Ambrya wrote:
Well, like I said, your brother was wrong on a number of levels.
No, you said the analogy was wrong, not the statement. Whether or not my brother was wrong about English being the primary language spoken in the United States is highly proveable (the 2000 census states that only 17.9% of those surveyed spoke a language other than English at home), but ultimately pointless to argue as I'd be arguing an
opinion voiced by someone about the education of their children. It wasn't the point, and you know that. The point was that because of his own fears of what a barrage of conflicting information would do to his kid (same kid that learned to play with the Playstation before he could walk)he thought his kid couldn't handle it, he didn't challenge him to higher goals.
I wrote:
None of these were 'taught', but adressed when they came up by means of a class discussion and interchange of ideas.
Ambrya wrote:
In bold, we have the material difference. Discussion that arises from education has a tendency to evolve, if you will pardon the use of the term. That's because the point of education, first and foremost--ESPECIALLY IN SCIENCE CLASSS--is not to teach kids stuff but to teach them how to inquire.
If, in the course of a biology class that was touching upon evolution, some kid raised his or her hand and said, "Well, what about the idea that God created, or at least guided the creation of, the world?" it would then be perfectly appropriate for the instructor to take a moment to say, "Well, there are people who have theories about that, but we don't address them in this class because ultimately it's an issue based upon faith rather than science, but if you are so inclined, you can research it for yourself, talk to me after class and I can give you the name of some books to look for." That would be a perfectly organic "evolution" of an educational discussion. Anyone who has a problem with a teacher answering a student's question honestly would need to have his or her head examined.
I see. How about someone who objects to a teacher adressing a controversial subject before the discussion heats up, much like they do in sex ed? Since I don't agree with ID but I don't look at it in a hostile manner, I just don't see it the way you do.
Quote:
It's an interjection, really apropos of nothing, which is basically the equivalent of the religious element sticking it's head in the door of the science class and yelling, "See, we're still here! See?! See?!" It's an interruption to the flow of education, like a speed bump, not an evolution thereof.
The only thing it can honestly hope to accomplish is to remind the children of the "believers" who are in the class and already learned about creationism in Sunday School that they aren't supposed to take what is being taught in the classroom so seriously that they "forget" the beliefs their parents would have them embrace. The other side of the coin is that it might get the children of "unbelievers" to question their parents' beliefs and therefore may have some evangelical value.
Curious.
From the Dover parent newsletter: Students are told of the
theory of Intelligent Design
(ID). Isn’t ID simply
religion in disguise? No. The theory of intelligent
design involves science
vs. science, where scientists
looking at the same data
come to different conclusions.
The theory does not
mention or discuss God,
Christianity or the Bible in
any way. I wrote:
Again, the letter states that ID wasn't taught to the class. They were simply made aware of its existence.
You wrote:
I know, but that begs the question of WHY do these ID proponents want kids "simply made aware of its existence." I can't see a purpose for it other than to "remind" kids who are already being taught creationism elsewhere of what their "true" beliefs are supposed to be, or to make a half-hearted evangelical grab at kids who haven't been taught creationism. Either of those is, in fact, a violation of the concept of separation between church and state when dealing with a public school. But more importantly, it's the forced interjection of a non-scientific dialogue into a class that is supposed to be about science, and is therefore out of place.
Again, you're seeing forces at work that I just don't. I do see a purpose, and it's simply to state that there are other conflicting views about a scientific (Gasp! People even argued the Earth wasn't flat at one point!!) theory. It seems a pretty lame attempt at evangelism, since it isn't being made by a person that could 'make the hard sell', so to speak, but by a teacher at a secular school. If, in your worst-case scenario, a teacher reads this statement and it leads a kid to read the book and convert to a view of the world as something that was created by a higher power and not evolution, why ya care? Does that mean that they will renounce science? They'll become Amish, and pray for a cure to their ailments instead of popping pills like the rest of us? No. They'll most likely meld the ID theory to science in some fashion and continue along their merry ibuprofin-mosquito repellant-tupperware-V-8 engine way. The sky wouldn't fall.
Quote:
I really think the best solution to the issue is to create an elective course that kids can sign up for with their parents' permission, much like a Comparative Religions course, that deals with different theories on the origins of being, and make it a philosophy course, not a scientific one.
In our already underfunded schools? Now that's
really interjecting religion when it isn't called for.
Edited, Mon Oct 17 19:14:30 2005 by Atomicflea