" does not always means belief in God.
So? Who are you arguing with here?


What religions?
Taoism?
Hinduism?
Islam?
Christianity?Almost all of them have made cosmological statements that have been proven to be false, sourcing divine inspiration.


I was talking about Biblical fundamentalist creationists and about claims that creationist claims are not falsifiable,therefore not scientific.
Since evolutionists claim that their explanations are false,then they actually contradict previous claim.Most creationist claims are falsifiable (though they're still not scientific theories/hypothesises), and have been convincingly disproven. ID isn't even a creationist claim, it's just an off the wall "what if?"

[Wrangel]

I'm just saying that it has nothing whatsoever to do with science. You know, the stuff they're supposed to teach at science classes.



Is a claim that Thomas Edison invented light-bulb a scientific fact?



That's silly - if teaching modern scientific knowledge interferes with someone's religious beliefs that's not the state's concern.

If state teaches theories that are in contradictions with religious beliefs,than this means that state and its institutions are not religiously neutral,but openly involved in religious and metaphysical issues.



There is no ideology inherent in the theory of evolution.

Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy))

[Wrangel]

Where do you get this stuff? No it absolutely doesn't. I repeat again, falsifiebility is necessary but not sufficient. Just because you said it and it's demonstrably false doesn't mean it's science.


If scientific theory falsifies another theory this means that another theory was scientific in nature.

Although i haven't been precise enough:


Therefore this Biblical fundamentalist creationist claim is scientific in nature since it has been falsified....by science


Science is a precise methodology with precise rules, why do people not understand that? It's shown absolutely remarkable explanatory success up to now.

Are you scientist?

What of these methodological approaches you consider as scientific?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism




Science operates from a sceptical viewpoint anyway - if there is no evidence there is no reason to consider that something happened.

What do you consider as "evidence"?




Almost all of them have made cosmological statements that have been proven to be false, sourcing divine inspiration.

So sourcing divine inspiration is by definition false?

Is this claim false as well?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal), that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness).




Most creationist claims are falsifiable (though they're still not scientific theories/hypothesises), and have been convincingly disproven.

If science disproves a claim,this means that this claim was scientific in its nature.

[eskachig]

Is a claim that Thomas Edison invented light-bulb a scientific fact?Actually no, why would it be?


If state teaches theories that are in contradictions with religious beliefs,than this means that state and its institutions are not religiously neutral,but openly involved in religious and metaphysical issues.This line of reasoning is silly because religious belief is completely arbitrary. Extreme example - the flat earthers. It's pretty much impossible to teach any science without stepping on someone's toes, somewhere. In any case, the state teaches modern scientific knowledge and techniques. Nobody is forced to accept it as true (there is no "is this true?" question on any test - people are tested on their knowledge of the material).

Like it or not, science is neutral, and self contained. Someone's beliefs somewhere are completely immaterial to the methodology.

In a similar vein my school covered some sections of the bible in a literature class - I didn't have a problem with that then and I don't now. It is a book after all, one that had a huge impact on the world. If religion is missing from literature and history classes something is very wrong with the curriculum. Learning about something and establishment are very different things and knowing nothing about religion leaves you unprepared for dealing with the world. Same thing with science, I don't care if they believe it, but kids need to be familiar with science and the scientific method.


Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy))Neither one of those things are science - they're philosophical systems that use the scientific method as a foundation of their epistemology.

[eskachig]

If scientific theory falsifies another theory this means that another theory was scientific in nature.

Although i haven't been precise enough:Talking about this will be a lot easier if you look up what a scientific theory is. None of the things you are talking about are scientific theories. It's a very precise definition.

If a theory disproves another theory, the disproven theory is a theory a priori. If a theory disproves a groundless assertion that means very little other than the assertion was groundless.



Are you scientist?
I'm an engineer, but I have a keen interest in science and a lot of my family is in science.

I also have a philosophy degree.


What of these methodological approaches you consider as scientific?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
Neither - Rationalism is basically anti-science (scientific knowledge does not come from reason, and reason alone isn't enough to justify anything), and Empiricism as Hume would see it actually makes science impossible because for a true empiricist if events repeat themselves that's nothing other than an accident, while for a scientist repeatability of experimental results is of paramount importance.


What do you consider as "evidence"?What does it matter what I consider to be evidence? Evidence in context of science has a precise definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

I guess here's a start. National Academy of Science probably has a good one too.


So sourcing divine inspiration is by definition false?

Is this claim false as well?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_IndependenceI said that many things where people sourced divine information have proven to be false. Simply claiming divine revelation has absolutely no bearing on whether something is true or not.

I also have issue with Locke's concept of natural rights, precisely because it all goes back down to God - but that's philosophical laziness, and it's still very forward looking for the age. It's a whole other discussion too.


If science disproves a claim,this means that this claim was scientific in its nature.Once again, no it doesn't and I simply don't understand why you think so.

[DS73]

Bzzt wrong.

I'm no proponent of ID, nor of astrology, nor of Hellfish's masturbating on dog crap.
What I am a proponent of is encouraging discussion of non-mainstream ideas/theories in the science classroom. I think those of you with such closed minds are selling our science students short. They should be encouraged to discuss alternatives, always.

