we have a year to go to keep things like this in the news
While I do not want to see ID taught in a science class room, I do think that a fair and balanced comparison between the scientific basis for Evolution and the pseudo-science behind ID would be very instructive in teaching the scientific method, standards of evidence, etc. and showing students how to distinguish science from bullshit.
I would rather see students presented with the objective truth about the ID crap than have teachers be forced to remain silent and have the creationist preachers and parents whisper in the kid’s ears that they are being denied the “truth” in the classroom.
The kids who have been raised to believe this BS should be exposed to the objective facts and shown how science really works rather than being allowed to just accept ID as an “equally valid theory”.
I realize that this may be a “slippery slope” to introducing a full ID agenda into the classroom. However, if there are fundy kids in the class, it is probably going to come up anyway.
I would rather have the teachers be well prepared to address ID head on and be able to show convincingly that it is pseudo-science.
Based upon my own experience and the anecdotal stories of many others, it seems that the mid-teen years are when most atheists and agnostics first realize that the god myth is BS. This is the time of life when kids seem most willing to question the teachings of their parents and to explore for themselves what they really believe.
If we are afraid to take ID head-on in high school, we may be missing a great opportunity to save a bunch of kids from wasting the rest of their lives in devotion to superstition and myth.
“I would rather see students presented with the objective truth about the ID crap than have teachers be forced to remain silent and have the creationist preachers and parents whisper in the kid’s ears that they are being denied the “truth” in the classroom.”
“I would rather have the teachers be well prepared to address ID head on and be able to show convincingly that it is pseudo-science. “
As a teacher I don’t have a problem with this expect for the fact that I know the reality of the classroom. The truth is that many teachers teach their personal beliefs in the classroom. I know Social Studies teachers that basically campianged for Bush in the classroom (they also have Bush bumper stickers on their car). I also know science teachers that are creationist. I know that they stress the fact that evolution is a theory. I also know health teachers that only teach abstainance and refuse to talk about birth control even though it is part of their curriculm.
No court ruling will change these teachers minds.
Unless a student goes home and tells a parent what was said know one ever knows. Interestingly enough students rarely listen to these teachers because they aren’t effective. CA is right when he suggest that teenagers often question what authority says. Many of them know BS when they hear it and just tune it out and turn off to school.
I never tell a student who I would vote for and I don’t discuss religion with my students.
CA, although I have a great deal of respect for your opinions, I must disagree with you on this particular. ID has nothing to teach, nothing to contribute to SCIENTIFIC discussion of evolution. It advances no theories, presents no relevant data, and offers no considered conclusions other than god done it.
IMHO the teaching of the scientific method should not be done by discussions of conclusions arrived at by other methods. As was proven in the trial, ID is not the alternative anyway, creationism is, and the students, if xtian, will get enough of that viewpoint out of school. Let them compare, in their own mind, what they hear in church with the truth. Why should the science teacher, probably not prepared to teach theology, have to deal with an area that is clearly theology, not science.
Creationism doesn’t need to be given any scientific credibility in the schools. Don’t forget what Dr. Behe testified: If creationism (ID) is science, so is astrology!
Exactly!!.....and why not take EVERY opportunity to point that out whenever it comes up?
[quote author=“hampsteadpete”] Creationism doesn’t need to be given any scientific credibility in the schools. Don’t forget what Dr. Behe testified: If creationism (ID) is science, so is astrology!
I am talking about teachers being prepared to destroy, shred and decimate whatever credibility these stupid ideas may have in the minds of young and impressionable people whenever they come up in the classroom.
I would have no problem in being prepared to address astrology and pointing out the irrational and unscientific basis for those supernatural beliefs as well.
It seems obvious to me that rational conclusions supported by objective scientific evidence should win out over myth and superstition every time.
What choices do teachers have today when these topics come up in the course of classroom discussions?
- Refuse to discuss them as being outside of the approved curriculum?
- Fumble around and appear to be uninformed due to lack of knowledge or preparation?
- Address the issue head-on and point out the fallacies and unscientific basis for these irrational beliefs?
If it was me, I would prefer to do the latter. It might get me fired by the school board, but at least I would feel that I had done my job as a teacher by teaching the truth rather than ducking the issue.
Now, Pete, I admit that I am not a teacher and have no direct experience in trying to teach kids anything…...so, you are probably right.
However, the idea of getting some 15 year old kid who is on his/her way to becoming “The Chumpion” and gently pointing out the idiocy of their warped beliefs in front of their peers has some appeal.
Don’t really care about the merits of ID and so-called merits of evolution. We’re going to take over and supress evolution and teach ID, even if we have to do through the courts. ID just fits our ideology much better, if ya know what I mean.
Those who disagree can set up their own schools and teach evolution, kind of like the Christian schools have done with ID. Good luck making it happen.
Its a brave new world, and its coming soon. (but reality tells me it won’t be a brave new world that us Christians want….)
Don’t really care about the merits of ID and so-called merits of evolution.
You have blatantly illustrated how your mind has been set up (by others) to see the world. Evidence means nothing to you. You actively eschew facts of history, science, ethics and . . . I could go on and on.
Wake up and celebrate life here on earth, Champion, because it does not last forever regardless of what your thoroughly washed brain tells you.
ID just fits our ideology much better, if ya know what I mean.
That statement really surprises me! Champ, you’re a young-earth creationist, and have said so many times. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about! I suggest you go to http://www.discovery.org and read all about ID. It is not at all what you think it is. Of course, neither is reality.
the pillar of faith that a evolutionist must believe ( never referred to as a miracle) is called spontaneous generation, which means that life was generated from inorganic matter. Note that nothing is ever explained about this.
Once again you show your overwhelming ignorance! Evolutionary theory has nothing whatsoever to say about the generation of life!
I suggest you read “Finding Darwins God.”
Given that organic evolution has never been observed, it is more akin to a myth of disordered religious belief in things unseen and unreasonable.
Please point out if I’m wrong here, but i was always under the impression that the common cold cannot be cured for PRECISELY the reason that it keeps evolving. ie. it’s observed!!!
Sorry, this is the entire pillar upon which evolution rests. The entire focus of Darwin’s efforts were to show exactly that. There must be a transition from inorganic matter to living organic matter which then produces a abundant variety of life forms, some simple some extremely complex, and it is all done with complete randomness.
This statement is simply not true!
“How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated” - Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
Several places in Origin Darwin makes variations on that statement. The above quote is from the “difficulties” chapter.
I don’t understand why creationists have to set up straw men to try to tear down evolution, but that’s what you all do. Like insisting there are no transitional fossils when you know that you are lying as plenty exist.
I have absolutly no respect or patience for intelligent people, such as yourself, who choose to blind yourself to reason to protect your illusions.
This link will take you to a very good synopsis of the transitional fossils.
It isn’t that hard to find, either. It is the first page that comes up if one Googles “transitional fossil”.