ID has another strategic failure coming

[MidGe]

After the major failure of their first concerted strategy to try to put ID at the same status as science, a move that blew up back in their faces in a big way, even through the court system, with a court case that completely discredited the scientists involved by their performance, ID'ers have re-grouped.

Their next strategy, is that, since they failed to elevate ID to the level of science they are now going to try to bring science to the level of ID, by saying, like sharkey, that science is no different and is based on faith. Of course, in so doing they are negating so many advances in sciences that is to their benefits, that they could not even avoid taking advantage of, if they wanted to (some hypocrisy here).

This will also blow up in their faces, possibly extinguishing the last threads of credibility they may have with some. Regardless, I hope it gets as much coverage as their previous strategy, which overall did a lot for evolution as it made people look into it. Science needs to get more attention and this is a very good way of getting it for free. My suspicion is that it will enhance the prestige of science with the masses of people less educated. All in all, I hope they continue with this strategy as a public debate can only help the scientific community.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
My suspicion is that it will enhance the prestige of science with the masses of people less educated. All in all, I hope they continue with this strategy as a public debate can only help the scientific community.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps 10% of the population, generous ( look at the intelligent posters that mess it up), could give a reasonable explanation of the scientific method and what role theory plays. The flip side may be the bright side of more exposure of IDvsScience comparison... the irrationality of ID may become more apparent since that doesn't depend on an understanding of the scientific method just a tolerable application of normal logic, which people are used to hearing in legal arguments, business dealings, etc.

luckyme

[guesswest]

Anyone here have a problem with ID being taught in schools outside of science class? In comparative religions or some such...

And lucky, you may well be right in terms of the number of people who could articulate it, but being able to understand something and being able to consciously define something are different things - I think the vast majority of people intuitively grasp the scientific principle.

[Lestat]

I definitely have a problem with it being taught anywhere, at any juncture, under any subject heading, in a public school.

Religious school is fine.

[Hoi Polloi]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone here have a problem with ID being taught in schools provided it's not in science class? In comparitive religions or some such...

And lucky, you may well be right in terms of the number of people who could articulate it, but being able to understand something and being able to consciously define something are different things - I think the vast majority of people intuitively grasp the scientific principle.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a problem with teaching made up sh*t in school. ID/Creationism are theocon operations designed to introduce religion into public education. ID is a total con job and should not be taught.

I mean, seriously, suppose some scientists decided as the ID folk claim that evolution just wasn't doing it for them. But they have this new model, ID. Wouldn't you expect them to, like, do some science before they tried to introduce this new "theory" into secondary education? In fact, can you name another body of knowledge that is only taught in secondary school? Driver's ed, maybe.

Like maybe if ID could explain why cells occasionally go mad and become cancerous, which evolution has no problem accounting for, that would be a start. But no, they want to introduce fairy tales into high school science class about the kindly old cosmic engineer who made/makes sure everything works.

No thank you.

And if I was going to take a religion class, I'd like to study religions not this made up garbage.

[guesswest]

Am I to infer from that you don't think kids should be taught about religion at all? It'd certainly be hard to cover christianity without mentioning ID.

Seems to me educating kids about different religions and what their participants believe is pretty important in this world, but that's just me.

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]

I have a problem with teaching made up sh*t in school.


[/ QUOTE ]

Cuz every thing that Plato says makes so much sense. Teach ID in philosophy or some such class full of nonsense. Of course the only reason people advocate ID is because they claim it is science and they cant come out and endorse Genesis.

[Lestat]

I did say,

[ QUOTE ]
Religious school is fine.

[/ QUOTE ]


Are you suggesting religion should be taught in public schools?

[guesswest]

Absolutely, the christians believe x, the sikhs believe y etc. They're tremendously important social issues, why on earth wouldn't we teach them?

I feel like in education generally we're increasingly missing the big picture, namely instilling critical thought in kids - which is way more important than anything else we can teach them. I don't see why we're afraid of giving kids information like this, let them develop their own minds and conclusions.

Which isn't to say I dispute the fact that ID is a load of crap.

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
I did say,

[ QUOTE ]
Religious school is fine.

[/ QUOTE ]


Are you suggesting religion should be taught in public schools?

[/ QUOTE ]
What is wrong with teaching religion in a religion or a philosophy class? Religion and religious texts have had a huge impact on our world, and pretending they don't exist is bad too. I've never been religious at all, by the way.

(I'm talking about a history of religion or comparative religion or similar type class, not things that are more suitable for a church environment. Learning facts about belief systems rather than preaching.)

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely, the christians believe x, the sikhs believe y etc. They're tremendously important social issues, why on earth wouldn't we teach them?

