Kansas votes to endorse ignorance

[Evo]

Yes, I understand there is at least this dicta that only "science should be taught in science class." My question was why?

Is there some definition of "science class" that you don't understand?

In fact, Russ has already advocated touching a legal issue--clearly not a scientific question--in a science class; if anything, he's also open to the idea of advocating a particular political point of view in science classrooms.

Teaching the theory of evolution in a science class is not promoting a political point of view.

maybe he should explain why ID is singularly and wholly unfit for discussion in science class.

It has been explained repeatedly, ID does not meet scientific criteria, Russ said it is not appropriate to be discussed as "science". The only way it is acceptable to discuss ID in a science class is to make students aware of the true motives behind ID.

For example, I don't see a call for scientific illiteracy or incompetence in the Wedge Document.

Then you are failing to understand the goal of ID. "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." You don't think that replacing scientifically tested information with "insert supernatural creature here" would lead to scientific illiteracy?

 

[russ_watters]

Might as well add that proponents of "scientism" lie to advance their case. Neither claim is very clear, properly substantiated, or even useful.
In what way[is ID fraud]?

It may be instructive to read the Judge's written decision in the Dover case - that was a key component of it.

My question was why? In fact, Russ has already advocated touching a legal issue--clearly not a scientific question--in a science class...

Huh? No I haven't. ID may constitute legal fraud, but the part that should be discussed in science class is the scientific fraud.

...if anything, he's also open to the idea of advocating a particular political point of view in science classrooms.

Absolutely not! You are severely misunderstanding my posts.

[Evo answered the painfully obvious 'why should science be taught in science class?' issue... ]

 

[Moonbear]

Yes, I understand there is at least this dicta that only "science should be taught in science class." My question was why? In fact, Russ has already advocated touching a legal issue--clearly not a scientific question--in a science class; if anything, he's also open to the idea of advocating a particular political point of view in science classrooms. So since it seems neither he or I take that "principle" seriously, maybe he should explain why ID is singularly and wholly unfit for discussion in science class. I mean, is there a line that ID cannot help but cross in terms of advocacy? Is it possible, for example, to address other epistemologies besides materialism?

Huh? Science class is for learning about science, not religion. Religion class is for learning about religion, which is what ID is. Religion classes are not taught at public schools, because it violates the first amendment of the US Constitution. If someone wishes their children to learn about a particular religious view, nobody prevents them from doing so, we just won't endorse it in the public school classroom. Instead, they should either teach it to them at home or send them to a religiously-affiliated school.

The theory of evolution is the only scientifically-based theory currently available, thus it is the one taught in the science classroom. It is not a political view or religious view, it is a scientific view. It is based on evidence, not faith. What I'm seeing a LOT of in these various debates on ID is that those who support it clearly do not understand evolutionary theory. They confuse it with abiogenesis (origin of life), and misunderstand the basic concepts and terminology. If anything, this highlights a greater need to spend more time teaching evolution properly rather than to introduce someone's religion (as it is, evolution is often glossed over too rapidly because there just isn't enough time to cover all the topics of biology if much time is spent on it, which is why too many people haven't properly learned it).

ID is a faith-based "story," for lack of a better word, and only taught within a minority of religions. If someone is going to teach ID in our schools, it would be no different than teaching children that pork is "unclean" or that all cows are sacred or that they should sacrifice a goat when they do something wrong. It is teaching a specific religious belief. That is why it is not acceptable for the science classroom, and why any attempt to teach it as "truth" is unacceptable in any public school classroom.

Yeah, I don't see what's so bad about them. For example, I don't see a call for scientific illiteracy or incompetence in the Wedge Document. If whether or not you prefer religion or scientism has any intersection with the metal of more common or important social interests, I haven't found it.

That is their entire purpose, to denounce science and promote scientific illiteracy. If people have a sound understanding of science, they immediately recognize ID as unscientific and solely faith-based. Promoting ID is a form of evangelism, but those promoting it are being dishonest about that and trying to get the public schools to do their evangelizing for them.

From the perspective of the scientists, this is not about trying to stop people from believing in their own religion, they are free to do that, it is about stopping them from claiming their religion is science when it isn't and trying to undermine science education.

