Kansas votes to endorse ignorance

[Tide]

The same way I'd feel about forcing a private school teacher to give equal time to ID.

But you have no qualms about forcing public school science teachers to teach religion?

The scientism-ID debate in the US is one front in a larger conflict for the hearts and minds of public school students.

You make it sound like a political campaign. Perhaps it is. Afterall, we're talking about public education which is education conducted by the state implying there will be a political component. Unfortuntately, for the ID/creationists and disaffected religious majority, the U.S. Constitution forbids the teaching of religion in state run schools. The Founding Fathers designed the First Amendment quite intelligently. :)

 

[phcatlantis]

You can't find a definition of "science" in the dictionary?

I can't find a definition of "science class." You did mention "science class," right?

Simply noting that ID is taught for political/religious gain (and not for it's scientific merit) is not amount to making a political statement.

Yes, its political advocacy. "Political/religious gain" is an unoperationalized pejorative, therefore it is not only untestable and unfalsfiable (thereby unscientific) but also a value claim. The characterizing adjectives, "political" and "religious" denote advocacy of a particular point of view on religion and--insofar as my remarks are concerned--politics. Thus, your statement is a "political" one.

Those things can be taught in philosophy class - the philosophy of science is not relevant to science class about a specific branch of science.

They can also be taught in a cooking class, or at least I can't think of a physical reason why they can't. I assume you're not suggesting a natural obstacle to teaching ID in a natural science class; if you are, there's plenty of historical evidence to the contrary. So obviously you're referring to some other impediment (oh, and I do hope its at least as operationally well defined and progressive as, say, "designer" in ID).

To be blunt, students are too ignorant to form their own opinions on the matter.

Excellent. Let's treat students as the yet to mature assets that they are and let the free market decide which pedagogical experience adds the most value.

So you teach them the opinion of the experts and when they start writing their phd theses, then they know enough to start branching out on their own.

The vast majority of US social scientists are left-leaning. Unless it follows that liberal political affiliation is an inevitable consequence of progessing competence in that area, I'm less inclined to subscribe to such a bold, broad approach to education.

NO! It is not an hypothesis.

I think you confused Evo's hypothesis with ID. That is, I'm assuming you just didn't blow your lid over Evo's proposed correlation between ID instruction and scientific illiteracy.

This discussion isn't about them, so your objection does not apply.

So the scientific study of the interests and practics of science communities is irrelevant to a discussion involving the science community pitted against an outside group?

Huh? The concept of "truth" has nothing to do with the fact that ID proponents lie about their idea and hide their motives.

I don't think you're using "fact" in the scientific sense there. Question, how serious are you about all this? I mean, is this just a thread to vent some (as I see it, unnecessarily pent up) anger towards ID proponents?

Again, have you read the court's decision? Nope.

Actually...yep. But that's the Kitzmiller thread. This one has a far broader scope, apparently.

Not until ID proponents stop trying to screw with the concept of science.

Which makes me wonder. I assume you brought up the Kitzmiller ruling as some sort of smack down; the presentation of the case for ID advocacy's dishonesty worthy of being considered scientific fact. Yet its "not over." Let's say the 3rd upholds but the 11th reverses. Then is your view of "science" contingent upon the Circuit that defines it?

 

[phcatlantis]

You keep posting your own personal interpretation of ID as a harmless "philosophical" debate.

I haven't posted any personal interpretation of ID. I've stuck to the source you've provided; the Wedge Document. And I've said I've seen no evidence of the harm posed by addressing this issue in a public school education. You're more than welcome to present it, but don't you think its rather unempirical of you to ask me to accept something based on your gospel alone?

You are misrepresenting it.

Are you sure you're not misrepresenting it? You say they're claiming that ID is science. You neglect to mention that Discovery Institute goes out of its way to redefine science.

This isn't about philosophy, this is about science. Got that?

I'm not even sure that sentence makes any sense, but let me give it a shot. This discussion isn't about philosophy? Then why does the thread title invoke ignorance, used in the philosophical rather than scientific sense of the term, and why is the first post simply a link to a news article followed by open ended discussion?

If you're claiming that the broader debate is about science, not philosophy, then you've simply decided to ignore repeated references to materialism in the document you yourself presented.

 

[Tide]

And I've said I've seen no evidence of the harm posed by addressing this issue in a public school education.

