Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Where does this go?

  1. Sep 30, 2005 #1
    I'd like all the academics who visit this board to be aware of this 4 - day petition that has started today. It will be sent to the court case in PA, regarding the teaching of ID in public school science classes.

    Evo, I didn't know if this was general, politics, or Biology. I thought the more academics that saw it, the better. Where should it go?

    Link to petition to not have Intelligent Design taught as science in our public schools:


  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 30, 2005 #2
    I don't believe in god or more correctly I would say I don't know enough or have enough information to have a belief that god does or does not exist.

    That being said I have heard of some very famous philosophers that have spent some time looking at ID and they think it is has some merit. I don't even know what ID is and to honest I don't care enough about it to learn more but what I am concerned about is that through out history new ideas are often treated very badly that later turn out to be correct. I don't know if that will be the case with this but who knows for sure. And since there are some academics who apparently have some very convincing arguments in favor of ID I think we should at least spend some time looking at it before we outright condemn it.
  4. Sep 30, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    A most excellent endeavour! Unfortunately, I'm not qualified to sign it. All power to them, and I'll pass the word.

    Townsend, ID is simply Creationism in sheep's clothing. They thought that by changing the name, they'd fake the uneducated masses into believing that it's a science. :grumpy:
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2005
  5. Sep 30, 2005 #4
    The issue is whether it is science.

    History has merit too, but you don't clog up a cell biology class teaching the civil war.
  6. Sep 30, 2005 #5
    I certainly agree that it should not be a science class but it certainly would qualify as a philosophy class.
  7. Sep 30, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The petition states that the signers do not necessarily object to it being taught elsewhere in the curriculum, but that it is not science, so should not be taught within the science curriculum.

    Thanks for the link Patty, though I signed it but didn't see my name show up on the list...is it working right, or is there a delay before the names are posted?

    Edit: Nevermind, I just realized the most recent names are on page 1, not the last page.
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2005
  8. Sep 30, 2005 #7
    I see....well then, have at it. :approve:
  9. Sep 30, 2005 #8
    I agree that it is great for philosophy, etc. And those fields are "equal" to science in many ways. I often think that faith is more important than knowledge, but I *never* think we should try to pigeonhole either into the other.
  10. Sep 30, 2005 #9
    Wow. 38 more signatures just since I signed. this'll be fun to watch grow.
  11. Sep 30, 2005 #10


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I guess ID is as worthy of a philosophical discussion as a discussion of whether my bedpost is sentient.

    Thanks Patty, I will also sign, although, I don't think ID should be taught anywhere outside of a bible class.

    edit: looks like they only want scientists to sign, oh well.
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2005
  12. Sep 30, 2005 #11


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Two to four signatures a minute --- 6815 total so far --- dig it.
  13. Sep 30, 2005 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There's been over 200 signatures since I signed it! This is great to see!
  14. Sep 30, 2005 #13
    It's interesting to see the religious affiliations as well. MikeX had asked on Biology, for percentages of biologists that are atheist. This petition provides raw data to make a rough estimate.

    Over 7000 names.... It seemed to me that roughly 30% of respondents gave a religious affiliation of one sort or another (around 2000), of those 30% some were atheist/nonreligious and others were from all corners of faith - buddhism, muslim, various christian denominations, unitarian universalism, atheism....

    Edit: Actually of the last 100 signatures:

    64 kept the information private. Of the 36 that acknowledged a religious identity, 10 claimed atheism, 2 claimed agnositicism, and the other 22 claimed a religious affiliation.
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2005
  15. Oct 1, 2005 #14


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I don't think I'm qualified to sign :(
  16. Oct 1, 2005 #15
    You (or anyone) can forward it to anyone you might know who is qualified to sign. Maybe your biology professor at school, for example. I guarantee they'll be interested, although I don't know if signatures from other countries will "count" or not.
  17. Oct 1, 2005 #16


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Bumping this back up.
  18. Oct 1, 2005 #17
    Some "fast facts" :

    over 8040 signatures in 4 days (the "official" signing period is over for the purpose of creating an amicus brief, but the petition will stay open for additional signatures out of public interest.) There are many interesting fast facts on the website now, go have a look. Two that I enjoyed were these:

    ....and over 8000 in four days.
  19. Oct 1, 2005 #18


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    What's the big deal of teaching intelligent design in schools, does it bother you that much? Do you think that the kids will become any smarter if it were excluded? Don't you have anything better to do?

    What really bothers me more than religious ranting (which applies to some member of religious groups) are the people who think that they are smarter than them...then proceed to join the senseless argument. Both sides of the comprise the same group of ignoramus untalented group of idiots, and one can guess why the whole realm of such debates goes nowhere and so irrelevant and unimportant to both science and religion.

    Seriously, children/teenagers these days think that it's signficant to identifiy themselves as an atheist or Christian/God believer, the end result is that they completely exclude themselves to either domains; promiscuous and exploratory lifestyles and in addition no appreciation for science or intelligence. The end result that the majority of youngsters of this generation are dumber than ever, perhaps more political though.

    Just a reminder, one does not become any smarter for believing or not believing in God. And no one has the smarts to challenge such claims purely by intellectual means. If they wish to teach God in school let them, the fact of the matter is children are not becoming any more scientifically accurate. There's really no distinction between science and religion, neither are superior, and teaching intelligent will not decrease your child's intellectual capacity. They're either dumb or smart as we know it.
  20. Oct 1, 2005 #19


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The point GCT is that religion/God is not allowed to be taught in a public school, it is not ok, and it is especially not ok to try to pretend it is science in order to disguise it.

    Teaching unscientific BS to children in a classroom as if it were backed up with facts is wrong. According to you, what children are taught in school makes no difference because they're either smart or dumb? Oh, you're right, lets just teach nothing but crap to our kids because it doesn't matter. :uhh:
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2005
  21. Oct 2, 2005 #20

    Some members of these groups would also like geocentrism taught, as well as disclaimers that the Big Bang, plate tectonics, carbon dating, and so on, are "only theories." I don't think we have enough spare hours to add these things into our kids curricula.

    I see you are a science advisor. This means you can tell me the 7 steps of the scientific method.

    Intelligent design fails to address several of these steps. There is no specific testable and disprovable hypothesis. Also, we can not make a single prediction using "intelligent design."

    If a so called "hypothesis" does not have a testable prediction, one that would allow the hypothesis to be disproven, then it is not science.

    It would be like teaching the greek alphabet as equivalent to times tables in second grade math.

    Show me the testable prediction that will allow us to disprove intelligent design, and I'll reconsider.

    For the record, I don't recall claiming to be smarter than anyone.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Where does this go?
  1. Where to go ? (Replies: 72)

  2. Where's my money going? (Replies: 55)

  3. Deciding where to go (Replies: 4)