Judge Rules Against 'Intelligent Design'

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
or the banning of Harry Potter from the school library.

That's rediculous.. as there are generally real witch craft books in school libraries.. as well as much more hardcore fantasy then Harry Potter.. (also, much more questoinable books from a christian prospective then Harry Potter (which is questionable only in that it doesn't promote Christianity)).

JM

[DanS]

I'm not worried about scientists. I'm worried about high school science teachers, who are not scientists.

Why should everybody else value the high school science teacher when the scientists themselves don't?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by DanS


Why should everybody else value the high school science teacher when the scientists themselves don't?

What makes you think scientists don't value high school science teachers? I think they do. But scientists don't pay high school science teachers; easily-cowed administrators do. You're the econ guy; if, per your sig, it's all about the Benjamins, who ultimately has more power in that scenario?

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS


Why should everybody else value the high school science teacher when the scientists themselves don't?

The job of a Teacher of whatever subject, and a professional in thjat subject are different.

A teahcre is there to impart a basic understanding of the knowledge we already have to every member of society, while a professional is there to further that knowledge.

The first job is actually the most fundamental, since without maintaining what we have already we can't possibly go forward. Good teachers can lead students into fields they might not have considered before, imporving the general talent poll from which the professionals will come. Therefore, theirs is an incredably vital job for society, and yet, they get **** for pay, and **** from the ignorant.

[DanS]

What makes you think scientists don't value high school science teachers?

If they cared, they would be more involved in making sure that there was good instruction.

Think recruitment more than politics.

[Jon Miller]

we try

physics education is now often a subgroup in the physics department (which is sort of silly.. as it isn't physics, but we care and htink we do it better than just the education department)

JM

[Rufus T. Firefly]

In my experience -- and I've worked with teacher-training NGO's on this -- scientists do try to have an impact on teacher training. But there are obvious, significant limits to the impact that they can have on curriculum, hiring, and school policy. And that's the issue here. Even the best teacher can only teach what's in the curriculum, and teachers play a relatively small role in shaping curricula.

Beyond that, though, I'm not sure whom scientists are suppose to recruit. By the time science professors see good students, they're seeing people who can already find more satisfying and more lucrative work someplace other than high school, either in the private sector or the academy.

[KrazyHorse]

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

TAs very rarely teach (as opposed to holding conference section) physics or math classes in my experience.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS


Why should everybody else value the high school science teacher when the scientists themselves don't?

I value them.

I just know that scientists don't want to become teachers for some very real reasons that will not go away. Nor do I think that scientists make good science teachers. Nor do I think that good science teachers will be able to cure the overwhelming scientific ignorance of the lay public.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Because scientists taking an active role in educating the public about science *will* trigger an aggressive response from the fundies.

Am I the only one nerdy enough to have read books by Lawrence M. Krauss and James Kakalios?

I read the Physics of Star Trek years and years ago.

[DinoDoc]

I knew I wasn't the only nerd here.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by The diplomat
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.

Ahem. That's the official Discovery Institute line. But the writings of DI "fellows" such as Dembski and West clearly indicate which designer they have in mind.

[Urban Ranger]

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

Hello. Philip Johnson also claimed - in writing no less - that he wasn't a Creationist in his book Darwin on Trial.

Right. Sure.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by DanS


If they cared, they would be more involved in making sure that there was good instruction.

By surreptitiously packing school boards the way religious fundamentalists did, and then lying about their beliefs and motives ?

Why is it suddenly the responsibility of all scientists to ensure that the public be more informed about science ?


Isn't it the task of educators and parents ?


After all, not all 'experts' make good teachers, in whatever field, arts or sciences. I've known science teachers who were obviously brilliant in their field of study, but couldn't teach the subject if their lives depended on it.


Perhaps you believe that parents be 'encouraged' or 'made' to have their children taught science, rather than covertly taught religious beliefs, in science classes...

...in which case, you've just agreed with the judgment of the court.

[Minute Mirage]

Originally posted by DanS


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.

ID is just creationism renamed and marketed differently. As judge Jones noted:

As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas
went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after
the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids
teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of
Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in
early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation
(creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were
deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes
occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and
cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word
substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words
was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes
FTE’s argument that by merely disregarding the words “creation” and
“creationism,” FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. In early pre-
Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term “creation” was defined as “various forms of life
that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features

intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc,” the
very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions. (P-
560 at 210; P-1 at 2-13; P-562 at 2-14, P-652 at 2-15; P-6 at 99-100; P-11 at 99-
100; P-856.2.).

(source: http://coop.<a href="https://www.usc...er_342.pdf</a> )

It is my understanding that this book, Of Pandas And People, was the first book to widely market the term "Intelligent Design".