Then you should reread the Kitzmiller decision. The judge accepted such evidence in the proceedings.

 

[phcatlantis]

But you have no qualms about forcing public school science teachers to teach religion?

Exactly, and because taxpayer dollars are involved. That is, of course, another discussion, and one we're taking up in the Kitzmiller thread. But I think some extra time hashing out this irritating disagreement over what is and isn't permissible argument in our immediate discsussion is more pressing.

You make it sound like a political campaign. Perhaps it is.

If by "it" you mean efforts by both sides to shape education policy, then somewhat. Both political campaigning and issue advocacy are agenda-framing actions and share numerous structural and behavioral similarities, but "political campaign" in political science is a term usually and exclusively synonomous with electoral campaigns.

Unfortuntately, for the ID/creationists and disaffected religious majority, the U.S. Constitution forbids the teaching of religion in state run schools.

The Constitution forbids passing laws "respecting an establishment of religion." How that is interpreted is a matter of law that, we've seen evolve and continue to range definitions for endorsement, acknowledgment, coercion and more importantly permissiveness. There is no guarantee that a quarter century from now that Lemon will be operating case law in establishment clause jurisprudence. For me, that's one of two dimensions I find exciting about this issue.

The Founding Fathers designed the First Amendment quite intelligently. :)

That we can agree on, whether its substantiated or not.

 

[phcatlantis]

Then you should reread the Kitzmiller decision. The judge accepted such evidence in the proceedings.

The judge accepted testimony concerning coercion and hostility endured by the plaintiffs resulting from the Dover School Board's vote to teach ID as an alternative to evolution. The Kitzmiller ruling does not cite any testimony to the pedagogical harm resulting from instruction because there was no such testimony offered nor any such immediate consideration before the court. The Dover plan had not and has not been implemented.

 

[Evo]

I haven't posted any personal interpretation of ID. I've stuck to the source you've provided; the Wedge Document.

Read it again.

Are you unaware of the Discovery Institute's stated goals?

"Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
From the Discovery Institute's "The Wedge" proposal.

"Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

"To see Design Theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life."

"Alongside a focus on influential opinion makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely Christians."

"We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith."

And I've said I've seen no evidence of the harm posed by addressing this issue in a public school education.

Proposing the non scientific religious views of ID is a violation of church and state. No one cares if you keep this stuff in your church, just make sure you don't try to push your religious beliefs where it doesn't belong, like in public education.

You're more than welcome to present it, but don't you think its rather unempirical of you to ask me to accept something based on your gospel alone?

Not my beliefs, the findings of the scientific community.

Are you sure you're not misrepresenting it? You say they're claiming that ID is science. You neglect to mention that Discovery Institute goes out of its way to redefine science.

They were already caught explaining their true motives. How do you redifine science with supernatural mumbo jumbo?

This discussion isn't about philosophy?

Correct, it's about the outcome of a vote.

Then why does the thread title invoke ignorance, used in the philosophical rather than scientific sense of the term, and why is the first post simply a link to a news article followed by open ended discussion?

Anyone aware of the issue would catch the meaning.

If you're claiming that the broader debate is about science, not philosophy, then you've simply decided to ignore repeated references to materialism in the document you yourself presented.

You're deciding to selectively ignore their goal. Their goal is to present their ideas to the public one way and to the Christian insiders another way. The Wedge let this tactic slip out into the open, not that it hadn't already been seen through.

 

[Tide]

Exactly, and because taxpayer dollars are involved.

And taxpayer dollars are involved in tax exemption. But you didn't want to go there.

But I think some extra time hashing out this irritating disagreement over what is and isn't permissible argument in our immediate discsussion is more pressing.

Permissible? What do you need to know beyond (a) is teaching religion in a science class constitutional? and (b) is religion science?

As a bonus, I'll provide the answers:

(a) No, it is not constitutional as determined by the courts.

(b) No, religion (aka creationism under any guise) is not science. That applies even when extraordinary means are undertaken to delude the courts, the public and the schools through kafkaesque ramblings into thinking otherwise.

You seem to be giddy over the prospect that some future court will magically dispose of 80 years of court cases and reverse itself to "put god back into the classroom," so to speak. The reality is that today teaching religion in the schools is unconstitutional and religion is not science. That may change in the future but as a budding lawyer you should really know better.

