To the anti-ID education lobby

[HypnoPsi]

One to boggle the mind:

Okay, lets start with a disclaimer - I'm not an ID or Creationist supporter, I'm a believer in evolution.

Now, to the point.

The "Kansas Evolution Fight Escalates" thread has taken a really bizzarre and curley turn. People are starting to claim that being taught ID is bad for children, like too much fat in their diet or something.

My solution to the problem would be to teach ID in modern studies - because that's where kids are supposed to learn about current social debates, right? And ID v's Evolution is most assuredly a current debate.

Someone even suggested getting Uni's to write letters to parents telling them that if their kids were taught this it could impact their prospects of getting into a good college.

I'm curious. What about the fact that every teenager in the US probably knows about this whole broohaha now anyway thanks to the very existence of the debate? I suppose what I'm asking is why have so many of you gone off the deep end? Why do you want to become "thought police"?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Dr Adequate]

The "Kansas Evolution Fight Escalates" thread has taken a really bizzarre and curley turn. People are starting to claim that being taught ID is bad for children, like too much fat in their diet or something.

Well, a closer analogy would be: "Like being taught something that isn't true."

Let's try it like that, shall we?

The "Kansas Evolution Fight Escalates" thread has taken a really bizzarre and curley turn. People are starting to claim that being taught ID is bad for children, like being taught something that isn't true.

Yes, that looks about right.

 

[Francois Tremblay]

"People are starting to claim that being taught ID is bad for children"

Yes, and they are correct.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Well, a closer analogy would be: "Like being taught something that isn't true."

Let's try it like that, shall we? Yes, that looks about right.

Hold on a second. What about politics? That's in modern studies as well. Fancy trying your hand at trying to insist the opposite side from you is trying to teach "something that is not true" in that context?

Again, I don't believe in ID, I believe in evolution, but this "thought policing" mentality is worse than "millennium madness". Why on Earth would kids learning about the ID v's evolution issue in the current debates module of modern studies be so dangerous? You're basically conceding that it's persuasive and that science can't counter it, which is wrong.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

"People are starting to claim that being taught ID is bad for children"

Yes, and they are correct.

And do you think it's so bad that it shouldn't even be included in modern studies as a (very) current debate?

Pray tell, how are you going to protect children from something that's already a current debate in the society they live in?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Dr Adequate]

Why on Earth would kids learning about the ID v's evolution issue in the current debates module of modern studies be so dangerous?[/i]

There's a difference between teaching them that a controversy exists (which is true) and teaching them ID (which is tendentious rubbish).

In the same way, they should be taught about terrorists. But they should not be taught terrorism. Do you see the distinction?

 

[Dr Adequate]

And do you think it's so bad that it shouldn't even be included in modern studies as a (very) current debate?

That is not the same as "teaching them ID".

We are raising an outcry against one thing. You are pointing out that something completely different would be harmless. Yes, it would. Why do you mention it?

 

[Jeff Corey]

...My solution to the problem would be to teach ID in modern studies ...HypnoPsi

We don't have anything called that around here.
And I am glad we don't.

 

[Bob Klase]

The "Kansas Evolution Fight Escalates" thread has taken a really bizzarre and curley turn. People are starting to claim that being taught ID is bad for children, like too much fat in their diet or something.

The only real claims that I've heard up till now is that being taugh ID in 'SCIENCE CLASSES' is bad for children. I tend to agree that science classes should not teach things that aren't science. Unless of course we require them to teach alternative theories for everything that's "just a theory". Perhaps we could start with the Catholic Churchs alternative theory to Galieo's theories. Of course the Catholic church has finally admitted that they're wrong, but Galieo's ideas about the universe are still "just a theory".

 

[Jesus]

Why do you want to become "thought police"?
_
HypnoPsi

How is the desire for the passing down of accurate knowledge akin to being Thought Police? ID is bunk, and doesn't have a leg to stand on when compared to evolution.

Why don't we teach astrology in addition to astronomy? How about a geocentric model of the solar system in addition to the heliocentric one? We don't teach these things because they are false.

 

[c4ts]

One to boggle the mind:
The "Kansas Evolution Fight Escalates" thread has taken a really bizzarre and curley turn. People are starting to claim that being taught ID is bad for children, like too much fat in their diet or something.

It's bad for adults, too.

 

[Dymanic]

My solution to the problem would be to teach ID in modern studies - because that's where kids are supposed to learn about current social debates, right?

No problem. Just not in science class.

And ID v's Evolution is most assuredly a current debate

You continue to miss the point. EVC may be a current debate in our society at large, but there is no debate about it within the scientific community.