I feel like in education generally we're increasingly missing the big picture, namely instilling critical thought in kids - which is way more important than anything else we can teach them. I don't see why we're afraid of giving kids information like this, let them develop their own minds and conclusions.

Which isn't to say I dispute the fact that ID is a load of crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed and I think that teaching different religions in public school would increase the awareness of students' own religions. By comparing theirs to other religions, they will no doubt begin to question many things, and, at the very least, gain an open mind.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> I feel like in education generally we're increasingly missing the big picture, namely instilling critical thought in kids </font>

Religion is NOT critical thought. They are oxy-morons.

<font color="blue">I don't see why we're afraid of giving kids information like this, let them develop their own minds and conclusions. </font>

Exactly. Let them develop their own minds! This is why kids should be taught facts, not religious dogma.

Now if you're talking about religion as it pertains to history, fine. Teach them about the crusades. Teach them about how women are considered 2nd class citizens to do this day, in some religious cultures. How religion pertains to history and it's effects on history, fine. But you don't teach religion! Promoting dogma in public schools is not the way to get kids to think for themselves.

[Lestat]

Public schools shouldn't have religious class. That's what churches and Sunday school is for.

Again, teaching religion as it pertains to history or even in a philosophy class as it pertains to logical thinking, or "what does it all mean?" thinking, I have no problem with.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I to infer from that you don't think kids should be taught about religion at all? It'd certainly be hard to cover christianity without mentioning ID.


[/ QUOTE ]

Christianity does not neccesarily subscribe to ID. At least, the christians acquaintances that I have do not.

[guesswest]

I don't know how you're getting from 'teaching' to 'promoting'. And I certainly wasn't saying religion is critical thought, I was saying kids should be taught to critically analyze religion (and everything else).

Religion is very important to society, whether it's based on dogma or not, and teaching kids about it will give them the information to decide for themselves. Which is much better than them deciding based on some dogma their parents/church etc push. It's exactly like sex education was in the 50s, kids getting their information from all the wrong places.

It is, btw, taught as a comparative religion class in pretty much every western nation excepting the US, and the US remains one of the least secular of those countries.

[Copernicus]

I have mixed feelings about teaching comparative religion in public school. I grew up going to Ethical Culture Sunday School, and was able to form opinions that way.

Today I dont see a lot of kids doing much of anything on Sunday except playing...including my son, who spent 10 years of weekends at hockey rinks.

Not surprsingly with me as his dad, he grew up not believing in god. (I fact I think he held on to Santa Claus longer than god!).

Now he winds up in a Jesuit college, taking theology and philosophy (with a heavy religious bent) courses, and struggles with it on two levels...as a non-believer, and having no knowledge going into it.

Even without winding up at that school, I am sure there are times in the future when having an understanding of the worlds religions would benefit him. If there were a comparative religion course in high school he would have been better off.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps 10% of the population, generous ( look at the intelligent posters that mess it up), could give a reasonable explanation of the scientific method and what role theory plays. The flip side may be the bright side of more exposure of IDvsScience comparison... the irrationality of ID may become more apparent since that doesn't depend on an understanding of the scientific method just a tolerable application of normal logic, which people are used to hearing in legal arguments, business dealings, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I deal with salt-of-the-earth types every day (I am one, actually- a thinking redneck, if you will /images/graemlins/laugh.gif), and I can tell you that there is no limit to the irrationality of the American working stiff. The vast majority of people will swallow whatever tripe they see on TV or hear on the radio (they don't read) as fact.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
After the major failure of their first concerted strategy to try to put ID at the same status as science, a move that blew up back in their faces in a big way, even through the court system, with a court case that completely discredited the scientists involved by their performance, ID'ers have re-grouped.

Their next strategy, is that, since they failed to elevate ID to the level of science they are now going to try to bring science to the level of ID, by saying, like sharkey, that science is no different and is based on faith. Of course, in so doing they are negating so many advances in sciences that is to their benefits, that they could not even avoid taking advantage of, if they wanted to (some hypocrisy here).

This will also blow up in their faces, possibly extinguishing the last threads of credibility they may have with some. Regardless, I hope it gets as much coverage as their previous strategy, which overall did a lot for evolution as it made people look into it. Science needs to get more attention and this is a very good way of getting it for free. My suspicion is that it will enhance the prestige of science with the masses of people less educated. All in all, I hope they continue with this strategy as a public debate can only help the scientific community.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you referring to something specific, or just your assumption as to whats coming next?