You used the expression "irritating disagreement." Yes, it is irritating that those who are on the wrong side of the law and reason keep coming back year after year with repackaged snake oil expecting some sympathetic court to throw away the lessons learned from history and set a match to the Constitution.

 

[Tide]

The Kitzmiller ruling does not cite any testimony to the pedagogical harm resulting from instruction because there was no such testimony offered nor any such immediate consideration before the court.

As I said, you should reread it:

"Dr. Padian bluntly and effectively stated that in confusing students about science generally an evolution in particular, the disclaimer makes students “stupid.” (Trial Tr. vol. 17, Padian Test., 48-52, Oct. 14, 2005)."

That's on page 41.

 

[Evo]

Lawsuit against the Dover school Board

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Thus, the Dover Area School District intends to teach students that there are gaps and problems in the scientific theory of evolution and present “intelligent design” to students in public school science class as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution.

Intelligent design is a non-scientific argument or assertion, made in
opposition to the scientific theory of evolution, that an intelligent, supernatural actor has intervened in the history of life, and that life “owes its origin to a master
-3-
intellect.” The phrase “intelligent design” was first widely used in the book Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins and has been vigorously promoted by opponents of the scientific theory of evolution for the last fifteen years. Unlike the theory of evolution, however, intelligent design is neither scientific nor a theory in the scientific sense; it is an inherently religious argument or assertion that falls outside the realm of science.

Intelligent design has been publicly promoted by an organization
called the Discovery Institute and others as a means of challenging the scientific theory of evolution in public classrooms and replacing it with so called “science” that is “consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.” The purpose of the Dover School Board in passing the October 18 resolution was similarly religious.

The Board decided to amend the district’s biology curriculum to include the
presentation of intelligent design over the objection of the Dover High School’s science faculty. The leading proponent on the Board of the October 18 resolution stated during the Board’s discussion of the biology curriculum, “Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross. Can’t someone take a stand for him?” The Dover Area School District has also arranged for Dover High School to be supplied with the book Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origin. Of Pandas and People is, by acknowledgment of its authors, directed at
making the “favorable case for intelligent design,” and raising doubt about natural descent (i.e., the scientific theory of evolution).

The effect of the defendant Dover School Board’s October 18
resolution as implemented by the defendant Dover Area School District
(defendants’ “intelligent design policy”) will be to compel public school science teachers to present to their students in biology class information that is inherently religious, not scientific, in nature. The resolution thus is in clear and direct violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which prohibits the teaching or presentation of religious ideas in public school science classes. The plaintiffs, parents of children in the Dover Area School District, bring this lawsuit to enforce their rights under the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As their remedy, the plaintiffs seek a declaration that the defendants’ intelligent design policy violates
the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. They also seek an injunction to prevent such violations.

 

[Evo]

Discovery says they're just trying to dismantle scientific materialism and promote a theistic understanding of nature. I can't find any document describing their intent to "promote scientific literacy." Have you?

Heavens no, that's the last thing Discovery wants to do, they want to promote scientific illiteracy through a theistic understanding, as you posted above.

 

[phcatlantis]

As I said, you should reread it:

I've already read it. And the trial transcript.

"Q. And from your perspective as a scientist, what's the problem with this one-minute statement?

A. I think it makes people stupid. I think essentially it makes them ignorant. It confuses them unnecessarily about things that are well understood in science, about which there is no controversy, about ideas that have existed since the 1700's, about a broad body of scientific knowledge that's been developed over centuries by people with religious backgrounds and all walks of life, from all countries and faiths, on which everyone can understand.

I can do paleontology with people in Morocco, in Zimbabwe, in South Africa, in China, in India, any place around the world. I have co-authors in many countries around the world. We don't all share the same religious faith. We don't share the same philosophical outlook, but one thing is clear, and that is when we sit down at the table and do science, we put the rest of the stuff behind."

And immediately following your thoughtfully offered quote...

In summary, the second paragraph of the disclaimer undermines students’ education in evolutionary theory and sets the groundwork for presenting students with the District’s favored religious alternative.

Padian testifies, and Judge Jones clearly reiterates, the consequence of instruction is undermining education in evolutionary theory. Jones then goes on to state the offense is presenting a favored religious alternative. Jones does not find anything in the way of pedagogical harm due to ID instruction, nor does Padian testify to any such thing. And is Dr. Padian, a paleontologist, now a qualified expert on matters expressly concerning education scientists and public policymakers?

