> -----Original Message----- > From: Nick McClure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 5:32 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Bush wants religion taught in the science classroom > > Well, ID doesn't so much ignore them, as come out and say the exist > because > something else said so. > > ID at its basic form claims that there was some sort of thought behind > what > was better than one thing, it is considered better to be this or that.
Where does it say that? I can't find a single, recognized description of ID that could possibly be used to form curricula. The IDers themselves can't seem to decide on some major issues: 1) Many IDers are also biblical literalists. They claim, for example, that the Earth is only some 6,000 years old. Much of the published ID papers defend this concept by, for example, claiming mechanisms whereby ancient features like the Grand Canyon could be less than 5,000 years old. 2) In the same tradition much of the geological ID material is based on the unwavering belief of the great flood. This is assigned blame for everything from the Grand Canyon to the wearing of the Catskills to the rising of the Himalayas. 3) Even if ID accepts as fact an ancient Earth it offers no explanations at all for many observable phenomena. Periodic Mass extinctions, mutations, punctuated speciation, common ancestry, etc are all not addressed. 4) ID provides no observable predictions. This means that it's nearly impossible to use ID as a foundational topic for further learning in science. This isn't a major issue from the perspective of whether it's "good science" or not but it plays a major role in teaching. A good, solid understanding of evolution immediately gives a student a leg up in many aspects of science. 5) ID is not supported by the scientific community as a viable theory. When creating curricula it's generally a good idea to pay attention to that area's professional community. In this case however we're seeing more attention paid to politicians and other lay people. In general considering ID from a purely scientific, unbiased viewpoint how could you reasonably place it on even ground with Evolution? ID is, in its current formulation, perhaps a decade old. Evolutionary theory has been challenged and tested for well over 100 years. Why should this upstart, poorly formulated, poorly documented, unwilling to change theory be given equal footing? If science class is to make any sense the what's taught in it must adhere to the (admittedly arbitrary) boundaries set forth. > I'm not sure why that doesn't have a place in school. I'm not saying I > agree > with the theory, I'm just saying that when the majority of the Country > thinks it is fact, preventing the schools system from teaching it does a > disservice to the students. Whoa - stop right there. NOBODY is "preventing" the schools from teaching it. The stakes here are on approved science curriculum: what gets tested for on standardized tests. Schools can teach it if they like. The problem is that most schools are choosing not to teach it. The scientific community doesn't support it as a valid, documented theory yet. All of the trials and cases on this topic have either been to 1) downgrade the status of Evolutionary theory in the classroom or 2) force the addition of ID. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:167705 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
