Why not teach both I/D and Evolution? - QUICK RESPONSE NEEDED

[SLD]

OK, I just need a quick few bullet points on why both "sides" should not be taught in science classes. I am going on the radio tomorrow morning and I think that is one of the issues that may come up.

SLD

[RBH]

1. There aren't "two sides" to this issue in the scientific world, only in the political world. If science classes are to teach what real science is, intelligent design doesn't exist.

2. There is nothing to teach about ID. There is no "theory" of intelligent design, only the claim that some things are too complicated to have evolved. Intelligent design proponents have never offfered any explanation of how, when, where, and by what (aliens?) anything in biology was designed.

3. Intelligent design is by admission of its own proponents a socio-cultural movement, not a scientific research program. The Wedge document casts it in socio-cultural terms, and wants to amend science to include supernatural causes.

4. Intelligent design is dangerous for Christians, because it would put God under scientists' microscopes.

RBH

[Sci_Fidelity]

Uhh.. because ID isn't science? It presents no testable hypotheses. ID is merely religion dressed up (and poorly dressed at that.)

[Monad]

Is there anything of substance to teach?

[Coragyps]

Assuming for a millisecond that ID is or has a scientific theory to teach: how many previous scientific theories have made it into the high-school curriculum after one (or two, if you're being generous) papers in the scientific literature? Did relativity, general or special? Did the Bohr model of the atom, or the plum-pudding model, or a quantum model? How 'bout the theories about Neanderthal Man being either an ancestor or a cousin to modern man? Plate tectonics?

That's enough to keep ID out of high school - what do they have? A couple of mass-market books, an office in Seattle, and a website? Gimme a break.

[King Rat]

Because ID is taught in church, where it belongs.

[Wyrdsmyth]

Because politicians and preachers
shouldn't be able to dictate
what science is
to science teachers.

[anthrosciguy]

OK, I just need a quick few bullet points on why both "sides" should not be taught in science classes. I am going on the radio tomorrow morning and I think that is one of the issues that may come up.

SLD

Point out that insisting on teaching both ID and evolution is like insisting on teaching both flat-earthism and real geology and astronomy. It's non-science versus science -- which should you teach in science classes?

Point out that leading ID proponents have admitted, to self-selected audiences where they think no news people are watching, that they aren't after doing real science, but rather are attempting to do an end-run and stick their personal brand of religion in the schools.

[JLK]

97. It's well known that typically younger children (http://health.yahoo.com/ency/healthwise/te6277), but even older children and adults (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpsoc/bjdp/2004/00000022/00000001/art00007) employ magical (http://www.jaacap.com/pt/re/jaacap/fulltext.00004583-200112000-00024.htm;jsessionid=CxP1V8EYBDMNn7CQXu6OoaB3pvI2T9BV7PN1kE2G6xpGOlTSCkaV!1988335901!-949856145!9001!-1) thinking (http://www.humiliationstudies.org/news/archives/000442.html) to explain the currently unknown or puzzling. Should this be encouraged in science classes?

[Hyndis]

If someone tries to say "but evolution is just a theory!" as if thats a bad thing, here's some other examples you could point out.

Heliocentric theory.
Germ theory.
Plate tectonics theory.
Atomic theory.
Theory of gravity.

And thats just off the top of my head in about 10 seconds. I'm sure with a bit of research you could come up with a heck of a lot more. The ID folks try to capitalize on the two meanings of the word theory.

The common meaning of theory is "just a guess", or something similar.

In science, a theory is rock solid, usually after having endured many decades of continual challenges. Yes, sometimes scientists are naughty and try to slip something in using the common definition, such as string theory, but they're not fooling any scientists. And at least string theory is testible and falsifiable, provided that we have the technology to perform the experiements.


Also, ask the ID person on there to explain what ID is all about. What does the ID model for the world look like? What does ID predict? What does ID not predict?

The ID person will probably do some Matrix-style dodging on this question. Keep at it to make them look really ackward on the air. ;)

[Phil McCracken]

OK, I just need a quick few bullet points on why both "sides" should not be taught in science classes. I am going on the radio tomorrow morning and I think that is one of the issues that may come up.Only mature, widely-accepted scientific material should be taught in public high school science classes. For example, even though string theory has infinitely more scientific worth and rigor than ID theory, it shouldn't be taught to high school physics students because its findings are not widely accepted. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)

There is no law against a science teacher mentioning, in passing, that an ID movement exists. What we are talking about, therefore, is whether or not ID should be placed into public high school curricula. I would try to make this distinction very clear. IDers will try to make it seem like there is a gag order against a teacher even mentioning "alternatives to Darwinism". If someone tries to make this kind of charge, be very clear that we are talking about what belongs in the science curriculum.

For ID to be included in the curriculum would require an immature theory, only accepted by a very small percentage of working scientists, and not published in the peer-reviewed literature, to be placed above ALL OTHER similar theories that exist. Since ID involves an inference of supernatural design, this clearly violates the establishment clause of the first amendment.

You may want to look around the ACLU's site for some ideas. In particular:
FAQ – Intelligent Design and Evolution (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17204&c=139)
ACLU of Arkansas Action Results in Removal of Evolution Disclaimers From Science Textbooks (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17456&c=139)

[RidgeBe]

Say that every moment spent on non-science ID is more than a moment wasted, it is counterproductive--it cripples students who want to get a solid science education.

[Hyndis]

Say that every moment spent on non-science ID is more than a moment wasted, it is counterproductive--it cripples students who want to get a solid science education.

And point out that Kansas' decision to teach ID in schools led to a few very large multinational corporations to leave the state to do business elsewhere. Their cited reason for leaving was that the population in Kansas was just too dumb for high tech work. :rolling:

You'll probably need a more diplomatic approach on the air. But screwing up the science education of students will screw over the country as a whole.

[RBH]

And point out that Kansas' decision to teach ID in schools led to a few very large multinational corporations to leave the state to do business elsewhere. Their cited reason for leaving was that the population in Kansas was just too dumb for high tech work. :rolling: Got cites/documentation for that, Hyndis?

RBH

[kas]

If ID, then why not every creation myth ever imagined? They are all "sides" of the same story.

[Hyndis]

Got cites/documentation for that, Hyndis?

RBH

The source is on this very board, but I'll try to link some news places for it.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2562971&postcount=4


I read it in the local paper, but after some searching I couldn't find the article online. :(

It was a week or so ago.

[judanne]

I hope this doesn't come too late to be useful to you, but it might be helpful to point out that the debate about evolution that takes place among scientists, when it occurs, is not about whether evolution happened (there is overwhelming and widely accepted evidence that it did) but about some evolutionary mechanisms, or how it happened. To make a claim that there is no debate among scientists about evolution is somewhat inaccurate and also leaves the speaker open to rejoinders that start "well what about..." IDers are quite adept at pinpointing areas of uncertainty or debate and twisting them to support their contentions.