Where it belongs
Aziz P
Panda's Thumb makes an important point - the new slate of Democrats on the Dover school board is NOT reflexively anti-ID:
It should be noted that the incoming board members from the Dover CARES campaign have a platform plank saying that “intelligent design” will be discussed in Dover public schools. However, the venue of such instruction will not be the science classrooms, where it was out-of-place, but rather an elective course on comparative religion, where it fits perfectly.
As it should be. By the way, don't miss PT's latest Dover Trial coverage. Just one of many highlights:
Exhibits… there were a number of exhibits entered into the record, including several things produced by Barbara Forrest that were not directly referred to in testimony. Among those items, one will find (once they go online) that in a draft of OPAP, there was an incomplete erasure of the word “creationist”, with an insertion of “design proponents” into it, meaning that students might have had the opportunity to learn the position of “cdesign proponentsists” on these matters. This verbal intermediate fossil was uncovered through the patient digging of Dr. Forrest.
Keep that in mind when you see ID proponents making a distinction without a difference.
Of course I haven't read the specific book under attack, so I can't answer for everything in it. But even if it's got inaccuracies or highly questionable stuff in it, if you look at the ID material coming out of Dembski and other's, some of it's hella sophisticated and sooner or later there'll be other books which don't have these deficiencies of OP&P. That much is obvious just reading these guys' stuff.
I don't see how it "fits perfectly" into a comparative religion course. It isn't religion.
Here we go again...
I guess that depends on whether or not you consider Atheism a religion. There's been a few government entities of late that had declaired it just that. The prison system in Wisonsin, for one. Everytime I try to get into some sort of discussion about Athiesm being a religion, some dolt comes and quotes Websters for me. Like Webster is some philosophical genius, or something. Though, we don't know if they'll comparing ID with evolution in this class. I'd asume they would.
They've probably changed the venue because of the Copy-right problems they're having with the science book publishers. The article in wired
"...(b) teaching kids that they can do more critical thinking and ask more pertinent questions when studing religion than when studying science. "
How long have you been out of school? Teach them to think? That makes me giggle. The public school system does little more than cram a bunch of uninteresting facts into a child's head for the purpose of getting them to pass standardised tests, and then they pretty much have to forget it - to make room for more useless and uniteresting facts that they're likely to never use.
If atheism isn't a religion neither is Buddhism. All any religion is is a strongly held set of principles or philosophy that the believer feels applies to the world. A deity needn't be apart of it. Humanism, atheism, secularism all of these "deity-less" philosophies fall under that category.
Or, as dictionary.com defines religion.
Teaching ID in comparative religon doesn't involve "teaching kids that they can do more critical thinking and ask more pertinent questions when studing religion than when studying science" but teaches them that questions in science have to be framed in a certain way according to certain rules.
Dale
Yes, well in that case atheism is not a religion.
So where's the problem?
We don't teach astrology in science class, but anyone who knows anything about astronomy knows that astrology is pure nonsense. We don't teach homeopathy either; by teaching chemistry to students they will be equipped to understand why homeopathy is superstitious guff. We teach geography, not flat earth theory.
No, Dean, none of it is "hella sophisticated". It is ignorant twaddle. Except where it is actively fraudulent.
And will consist entirely of a front and a back cover.
Pixy, I think that's a perfect example of why Athiesm is a religion. Atheists can be very spriritual people, as well as philosophical.
It seems to me that you're indulging in wishful thinking. That's not intended to be condescending, as I'd like to be wrong about that.
Pixy: Most of ID's critics that I know acknowledge that their arguments today are far more sophisticated than what was going by the name "Creation Science" 25 years ago. You don't think so? Enh. Okay.
Surely, there are more important aspects of religion to discuss in a religion class.
Evolution explains human behavior to a significant degree. It makes sense to teach it in any class that discusses the nature of morality.
The Case of Behe vs. Darwin
First thread you posted on this subject I posted a comment bemoaning the state of science education in this country today. It sucks. It sucks because kids are taught science strictly as a body of facts rather than a way of looking at the world and asking questions about it. But the way to fix it is not to teach students that all questions are equally valid; the way to fix it is to teach just what I said, that science is a way of looking at the world and asking questions about it according to certain rules. It's not the only way of looking at the world and kids should certainly be taught that as well; in philosophy or comparative religion classes.
Dale
Maor wrote:
"Evolution explains human behavior to a significant degree."
Only if Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel with his tail while looking for bananas.
"It makes sense to teach it in any class that discusses the nature of morality."
Since evolutionists have justified eugenics and rape based on their theory, I woudn't allow them near a class dealing with morality.
Also, you can't have it both ways. You can't demand that only evolution be taught in a science class and then demand that it be taught everywhere else, too. Either evolution is purely a scientific theory or else it is an ersatz religion. If it is the former, then it should be taught in a science class and only there. If the latter, then it should not be taught in a science class, or else creation/Intelligent Design should also be taught there.
Here's a suggestion why don't we teach the Neo-Nazi story of Hitler in history class instead of the actual version?*1 We could say that Hitler was fixing Germany and making it more powerful that it ever was up til that point. The people were happy. The evil Americans and European facist allies crushed Hitler and set Germany back. The Millions of people that died in camps may seem bad, but it reflects his ability to see beyond society's standards. Are you pissed yet? I hope so. We don't teach this version because it is F$%^ing wrong.
We don't teach ID in school because it says an invisible man created everything which is pre-prohibition era thinking! Hell it's Dark Ages thinking. We don't teach this because it is $%^&ing wrong and we shouldn't teach it. If you want your kids to learn ID teach them yourself don't force your opinion of what you think is right on the rest of us. Unless you can prove through a review of scientific peers that your data is accurate. Then it would be an acceptable alternative theory.
*1 If you believe that I would for one second be serious about teaching this story of Hitler in schools you should just shoot yourself.
I read Balter's article and the gist of it appeared to me that Balter wanted to introduce ID and show what was wrong with it. He wanted to contrast ID with science. He wanted to defeat ID with science. Not in so many words, but that was what I extracted from it.
I don't have a problem with using ID as an example of psuedoscience in disguise as real science, and pointing out the differences. But I think that approach would have ID proponents hopping mad.
I need to see more by Balter before accepting that he views ID as science.
John