 

[Astronuc]

So, from the Discovery Institute's "The Wedge" proposal - "Governing Goals

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

How is the scientific method materialistic? As far as I can tell, it's amaterialistic.

Well OK, we deal with materials, we manipulate nature, we have the developed the field of materials science and materials engineering in order to study materials to find out how they work so that we can develop more efficient energy, transportation and production systems.

Now some of the systems are used to produce 'stuff'. I would agree in most societies there is some degree of materialism. But people are free to choose to buy 'stuff'.

Now getting onto biology, what the heck does teaching evolution in a biology class have to do with materialism? Well it doesn't!

Science is about the search for truth and the study of Nature. There is no political point of view involved.

With regard to ID, all I find is group of people (proponents of ID) trying to redefine a religious idea as science, and doing so dishonestly.

 

[russ_watters]

With regard to ID, all I find is group of people (proponents of ID) trying to redefine a religious idea as science, and doing so dishonestly.

Actually, you have it backwards (it's a little worse...): they are trying to re-define science to allow religion in - and doing so dishonestly.

That's what was so laughable about the recent Kansas school board decision (I think it was Kansas...) They actually had the stones to write down in black and white in school policy a new definition of science! Who do they think they are?!?

 

[Astronuc]

So is this horse dead yet? I think it has had enough flogging with the noodly appendages.

Although a beer volcano would be very appealing, but I am not sure about the stripper factory.


Happy Solstice Day (belatedly), Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, Happy Kwanzaa, Happy Holidays, or whatever one's predilection or proclivity happens to be. Happy end of the year 2005, and I hope 2006 is more peaceful - so Happy, Peaceful and Hopeful New Year.

 

[phcatlantis]

Is there some definition of "science class" that you don't understand?

More like there's no definition that I can find in Merriam Webster's, Oxford or in law.

Teaching the theory of evolution in a science class is not promoting a political point of view.

Never said it was. But Russ did advocate presenting ID in science class as "a quinticential (sic) example of abuse of science for religious/political gain." Now of course he might mean that its appropriate to consider science situated in a social science perspective rather than philosophy, although the discipline of science studies does touch on the philosophical context.

It has been explained repeatedly, ID does not meet scientific criteria, Russ said it is not appropriate to be discussed as "science".

In a given philosophy of science, which Discovery Institute clearly rejects. The question is why shouldn't that disagreement --philosophy of science--be presented in primary and secondary school science education? Or why should a materialist philosophy or any other be assumed and/or advocated for the purposes of science education (as opposed to the actual conduct of science)?

The only way it is acceptable to discuss ID in a science class is to make students aware of the true motives behind ID.

Why not to educate students on the philosophy of science, critiques and alternative systems of thought as to allow students to make up their own minds as to what represents truth? Your assertion rests on unstated ethical, sociological, and even political claims I'm still waiting to explore.

Then you are failing to understand the goal of ID.

If your pedagogical technique is to simply re-paste a quote and demand I leap to your conclusion that the Discovery Institute's motives, which I've stated myself here and elsewhere, is inherently or even generally harmful to science education, then perhaps the fault is not my own.

You don't think that replacing scientifically tested information with "insert supernatural creature here" would lead to scientific illiteracy?

I think that's a presently untested hypothesis worthy of further operational definition, don't you? In fact, we've started a discussion on this very point over in the Kitzmiller thread. Come join us.

 

[Evo]

More like there's no definition that I can find in Merriam Webster's, Oxford or in law.

Look up the words "science" and "class".

But Russ did advocate presenting ID in science class as "a quinticential (sic) example of abuse of science for religious/political gain."

That's exactly what has been ruled. Have you read the ruling?

Now of course he might mean that its appropriate to consider science situated in a social science perspective rather than philosophy, although the discipline of science studies does touch on the philosophical context.

That has nothing to do with what he posted, you seem to be misreading things.

Why not to educate students on the philosophy of science, critiques and alternative systems of thought as to allow students to make up their own minds as to what represents truth?

Religion and religious beliefs are not appropriate for science classes.

If your pedagogical technique is to simply re-paste a quote and demand I leap to your conclusion that the Discovery Institute's motives, which I've stated myself here and elsewhere, is inherently or even generally harmful to science education, then perhaps the fault is not my own.

That makes no sense, what isn't your fault?

I think that's a presently untested hypothesis worthy of further operational definition, don't you?