I suppose what I'm asking is why have so many of you gone off the deep end? Why do you want to become "thought police"?

It's a tough, dirty job, but somebody has to do it.

Maybe it's because so many of us here are so familiar with the worst excesses of "thought criminals". Psychic advisors and astrologers, peddlers of Feng Shui, homeopathy, and every variety of
snake-oil, they're everywhere. And WE're off the deep end?

You're basically conceding that it's persuasive and that science can't counter it, which is wrong.

No, we're saying that it can't be countered scientifically because it isn't science.

 

[eri]

Someone even suggested getting Uni's to write letters to parents telling them that if their kids were taught this it could impact their prospects of getting into a good college.

It very well could. The univeristy of CA system was turning down applications of students from fundamentalist Christian schools because they didn't have the necessary science education to enter college. In a few years, universities may be taking a critical look at the students from Kansas - as well as potential employees.

 

[Francois Tremblay]

"Intelligent Design" contradicts many scientific and technical disciplines, and explicitly opposes materialism, which is a permise of science. The Wedge Document likewise proves that ID is a political propaganda movement, not an educational movement. To accept ID in our educational systems in any shape or form is to surrender education to politics, and to openly attack science.

 

[Londinius]

The problem is that ID is going to be taught as a science subject. This is just wrong because it will confuse the students over the matter of science since it contradicts the scientific methods as used by other science subjects.

 

[HypnoPsi]

And ID v's Evolution is most assuredly a current debate

You continue to miss the point. EVC may be a current debate in our society at large, but there is no debate about it within the scientific community.

What makes you think that I, an evolutionist, would be unaware of this?

Maybe it's because so many of us here are so familiar with the worst excesses of "thought criminals". Psychic advisors and astrologers, peddlers of Feng Shui, homeopathy, and every variety of
snake-oil, they're everywhere. And WE're off the deep end?

Well you, at least, seem to agree that hearing about it in philosophy class, religious studies class or modern studies class won't cause psychological damage to kids. A few of your buddies are off the deep end though.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[hammegk]

"Intelligent Design" contradicts many scientific and technical disciplines, and explicitly opposes materialism, which is a premise of science. .... To accept ID in our educational systems in any shape or form is to surrender education to politics, and to openly attack science.

At least you understand the actual controversy as some IDers may see it. It is interesting that scientists often state their materialism stance is not "anti-god", but that statement can only be true for scientists who are also interactive dualists, which, unfortunately is a position that cannot be logically defended.

However, on the premise that ID contradicts many scientific and technical disciplines, I'd say you mistake YECers for IDers. My take on ID does not do so; I do challenge the dogmatism of believers in The Theory (neo-Evolution).

 

[HypnoPsi]

"Intelligent Design" contradicts many scientific and technical disciplines, and explicitly opposes materialism, which is a permise of science. The Wedge Document likewise proves that ID is a political propaganda movement, not an educational movement. To accept ID in our educational systems in any shape or form is to surrender education to politics, and to openly attack science.

Are you thus saying that ID can't even be taught in modern studies or religious studies class?

And what about the fact that materialism is itself a faith and accepted as such? Science, no matter how much it can define the structure and form of smaller and smaller things (right down to gravitons, fermions and now theorising about "superstrings" and "branes") can only ever be like throwing a tin of paint over an invisible thing. We can never know the substance of things even though we all accept they are clearly "real".

Christians, Jews and Muslims, take their awareness of beingness in themselves and around themselves and call it "God", while Buddhists, in contrast, don't imbue it with intellect and just seek Enlightenment about the Absolute. The crucial point here is that the awareness of beingness in the world/universe isn't "sensed" or mediated by the senses.

Speaking in Kantian terms, only the "noumenal" is sensed and represented in mind as "phenomena". Positing "matter" as the "true substance" of things, in contrast, requires "faith" and almost everyone agrees that all the "isms" of the philosophy of science (realism, materialism, idealism, phenomenalism, empiricism, etc.,) should be taught as part of science.

To insist we never teach anything that opposes materialism is to ignore several hundred years of the philosophy of science since the enlightenment.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

It very well could. The univeristy of CA system was turning down applications of students from fundamentalist Christian schools because they didn't have the necessary science education to enter college. In a few years, universities may be taking a critical look at the students from Kansas - as well as potential employees.

Not having a science education is quite different from also hearing about ID.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

There's a difference between teaching them that a controversy exists (which is true) and teaching them ID (which is tendentious rubbish).

But how, then, do you teach the controversy without teaching what IDers are saying?

In the same way, they should be taught about terrorists. But they should not be taught terrorism. Do you see the distinction?

Of course, but understanding terrorism is understanding terrorism either way.
_
HypnoPsi