Dover trial on evolution in schools

[no1tovote4]

I also take issue with your claim thatI think there is a slippery slope argument that can easily be made. I think that they very easily will be trying to redefine the scientific process so that ID fits. This particular statement, in contrast to the rest of your argument, I feel to be quite naive.

I think that the controversy itself breeds interest. Competing ideas like this are not so easily found.

However a more full understanding of the process itself would be extremely helpful to future generations. Regardless of this issue, discussions of that type should be held, with examples. Even leaving this one out I am sure that examples that are less controversial can be found where the children can be shown examples and discussion can be formed as to which scenario fits into scientific process and which does not and why.

Discussion of that type could make science more than heating a few test tubes putting it together like it says in the book and writing down observation without really getting into what makes it scientific process and what does not. I think that some of this misunderstanding and the dryness of science classes tends to put many people that might be gifted scientists right out of interest in such subjects.

 

[no1tovote4]

There are hundreds of "real" scientific theories that can be used to teach scientific method. You could also make up an infinite number of unscientific theories to use as those that fail muster. The idea of adding ID to class discussions as an example of what science isn't is amusing though. Maybe we should add it to all classes, after all, ID isn't algebra, grammar, or history either.

ID doesn't use any algebraic methodology, thus it doesn't fit as well. It also isn't right now being discussed as algebraic theory, or even as grammar theory. It is however mentioned in History classes as those trials are part of history.

I like the idea of making up other 'theories' and discussing. My point is only to get the more fundamental understanding. The ID discussion is only because it is real time, controversial, and that breeds interest.

 

[no1tovote4]

So you think that politics should be part of the lesson plan in an econ class. Brilliant.

There is discussion of politics in an economics class. I don't know what kind of economics class you were in but you learn about how politics interefere with and or help local economies and other topics that include politics in economics classes. I remember learning about "voodoo economics" and "reagonomics" and other political topics in my economics classes.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

As I've stated, I am not afraid of ID, I'm not afraid of ID being taught in schools, and I'm not afraid of religion. I am a secularist. I believe that religion should be kept out of government and public education. As I can see ID for what it really is, a back-handed attempt to get evangelical Christianity into public classrooms, I argue against it being added. It's as simple as that. You can make all the assumptions you care to, but that's all there is to it.

I have a question for you. Why are you willing to make an exception (proof wise) for the Christian version of ID, but not for any other proofless hypotheses?

Mentioning ID is not bringing religion into public education. Besides, the "seperation" clause simply isnt there as the libs proclaim.

We also dont consider it being "added" if its mentioned.

Why do you assume Im not willing to allow other hypotheses?
I would allow others, but they have to have some litmus test to pass.
Certainly a belief that over one billion world wide believe in isnt of no consequence.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

So in other words, you made a pointless statement?

All of the cases I mentioned weren't from decades ago, they were in this millenium. Where do these God fearing people go when they want their right to practice their religion to be defended with no ACLU?

And you called me not tooo bright?

Its simple.

You asked where would those people whom the ACLU has supported, turn to if there was no ACLU.

I stated that these cases were handled by someone before the ACLU came into existence. DO I HAVE TO SPELL OOUT THE OBVIOUS TO YOU?

The would deal with it the same way people dealt with it BEFORE the ACLU existed. You make it out to be the ONLY way peoples rights are protected.
CLUE: there are civil rights attorneys who arent a part of the ACLU

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Why shouldn't we teach kids about sculpting in science class, or painting, or creative writing? I mean, these things have nothing to do with science, but we should at least mention them, right/

sure, why not. Subjects often overlap each other. If the teacher can use such a thing to make the class more interesting. My math teacher use to use sculpture and intertwine it with math.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Now you're getting the point. Only testable theories, like evolution, are scientific. UNtestable theories, like ID, are not.




I've always found it amusing that the very same people who claim evolution is untestable spend a considerable amount of time attempting to disprove it.