ID? No.

 

[Moonbear]

Why not to educate students on the philosophy of science, critiques and alternative systems of thought as to allow students to make up their own minds as to what represents truth?

And such a lesson might be appropriate in a philosophy class, but not in a science class. Students are taught things other than science, such as politics, history, literature, music, etc. There is already too much crammed into the science curriculum to waste time on something that is not science at the expense of something that is. As I mentioned above, and know from experience, evolution is barely touched upon in the high school biology curriculum. It is often left as the last lesson, and only covered if the class hasn't already run behind schedule on all of the other lessons. And, as pattylou has aptly asked, what part of the biology lesson should be skipped in order to teach a non-scientific topic, scientific method, basic cellular organization and function, genetics, botany, cell division, metabolism, development, the circulatory system, the nervous system, the digestive system, the reproductive system, the excretory system, the respiratory system? It's hard enough to keep science classes current on actual science let alone introducing philosophy. Also, if you discuss one religious group's views, then you'd have to include every religious group's views. What's wrong with leaving it to the parents to provide that supplemental education via religious institutions if they wish their children to learn it? What could we teach in the science classroom about ID other than why it's not a scientific theory? Is that really helpful?

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?

 

[phcatlantis]

How is the scientific method materialistic? As far as I can tell, it's amaterialistic.

The scientific method generates knowledge in the restricted domain of materialist propositions. Its consequently materialist. Whether this is methodological or philosophical is a question for...well...philosophers.

Now getting onto biology, what the heck does teaching evolution in a biology class have to do with materialism? Well it doesn't!

In this case it does. The argument made by the other side is a policy one. It states clearly its perception of the opposition's intent and the consequences of their alleged pedagogical approach: the presentation of evolution as fact without discussion of the distinction (if any is believed to exist) between scientific fact and philosophical truth. Discovery Institute plans to reintroduce a theistic understanding of nature by first attacking the materialist underpinnings of the dominant definition.

Science is about the search for truth...

Science, as usually held in prevailing philosophy, is not about the search for truth. It is a means of generating knowledge about a strictly limited set of propositions which may or may not be true. I doubt this is interesting to you or anyone else here; it certainly isn't to me--everybody here has probably gone down this road of amateur philosophizing more times than they care to remember. On the other hand, I rarely see discussion of this subject online with attention to other areas of interest, namely in the social sciences (specifically where it concerns education policy) and the study of law.

There is no political point of view involved.

You might find some disagreement from social scientists studying interests, aims and practices in science communities.

With regard to ID, all I find is group of people (proponents of ID) trying to redefine a religious idea as science, and doing so dishonestly.

That's awfully harsh, especially since you've appealed to such an unverifiable, unparsimonious, regressive, absolute and immutable concept as truth.

 

[Evo]

Why not to educate students on the philosophy of science, critiques and alternative systems of thought as to allow students to make up their own minds as to what represents truth?

Students are educated on all of the things you list above.

You are avoiding the issue.

The issue here is that ID is religion masquerading as science. They want ID to be accepted as science. They want ID to be taught as an alternative to evolution. It is not an alternative because it has no scientific basis.

If you can't address the issue, then please don't post, you are derailing the thread.

 

[Tide]

It may be instructive to read the Judge's written decision in the Dover case

I very highly recommend reading it! It spells out in embarrassing (for the ID proponents) detail the extent to which creationists commit fraud to foist their canard upon public education.

Astronuc asked if this was over yet. Sadly, the answer is "no."

 

[Tide]

phc,

The scientific method generates knowledge in the restricted domain of materialist propositions. Its consequently materialist.

Sad isn't it! Hey, let's try to inject the supernatural into science then we can be on equal footing and dispense with all this science hocus pocus once and for all. :)

BTW- what would you think of forcing your minister to give equal time to science in Sunday school? It would be fair in order to open students' minds given that the taxpayer subsidizes your religion in the form of tax exemptions.

 

[russ_watters]

More like there's no definition that I can find in Merriam Webster's, Oxford or in law.

You can't find a definition of "science" in the dictionary? Are you missing a page?

Never said it was. But Russ did advocate presenting ID in science class as "a quinticential (sic) example of abuse of science for religious/political gain." Now of course he might mean that its appropriate to consider science situated in a social science perspective rather than philosophy, although the discipline of science studies does touch on the philosophical context.

