Secular Elation

In my government class, each day two people must present an article of a current event to the class. Today, one article presentation was on the Cobb county controversy over allowing creationism to be taught beside evolution.

When the student finished presenting, the teacher asked for input from the class. One student who commented was in favor of creationism being alongside evolution. His two points were these:

1)Allowing intelligent design theory (he explicitly denied creationism) into the science cirriculum along with evolution would broaden the students education because they would be versed on different views than only one. Only having room for evolution doesn't promote academic inquiry into different theories. Additionally, students should be introduced to evidences of evolution and intelligent design so that they can decide for themselves which theory is superior.

2)Introducing intelligent design into the classroom would not violate the constitution because the students are not being asked to believe that a god directed evolution or created life, etc. They would only be taught about an alternate theory to evolution. The intelligent design discussion would not apply to any one religion or god.

These two points were what he addressed. The teacher said we would discuss this issue in depth soon.

I must confess I had difficulty responding to his points, and thus I didn't raise my hand to speak. For his first point, my thoughts were that only science should be taught in science class - discussing the idea that a god designed life or what not would introduce religion into the classroom, and it does not belong there. It belongs at places such as church and sunday school. The problem here is that the student had a point, that no religion in particular would be a part of the intelligent design lessons, and this I have difficulty in responding to.

For his second point, my thoughts were that discussing a deity in the first place would be broaching religion in the classroom, since god is undoubtedly a part of religion. Yet again, his deliberate negligence of Christianity or any religion for that matter was difficult to counter.

Since we shall discuss this later, I need some help on formulating arguments against his position. How about it?

[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: Secular Elation ]</p>

Undercurrent

The major argument with the first assertion is that ID does not constitute an aternative scientific theory. If it were a scientific theory, its proponents would be trying to establish support within the scientific community through research and publication of that research, confident that if their ideas hold merit and their research gives results, their ideas will eventually be accepted and braodcast at the lower levels of eduaction.

Instead, ID proponents attempt to get their "theory" taught in elementary and high schools directly, all the while routinely slandering the scientific community as "closed-minded" and "wanting a monopoly". This action belies their nature as a political and cultural and not a scientific movement.

What is deemed "science" for the purposes of education, has traditionally been taken from what has been accepted by the scientific community. Despite the claims of its proponents, ID has not been accepted by the scientific community even as a significant minority opinion. The purpose of "science class" is to describe the opinions of the scientific community, not to decide that their opinions are wrong.

The Cobb county legislation is an example of a bill where its stated purpose (to enhance acadaemic freedom) is not its actual purpose (to discredit the theory of evolution by making it seem as if there is some contreversy regarding it in the scientific community.) This intent is discerned by considering the history of the cases surrounding evolution in the schools. From "creationism" to "scientific creationism" (which also puported to be religiously neutral) to "ID", the obvious progession from more to less overtly religious versions of the same doctorines makes the opinion that the purpose of the bill is merely to promote acadaemic freedom in regards to a new theory, without any of the content of the previously regected attempts, horribly naive.

m.

P.S. In <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html" target="_blank">Edwards vs. Aguillard</a> it was specifically found that the intent of the bill in discussion was not to promote acadaemic freedom but to "discredit evolution by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creationism". Might be a good thing to pull out of your hat in an in-class debate. Also some good stuff in that decision about the Lemon test.

theyeti

The problem is that it's not a scientifically valid view. It's just wrong. While the possiblity that life is designed can't be ruled out (at least not by scientific means), the ID claim is that we have empirical evidence that life was designed. But upon closer inspection, all they have is a God-of-the-gaps argument, and a pretty sorry one at that.

If there ever is legitimate empirical evidence that ID is true, then the first place it will be recognized is within the scientific community. It will first be taught to graduate students who will study it in depth, then it will filter down to undergrads, and finally it will be ready for highschool cirricula. This is the way it works with everything -- it's a built in safety device to filter out falied ideas before they get taught at the introductory level. It's just plain irresponsible to teach kids something as science that the scientific community overwhelmingly rejects as being science.

