Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Can a teacher satisfactorily teach that scientific method applied to origins is the only way forward in a real school where other teachers have a different view even if that view is a load of old-fashioned,superstitious mumbo-jumbo.

Education under fire
(Ben McIlwain, University of Maryland, March 28, 2006)

Science education is under attack again. And this time, it's not in Kansas, Utah or other distant, faraway lands; it's right at home. Last month, two bills were introduced in the Maryland General Assembly attacking the teaching of evolution and other scientific theories in public schools and universities, including this university, and permitting the teaching of Intelligent Design Creationism.

House Bill 1228, introduced by Emmett C. Burns, Jr. (D-District 10), ostensibly outlaws the teaching of IDC in science classes, but at the same time, requires the State Board of Education to "permit the teaching or discussion of the theory of intelligent design in humanities or philosophy classes." In addition, it requires funding be provided to develop an IDC curriculum and instructional materials.

House Bill 1531, introduced by the same delegate, states that public school teachers and college professors "shall have the affirmative right and freedom to present scientific information to the full range of scientific views in any curricula or course of learning." This bill adapts language from a proposed addition to the No Child Left Behind Act by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) that was struck down before the act was passed.

If these bills seem very confusing and possibly contradictory, it's because they are. After the defeat in Dover, Penn., elected officials wishing to see their religious views taught in public schools are forced to be very sneaky in trying to get their attacks on science to pass constitutional rules. But don't let the wording fool you; as Judge Jones ruled in Dover, it's the intent behind these bills that really matters, and the real intent is anything but secular.

The First Amendment to the Constitution was enacted to ensure the separation of church and state and protect religious freedom. Because HB1228 requires the state to spend money on religious instructional materials, it is crossing the barrier between church and state.

The wording of the phrase "full range of scientific views" is specially concerning because IDC does not actually fall within the realm of science. Despite the public controversy manufactured by right-wing think tanks such as the Discovery Institute, there is no real scientific controversy over the basic validity of the theory of evolution. The word theory means something entirely different in the scientific realm than it does in colloquial usage. Gravity is also "just a theory," but you wouldn't walk out of a skyscraper window, now would you?

These latest bills introduced into the Maryland legislature are nothing more than the latest in a series of attempts to attack science education and illegally insert religious teachings into the curriculum. It was shot down in the late 1980s with "creation science," and we're now seeing it again with "intelligent design," which merely replaces the word "God" with "intelligent designer." It's still no more scientific. At best, it's a weak philosophical conjecture, though some philosophy professors might resent the association.

Wolf-

I don't know whether you are deliberately being obtuse or not but the effect is the same either way.

What has Einstein got to do with the consideration I glancingly alluded to.Are you trying to goad me into hitting it on the head with a heavy mallet.

I hope you don't think that I believe God created the world in seven days.I don't care two hoots either way on that aspect of things.

Anybody who seeks to teach evolution theory scientifically as it relates to animals,and humans are animals, is either being provocative or has no idea of the obvious conclusions and the chances of them being found acceptable in the social system as we find it now.

spendi, dont have a cow. I responded, it wasnt that big deal a question so you may have missed my similarly "little deal" response.

wolf, spendi is attempting to plow so many different directions, hes in danger of "meeting up with himself" (as we used to say in Nawlins)

Quote:
I hope you don't think that I believe God created the world in seven days.I don't care two hoots either way on that aspect of things.


I'm finding that rather hard to believe from the way you speak. If you really didn't give two hoots, you wouldn't be so intent on removing Evolution from the classroom. Granted, in schools, they hardly teach the full subject in its entirety, but then again, they don't do that for chemistry or for physics either.

The electrons orbiting a nucleus in set orbits for example is very naive and plain wrong, yet it is still taught, all because people (like you) think the young 'uns can't handle the truth.

You yourself think that school children cannot handle evolution. Fair enough.

So you propose that they do not learn it? If evolution is removed, what's left? In our British society, that means the Creationist view wins, because of Christian indoctrination.

Quote:
Do you think it feasible to eliminate all traces of ID,and I use that loosely,in biology lessons and not eliminate it in the rest of the school?

Quite.And that is why it shouldn't be taught.It is taught not because of anything to do with me.Such a ridiculous view of electrons is taught because it is easy and it makes pretty patterns on blackboards and exercise books.That's about all most science teachers can manage.It is taught for the teacher's convenience and it is pure hokum rather than naive.The younsters can't handle the truth,whatever that is in electron theory,and neither can the teachers.If teachers could handle it they wouldn't be teachers.

You don't understand my position even slightly. Of course the kids can handle evolution.It's the Mums and Dads who can't handle the little monsters when they've grasped the simple aspects of evolution.And I don't think society can either.Not yet anyway.

On the rest of your post Wolf I find it all a bit presumptuous.

Suit yourself c.i.

spendius wrote:

Suit yourself c.i.

A suit? Yes, your strawman would need a suit. It's kind of lacking in that respect.