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.

In a given philosophy of science, which Discovery Institute clearly rejects. The question is why shouldn't that disagreement --philosophy of science--be presented in primary and secondary school science education? Or why should a materialist philosophy or any other be assumed and/or advocated for the purposes of science education (as opposed to the actual conduct of science)?

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

Why not to educate students on the philosophy of science, critiques and alternative systems of thought as to allow students to make up their own minds as to what represents truth?

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

I think that's a presently untested hypothesis worthy of further operational definition, don't you? In fact, we've started a discussion on this very point over in the Kitzmiller thread. Come join us.

NO! It is not an hypothesis. It is inherrently untestable, and therefore it is not science and does not belong in science class.

You might find some disagreement from social scientists studying interests, aims and practices in science communities.

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

That's awfully harsh, especially since you've appealed to such an unverifiable, unparsimonious, regressive, absolute and immutable concept as truth.

Huh? The concept of "truth" has nothing to do with the fact that ID proponents lie about their idea and hide their motives. Again, have you read the court's decision?

Astronuc asked if this was over yet. Sadly, the answer is "no."

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

 

[Moonbear]

NO! It is not an hypothesis. It is inherrently untestable, and therefore it is not science and does not belong in science class.

Um, I don't think he was saying ID is a testable hypothesis, I think he meant this statement of Evo's is:

You don't think that replacing scientifically tested information with "insert supernatural creature here" would lead to scientific illiteracy

Though, it does raise the question, is that really an experiment we want to try on our children?

 

[phcatlantis]

And such a lesson might be appropriate in a philosophy class, but not in a science class.

At least we're beyond dicta. Tell me if this sums up your point. Science education cannot in any form accommodate instruction in the philosophy of science for lack of time. Therefore, it would be pointless of me to question whether a science sequence can be tailored differently to meet the common interest we may have (generating student interest and competence in the application of scientific methods). Right? Well let's break it down.

There is already too much crammed into the science curriculum to waste time on something that is not science at the expense of something that is.

Why shouldn't I consider that a false choice? After all, Kansas State Board of Ed, Dover School Board, and the Discovery Institute clearly did not excising any of the life science curricula existing before. So either you're declaring that a brief disclaimer mentioning ID as an alternative avenue of belief inherently inhibits instruction or inevitably would. That, my friend, is also an hypothesis worth following up.

As I mentioned above, and know from experience...

Please. We're all terribly respectful of the value of scientific inquiry. If we're going to tear sackcloth over the inevitabe injustice of exposing students to unscientific soothe-saying, the least we can do is offer more than anecdote to support the argument.

...evolution is barely touched upon in the high school biology curriculum.

Evolution is barely touched upon in college introductory biology as well. Guess what else most computer science undergrads and high schoolers have in common? Most have no formal instruction in intro thermo.

It is often left as the last lesson, and only covered if the class hasn't already run behind schedule on all of the other lessons. And, as pattylou has aptly asked, what part of the biology lesson should be skipped in order to teach a non-scientific topic, scientific method, basic cellular organization and function, genetics, botany, cell division, metabolism, development, the circulatory system, the nervous system, the digestive system, the reproductive system, the excretory system, the respiratory system?

First, I repeat my point that Dover and Kansas did not propose eliminating any part of their life science curricula. I think you'd have a hard time arguing Cobb County's "sticker" wold lead to undue consumption of valuable class time, but I welcome any evidence you have.

Second, why teach philosophy of science in biology class? Why not in general science education prior to high school? And why not restructure the entire science education between K-12 to present general science and philosophy of science, and ultimately followed by physics, chemistry and finally biology? Perhaps extend the core high school classes back into middle school. Add tracking math and social science education along side and you've a policy, albeit a prematurely, underdeveloped and largely untested one. After all, do we really need two years of three digit multiplication and division?

Also, if you discuss one religious group's views, then you'd have to include every religious group's views.

That's another discussion entirely, but let's pretend we live in a nice neat world and propose that this philosophy of science class will be secular in nature, cleanly addressing epistemology and especially ontology without delving into the various distinctions of the unscientific perspectives.

What's wrong with leaving it to the parents to provide that supplemental education via religious institutions if they wish their children to learn it?