Encourage where? In school? What is alternative? to what? Are you familiar with scientific method? What is the purpose of public schooling in the first place?
This is amazing, nobody in a clear mind is thinking about giving advices to a doctor in a hospital, nevertheless everybody is happy making conclusions about "geopolitics", education, law. Why is that? I blame bad schooling :).

Mainstream is mainstream for a reason.
All things taught on school level (biological evolution included) were under scientific scrutiny for many years and survived. For a good reason.
Apparently they describe world that surrounds us objectively enough .

All school subjects (ideally) are parts of one integral educating mechanism that is specially designed to prepare pupil for adult life. Obviously the preparation includes teaching to think and to draw meaningful conclusions based on available facts and understanding.
Biological evolution theory is an important part of this mechanism and it provides as understanding of interconnections in animal world (see similarities in behavior of different types of animals, humans included) as nice inside that everything is subject to the law of causality. Again people are no exception. Nothing's godly.
"Survival of the fittest"- basic of US reality. This catchy phraze originates from biological manual concerning guess what: Biological evolution.

I can not imagine any educational weight of creationist crap. What students can get from it? I mean something useful, that can be applied here on Earth.
Notice I am not talking about direct scientific applications (like in neuroscience), I am not talking about fantastic view of fetus development.

Already direct social implications for educational system are high. The admittance of not scientifically objective subject into public system is the step back. And a major one. With multiple negative consequences.

Compare creationism with "scientific communism", it will provide better and clearer idea. Where it goes and what it's about.



Any monkey in a lab coat can be taught to take measurements and record observations. Nevertheless students in mass fail to do even such simple tasks and it takes years to train a good engineer.
If student head is mess up with some arbitrary crap it would take even longer.

And please: We are talking about mass education. Public schools are mass production unites and designed to work with mediocre teachers.
Considering anything "alternative", complex, "tailored to individual needs" would require high quality individual "arts men". Where to find them?

[Wrangel]

Once again, no it doesn't
Ok,then...:)

[tsuri]

Agreed,but is Evolution just about biology?
Evolution by natural selection is pure biology. The term has been extended to other theories, concepts, beliefs and so on. But that is something else entirely.
Evolution has come to mean change over time, do not get confused...


For your consideration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

[ ] Phrenology was ever as established as Evolution
[ ] Phrenology was debunked by a bunch of 8th graders
[x] Phrenology was falsified in a peer reviewed scientific process and was therefore considered wrong

Way to turn around words in my mouth. The debating club must be proud of you. My argument was: It is useless to debate the theory in class, where everyone is basically totally uniformed about it. They are there to learn about it.
That does not mean we should stop trying to prove it wrong (which is all science ever does, we never ever ever look for evidence FOR something)
but this process is limited to the scientific community.


Have modern science proved claims of Biblical fundamentalists of literal 6 day creation to be false?
Have modern science proved claims of Biblical fundamentalists that earth is about few thousand years old to be false?
Have modern science proved claims of believers that God created man by his own image to be false?
Have modern science proved religious claim of resurrection and miracles to be false?
Have modern science proved false claims that there is a witch in a gingerbread house somewhere in central europe?
Have modern science proved false claims that a teapot is presently orbiting the sun?
Have modern science provided DNA tests to prove that Darth Vader is indeed the Father of Luke Skywalker?
Have modern science proved that there is not a purple, yet invisible dragon in my garage?

Science does not live to disprove fiction and fairy tales.

[Lazy Lob]

Have modern science proved claims of Biblical fundamentalists of literal 6 day creation to be false?
Have modern science proved claims of Biblical fundamentalists that earth is about few thousand years old to be false?
Have modern science proved claims of believers that God created man by his own image to be false?
Have modern science proved religious claim of resurrection and miracles to be false?

These are statements. In this case statements of faith. They, by their vey nature, cannot be disproved. For them to be disproved the person or people who made them must show and prove how they came to that conclusion using real science. Then they would cease to be simple statements. That is how they protect themselves, by not joining in the game.

[Stainless Steel Rat]

The best evidence you can get regarding ID is the Kitzmiller vs Dover case from 2005. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

The judge (a G.W. Bush appointee and quite conservative if you read his bio on Wikipedia), had these comments in his final ruling:


"For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child


The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism"


After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity), central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."

If you have an afternoon free sometime, the entire decision is here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_et_al.

I suspect Louisiana will lose if this goes to court. The judge tied it up neatly.

[gazell]

Only if you have trouble with reading comprehension.

I've said several times it's not about teaching these ideas as though they were endorsed, it's about encouraging discussion. ID may be a crackpot idea but I bet there's still a lot to learn by delving deeper into the questions asked by the "is this all by design" argument. Some young student may be inspired to do just that.

Keeping a narrow "by the book" approach to science is stupid. It's not all about the process, it's also about the ideas, some of which are so crazy that they are dismissed only to be resurrected later when process catches up.

Some people pointed out this aspect already, but I try to make it clearer for you, public education of young children in general has nothing to do with scientific or in this case pretend science discussions.

Real life: I attended a very posh secondary school in my country, this was special language class. We were chosen as test rats for a guy's new and revolutionary physics school books and teaching of the discipline.

It was brilliant, great fun, if you ask me. We had to learn physics by our own experiments. Guess what, only 2 out of a 37 class got a top grade and the parents lobbied to shut the project.