Getting kids to understand what ID is and why it's out there isn't necessarily a bad idea. But teaching it as science is just plain wrong; it's unfair to every other idea that has had to overcome skepticism and back up its claims, and it will do nothing but confuse students about the acceptance that evolution has (which is the whole point, afterall). How is going to help students to learn ID in highschool, only to find out when they get to college that no one takes it seriously? What students should learn about ID is that it's a religous and ideologically motivated political movement, essentially indistinguishable from creationism in this respect.

There's another thing to think about too: Exactly what do you teach if you teach ID? I've asked this of IDists on other discussion fora, and you usually get no response. No one seems to know just how to teach ID, because it's completely vacuous. There's no such thing as a theory of intelligent design -- there is only an ID argument that has remained essentially unchanged for 200 years, and has not been taken seriously by either philosophers or scientists for nearly as long. The only thing IDists can come up with in regards to teaching ID is the so-called "evidence against evolution", which 1) is not evidence for ID, and 2) is almost entirely bogus, usually relying on misrepresentation and arguments from ignorance. (There's an ARN thread that I will link to later, but ARN looks down at the moment.)

Whether or not it would violate the Constitution is questionable. There is no doub that ID is being pushed for religous reasons, and favoring ID despite its lack of acceptance by the scientific community certainly violates the spirit of the 1st Amendment, if not its letter. It's obvious that ID was formulated largely as a means of ducking the 1st Amendment.

The real reason to keep ID out of schools is not based on the 1st Amendment -- it's because ID fails to be a legitimate scientific theory. Unfortunately, it's not unconstitutional to teach crappy ideas.

theyeti

(BTW, this might get more play in E/C).

Buffman

Definitely the first one...because it will prepare you for all the pro-ID arguments.

<a href="http://www.ideacenter.org/idfaq.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ideacenter.org/idfaq.htm</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001470" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001470</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001480" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001480</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001458" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001458</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001477" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001477</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001240" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001240</a>

(Here is a defense of ID.)

<a href="http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/index.shtml" target="_blank">http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/index.shtml</a>

<a href="http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/index.shtml" target="_blank">http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/index.shtml</a>

[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

galiel

1) Allowing flat earth theory into the science curriculum along with round earth theory would broaden the students' education because they would be versed in different views than only one. Only having room for flat earthism doesn't promote academic inquiry into different theories. Additionally, students should be introduced to evidence of round earth and flat earth design so that they can decide for themselves which theory is superior. (replace "flat earth" with "demon possesion is cause of disease", "lightning is zeus's thunderbolts", etc. Creationism (under any guise) has no more scientific validity than any of these--and the number of people who believe in a theory has no bearing over its scientific validity.

More people believe in the healing power of crystals and in UFO visitation than creationism--should those "theories" gain equal time in science class as well?

2)Introducing intelligent design into the classroom would not violate the constitution because the students are not being asked to believe that a god directed evolution or created life, etc. They would only be taught about an alternate theory to evolution. The intelligent design discussion would not apply to any one religion or god.

This one is simple. The Supreme Court has ruled, repeatedly, under many different administrations, that teaching these "alternate theories" in publcly funded schools IS, in fact, a violation of the constitution because they have no scientific validity, contribute no new knowledge or understanding in the teaching of science, and have as their underlying purpose the promotion of theistic religious agendas. The fact that they are not specifically Christian is irrelevant. In fact, that is a strawman. No one opposing the teaching of creationism in science class bases their argument on the specific religious dogma promoted. It is rather on the misuse of science and the scientific method. NO ID claims stand up to the rigors of empiricism, rational application of consistent logic, peer review. They are pseudoscience, and have no place in science education--except, perhaps as examples of hucksterism and crankiness on par with perpetual motion and snake oil remedies. Creationists should be glad that political sensitivites prevent science class from actively demolishing creationism, ID, Young Earth claims, literal interpretation of the Flood, and all the other nonsense these people spout.

As your government class demostrates, there are plenty of places to discuss creationism. Taxpayer subsidized science class is not one of them, according to the Supreme Court, the literally overwhelming majority of science educators, and in the opinion of an overwhelming majority of scientists who work in the fields of evolutionary biology, geology, paleontology and other related fields. Any privately funded science class can do what they want, but they should not expect their graduates to be treated seriously by institutes of actual scientific research.

[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Toto

You're right, this will get more responses in Evo/Cre.