[evolvedForm]

Lestat,

IMO teaching kids about different religions in an objective manner will have the opposite affect you think it will have. I know it did in my case. Most religious kids in America are raised Christian, right? (please excuse my Ameri-centrism). If those kids who are raised christian are not exposed to other religions and cultures they will grow up closed-minded and intolerant of them (obviously). But exposing them to other religions can only promote open-mindedness and even, as in my case, critical thought about religion in general.

I am, however, hesitant to advocate this because it would have to be practiced in the correct manner to not be dangerous. For me that means teaching the philosophies behind the religions and not merely their dogmatic surfaces.

Also, I think this would be an elective class and not a requirement.

[Lestat]

So you guys are suggesting that it's beneficial for a child to know where others are coming from? If so, I have no problem with that, but still don't think public school is the place for it.

I might be willing to back off to the point of conceding it as an optional (non-mandatory) course in high school or something. Like auto 101, or typing, or home economics. But still...

There are many cultures of the world and I have no problem with kids learning them. Heck, I'm interested in learning them now. But they should certainly not be mandatory and should always be taught in a 3rd party sense. In other words, without conclusions.

[Lestat]

Great points! I can attest that you are correct through my very own experience. Had I been subjected to other religions earlier, no doubt I'd have started to question my own religion earlier and became an atheist earlier. -lol

My main point was is that it is very important (if taught), that unlike ID conclusions should NOT reached! I took guesswest as implying that religion should taught to form an eventual conclusion. If he was not implying that, then I can't see much problem with it.

[Lestat]

As I replied to someone else, I took you to mean that religion should be taught on the basis of reaching some kind of eventual conclusion. Of course, I'm against that. But as I now understand you, I agree it would do more good than harm.

[Lestat]

I believe you (or someone else?), mentioned ID. It's my understanding that as it was proposed, ID would be taught to reach a conclusion. That is, evolution has gaps, so a creator makes sense. I'm very much against this kind of religious teaching in public schools!

[guesswest]

Just to add to this - a very powerful idea in philosophy, which has rightfully translated into education, though probably not enough, is the emergent nature of the truth.

Namely that if you put idea A next to idea B, where idea A makes sense and idea B doesn't, that idea A will emerge as valid all by itself. In the case of education, that is a thousand times more powerful than just telling kids idea A makes sense.

If they go into an education system already believing idea B and you never mention idea B, they'll probably keep believing idea B, because it was never exposed to that kind of scrutiny

As an adult, I'm not afraid to expose my beliefs to anything, because if they're valid they'll stand up to the trial, and if they're not I don't want them to. We should be teaching kids exactly the same thing, they're not idiots - and there are many adults who do not want their beliefs scrutinized in this way, more often than not it's because they never had this philosophy instilled in them as children (IMO).

This fundamental principle should be resonant in every aspect of education, and a probable consequence of teaching comparative religions would be more and more kids turning to science, because if its true it'll emerge as such. At the very least this approach would get kids to question and develop their minds as a dynamic tool rather than just a dumping ground.

[bunny]

I dont know how it is in America but it seems silly to me if kids graduate from high school never having been taught about religion. Of course, I mean it in the historical, cultural context and would include other faiths besides christianity - I dont think telling kids whether to believe in God or not is teaching them anything.

So much of your culture is influenced by religion (isnt it even central to your constitution? Or at least prominent?) it seems like not telling kids about it would be doing them a great disservice.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe you (or someone else?), mentioned ID. It's my understanding that as it was proposed, ID would be taught to reach a conclusion. That is, evolution has gaps, so a creator makes sense. I'm very much against this kind of religious teaching in public schools!

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree..ID would not be part of any "comparative religion" course, since it isnt fundamental to any religion, but just a relatively recent (and inept) attempt to give a veneer of legitimacy to the OT. The funny thing is, in their desperation to defend something that isnt even under attack, they destroy what little credibility is left with their bad math and ignorance of science.

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont know how it is in America but it seems silly to me if kids graduate from high school never having been taught about religion. Of course, I mean it in the historical, cultural context and would include other faiths besides christianity - I dont think telling kids whether to believe in God or not is teaching them anything.

So much of your culture is influenced by religion (isnt it even central to your constitution? Or at least prominent?) it seems like not telling kids about it would be doing them a great disservice.

[/ QUOTE ]
To be fair, some of us were able to learn about religions in public schools. I know much of one year of "history" class in high school was spent learning about Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, as well as a few other Asian religions. This was without question the most useful and best class I took in high school, and it could have even been better. Religious texts were also incorporated into English classes on a few occaisions. This was near Seattle, so quite "liberal" as far as the rest of the country is concerned.

It would do us a lot of good if students were exposed to these things more often. Even just very basic knowledge will let you see that so much of what you hear (on TV, in the news, wherever) is garbage but sounds perfectly fine to someone who doesn't know better.

