Australian Schools To Teach Intelligent Design 714
An anonymous reader writes "It appears that schools within the Australian state of Queensland are going to be required to teach Intelligent Design as part of their Ancient History studies. While it is gratifying to note that it isn't being taught in science classes (since it most certainly isn't a science), one wonders what role a modern controversy can possibly serve within a subject dedicated to a period of history which occurred hundreds of years before Darwin proposed his groundbreaking theory?"
"Faith Science Basis?" (Score:5, Insightful)
"We talk to students from a faith science basis, but we're not biased in the delivery of curriculum," Mrs Doneley said. "We say, 'This is where we're coming from' but allow students to make up their own minds."
I really wish they had gone into detail on what exactly a 'faith science basis' is. I'm not saying they're completely walled off from each other but attempting to give your children solid foundational logic should not be approached from an angle that contains any sort of faith.
... but curiously this "critical thinking" that presents an opposing view is curiously the view that the localized religion adheres to. If you want to teach critical thinking, expose the child to more views than what the adults are already largely marketing to them in the home and at religious services.
If they are indeed teaching intelligent design in much the same way as Niels Bohr's atomic model or -- perhaps more apt -- motivation for slavery then I have little problem with this. But if they spend anymore than a few hours discussing how it was flawed then I would consider this a waste of time instead of 'critical thinking.' It's great to see all the sides of a historical issue but that's all intelligent design is to me and, much more importantly, the peer reviewed journals and scientific community at large.
If you want to teach it as a disproved theory, I got no problem. If you want to teach it to my kids as an outstanding theory or hypothesis, I'm going to sit down and have a lengthy discussion with them. If you do you teach it in the United States, I'm going to be there arguing that you spend just as much time on Native American origin stories or even better the original Hindu creation story followed by Swami Vivekananda's logic of compatibility with Darwinism and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness's decision to largely reject it.
Intelligent Design is an attempt to absolve the scriptures of ever being wrong in their creation story and salvage what is possible when presented with fossil evidence and short-term evolution evidence in smaller celled organisms. Other religions have similar damage control, why do the Christians only get theirs mentioned in state schools?
They are arguing that this helps critical thinking and allows the child to make their own conclusions
This article bounces between acceptable and a BS facade to market Intelligent Design. Australia's a sovereign nation but I will speak up if this comes anywhere near my public schools.
Re:"Faith Science Basis?" (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not even a disproved theory. At its core, ID is simply "somehow something somewhere is wrong with evolution". Other than a rather vague claim that some structures are too complex to have evolved naturally, ID makes virtually no positive claims at all, and I don't even that vague claim can possibly be considered positive.
It's a smoke show, just Creationism stripped of any direct references to God, designed to fool idiotic Fundy-populated school boards, but in its only test in a Federal court, it got laughed out the door. One of its most important formulators, Michael Behe, made a fool of himself, and, unforgivable for a molecular biologist, showed an extraordinary ignorance of the literature on the evolution of complex systems like bacterial flagella and the vertebrate immune system. It's other major formulator is William Dembski, who, being considerably smarter than Behe, keeps away from ever having to defend his own notions of Irreducible Complexity and the outright nonsensical Information Filter (which, if it actually worked, would represent a quantum leap in the statistical study of information and would make Dembski one of the most lauded mathematicians in history, but is, in fact, just a load of pseudo-statistical mumbo jumbo).
Who exactly ever believed in Intelligent Design? So far as I can tell, the two chief camps that promote it our Creationists and a small group of Theistic Evolutionists (mainly of Behe's mindset). The latter may even be sincere in so far as they believe that God's hand is in the mix somehow, but the former are only using ID cynically as a way around the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and don't actually buy into any of it. In fact, as witnessed by the rubes in Dover, they don't even really care about ID, they just want to get Creationism in the classroom. They aren't even Theistic Evolutionists, they're out and out Creationists.
The whole thing is a scam, and one that has lost considerable force since Dover. The Discovery Institute, which is pretty much the leader in the ID charge, had already started moving to the bait-and-switch Teach the Controversy scam even before ID collapsed in court. The real problem here is that there are a lot of really stupid Creationists who themselves don't even know what ID is, and just assume that the scam artists who created it actually produced a scientific theory of Creationism.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What she actually said (as reported) was " Classroom debate about issues encouraged critical thinking – an important tool".
The problem is that we've heard similar claims before, but with the goal of teaching that ID is a competing scientific theory with evolution, and that we should "teach the controversy" so that the students can decide for themselves. That almost sounds reasonable to some people, but it's based on a fundamental lie, which is that ID is a scientific theory at all.