Also another discussion, to be joined with questions like "what's wrong with leaving it to the parents to have sole authority and responsibility over the education of their children" and (given that we've decided it is in the interest to require everyone to chip in for every child's education) "what's wrong with decentralizing and democratizing how we shape education policy?"

What could we teach in the science classroom about ID other than why it's not a scientific theory? Is that really helpful?

You could teach the underlying philosophical dispute in the ID debate.

If you want additional courses introduced in high school on philosophy or comparative religions...

ID is fundamentally an attack on a prevailing view of the philosophy of science. It directly and straightforwardly challenges a perspective essential for the conduct of scientific research and specifically it asserts pedagogical consequences for the instruction of science without clear distinction between "fact" and "truth." Why is that inappropriate for discussion in a science class?

 

[Evo]

You could teach the underlying philosophical dispute in the ID debate.
ID is fundamentally an attack on a prevailing view of the philosophy of science. It directly and straightforwardly challenges a perspective essential for the conduct of scientific research and specifically it asserts pedagogical consequences for the instruction of science without clear distinction between "fact" and "truth." Why is that inappropriate for discussion in a science class?

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

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

 

[Tide]

phc,

Why shouldn't I consider that a false choice?

It is interesting you should use the expression "false choice." That is precisely what the ID/creationist Movement is all about - the false dichotomy. Namely, "we find fault with Darwinism therefore our [pseudo]science must be correct."

 

[phcatlantis]

Students are educated on all of the things you list above.

I imagine some are. A good number in conservative Christian schools. Haven't seen the data myself, though. Either way, its clearly not tested for by NAEP.

You are avoiding the issue.

Simply saying I'm avoiding the issue doesn't make it true. In fact, it doesn't even make it "fact."

The issue here is that ID is religion masquerading as science.

You're entitled to that belief, which given the obvious vitriol behind it is clearly not held scientifically. I'm not here to impugn the motives ot ID supporters or detractors.

They want ID to be accepted as science.

They also, in the same document you quoted from, want to redefine science without materialism. Don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to point to one statement characterizing their views and ignore all the others? And what does it matter what their motives are? After all, I'm not interested in an anti-ID *****fest; I'd think you've had enough of that as well.

It is not an alternative because it has no scientific basis.

It is an alternative under their drastically renovated philosophy of science. Neither you or I have use for it, and I'm not interested in whining about Discovery Institute's right or authority to redefine science in your mind. I am, however, interested in their ability to do so in law and in culture and the possible shapes science education may take given partial to complete success in their mission.

If you can't address the issue, then please don't post, you are derailing the thread.

Perhaps you'll be kind enough to tell me what the issue is. As far as I can tell, this thread is an open-ended discussion of the Kansas State Board of Education's vote to "endorse ignorance." Since you seem intent on arguing the merits of IDs and the motives of its proponents rather than the specific issue at hand and its real world implications for law and science education, perhaps you should start a new thread.

 

[Moonbear]

Now I think you're just being purposefully stubborn here. Once again, ID is NOT science, it is nothing but religious faith. It does not offer an alternative to evolution, it offers nonsense. It is not based on fact or evidence, it is entirely made up as the figment of someone's imagination. There, I'll put it that bluntly, because that is what it is. It has NO PLACE WHATSOEVER in the science curriculum, and regardless of what you claim, if you add ANYTHING to the school curriculum, it requires removing something else. Those stickers are nonsense based on a common, lay definition of theory, not on the scientific definition of theory. ID is not a scientific theory, it is not even a scientific hypothesis or conjecture. It is untestable and unverifiable.

My experience is not just anectdotal evidence either. I AM a university professor in the biological sciences, I HAVE taught introductory biology at the university level, I KNOW what my students have come in with as biology background from all the myriad high schools they have come from, I also KNOW how high school biology textbooks are organized, and they very often put evolution as the LAST chapter. I also KNOW how little the lay public understands about evolution, and KNOW how many times I've had to explain the basic concepts of evolution here on these forums and on other forums because people arguing in favor of things like ID and creationism have it VERY WRONG. I'm sick and tired of it, frustrated and annoyed, and can't understand why anyone would want schools endorsing outright ignorance in the classroom when educators are the ones who should know better. It just plain disgusts me that these people even have the audacity to call themselves educators when they are promoting blatant lies as truth, ignorance as education, and religion as science.