The scientifically minded, however, make no attempt to disprove ID, as it is untestable and therefore non-provable and non-disprovable.

U are missing her point. It is if you dont want ID mentioned, then your basis for that should also lead you to keep evolution from being taught.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I would agree with you 100%

But that is not a valid reason for teaching something that isn't science in science class. I just don't see the point of brining supernatural events into science which deals with the natural world. The idea is simply ridiculous.

and who is promoting it?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I disagree. I could expand on your argument and say that I want to talk about geopolitics in math class because they're not mathematical, and I want people to understand that geopolitics isn't math. Class is about teaching the subject material, not teaching non-subject material.

If geopolitics helped one to understand that math isnt the onlly way to learn about astronomy for example, then it would be fine, but it doesnt. so your example is absurd

no1to hit it on the nail head.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

There is discussion of politics in an economics class. I don't know what kind of economics class you were in but you learn about how politics interefere with and or help local economies and other topics that include politics in economics classes. I remember learning about "voodoo economics" and "reagonomics" and other political topics in my economics classes.

Apologies, as I was not clear. The examples you refer to, while political, are economic issues. I meant non-economic political discussion.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

However geopolitics have nothing to do with mathematical process and could not further your knowledge of that process. A discussion on how some things do fit in the process, how they do not fit, or how they are lables psuedoscience can further your knowledge of the scientific process.

The process itself is ignored to have kids quote a bunch of 'facts', leaving them with a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Such a discussion as this can help them fit those things that are within scientific process properly into perspective. If this type of discussion were held in a science class it is doubtful that we would have had some people attempting to redefine science and to place this into a science class as a competing Theory, which it isn't.

Discussing the limits of scientific process would also be beneficial in understanding science.

To say that it is like talking geopolitics in math class is an absurdity. To say that a discussion of what the scientific process is, what it isn't, how things fit within it, etc. does not apply to science is also an absurdity.

A discussion of 'evidence' of ID should be held in a philosophy class, a discussion of how ID does not fit within the scientific process should be held in a science class.

just as using couterfeit bills to teach bank employees how to see the difference between real and phoney bill, similiar concept.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

If geopolitics helped one to understand that math isnt the onlly way to learn about astronomy for example, then it would be fine, but it doesnt. so your example is absurd

no1to hit it on the nail head.

Glad to see you like to pound on nails that are flush with the wood.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

On top of everything else, whats the big deal?

I mean, what happened to freedom of speech for the teacher?

Is it tolerant to muzzle teachers if they merely want to mention it?

Shouldnt the decision be left to local school boards?

sheesh

 

[The ClayTaurus]

On top of everything else, whats the big deal?

I mean, what happened to freedom of speech for the teacher?

Is it tolerant to muzzle teachers if they merely want to mention it?

Shouldnt the decision be left to local school boards?

sheesh

Does the teacher have the freedom of speech to base their history of the United States on us being an oppresive country of tyrants bent on slaughtering all non-white people? I suppose according to you, because of freedom of speech, I could teach children that the earth is flat.

 

[Annie]

Does the teacher have the freedom of speech to base their history of the United States on us being an oppresive country of tyrants bent on slaughtering all non-white people? I suppose according to you, because of freedom of speech, I could teach children that the earth is flat.

Bad example for the first one, the texts basically do that already.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Bad example for the first one, the texts basically do that already.

(being sarcastic)

 

[Annie]

(being sarcastic)

No, really! Some more than others, but the gist is there.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

No, really! Some more than others, but the gist is there.

I realize, as I've seen some bitch about it on this board. The example was intentional.

 

[Annie]

I realize, as I've seen some bitch about it on this board. The example was intentional.

And really, I teach it.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

To you, and all the others who cannot quit repeating the mantra that "ID is not science," I say this: science is not the only source of truth. Just because something cannot be proven by science does not mean that it is not true.

So what? How is that even relevant to a discussion about whether or not non-science should be in a science class?