Re:"Faith Science Basis?" (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not even a disproved theory.
That much is right. By its nature, it would be basically impossible to prove or disprove.
The whole thing is a scam, and one that has lost considerable force since Dover.
I'm sorry to break up your rant here, but it isn't a scam. Many people sincerely believe in ID (or a variation thereof). Many of those people would acknowledge that it isn't science in any meaningful form, and nearly all of those people would willingly keep ID out of the science curriculum in public schools.
However, it seems to me ancient history is a perfectly fine place to present the fact that people have believed in ID historically. While ID in its current form is a fairly modern interpretation, the notion of an intelligent designer has been around for quite a while, and has had a profound influence on our world (for better or for worse).
Re:"Faith Science Basis?" (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't really think anyone seriously believes in Intelligent Design. There are lots of Creationists who will wave it around, but generally to them ID==Creationism. As was pretty clear from Dover and other attempts to teach it, the school boards in question were populated with Creationists who had been scammed by DI into believing that Creationism was going to be taught in the classroom.
As to the ID formulators, considering the amount of work they put into formulating ID as a neutered replacement of out-and-out Creationism, I think it's hard to accept any claim of sincerity. ID is a legal creation, a fabrication with but one purpose, to get Creationism past the Establishment Clause.
Re:"Faith Science Basis?" (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really think anyone seriously believes in Intelligent Design.
Then you don't really understand people very well. From the Center for Science and Culture (a pro-ID organization) here [discovery.org]
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Even aside from religious beliefs, it is very difficult for many people to believe that the world and people as they are came about because of chance. Just look at the number of references in popular culture to fate and "the meaning of life". Going back even as far as the Greeks, it was a major theme of their literature and plays. The notion that natural selection determines that outcome of the universe is, to many people, a profoundly unsettling explanation. None of this should be taken as a challenge to natural selection or a defense of ID. However, your assertion that nobody actually believes in ID is naive.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't really think anyone seriously believes in Intelligent Design.
Then you don't really understand people very well. From the Center for Science and Culture (a pro-ID organization) here [discovery.org]
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Right. Every statement from an advocacy group's website is an honest statement belief, and not disingenuous in the slightest.
Are you acquainted with the evidence that was introduced in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District?
It was discovered that the ID text that Dover sought to introduce was originally written as an advocacy tract for creationism, which called it by that very name. Then, to try to do an end-run around a Supreme Court prohibition on teaching creationism in public schools, they simply did
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Even aside from religious beliefs, it is very difficult for many people to believe that the world and people as they are came about because of chance. Just look at the number of references in popular culture to fate and "the meaning of life". Going back even as far as the Greeks, it was a major theme of their literature and plays. The notion that natural selection determines that outcome of the universe is, to many people, a profoundly unsettling explanation.
For most religions, as I understand it, the issue is actually much more fundamental than that. (Trying to describe this here is going to be a little like trying to describe the socialist rationale to George W Bush, but here goes:)
For a moment, set aside the pure materialist assumption that everything is mechanical and repeatable (historically that was viewed as a sweeping and unproven claim to make) and consider the world from a perspective more akin to mathematics or philosophy.
Here is a mathematical desc
Re:"Faith Science Basis?" (Score:5, Insightful)
I never understood why evolution is such a threat to religion.
It is often considered a threat to Christianity because without a literal Adam and Eve there was no "fall" and therefor we didn't inherit a "sinful nature" from them making the need for God to sacrifice himself, as a child of himself, to himself, to save us from himself, unnecessary. You are correct, though, that it is often literalists who take the most offense to the notion of evolution. I find that most Christians (people in general, really) are startlingly ignorant of the content of the bible and the actual mechanisms and theory of evolution.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I never understood why evolution is such a threat to religion. How does us evolving from apes say anything about the existence of God? What does it even have to do with it? Hell, if I was God, evolution and natural selection actually seems like a pretty damn good way to design an ecosystem! It's resilient and adaptive and I don't have to micromanage it. It's only a problem if you believe in an absolute literal interpretation of the Bible. You know, that book that was written down by men 2000 years ago and translated and re-transcribed God only knows how many times (pun intended).
It really has nothing to do with religion or belief in such, although many will believe otherwise. There are those that think the theory of evolution is proof of no God. I'm not talking about those people. I'm talking about those that see no conflicts between their faith and science.
