Judge Rules Against 'Intelligent Design'

[Whaleboy]

ID is not creationism. Some religious people have tried to make it a religious theory by trying to say that the "intelligent designer" is this god or that god, but ID is not a religious theory. ID doe not identify who the "designer" is.

It doesn't matter. It's not even a theory, it's more a hypothesis, and a pretty bad one at that. Obviously, it lends itself to the creationists for obvious reasons, but you are correct, it's not creationism. ID, if true, could more easily be explained by the workings of an alien race for example, but in that case would beg the question "what caused the cause?". Same old problem with most such argument, it just can't excape the cosmological argument, and its simple refutation.

Well, if you checked my link, you'd see that Dr. Alek Kwitko is an atheist scientist who supports ID.

And has little or no comprehension of the basics of evolution. It all boils down to "OMFG, Complexity!". He seeks an explanation that defies both the obvious, the evidence, and the proven.

ID has caused real debate in the scientific community about how science is marketed (for want of a better word). This shows how something totally without grounding can be accepted as fact by significant portions of the general public if it's marketed correctly.

Couldn't have worded it better . It's something we must all be very vigilant against.

The other problem is that the general public isn't scientifically literate enough to tell the difference between pseudoscience like ID and real science. If you make it sound complicated enough, they might well believe it!

Plus the general standard of science reporting in mainstream media is appalling.

Agreed. I personally think the schools are at least partly responsible since there is little or no stimulation of wonder at the world, which inevitably leads to questions, scientific method, and knowledge.

The designer must be more complex than the complex system of life on earth he created, so who designed the designer?

Indeed, either that, or you accept that complex outcomes can have simple causes, in which case a designer is not necessary to explain the existence of a complex system.

I think ID fundamentally has more merit as an idea than creationism. If the creationists move to IDism, then that's progress in my book.

I disagree. Someone who accepts that their belief is a fantasy will have no argument from me. Someone who insidiously claims that his hypothesis is teh truth should be shot down like a Jerry over Kent.

So you think that scientists should organize and enter the "culture war" in earnest, then? Because scientists taking an active role in educating the public about science *will* trigger an aggressive response from the fundies.

Or an exposé on the creationists and IDers, using the tabloid crap of emotions and marketting to beat them at their own game. IMO, it's inevitable, the question is when and how.

In my opinion, its not just science per se we need to be teaching, though the competant teaching of human knowledge is very important. We also need to teach people scientific method and the method of critical analysis which enables them to distinguish between bull**** and genuine arguments.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by DanS
Professors in Sweden may not be working under the same system as professors in the US. As an example, Swedish basic science education may suck slightly less than US basic science education.

It's hard to see what connection there would be between those two, considering that professors have very little to do with basic science education.

[DanS]

They are linked because the comparison layed out by KH above may not be the same in Sweden.

[Last Conformist]

The logic being, if you give professors worse working conditions, talented and motivated people are more likely to become high school teachers?

Well, maybe. But someone who wants to do research - someone who wants to be a scientist - still won't go and teach at high school. If they figure being a professor pays too bad or involves too much tuition, they'll go to industry.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Every professor I know would kill for those conditions.

That's because they're not at a top-tier research institution.

The lower you get the more you have to teach and the less you get paid.

[KrazyHorse]

Anyhow, using a good research scientist to teach high school is a ridiculous waste of resources. It's like giving a kid a supercomputer so he can word process.

[Last Conformist]

Partly, but it's also 'cos they aren't in America.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS
They are linked because the comparison layed out by KH above may not be the same in Sweden.

Wrong. Top-level research institutions in the US are staffed so heavily by foreigners that they do very little to constrain the available pool of talent relative to other countries.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Partly, but it's also 'cos they aren't in America.

Unless you'd want to imply there aren't any top-level institutes here, which, I suppose, is a not unreasonable position.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS


At a minimum, very little creativity has been devoted to trying to correct that. There is no law, natural or man-made, that says basic science instruction shall be done as you have laid it out above.

You misunderstand me. I don't think that getting scientists to teach high school will solve the problem.

I dispute the assumption that the majority of people will ever be able to understand the sciences on any other than the most superficial level.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Let's take a look at the average week of a professor at a research institution:

3 hours in class
4 hours preparing for class, writing notes, creating assignments&tests
4 hours administrative duties
35+ hours doing things you're genuinely interested in

salary: 70+k to start

Hell, I'm always shocked to find a class not taught by some glorified slave (aka TA).

[Last Conformist]

Depends on what level you are. Of the courses I took this autumn, three were taught by full professors, one partly by a full professor and partly by an associate professor, and one by an associate professor.

[DinoDoc]

I mostly have associate professors and TAs. Sometimes I think their one goal in life is to get tenure so they don't have to bother with real work.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by DanS


No, I don't think it does, primarily. Who is going to cultivate the sciences except the scientists?

I crossedited you in that last post.

I'm not worried about scientists. I'm worried about high school science teachers, who are not scientists. They're teachers -- underappreciated, overworked, generally underpaid, rarely inclined to fight the Big Battle for Truth, especially if it puts their livelihood on the line. They already have to teach, babysit, referee and police; their commitment to the Science is probably, understandably, something less than their commitment to drawing a salary, paying the mortgage, and taking the family out to dinner every now and again.

This is precisely what makes them vulnerable. It is precisely why the fundies have targetted school boards; because too few teachers and administrators have any energy left, at the end of the day, to fight Creationism, or Abstinence-Only sex ed, or the banning of Harry Potter from the school library.

[DanS]

I dispute the assumption that the majority of people will ever be able to understand the sciences on any other than the most superficial level.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. My argument is that you cannot prove that notion by pointing to the results of bad basic science instruction.