> > Not at all. You're talking about what "we" know. However ID proponents > obviously don't know the same things.
Anyone who thinks ID is a science is wrong. Pure and simple. All it takes is a check of the definition of "science". Once that becomes obvious, attempts to teach it as science are wrong. > > They claim that ID is a science, pure and simple, not an intellectual > exercise, not a religious philosphophy of life: a science. So is this > class an admission that they are wrong or a way to "slip it in" - > considering past tactics from the movement I would have to suspect the > latter. This class would be an attempt to teach ID where it belongs, in a philosophy class. If this class tries to teach you that ID is right, and evolution is wrong...it's no longer a philosophy class. > > If ID is presented as a scientific theory by it CREATORS then it has no > place in a philosophy class. If it's not good science according to peer > review then it has no place in a science class. If ID is presented as scientific theory, it is being misrepresented. Don't get hung up on this idea that there are some people who think ID is a science. These people are wrong, and that's that. > > Also importantly what is the point of a philosophy class who's sole stated > purpose is to challenge a scientific mainstay? Would you be so accepting > of other classes which mirror that structure? A class talking about the > "philosophy" of a young or flat Earth which had as a core feature attacks > on the current beliefs of ancient or oblate Earth? Have you taken many philosophy classes? In a philosophy class, you are taught ABOUT the philsophy: what it says, what it thinks, why it thinks it, who thinks it, etc. You are NOT taught that the philosophy is fact. That would be science. So a discussion of what ID believes, how it compares or contradicts with evolution as well as other creation philosophies, is the perfect discourse for a philosophy class. > > What about a "philosophy" class that taught nothing but the "facts" > concerning the uselessness of western medicine? Or another that taught > that the "theory" of gravity was false. Again, here you confuse philosophy with facts. If you are taught ABOUT a philosophy that believes gravity is false, that would be a good exercise in philosophy. If, however, you were being taught a FACT that gravity was false....that would be science...and of course, that would be wrong. See the difference? > > The class's purpose (present an alternative to biological Evolution) is to > challenge a subject OUTSIDE the class's domain (philosophy). Well, philosophy classes are where we learn about philosophies! These are not taught as scientific fact. So learning all about ID in this capacity seems perfectly reasonable to me. > > I'm having trouble believing that you can't see the slightest thing > questionable there. The only questionable thing here rests with the intentions, motives, and actions of the professor of the course. As always, the human being is the X factor. If the professor is a true philosophy professor intent on instructing students as to the components of certain philsophies....the class is fine. If the professor is a preacher intent upon debunking evolution by presenting the components of ID as facts....then of course the class is bullsh*t. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:191996 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