Scroll up and look at the way people who believe that "God created the universe" are described. I am relatively religious and see absolutely no conflict between anything I've learned in science class and personal research an
Re:"Faith Science Basis?" (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're in a science class, you ought to be teaching science. Since the number of biologists who reject evolution is exceedingly small, teaching criticisms of the validity of the theory is essentially taking up a Creationist line.
There are actual controversies (ie. the relative importance of genetic drift via mutation, theories of abiogenesis, punctuated equilibrium etc.), but none of these controversies deny evolution happened, they are debates over very technical aspects of the theory. It's no different than the kinds of scientific debate one will see among linguists, archaeologists, physicists and so forth. I mean, because there is wide disagreement over implications of quantum mechanics, do you think QM is being criticized?
This is the problem with guys like you. You conflate debates within the scientific community as far as aspects of biological evolution with the idea that the theory itself is being seriously debated.
For the vast majority of the scientific community for the better part of a century, that debate has been closed. As much as any theory can be proven, evolution has been proven. There may be considerable debate along the lines of specific mechanics, or within very specific areas of evolution (ie. hominid evolution), but the scientific community long ago abandoned its objections, large portions of it in the decades after Origins was published, and the vast bulk certainly after the Modern Synthesis.
In short, there is no controversy over whether evolution happened or not, not in science. If you want to count all the various strains of Creationists trying to get their brand of Biblical literalism taught in science classes, well yes, that's a controversy, but a social and political one that has no bearing on the science itself. By that logic, one might call the Holocaust controversial, first of all because scholars can't agree on precisely how many Jews were killed, or more ominously, because a band of racist cranks and charlatans claim it never happened.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're in a science class, you ought to be teaching science.
The problem with this line of thinking is that science doesn't happen in a vacuum. Science is merely a collection of the observations of how the world works. There's no need to place it upon a sacred altar and worship it. Hundreds of years of modern history have proven that it gets by just fine by being the truth.
If you absolutely insist on teaching only science in science classes, then we'd need to get rid of science classes and replace the topic with something more useful. Science without any context
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My main problem with the teaching of evolution is the attempt to actually ban the discussion of any criticism of the theory. Yes, I understand that such criticism could lead to the discussion of religion in the classroom*, but if you are going to ban discussion based on the possibility of that discussion moving to a discussion about religion, then all discussion should banned and anything can have a religion underpinning.
* There is nothing wrong or Unconstitutional about discussing or even teaching religious doctrine in a classroom. I learned about the Greek religions in History class years ago and never had the urge to bow to Zeus.
There IS a problem with addressing a specific theory as if it is truth, or controversy. One may teach Greek creation stories of Atlas holding the world on his shoulders in the "people once believed that.." category.
The category of "perhaps this is an alternative to scientific evolution theories" is entirely different and almost completely unjustifiable, in my opinion.
Almost thirty percent of the world are Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist and other traditional Asian religions. Almost 10% fit in a smattering of othe
Re:"Faith Science Basis?" (Score:5, Insightful)
> I never understood why evolution is such a threat to religion. How does us evolving from apes say anything about the existence of God? What does it even have to do with it?
You'd do well to research the cultural origins of creationism, as well as fundamentalism, as it's practiced in the United States. For the former, I recommend the introductory chaper of Laurie R. Godfrey's "Scientists Confront Creationism".
The short version is, it's at least partially a reaction against the *social* Darwinism of American uber-Capitalists in the late 19th century, people who ran factory towns and controlled almost every aspect of their workers' social lives, instructing them that the bosses were rich because they out-competed the workers in the capitalist system, and that the workers were valuable only insofar as they were cogs in the great capitalist machine, and that Science proved that this was so, and there was nothing the workers could do about it. The only institution the bosses did not control was the church, and in church, the workers learned that each and every single one of them was individually loved by God himself, and that their lives had intrinsic value insofar as they obeyed the scriptures. Unsurprisingly, the worker culture tended to value the church more highly than science.
There was a similar renaissance of new-age and occult thinking in Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. Soviet pretensions to "scientific socialism", and scientifically-rationalized oppression, left people distrustful of anything that came with a "science" label, especially things that were both un-intuitive and morally offensive.
It's vital in exploring these issues to remember that scientific rhetoric has often been a tool of oppression, and that when people react against it, they don't always separate the actual science from the oppressive rhetoric.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is interesting, especially as it offers an explanation of why creationism is still so widespread in the US - the US seems far more inclined to social Darwinism than anywhere else.
One thing that makes me doubt it is that it is a cause taken up by the right. If it is a reaction to "uber-capitalism", then surely to would have appealed to to the left and be opposed by the right?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"I never understood why evolution is such a threat to religion."
