posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
maelorin at 12:24am on 22/02/2006 under evolution, incompetent design, judicial opinion, stupid design, viruses
maelorin at 12:24am on 22/02/2006 under evolution, incompetent design, judicial opinion, stupid design, virusesIntelligent Decision
What the judge said about intelligent design in schools.
in short: intelligent design isn't science, it's religious propaganda that has no place in science classes.
in short: intelligent design isn't science, it's religious propaganda that has no place in science classes.
Unintelligent Design
A monstrous discovery suggests that viruses, long regarded as lowly evolutionary latecomers, may have been the precursors of all life on Earth.
i like viruses, intellectually at least. even the messy ones are architecturally and biologically fascinating.
i like viruses, intellectually at least. even the messy ones are architecturally and biologically fascinating.
curious
(no subject)
They were talking about this exhibit on national public radio the other day. It has a small section devoted to 'competing theories', including intelligent design.
(no subject)
thanks for reminding me about the, the amnh is on my list of things-to-spend-a-week-doing™ if i ever get to new york :) [much like my desire to revisit the british museum of natural history next time i'm in london, or the smithsonian when in washington,dc..] the biologist/scientist is deeply ingrained in me :)
i am amused by the page addressing the various controversies :) ...i lime the museum's approach of listing it as a controversy, rather than some kind of competitor. it's a pity that so many feel the need to address 'id' as some kind of 'competing' *theory* ... only furthering the unnecessary confusion.
has no place in science classes
This is where I think people haven’t really understood. It already is in science classes in high schools. Particular denominations would teach this idea to their congregation, who would in turn, pass it onto their kids. The kids have been taught these ideas by their parents.
So the question isn’t whether or not ID should be in Science classes, but how to handle it. I think it needs to be handled with sensitivity and respect. Kids generally believe that what they are told by their parents are correct, and being insensitive about these beliefs will turn the kids away from science at the least, and perhaps education as a whole.
Re: has no place in science classes
science teachers are addressing 'id', but they're having a hard time getting high school students to understand how it isn't science. they already have enough problems grasping *what science is*.
students who come into the science class *knowing* that 'id' is the real thing, are neither going to be persuaded otherwise by teachers, nor are most teachers even out to try. these are also the students whose parents want 'id' taught as science.
let's be honest here, this is only an issue with public schools. private (evangelical) religious schools already teach 'id' as science if that is their religious inclination. evolution gets taught as ungodly stuff for the exam, or 'how the non-righteous are deluded'.
having been in a science class, in a religious private school, where 'id' is not considered doctrine, i've seen the matter handled in several different classes. the approach was pretty consistent. 'this is what id is', and 'these are the different viewpoints/arguments/positions regarding id'. students were left to make up their own minds. but 'id' did not show up in any assessment.
'id' is not science. it is a particular variant of certain christian religious dogma (in the proper sense). the recent revival/promotion of 'id' is a political agenda of the evangelical right in the usa, adopted here in the usual way of these things.