Should ID be taught in public schools?

[Ben Masada]

So great that ignorance is preferable? I have to disagree. All knowledge is worth having.

++++++++++++++++

Yes, I agree with you too: All knowledge is worthy having.

Ben :yes:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So great that ignorance is preferable? I have to disagree. All knowledge is worth having.

At present, I think that teaching ID in the classroom would introduce more ignorance than knowledge.

Also, the choice isn't between ID and a big honkin' hole in the classroom schedule. The choice is between teaching ID and teaching something of substance. Even without ID, there's no shortage of material that could be taught to school kids. A religious philosophy class that's learning about ID is a class that isn't learning about the Euthypro dilemma, Pascal's Wager, or other important concepts.

 

[Ben Masada]

At present, I think that teaching ID in the classroom would introduce more ignorance than knowledge.

Also, the choice isn't between ID and a big honkin' hole in the classroom schedule. The choice is between teaching ID and teaching something of substance. Even without ID, there's no shortage of material that could be taught to school kids. A religious philosophy class that's learning about ID is a class that isn't learning about the Euthypro dilemma, Pascal's Wager, or other important concepts.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Any knowledge is usuful. Since learning is all that life is about, why forbid the teaching of ID? To replace with what, ID? I mean, Ignorant Design? We are beter off with ID. I mean, Intelligent Design.

Ben

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

++++++++++++++++++++++

Any knowledge is usuful. Since learning is all that life is about, why forbid the teaching of ID?

I'm not talking about forbidding it, I'm talking about teaching other things. Residential wiring is useful too, but you can't teach that to a student while she's learning ID.

For most classes, you start with a long list of topics that you'd like to fit into the course curriculum. Since there's not enough time to teach them all, you have to eliminate some to get to a short list of topics that will actually be included.

I would be very hard-pressed to come up with a topic that I think would be less worthy to expend class time on than ID... in any subject.

To replace with what, ID? I mean, Ignorant Design? We are beter off with ID. I mean, Intelligent Design.

Let's try this from another perspective: why do you think teaching of ID in a public school should be necessary?

 

[logician]

But where does ID fit - really only in a Creationist type setting - we're basically talking teaching fundamentalism here, I just don't think it would be proper in public schools.

 

[Scuba Pete]

But where does ID fit - really only in a Creationist type setting - we're basically talking teaching fundamentalism here, I just don't think it would be proper in public schools.

Amazingly, we agree. It's not proper unless it's a parochial school.

 

[Ben Masada]

I'm not talking about forbidding it, I'm talking about teaching other things. Residential wiring is useful too, but you can't teach that to a student while she's learning ID.

For most classes, you start with a long list of topics that you'd like to fit into the course curriculum. Since there's not enough time to teach them all, you have to eliminate some to get to a short list of topics that will actually be included.

I would be very hard-pressed to come up with a topic that I think would be less worthy to expend class time on than ID... in any subject.


Let's try this from another perspective: why do you think teaching of ID in a public school should be necessary?

++++++++++++++++

I don't think it SHOULD BE NECESSARY. If the Administration's Office decided to include ID in the curriculum, I would have nothing against it.

Ben

 

[Alceste]

So great that ignorance is preferable? I have to disagree. All knowledge is worth having.

As 9-10ths Penguin points out, it's just not possible to have "all knowledge" over the course of a lifetime, let alone impart it through public education. The best we can do is impart some knowledge - preferably a body of information that, unlike ID, is somewhat factual (like science) or useful (like math and literacy).

Anyway, not studying ID in school doesn't make anyone ignorant of it. Ten minutes of casual reflection is enough to guess - accurately - what it tries to say, and how. After you take up a moment of class time to define "creationism", what more is there to teach? Either you believe in it or you don't.

 

[kai]

As 9-10ths Penguin points out, it's just not possible to have "all knowledge" over the course of a lifetime, let alone impart it through public education. The best we can do is impart some knowledge - preferably a body of information that, unlike ID, is somewhat factual (like science) or useful (like math and literacy).

Anyway, not studying ID in school doesn't make anyone ignorant of it. Ten minutes of casual reflection is enough to guess - accurately - what it tries to say, and how. After you take up a moment of class time to define "creationism", what more is there to teach? Either you believe in it or you don't.

well said! nothing to add thats exactly what i think.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think it SHOULD BE NECESSARY.

Great.

If the Administration's Office decided to include ID in the curriculum, I would have nothing against it.

But including ID in the curriculum would make teaching it necessary.

 

[Ben Masada]

Great.


But including ID in the curriculum would make teaching it necessary.

+++Ben: - I meant to say that I don't care either way.

Ben

 

[Tristesse]

I'm not really sure it should. I honestly don't know much about arguments for ID, but it seems, on the surface, to simply desire to insert a religious perspective alongside a scientific one.

I understand the concept, that everything did not come from nothing, necessarily from something. But should that be taught alongside evolution? They are not really related. If anything, it is an idea that belongs in either philosophy or some more complicated science like quantum physics. Doesn't intelligent design accept evolution? Wouldn't it then be unnecessary to teach it as an alternative to evolution?

Honestly, I don't think it is a school's responsibility to make children aware of religious beliefs. That's why we have religion. If parents are so upset about this stuff, that's what bible schools are for, right? We do have private schools.

Intelligent Design isn't science, in my opinion. It is a perspective on science. Should students be made aware that this perspective exists? I'm not sure. What do you think? We teach the histories of religions in schools, don't we? Comparative religions?

Cool, it's good to see a religious person in opposition to ID. I'm sure there are many. But when we're talking about science, ID doesn't measure up. It's just creationism with a new tuxedo.

 

[painted wolf]

There are quite a few of us "religious" people who oppose ID and other forms of pseudoscience.

wa:do

 

[The Voice of Reason]

There are quite a few of us "religious" people who oppose ID and other forms of pseudoscience.

wa:do

LOL - there aren't many that have the depth of understanding, and educational background that you do, PW.

... and that is a compliment of the highest order. At least, it is here in the Emerald City.