Omniscient god cannot make mistakes, science undermines all the errors those "inspired" writers made.
Roman 5:12
i.e. "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--"
"When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned."
The problem with that is _Death_ always existed from the beginning, that
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Institutionalized religion makes a good deal of coin and wields a great deal of power by getting people's thoughts in line with their teachings. They'd like to keep this power, rather than hand it off to the secularists. Ergo, controversy.
Science undermines the need for mythology (Score:3, Interesting)
I never understood why evolution is such a threat to religion. How does us evolving from apes say anything about the existence of God? What does it even have to do with it?
Others have already given their thoughts on why they directly conflict, but my take on it has always been something a little more subtle. The advance of scientific explanations of the world makes God, or any other mythological explanation, an increasingly unnecessary hypothesis (as Laplace once told Napoleon when asked why his book on astronomy made no mention of God). Without a concept like evolution, atheism is susceptible to a rather plausible appeal to absurdity: "so, what, all this order in nature, inc
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Could you explain for me in what way the Big Bang violates any of the Laws of Thermodynamics? I can't wait to hear this one.
(On a side note, you think physicists would have noted by now if the major cosmological theory of origins was falsified by thermodynamics, being that thermodynamics is such an important aspect of cosmology.)
Re:"Faith Science Basis?" (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not American, so you'll have to bear with me here.
I gave up physics, biology and chemistry at 16, so that's a few years ago now, but I don't think we were once told that the word "theory" has a slightly different meaning in science to its colloquial meaning. The colloquial understanding of the word "theory" is probably closer to "hypothesis" - and it's absolutely crucial to understand this because without it the creationist "it's just a theory, we don't know for sure" argument is much harder to refute.
At least if you know the definition of the word "theory" in a scientific context, you can understand that the statement "it's just a theory" is utterly fatuous.
Re:"Faith Science Basis?" (Score:4, Insightful)
it isn't a scam. Many people sincerely believe in ID
Many people sincerely believe that someone in Nigeria wants to give them a million bucks, too. Many people sincerely believe that wearing magnets will cure everything from foot pain to cancer. Many people sincerely believe that the politicians they vote for will live up to campaign promises. Etc. Belief has nothing to do with whether or not something is a scam.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the person "selling" whatever it is sincerely believes it, then it can't properly be called a scam. A scam does largely require the perpetrator to be making intentionally false statements to get money, or at least allegiance, from someone else. If they truly believe what they are "selling" then they are just deluded, not evil, and may otherwise be a kind and relatively normal person.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, but they want to teach it as a "controversy" in "Ancient History", which is clearly bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not even a disproved theory. ...
--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11
How surreal that ended up with the signature line in a discussion about intelligent design.
I'm awaiting a painting worthy of Salvador Dalí.
It *is* ancient history. (Score:2)
It's a smoke show, just Creationism stripped of any direct references to God
So therefore, since it's at it's core an ancient belief, it fits in perfectly in Ancient History. Alongside Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Norse, Babylonian, Chinese, African, etc creation myths.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's not an ancient belief. It's roughly 22 years old.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's not an ancient belief. It's roughly 22 years old.
Yes, it is an ancient belief. It's roughly 2360 years old. Read Plato's Timaeus [stanford.edu]. Perhaps you're thinking of the term "intelligent design" which is roughly 21 years old. The concept is far older.
Re:"Faith Science Basis?" (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm curious about these Theistic Evolutionists. One of the major holes I've always seen in using "Intelligent Design" as a counter to Evolutionary Theory by the Religious Right is that it's not inherently incompatible with Evolution. If the basic theory behind "Intelligent Design" is that life is to complex to have evolved randomly and therefore must have a designer, who's to say that the designer doesn't simply use Evolution as a tool to accomplish Its goals. From inside the system it would appear to us that such small tweaks and experiments were random mutation.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that this is the case, just pondering how the two concepts are theoretically compatible.
Re:"Faith Science Basis?" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
ID fails even as a test of intelligent agencies. Look at any science that concerns itself with the actions of intelligent beings; linguistics, archeology, anthropology, forensics. All are very concerned with the five Ws; who, what, where, when and why. ID pretty much denies all of them. It refuses to answer these critical questions, because it can't. To make explicit claims, for instance, as to the nature of the Designer(s) would tip the hand that it is fundamentally a religious claim.
Can you imagine a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Playing devil's advocate.
Some parts of ID can be treated as real scientific theories. For example, ID makes a prediction that large irreducibly complex systems can't be created by evolution.
