Whats wrong with this statement?

[ QUOTE ]
The school board was basically saying, "Hey if you want to know about ID look here were not discussing it in biology class".

Your attitude is typical of the left. Stiffle any ideals or thoughts that don't you don't agree with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please, spare us. That message singles out a religious belief for promotion. It's not as if the school is simply giving "alternative explanations". Why not, before learning chemistry and physics, have something along the lines of the following:

"This is the periodic table of the elements. The Pennsylvania authorities require us to teach it to you. You should know that the system of naming and categorizing elements is just a theory, and like any other theory it is constantly being challenged and evaluated.

There is another explanation for the composition of matter, which holds that there are only four elements: earth, fire, water and wind. If you would like more information on this explanation, please see the book, Physics for Dummies, available in the library."

Or why not an alternative explanation for history?

The motivation is religious, and it's unconstitutional.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Please, spare us. That message singles out a religious belief for promotion. It's not as if the school is simply giving "alternative explanations". Why not, before learning chemistry and physics, have something along the lines of the following:

"This is the periodic table of the elements. The Pennsylvania authorities require us to teach it to you. You should know that the system of naming and categorizing elements is just a theory, and like any other theory it is constantly being challenged and evaluated.

There is another explanation for the composition of matter, which holds that there are only four elements: earth, fire, water and wind. If you would like more information on this explanation, please see the book, Physics for Dummies, available in the library."


[/ QUOTE ]

If the majority of the population believed there were only 4 elements so strongly that it was likely to be brought up or thought about in a 9th grade science class than the statement you just wrote would probably be appropiate.

Stu

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The school board was basically saying, "Hey if you want to know about ID look here were not discussing it in biology class".

Your attitude is typical of the left. Stiffle any ideals or thoughts that don't you don't agree with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please, spare us. That message singles out a religious belief for promotion. It's not as if the school is simply giving "alternative explanations". Why not, before learning chemistry and physics, have something along the lines of the following:

"This is the periodic table of the elements. The Pennsylvania authorities require us to teach it to you. You should know that the system of naming and categorizing elements is just a theory, and like any other theory it is constantly being challenged and evaluated.

There is another explanation for the composition of matter, which holds that there are only four elements: earth, fire, water and wind. If you would like more information on this explanation, please see the book, Physics for Dummies, available in the library."

Or why not an alternative explanation for history?

The motivation is religious, and it's unconstitutional.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there were ANY scientific evidence for ID, I wouldn't be against teaching that evidence. However, the only evidence is "they can't prove evolution 100% perfect, therefore ID MUST be as good. It's the only alternative we can think of."

I remember being in school learning about a variety of theories about how the dinosaurs dissappeared. Large volcanoes, famine, getting hit by an asteroid, disease, etc... Lots of theories. But each had some degree of evidence associated with it, or was labelled "just a guess". At least then, all of the theories had been scientifically proved to at least EXIST in some form in the past, maybe just not that particular instant. So there was some evidence that these theories had some probability of being true.

So as soon as there is a single piece of valid evidence, we can introduce "other ideas". And we can stack up the evidence against each other and show there are different theories.

[ QUOTE ]

If the majority of the population believed there were only 4 elements so strongly that it was likely to be brought up or thought about in a 9th grade science class than the statement you just wrote would probably be appropiate.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, no. A majority of the population believes in Christianity. That doesn't mean that the story of loaves and fishes gets to be brought up during physics lessons on the conservation of matter.

[Meech]

[ QUOTE ]
If the majority of the population believed there were only 4 elements so strongly that it was likely to be brought up or thought about in a 9th grade science class than the statement you just wrote would probably be appropiate.

[/ QUOTE ]

lmfao

So... Since the majority of our country thinks the earth revolves around the moon -- we should teach that as an "alternate" explanation?


No comment about the scientologists viewpoint? I mean we really could have been populated by aliens...

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Noone's saying ban the book. But since when is science class or biology class the place for recommending alternatives to science?


[/ QUOTE ]

Read that statement again, the school board never recommeded ID as an alternative to science. They don't even put ID on the same level as evolution. The school board calls evolution is a "theory" while they label ID as merely an "explaination".

ID in some form is something believed by a majority of Americans. It likely to come up or at least be thought about in 9th grade science discussions concerning the orgins of life. Its certainly appropriate for the school board to say, "Hey were not going to teach ID in a science class but if you want to know about that look here instead".

Whats troubling people think the ideal of ID is so dangerous that even this innocent statement needed to be suppressed.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see a problem with students at some point being told that the majority of the US population believes in this idea and then being taught (briefly) about what the idea is or referred to some book if they're interested. Hopefully a book that explains what ID theory is rather than actually advocating it.

However, the place for that is certainly is not the science class. Science is there to teach adn recommend readings about scientific theories, not religious "explanations."

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, no. A majority of the population believes in Christianity. That doesn't mean that the story of loaves and fishes gets to be brought up during physics lessons on the conservation of matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if man ever invented a replicator like in those Star Trek shows we should ban the teaching of how it works becuase its application too closely resembles Christian theology?

ID as an ideal doesn't need Christianity or any other religion to exist. It was pointed out in another thread that scientist are trying to create life from scratch. If and when they achieve it they will prove ID as a viable process by which life is created. I suspect ID will be proven before scientist can duplicate the process by which life originated on this planet.

However, people like you are so fearful of Christianity that you feel the need to suppress anything associated with it.


Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
lmfao

So... Since the majority of our country thinks the earth revolves around the moon -- we should teach that as an "alternate" explanation?


No comment about the scientologists viewpoint? I mean we really could have been populated by aliens...

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry meech, your comments are really worthy of a rubuttal.

Stu

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
If there were ANY scientific evidence for ID, I wouldn't be against teaching that evidence. However, the only evidence is "they can't prove evolution 100% perfect, therefore ID MUST be as good. It's the only alternative we can think of."

So as soon as there is a single piece of valid evidence, we can introduce "other ideas". And we can stack up the evidence against each other and show there are different theories.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great points here. Nothing to add.

Also on a related note.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
However, the place for that is certainly is not the science class. Science is there to teach adn recommend readings about scientific theories, not religious "explanations."

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, there are two key words here "scientific method." It might be useful to show students in a science class how the scientific method has been utlized to develop the theories about evolution and how it is totally lacking in developing the precepts of "intelligent design" but I have my doubts as to whether teachers really have time to do this at the high school level. To put "intelligent design" on the same pedestal with the traditional sciences of chemistry, biology and physics in a science class is lunacy IMO.