But before I bump it, I would like to add that if ID is taught in a science class, the teacher would have to point out that there is no evidence to support it, that the ID forces have a political / religious agenda, and that ID fails every test for being a viable scientific theory. I wonder if the ID crowd really wants their children to hear this.

Buffman

Here is some additional info supporting what you have been advised above.

<a href="http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geocities.com%2F CapeCanaveral%2FHangar%2F2437%2Fdesign.htm" target="_blank">http://atheism.about.com/</a>

(Extract)
In addition, neither Behe nor anyone else can scientifically say to us anything about their "intelligent designer". One question that immediately leaps to mind is "Who designed the Intelligent Designer"? Behe (and the creationists) will of course answer that the "Intelligent Designer always existed". Any "intelligent designer" that exists outside the laws of nature is, however, by definition, God, and God is by definition religious and not scientific in nature. Thus, the entire "argument from design" is religious belief, nothing more and nothing less. It is not scientific, it cannot be tested and it cannot be falsified. It is based solely and only on the creationist belief that God designed and created life by divine fiat.
The creationists are of course entirely welcome to this religious assumption if they like it. But unless they can tell us all how we can test for the presence of a "creator", they aren't saying anything scientific. Until the creationists come up with a way to scientifically test for the presence of a design (what would an undesigned biomolecule look like?) they are not saying anything scientific, but are just indulging in religious doctrine.
(End Extract)

[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: pz ]</p>

tgamble

I think you might want to change that.

As for the specific arguments, to get equal time, it should be equally valid. But ID is just a lot of attacks on evolution and a desperate "it looks designed, therefore it goddidit". It would tkae less than a minute to mention that some thing some kind of designer is nesssary. Then they can get back to teaching science.

As for the claim that ID wouldn't promote a specific religion, that's nonsense. ID proponents have a religious agenda and that's obvious from their literature and their past attempts to censor science education and/or give equal time to nonsense.

Exactly what would teaching ID include? It consists of nothing more than declaring that life is to complex to evolve because it's really really complex. How much time does that take? Their so called evidence is merely attacks on evolution, attacks which can be refuted by simply teaching the facts. You could do that with or without mentioning ID.

Secular Elation

Thanks for the input!

Undercurrent,

What is deemed "science" for the purposes of education, has traditionally been taken from what has been accepted by the scientific community. Despite the claims of its proponents, ID has not been accepted by the scientific community even as a significant minority opinion. The purpose of "science class" is to describe the opinions of the scientific community, not to decide that their opinions are wrong.

I considered this, but then I figured he would say something like, "Well, why have the 'scientific experts' tell us which theory is valid or not when we can decide for ourselves when we see the evidences for both theories in class?"

theyeti,

The problem is that it's not a scientifically valid view. It's just wrong.

The problem with mentioning this is that I do not want to bog the class down in purely scientific discussion. If I start attacking intelligent design itself, some of the proponents will attempt to argue back. Instead of a discussion about which theories should be taught, it would become a discussion of which theory is correct. In government class, we are only concerned with the former. I would rather not go into the science specifics, since I am poorly versed in the subject and I'm sure that one guy would say some BS to back himself that would baffle me on the spot.

galiel,

The Supreme Court has ruled, repeatedly, under many different administrations, that teaching these "alternate theories" in publcly funded schools IS, in fact, a violation of the constitution because they have no scientific validity, contribute no new knowledge or understanding in the teaching of science, and have as their underlying purpose the promotion of theistic religious agendas.

What is your souce/documentation for the above?

As your government class demostrates, there are plenty of places to discuss creationism.

Well, what I really ment was ID theory being taught, not discussed. In my government class we are not being taught it, but it came up briefly during class discussion.

If I have more questions, I will return. I'm a bit overwhelmed, both due to my debating ineptitudes and my shyness, so I need to digest all this.

Secular Elation

Allowing flat earth theory into the science curriculum along with round earth theory would broaden the students' education because they would be versed in different views than only one. Only having room for flat earthism doesn't promote academic inquiry into different theories. Additionally, students should be introduced to evidence of round earth and flat earth design so that they can decide for themselves which theory is superior...

The problem with this analogy is, well, take this mock dialogue for example...