 

[Evo]

Now I think you're just being purposefully stubborn here. Once again, ID is NOT science, it is nothing but religious faith. It does not offer an alternative to evolution, it offers nonsense. It is not based on fact or evidence, it is entirely made up as the figment of someone's imagination. There, I'll put it that bluntly, because that is what it is. It has NO PLACE WHATSOEVER in the science curriculum, and regardless of what you claim, if you add ANYTHING to the school curriculum, it requires removing something else. Those stickers are nonsense based on a common, lay definition of theory, not on the scientific definition of theory. ID is not a scientific theory, it is not even a scientific hypothesis or conjecture. It is untestable and unverifiable.

My experience is not just anectdotal evidence either. I AM a university professor in the biological sciences, I HAVE taught introductory biology at the university level, I KNOW what my students have come in with as biology background from all the myriad high schools they have come from, I also KNOW how high school biology textbooks are organized, and they very often put evolution as the LAST chapter. I also KNOW how little the lay public understands about evolution, and KNOW how many times I've had to explain the basic concepts of evolution here on these forums and on other forums because people arguing in favor of things like ID and creationism have it VERY WRONG. I'm sick and tired of it, frustrated and annoyed, and can't understand why anyone would want schools endorsing outright ignorance in the classroom when educators are the ones who should know better. It just plain disgusts me that these people even have the audacity to call themselves educators when they are promoting blatant lies as truth, ignorance as education, and religion as science.

This is deserving of a sticky! I think we need something up there on the topic.

 

[Tide]

Moonbear,

You really ought not repress your true feelings - it's bad for you! ;)

 

[Evo]

Moonbear,
You really ought not repress your true feelings - it's bad for you! ;)

When the bear's right, she's right.

 

[phcatlantis]

phc,
Sad isn't it!

I don't think so. The scientism-ID debate in the US is one front in a larger conflict for the hearts and minds of public school students. Survey after survey negatively correlates religiosity with level of education attained. Atheists make up less than 10 percent of the population yet account for the plurality of scientists. The vast majority of "leading scientists" (Who's Who in NAS) are atheists. I imagine this bothers some of that religious minority and as well as certain interests outside of the scientific community, and add to that American academia remains politically and religiously far more liberal than the country at large apparently antagonizes these parties--interests that apparently perceive their value in these areas as worthy of increasing their representation. That is an explicit aim of the Discovery Institute at least.

BTW- what would you think of forcing your minister to give equal time to science in Sunday school?

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

It would be fair in order to open students' minds given that the taxpayer subsidizes your religion in the form of tax exemptions.

I think the question of whether tax exemptions are subsidies is best left for another thread, but given my answer already I think it's pretty clear what my view on that matter is.

 

[Evo]

More background on what ID is about.

"Proponents of Intelligent Design claim that they look for evidence of what they call signs of intelligence — physical properties of an object that necessitate "design". The most common cited signs being considered include irreducible complexity, information mechanisms, and specified complexity. Many design proponents believe that living systems show one or more of these, from which they infer that life is designed. This stands in opposition to mainstream explanations of systems, which attempt to explain the natural world exclusively through impersonal physical processes such as random mutations and natural selection."

"The Intelligent design movement is an organized neo-creationist campaign to promote Intelligent Design arguments in the public sphere, primarily in the United States.

Phillip E. Johnson, considered the father of the Intelligent Design movement and its unofficial spokesman stated that the goal of Intelligent Design is to cast creationism as a scientific concept:

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."[21]

At the 1999 "Reclaiming America for Christ Conference" Johnson described the movement thus: "I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science." ..."Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?" ..."I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." [24]

The Intelligent Design movement is largely the result of efforts by the conservative Christian think tank the Discovery Institute, and its Center for Science and Culture.

The Discovery Institute operates on a $4,000,000 budget [25] and receives financial support from 22 foundations, at least two-thirds of which state explicitly religious missions. The institute's CSC was founded largely with funds provided by Howard Ahmanson Jr., who has stated a goal of "the total integration of biblical law into our lives."[26] A CSC mission statement proclaimed its goal is to "unseat not just Darwinism, but also Darwinism's cultural legacy".[/color]

 

[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.