 

[phcatlantis]

Heavens no, that's the last thing Discovery wants to do, they want to promote scientific illiteracy through a theistic understanding, as you posted above.

I'm still not seeing it. How do you jump from an effort to dismantle scientific materialism and promote a theistic understanding of nature to "promoting scientific illiteracy?" I mean, from where I stand it sounds a lot like idle name-calling.

 

[Evo]

You're ignoring the fact that Dover was nipped in the bud before much harm could be done.

 

[Moonbear]

How else can you interpret their meaning other than to promote scientific illiteracy? The "materialism" they are claiming to "dismantle" is this:

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art

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

The problem here is that this is a false premise right from the start, because science does not promote the view that all of our thoughts and actions are beyond our control. This has nothing to do with evolution either. So, if all they wanted to address was materialism, per se, they didn't need to do anything at all. They didn't need to invent some fable called ID to address it. Even if, for the sake of argument, materialism were a real issue, that doesn't make a fake, crackpot theory a viable solution. When you look at how they define materialism, and argue against it, it becomes evident that they aren't really addressing materialism according to the conventional definitions, but have used it to define all science.

 

[Tide]

Surely the simple act of proposing non scientific religious views of ID is free exercise.

People can propose whatever they want. However, to put it into the science curriculum of a state run school puts it squarely into the "respecting the establishment of religion" realm thereby making it unconstitutional.

So why should I fear further weakening of the materialist grip on science education?

You should fear it because doing so relinquishes the domain of knowledge to that of authority. Science is antithetical to authority because the truth (data) is there for anyone to observe and pursue. When truth is at the whim of authority, progress in the advancement of knowledge ceases and freedom ends.

Likewise, accession to authority is tantamount to suspending logic and reason. When logic and reason are abandoned then anything and everything is justifiable. We see the consequences of that in theocracies and in terrorist movements where the "faithful" are exploited even to the extent of strapping explosives to their bodies and detonating them in crowds of innocent people.

You should be afraid - very afraid - of replacing science with the supernatural or authoritarianism.

 

[Tide]

And is Dr. Padian, a paleontologist, now a qualified expert on matters expressly concerning education scientists and public policymakers?

Irrelevant. You stated no such testimony occured. I demonstrated otherwise and you now concur.

 

[phcatlantis]

And taxpayer dollars are involved in tax exemption. But you didn't want to go there.

Yeah, let's just say you and I have very different views on taxes and leave it at that.

Permissible? What do you need to know beyond (a) is teaching religion in a science class constitutional? and (b) is religion science?

You, probably nothing. I hope that's not the case, but if I don't expect everybody to get excited enough about theory of evolution to want to understand its sheer elegance I shouldn't expect everybody to get that excited about the law.

You seem to be giddy over the prospect that some future court will magically dispose of 80 years of court cases and reverse itself to "put god back into the classroom," so to speak.

I'm giddy about the case period. I mean the depositions, motions, trial transcripts, orders, rulings and other documents in any case reveals what I think is a beautifully intricate and dynamic structure in which actors shape entire sectors of society. That, and I'm a sucker for the underdog when I personally don't have a dog in the fight.

The reality is that today teaching religion in the schools is unconstitutional and religion is not science.

Well, the reality is that the government cannot do certain things that courts deem, by some test, to amount to "endorsement." How the law works itself out over these issues is the fun and exciting part.

That may change in the future but as a budding lawyer you should really know better.

I think I'll make it without you as a reference.

You used the expression "irritating disagreement."

Which you used to launch wholeheartedly into a non sequitur. I leave you to it.

 

[phcatlantis]

Irrelevant. You stated no such testimony occured. I demonstrated otherwise and you now concur.

No such testimony occurred. Or did you not read my last post? Simply dismissing it doesn't render your misreading of the ruling correct.

 

[Tide]

How do you jump from an effort to dismantle scientific materialism and promote a theistic understanding of nature to "promoting scientific illiteracy?"

Are you trying to be humorous? Science is strictly about the natural world and is totally mute on matters supernatural. If you remove the natural from science then there is no science. If there is no science then all are scientifically illiterate.

 

[phcatlantis]

How else can you interpret their meaning other than to promote scientific illiteracy?

I'm still trying to figure out how you interpreted to imply scientific illiteracy in the first place.

