How much class time would it take to teach ID?

[Roland]

I was wondering. If, heaven forbid, ID were to be taught in science classes as President Bush wants, how much class time would be required to do so?

Wouldn't it just be a matter of the teacher saying, "Well, in addition to evolution [point to mountains of evidence], there are some people who believe that certain processes we see in nature are simply 'too complex' to have developed on their own [list, say, five such processes, if five exist]. However, since scientists are always seeking and finding answers to natural processes that were once thought to be inexplicable, chances are that answers may be found for these five as well. Stay tuned for further devolpments...Now back to our discussion of evolution."?

One of the many problems with ID is that there ISN'T ANY REAL CONTENT TO TEACH! I guess you could spend part of the semester going over Behe's book, but what would be the point of spending time studying something that has as its outcome the idea that that something can't be explained? Talk about a waste of a student's time.

ID seems to be the only field of study in which everyone throws up his hands at the end of the semester and cries "I have no answers" and concedes the futility of the endeavor. That's some great education!

[cjack]

I'd say it would last until some bright student raised his hand and asked "so, given all this supposed evidence for design, what can we infer about the designer?"

Since the ID movement has flatly refused to identify or even talk about the designer, that would be the end of that.

I mean, can you imagine if, in a discussion of archaeology, the "leading experts" on the subject refused to make any assumptions about the "designers" of the artifacts found in ancient sites?

:rolleyes:

[Hyndis]

ID should be a subject in school...in comparative religion class. Maybe they could compare the creation myths of various religions. The Egyptian creation myth involving autofellatio ought to evoke from interest from the students. ;)

However, until it actually develops a valid theory, it ain't science. So it has absolutely no place in a science class.

And by valid theory, I don't mean handwaving and giving an ad hoc explaination for everything, but instead something a bit more concrete. But right now ID doesn't even attempt to explain any evidence. Infact, it doesn't even attempt to prove itself! Endlessly harping on evolution does not make ID true. Even if evolution was somehow outright disproven, ID would still not be true.

[NottyImp]

I imagine the syllabus would look something like this:

1.1 List supposed problems with evolutionary theory
1.2 Therefore, design!
1.3 Praise the Lord Jesus!

[Blackcat]

So, would using the answer "Goddidit" to every single examination question get you a pass?

[IamMoose]

In some states, presumably it would :D

[Oolon Colluphid]

So, would using the answer "Goddidit" to every single examination question get you a pass?
No no, IDists refuses to explicitly state who or what did the designing. So the correct answer is "Somethingdidit somehow".

[Blackcat]

No no, IDists refuses to explicitly state who or what did the designing. So the correct answer is "Somethingdidit somehow".

Damn, just goes to show how much I'd suck at IDism ;)