[Lestat]

I have done a complete about face on this. As others have pointed out, I can see great benefit from learning different religions. Would I seem too wishy-washy if I now say this should be mandatory? -lol

[bunny]

You know, you're quite likable for an infidel. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[MidGe]

During my high school education we had to take one class of religious eduction per week. We had the choice of attending catholic, protestant, jewish or morality (for atheists etc). A fair part of the curriculum (which was run in parallel, broadly covering same topics in all classes) was comparative religion. Much to my dismay I later found out that even the coverage of other religions, in what was an environmemt trying to be fair, was biased. I subsequently found that other religions were truly misrepresented in all denomination classes except in the atheist one. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I have no issue with a comparative religion class. I see that no differently than the classes where we were studying the classics and therefor the romans and ancient greeks myths. I would be very weary of any bias being introduced by a religious educator with an agenda. I would not want to have the education system responsible for closing the minds of children.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
I have done a complete about face on this. As others have pointed out, I can see great benefit from learning different religions. Would I seem too wishy-washy if I now say this should be mandatory? -lol

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not "wishy-washy", it's "smart enough to change your position when presented with a solid argument". People who see that as a bad thing are... not smart, IMO.

[Alex-db]

I'm sure its correct that religion -should- be taught in an unbiased critical way. But that certainly couldn't have happened in any UK school I have been to. This is because the people that become R.E. teachers are religious. Who worse to lead people through an academic study of a subject than someone who cannot rationalise the content logically themselves. This means all R.E. classes I went to were a load of religious rubbish and it was the only class I really, strongly disliked despite now being interested in the subject.

If the syllabus has included issues like "How religion has been used for social and political control of cultures", "The psychology of withheld rationality in otherwise intelligent people", "The development of religion as an early attempts at science, through to the replacement of religion with science", "Religion as an excuse for international conflict" etc. It could actually have been an interesting subject.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure its correct that religion -should- be taught in an unbiased critical way. But that certainly couldn't have happened in any UK school I have been to. This is because the people that become R.E. teachers are religious. Who worse to lead people through an academic study of a subject than someone who cannot rationalise the content logically themselves. This means all R.E. classes I went to were a load of religious rubbish and it was the only class I really, strongly disliked despite now being interested in the subject.

If the syllabus has included issues like "How religion has been used for social and political control of cultures", "The psychology of withheld rationality in otherwise intelligent people", "The development of religion as an early attempts at science, through to the replacement of religion with science", "Religion as an excuse for international conflict" etc. It could actually have been an interesting subject.

[/ QUOTE ]
It was many years ago but when I did RE in school (in the uk), although the teacher was religous there was a determined effort to teach the key ideas of all mainstream religons. It was okay.

Sadly assembly was full of religous junk.

chez

[surftheiop]

"But that certainly couldn't have happened in any UK school I have been to."
Doest the UK have the Anglican church as it's state religon or has that been done away away with in the oast half century?

[Hoi Polloi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I have a problem with teaching made up sh*t in school.


[/ QUOTE ]

Cuz every thing that Plato says makes so much sense. Teach ID in philosophy or some such class full of nonsense. Of course the only reason people advocate ID is because they claim it is science and they cant come out and endorse Genesis.

[/ QUOTE ]

ID is a political gambit and nothing more. Whether you find Plato interesting or not does diminish his influence on Western thinking in the least.

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I have a problem with teaching made up sh*t in school.


[/ QUOTE ]

Cuz every thing that Plato says makes so much sense. Teach ID in philosophy or some such class full of nonsense. Of course the only reason people advocate ID is because they claim it is science and they cant come out and endorse Genesis.

[/ QUOTE ]

ID is a political gambit and nothing more. Whether you find Plato interesting or not does diminish his influence on Western thinking in the least.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just saying that most of what Plato said was a bunch of made up sh*t which u dont want in schools.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I have a problem with teaching made up sh*t in school.


[/ QUOTE ]

Cuz every thing that Plato says makes so much sense. Teach ID in philosophy or some such class full of nonsense. Of course the only reason people advocate ID is because they claim it is science and they cant come out and endorse Genesis.

[/ QUOTE ]

ID is a political gambit and nothing more. Whether you find Plato interesting or not does diminish his influence on Western thinking in the least.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just saying that most of what Plato said was a bunch of made up sh*t which u dont want in schools.

[/ QUOTE ]
Plato's philosophy, damn fine philosophy. If you don't want philosophy taught in schools then that's your view. I disagree.

I agree that Plato's views shouldn't be taught as truth.

chez