- Oct 11, 2007
- 69,352
- 35,023
this is where you propose handling fundiekid in a way which understates scientific findings to (what i would call) support the scientific plausibility of theory which is not scientifically plausible:actually, you presented some hypothetical kid and advocated that a science teacher should support his belief that an IDer explains how nature is. remember?
No sir. I did not do that. And you'll have a damnedly difficult time finding any post of mine that even suggests that. There is a world of difference between a science teacher not presuming to destroy a student's religious beliefs and in supporting them. I believe, however, that I was quite clear in saying that the science teacher should do neither.
When a student insists that God (or whatever Deity) created the universe in seven days or whatever religious theory he uses, the teacher will agree that millions of people believe that and he won't attempt to dispute it. However, that also cannot be falsified or otherwise scientifically tested and it won't be on the test or accepted as a correct answer on a test. The students are not required to believe what they are taught in science class, but they are required to know it. And they will be tested on it
you've also proposed that a good teacher might propose the belief in ID in the classroom them self. i think your good teacher invites the misunderstanding that science and religious faith are juxtaposed in the way ignorant pastors miseducate their flocks.
apart from going to great length to separate ID from a religious belief system, you conversely propose that it should be treated as a religious belief in the context of a classroom. this type of direct contradiction is characteristic of your ambiguous, shifty definition of ID. i have pointed out that there is a huge difference between religious and faith-based beliefs and science or natural observation-based beliefs like mainstream ID. the latter constitute mischaracterizations of science. mainstream ID proposals present fallacies like irreducible complexity which employ misinformation to empower their conclusions. lending credence to such concepts in your billions-served umbrella of ID constitutes a breach of obligation for a science teacher, and as you have argued part of the time, ought not offend religious belief at all. this would merely be a correction to a misunderstanding or malpractice of science, much like correcting the nawmsayn kid i hypothesized.
nawmsayn?
If you interpret not disputing a thng or accurately affirming that millions do believe a thing as being the same thing as affirming it, there isn't much I can do for you here. I know these to be entirely two separate things. But I suppose some are unable to make the distinction.
And there is also a world of difference between a science teacher accurately explaining that there are holes in the evidence and many unanswered questions in all theories of the origins and evolution of the Universe and origins and evolution of the species on Earth and that teacher also embracing Intelligent Design. Yet the teacher would be accurately affirming that there are other theories that fill in some of those holes and that Intelligent Design is one of those. I have had science teachers who in fact did that. But he would also be accurate to explain that I.D. and some other theories are outside the disciplines of science and therefore will not be included in the coursework.
And if you cannot see how this is an honest approach to neither affirm nor deny a student's religious beliefs, then again, there isn't much I can do for you. And if he, as many of my science teachers have already done, explained the theories of Plato, Aristotle, et al as components of the very large scope of all of scientific knowledge, some of which has stood the test of time and some that has not, I would count him as a brilliant and capable teacher.
I advocate educating students and not merely indoctrinating them.
Last edited: