Liberal Hypocrisy about Intelligent Design

echi,

I understand. But for some I have run into it is not just that it may be taught along with science, but that it might be taught at all.

Momma...

I can only guess that they are afraid of some preacher man in polyester throwing bibles at their babies.

Not polyester!!!!

You know, if ID is taught in philosophy class, it will just be one of many other philosophies covered. Like in science class, they don't cram evolution down your throat all semester.

echi,

I wish it were that simple (that it would be what they are afraid of).

What in the world could it be then? What do you figure, Momma?

Creation is in the Bible so it should stay in Bible class along with Flat Earth.

After reading over much of this thread this morning, it is obvious to me that IDers are intent on displacing science from the schools. Not in a way that would seem obvious (in their thought); they would still teach that 2 and 2 equals four. But they do not want science to be truly believed in the fundamentals of research. That is exactly why ID cannot be allowed in the schools. School is for education, not stroking. Finding a flaw in something science has done does not disprove science at all. It furthers science. But IDers jump on any detail percieved as incomplete as refutation of the whole. We have churches and any number of home study volunteers to teach religious thought. It is not as though these people are getting deprived.

I have no problem with teaching ID in a philosophy class, at the college level. I don't think that it is appropriate in a science class, for high school age students.

Since when did theystart teaching philosophy in a public high school? (I would suspect, although I don't know for sure, that it would be taught in religious schools).They never taught that subject when I was in high school. (In the olden days )

I wasn't taught philosophy in high school, either. But I wish I had been.

edgar,

You and others seem to think that IDers, as you call them, are trying to replace science. I don't believe that is true.

Many on this thread have said if they just don't teach it under the label of science they would have no problem with it. I don't either. I don't see a thing wrong with teaching it under philosophy instead of science.

echi,

I was referring to the ones that seem to think if you are Christian you are brainwashed. It seems many fear that is what Christianity is all about. I suppose they might see us as zombies or something?

Momma...

I don't speak for the mob, but I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church and, although I think "brainwash" is too harsh a word, I can relate to the sentiment.

echi,

I understand what you are saying. Fortunately, I have never felt that in any way.

Yes. Very few people care if ID is taught in social studies or philosophy classes. It even makes sense there. It just doesn't make sense in science class because it's not science.

Well, as far as I'm concerned then, argument's over! I have no problem with teaching it in other than a class labeled science. No problem whatsoever and I really don't see why anyone else should consider that a problem.

Ok, next issue.......

It is true. The court cases on this related to teaching it in science class, not comparative theology or social studies or philosophy.

Many people who back the ID cause state explicitly that they want to change the definition of science to exclude naturalism.

Momma

May I ask what religion you practice? Which form of Christianity?

You mean denomination? If I had to say I was of any denomination it would be Southern Baptist. But, I don't claim any particular denomination.

I definitely would like to see ID taught ANYWHERE but in the science class. It simply has nothing to do with the scientific perspective or methodology. If IDers would try to insinuate themselves into the context of the discipline of Philosophy, they might find themselves as members of a cult (similar to that of Ayn Rand) but never (like the Randers) ever cited by philosophical writers of any stature or respectabiity. It would be more at home within Theology. Its premises would be generally acceptable, but its lack of a literature (i.e., paper trail) might render it marginal within that field.

ID is fine in philosophy class of any kind. It is not OK in science class of any kind.

ID is NOT science. It is an attempt to explain how and why we got here. That is pilosophy.

People promoting ID are demanding that it be taught in science class which no matter how you cut it is an attempt to undercut science. It undercuts science because it says that science doesn't have to follow the scientific method to be science. If it doen't follow rules then it isn't science. It leads to all sorts of problems for impressionable children at a time we need to be better in science to keep a technology lead in the world.