The "materialism" they are claiming to "dismantle" is this:

"This" is a quote from the Wedge Document. Do you mean to say materialism is their own point of view and they seek to dismantle the lynchpin of their own argument? If so, then something's run aground in this conversation.

The problem here is that this is a false premise right from the start, because science does not promote the view that all of our thoughts and actions are beyond our control.

That's more than likely due to you misreading of the quote you provided. That passage attacks materialism, specifically the materialism of and stemming from three individuals--Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx. I wouldn't substitute "science" for "materialism" as it suits me; I hope you won't either.

This has nothing to do with evolution either. So, if all they wanted to address was materialism, per se, they didn't need to do anything at all.

I'm going to assume you just forgot the second part of that bullet, the whole "theistic understanding of nature" bit.

 

[Evo]

No such testimony occurred. Or did you not read my last post? Simply dismissing it doesn't render your misreading of the ruling correct.

here is Tide's post "As I said, you should reread it:

"Dr. Padian bluntly and effectively stated that in confusing students about science generally an evolution in particular, the disclaimer makes students “stupid.” (Trial Tr. vol. 17, Padian Test., 48-52, Oct. 14, 2005)."

That's on page 41.

You're trolling.

 

[phcatlantis]

Are you trying to be humorous?

Okay, let me put it this way. Let's say there's this guy who really digs scientific ontology. It's elegant. It's sexy. It dovetails nicely with his godless view of the world. He'd love for it to catch on. He'd love to come to an online community where folks who buy into ID come by and say "hey, I might not accept it but you're right, this is some interesting shiznit." Only problem is the board--probably one of the best resources for scientific discussion period--suffers from uneared "me too" pretention, gang rape disdain for religious critics of naturalism, and a shallow, borderline disrespectful grasp or contempt for law and social science.

Not exactly the best evangelists for their point of view, if you know what I mean.

Science is strictly about the natural world and is totally mute on matters supernatural.

Yes. Principled methodological materialism.

If you remove the natural from science then there is no science.

Really? So if I but extend the set of propositions that can be examined under some philosophy of science, I cannot examine the original set? There seems to be a missing step or two in your reasoning

If there is no science then all are scientifically illiterate.

I think we found the missing link in your logic chain. Back up to above and continue.

 

[Moonbear]

If so, then something's run aground in this conversation.

That it has. You obviously intend to remain intentionally obtuse on this matter.

 

[Evo]

I'm still trying to figure out how you interpreted to imply scientific illiteracy in the first place.

You're the one that brought up scientific illiteracy as a result of ID.

 

[Astronuc]

And I missed all the fun. I always fall asleep at the wrong time.

Well, I have learned one thing. Noodly appendages are not very effective on dead horses.

And I was so looking forward to a beer volcano. Which leads me to ask, is there more than one? I mean, are there Stout Volcanos? Lager ones? How about Ales, Lambics, Meads, . . . ?

And where do they get the ingredients, e.g. yeasts, malt, hope, honey, are they heaven grown or are they imported?

Hey, can we discuss this in chemistry class?

 

[Astronuc]

Now seriously,

Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art

from the beginning of the THE WEDGE STRATEGY
CENTER FOR THE RENEWAL OF SCIENCE & CULTURE.

This is a blatant misrepresentation of the works of these persons, and all scientist since then. In fact, it is a bald face LIE! It appears that members of Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture are redefining words and misusing language in order to undermine science and the scientific method.

I do see a problem however in the our language where we have multiple definitions for a single word, e.g. materialism.

From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary - definition of materialism:

1 a : a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter b : a doctrine that the only or the highest values or objectives lie in material well-being and in the furtherance of material progress c : a doctrine that economic or social change is materially caused -- compare HISTORICAL MATERIALISM

2 : a preoccupation with or stress upon material rather than intellectual or spiritual things

Many scientists, particularly physics understand a mutual relationship between matter and energy, so in that sense, physics certainly is not materialistic. And I have not heard any scientist or engineer for that matter advocate points 1b or 1c.

As for definition 2, many people may be preoccupied with things material, e.g. cars, large homes, latest fashion trends, etc. - however many people are not.

Unfortunately, ID proponents seem to believe that anyone who does not share the ID point of view must be materialist, which is certainly not the case. :grumpy:

 

[pattylou]

...Only problem is the board--probably one of the best resources for scientific discussion period--suffers from uneared "me too" pretention, gang rape disdain for religious critics of naturalism...

