Teach the Controversy

[FadingW]

Supporters of intelligent design rely on a masquerade of propriety by suggesting that scientific freedom and rigor demand equal time for ID.

Yet how many ID supporters would accept classes teaching super advanced aliens as a theory for the variety of life on earth?

IF they were honest in their intentions, this would be a non-issue.

After all, hypothetical aliens *do* count as possible intelligent designers and moreover have the advantage over gods in that aliens are physical and can be tracked.

But most insist on a supernatural designer, which has a most unfortunate flaw.

Any slot that god could fill as an intelligent designer cannot be denied magical fairies.

[darkblight]

Supporters of intelligent design rely on a masquerade of propriety by suggesting that scientific freedom and rigor demand equal time for ID.

Yet how many ID supporters would accept classes teaching super advanced aliens as a theory for the variety of life on earth?

IF they were honest in their intentions, this would be a non-issue.

After all, hypothetical aliens *do* count as possible intelligent designers and moreover have the advantage over gods in that aliens are physical and can be tracked.

But most insist on a supernatural designer, which has a most unfortunate flaw.

Any slot that god could fill as an intelligent designer cannot be denied magical fairies.

the motives of the ID people is pretty clear: they want their religion taught. pointing out any kind of logic is not going to work.

you: but what about aliens.. do we teach that too?

them: why would we.. it is not "truth" we know "truth" and it is this ( insert religion )


to them it is truth, absolute truth.

[Minimalist]

They do not want to "teach" anything. They want to preach.

Teaching would entail answering questions that these ID assholes are singularly ill-equipped to answer.

Example:


Q: How could anyone be so stupid as to think the earth is 6,000 years old.

A: YOU FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[popeyespappy]

ID should be discussed in biology class. However instead of discussing ID as an alternative to evolution, it should be attacked. That’s what Project 2061, a long-term science education reform initiative of the American Association for the Advancement of Science says. Many students come to class already believing ID is the answer. We need to let them know that is wrong. We need to be addressing common misconceptions many students may have already formed when teaching science.

"Students create strange conceptions about the world from their experiences," Anu Malipatil, a school administrator for a network of charger schools in New York and Connecticut, said in a press release. "It becomes more difficult to teach students without actually addressing the misconception first."

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/201...onceptions

[Doubting Thomas]

Fundies claim that ID isn't religion, but they all know that the designer in question is the Judeo-Christian god. Ask them if they think aliens or the Flying Spaghetti Monster created all life in the universe and see what kind of responses you get.

[Gawdzilla]

[Faith No More]

Anyone saying ID is a valid scientific alternative is blowing smoke up your ass to push their religion.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Controversy? What controversy?

There seems to be some disagreement in the US because the mental midgets (sorry; little people) of the lunar religious right have some political clout.

Not an issue here,nor have I in fact ever actually met anyone stupid enough or ignorant enough to actually argue young earth creationism. (including Catholics,and I've met some REALLY stupid and ignorant Catholics)


The philosophical base for id is only the teleological argument, which has been refuted for centuries.

[JohnDG]

They do not want to "teach" anything. They want to preach.

Teaching would entail answering questions that these ID assholes are singularly ill-equipped to answer.

Example:


Q: How could anyone be so stupid as to think the earth is 6,000 years old.

A: YOU FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know a few people who really believe the earth is 6,000 years old. The ironic part to this is I noticed allot of their bible stories claim date's further back. lol?

[leo-rcc]

No the figure of 6000 to 10000 years that Young Earth Creationists (so not all creationists) put forward is based on the works of several scholars such as Archbishop James Ussher that looked at looked at the stories in the bible and the Julian calendar and then worked out that the Earth was created on the night preceding Sunday, 23 October 4004 BC. In the Jewish chronologies the creation of the earth is dated between 3751 and 4339 BC.

This is all based on interpretation of the abrahamic texts.

Other creationists and ID proponents cling on to a day = age explanation (a biblical day can be an age spanning thousands to millions of years), and again others go with another old earth variation called Gap Creation (the days are days, but there is a gap between certain days that can be millions of years).

Needless to say, even though none of them accept the ToE, none of them accepts the others interpretation of creationism as true either.