How are they proposing to "teach" ID in schools?

I mean, really? What is there to say? If you believe in creationism or even that perhaps some sort of being, a "god" if you will, kicked some energy in the butt to get it going, what else is there to say? God made it. A Higher Power got things going. So, that's about it. Could you even stretch that out for an entire class period? Or are they thinking more along the lines that every time a Biology teacher mentions that a specific species evolved from another, they have to say, "Some people believe, however, that they were created by a supernatural being"?

What I'm actually afraid of is that they'll use that as a launching pad to leap into the Fundamentalist Christian thing about how we're all evil, need to be redeemed, etc. I think I actually find that more troubling.

No ... I take that back. It's all worrisome. :)

I don't have any problem with teaching about all the different creation stories but it doesn't belong being taught as scientific fact.

But you're right... they would have to keep saying the same thing over and over and over again, ad nauseum (sp?). I mean really, ID is in no way an established discipline like math or biology. I teach math, and there are so many topics and ideas that it takes a whole semester to get through it all (and just scratch the surface). I just don't see how you can inject ID into the discussion all the time.

that the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. A 2000 year old book was recently discovered that documented the teachings of the Three Wise Meatballs that described how it happened.

Therefore it has to be true!

to open the floor to any theory the kids want to advance ... and a number of these kids have already been coached on what to say. It's a defeat for science and rationality, and a triumph for adults who want their kids to convert their classmates.

If my kids were old enough to be in one of those classrooms, I'd be coaching them on Flying Spaghetti Monsterism right now!

I do think that if they start going into any specific theology, they would be in trouble; but you never know.

But then, despite being religious myself, I've never understand the anger that evolution provokes.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

With every answer being "God did it". Luddites.

I'd say that could well derail the whole ID issue. Sidetrack into a religous debate over which "god" or "godess" is the correct "god" and who knows what would happen? All out religous vs science war?

I work with a woman who went to high school in a rural Georgia county. This is how they covered evolution in biology class: "There is a theory called evolution. Next topic." Literally, they mentioned it and moved on with no further discussion! I have no idea how these students deal with college or university level science classes.

We actually had a student at UGA who was OFFENDED that evolution was discussed in biology class. :eyes: Why the fuck did they want to attend a fine public university when they could have gone to bible college?

I've ended every argument(ended in that the opponent drops the subject) on "I.D." by insisting it's gotta be space aliens.

To not mention the capital letter god is the key to I.D., they can get away with saying it's not creationism by never mentioning God, but it's obvious who they mean.

So I say, "if 'not necessarily God, then space aliens, right?'"

"You sure you're not a Raelian?"

just like you can believe that babies come from having sex, or you can believe that god sent them as rewards for being good christians.

it's up to you kids, you can believe science, or dismiss it utterly as you wish. so why even teach science anymore?

:D

My grandfather told me my mom had found my baby sister in a dresser drawer! That HAS to be the truth!

The fundies don't like rationalism because it isn't compatible with blind faith, and the Repubs that egg them on don't like rationalism because they know that rational voters would never let them stay in power.

It's very very thin, though, as you can imagine. It's called "Of Pandas and People" or maybe "Of People and Pandas."

It was first written before the 1987 Supreme Court decision saying creationism in public schools violated the Establishment clause (establishing one religion over all others). So the author went back and replaced all references to GOD to "intelligent design."

So testified a woman in the PA case who was an early editor of the first draft. Thus proving that intelligent design is just a fancied-up back-door version of creationism trying to pass as "science."

How's that trial going, anyway? I haven't read an update in a while. Anyone know?

that I sort of wish I didn't know. I mean, I know I need to know it. I just wish I didn't need to know it. You know? :)

If anybody does have an update, I would be really interested in hearing about the trial.

So, my guess is that they'll just emphasize the things that are not completely known. How was the first protein formed? The first nucleic acid? The problem, of course, is that science gets closer and closer to the actual answer to these questions and so their text book gets smaller and smaller. But, I believe there will always be questions left; so, they'll always be something that they can claim god - oh, I mean the designer - had to do.

The moment you are invoking a deity, doesn't it stop being science, since you cannot scientifically prove or disprove the existence/working of a deity?

"And he 'designed' everything, because everything is just TOO complicated to have happened by itself..."

"Uh, just who *IS* this designer?"

"I can't say who it is, but there's a big book all about him in the library. The call number is 220.5203..."

in its Science curriculum. The state standards are just a guideline. They are not mandatory.