?? You're making assumptions here. Many of the people you are claiming as gang-rapists are religious in one way or another (few are fundamentalists, but you'll even find that occasionally.).

Scientists tend to keep science and religion separate. That's the point. Scientists do not think that science encompasses teh entire human experience. Science is a small part of the educational curriculum. There is no reason to put religion in science.

Put it in P.E. or History or Home Ec. It fits as well there as it does in Science.

Or, here's a thought: Put it in religious education.

If PE instructors said that they didn't want to teach creationism in PE, would you say they were gang raping religious critiques of PE? Or, would you recognize that it is silly to try to mix the two?

I'm sorry to see that you've been banned.

-Patty

Aside to whomever thought that I had been a nurse: I've never been a nurse. I teach Microbiology to pre-nursing students. Instruction from nurses usually comes in the nursing program itself.

 

[daveb]

Gee, do you think those that advocate the teaching of ID in science classrooms would also advocate the teaching of UFO's, Alien Abductions, etc.?

 

[Phobos]

Gee, do you think those that advocate the teaching of ID in science classrooms would also advocate the teaching of UFO's, Alien Abductions, etc.?

I'll have to pour back over the Kitzmiller case transcripts, but I seem to recall that Dr. Behe had to essentially defend astrology as a science in order to be consistent with his advocating ID as science.

 

[Astronuc]

If you want additional courses introduced in high school on philosophy or comparative religions, or wherever ID might fit, what other part of the curriculum will you do away with, English, history, math, foreign languages, sciences, computer science, arts? Is there a reason it needs to be taught in public schools? Why isn't Sunday school sufficient?

I don't think we can have room for any thing else, but I would recommend electives such as:

Astronomy
Charms
Defense Against the Dark Arts
Herbology
History of Magic
Potions
Transfiguration

Ancient Runes
Arithmancy
Care of Magical Creatures
Divination

Muggle Studies is already covered in humanities and social sciences.

 

[pattylou]

Gee, do you think those that advocate the teaching of ID in science classrooms would also advocate the teaching of UFO's, Alien Abductions, etc.?

Dunno. But they have tried to encroach into geology classes as well, saying that plate tectonics are just a theory. They also have set their sites on the Big Bang, in order to prove that that notion is flawed as well.

I can dig up a reference if anyone wants.

 

[McGyver]

Life's Probabilities, Choices, and Intelligent Discretion

It seems at this juncture that this topic has been explored in as much detail as is reasonably possible with the knowledge that we have today. However, bear in mind, knowledge is an ever-changing act with TIME.

Much of modern living, and much of science as well, is based upon "probabilities." In it's purest or highest form, science has allowed modern man to decipher and invent formulas and theories with incredible accuracy. Some examples include many widely used mathematical formulas, determinations of time and distance, and astronomy. In fact, the Earth will add an additional "one second" to our official clock on New Years, to account for the Earth's slight slowing of rotation. It was reported this will be the 17th second that has been added since the early 1970s. It is amazing how "precise" we can be at times, whereas, in other instances science can be proven to be inaccurate. Though the most accurate definitive determiniations might be described as absolute, or 100%, nothing is ever 100%.

The best we can verify is 99.99999%. All other determinations, based upon hypothesis and extrapolation, will fall below the 99% threshhold. It then lends scientists and debators to hypothesize the precise degree of accuracy and scientific truth. These less definitive assessments lend themselves to "ambiquity and bias," and I believe it is this ambiguity and bias which has crept into the debate on Evolution vs. Creationism, or Intelligent Design. Neither side today can document precisely the degree of accuracy of the theories or beliefs to which they aspound. A 98% postulation could actually be 90%, or 80%, or even 70%.

Ultimately, we must use "Intelligent Discretion" in making "Choices" with respect to broad-reaching policies and agendas. It is within this area that man has been shown repeatedly throughout history - as his downfall. First, you loose perspective, then become caught up in bias, and then you fail to exercise intelligent discretion in choices and actions.

Life and science is ruled at all times by "Probabilities." Hope all have a happy Holiday season and New Year.

 

[arildno]

The best we can verify is 99.99999%.

Gee, only so few decimals right??

 

[Tide]

McGyver,

Neither side today can document precisely the degree of accuracy of the theories or beliefs to which they aspound.

It is 99.99999% certain that ID/Creationism is not science. Not all "theories" are created equal.