This prediction, of course, is not correct - it's quite possible to evolve irreducibly complex systems from reducibly complex systems.
I.D. is not a theory, it is dogma (Score:5, Insightful)
First, intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory.
On the other hand, Niels Bohr's aromic model IS a scientic theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model
Here is why this is the case,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Essential_criteria
Therefore it is incorrect to teach I.D. as a "disproved theory". It never was one in the first place. Where it can be mentioned is as a difference between theory and dogma, where I.D. is clearly an example of the latter,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma
PS: Freaking slashdot reads my mind everything. CATPCHA: instruct
Re:I.D. is not a theory, it is dogma (Score:5, Insightful)
[...] synthetic life forms created by human beings are by all accounts intelligent design.
I'd rather disagree. Intelligent Design basically means "too complex to have evolved on its own". Synthetic life form means "some person made it in a lab". That is not the same by a long margin. I concur with the AC: ID is a dogma.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I.D. by "GOD" may be dogma, but synthetic life forms created by human beings are by all accounts intelligent design.
Dude, that's not what capital-I-D Intelligent Design is about!
Nobody sane on the planet earth doubts that there exists things which are Designed by an Intelligence, specifically ours. Dogs and agricultural plants are examples of human-originated "intelligently designed" organisms that long predate that article.
I.D. is not the claim that it is possible for human intelligence to create things u
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're trying to disprove ID as a scientific theory by quoting Wikipedia?
Oh no... we have already lost...
As long as the necessary sources are cited, it's fine to use Wikipedia to make a point. Especially when the point is requires no real deep explanation. If you have specific reasons to reject its use in this case, I'd like to hear them.
Re:Need a statistician here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a deck of cards. Shuffle as long as you want. Draw 52 cards in any order from that deck. What are the odds that it came up in that order? Before you drew the cards, the odds were 52! Once they are drawn the odds are 100%
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They don't need to, just reading the phrase tells you all you need to know: it's a bunch of religious hokum clothed in pseudo-scientific garbage to try and sneak it into schools as if it were legitimate information.
I do, because it is not provable, disprovable, nor was it ever a theory. It should be held up as an example of anti-scientific thinking and religious
Re:"Faith Science Basis?" (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to teach it as a disproved theory, I got no problem.
I do, because intelligent design being taught in schools is little more than an attempt to allow prosthelytizing in the public school system. The goal there is to replace education with saving the children's souls from us evil secular scientists.
They don't care about science, this is all about "I have it in my little head that God wants me to spam everyone with advertising, and I'm willing to destroy education to do so."
Frankly, I'd prefer students be exposed to advertising for coca-cola or McDonalds. Even though that's generally less healthy than being a christian fundamentalist, it's far less annoying.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Keeping people uninformed is generally bad. If you teach EXACTLY how silly ID is and how to think critically by trying to support/disprove ID in class it could be quite the inoculation for a generation of kids.
Re: (Score:2)
"I have it in my little head that God wants me to spam everyone with advertising
For the life of me, I can't understand why people like you are posting this crap, and I'm even more confused why you keep getting modded up. Has anybody even read TFA?
In Queensland schools, creationism will be offered for discussion in the subject of ancient history, under the topic of "controversies".
ID (in some form or another) has been a very large part of our history, and it is most certainly controversial. Thus, this seems like the perfect place for it. If you want to pretend that people never believed anything other than evolution throughout history, you are more full of shit than the people you so flippantly criticize.
Re:"Faith Science Basis?" (Score:4, Informative)
Our higher education system is being destroyed by keeping dissenting viewpoints out when science has the intent of examining everything.
Your very premise is faulty. The word "viewpoint" is just another word for opinion. Science isn't about opinions. It is about evidence, experiments, and a rigorous commitment to setting presumptions aside.
The areas where scientists tend to disagree are those where there is not yet sufficient evident to establish a widely accepted, verifiable conclusion. Evolution is not one of them.
The evidence for Evolution is vast and well defined. If you want to falsify Evolution, you need more than a dissenting viewpoint. You need to provide some clear, repeatable, and scientifically testable evidence.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you want to teach it as a disproved theory, I got no problem.
Bad grammar aside, that isn't a good idea either. It isn't a disproved theory - it can neither be proved nor disproved in any scientifically valid sense. That's why it isn't science in the first place.
If they are indeed teaching intelligent design in much the same way as ... motivation for slavery then I have little problem with this.
This should earn you a flamebait mod. Once again, it isn't proper to say that it is wrong or right, to condemn it or glorify it. It is apart of history - it merely needs to be acknowledged so the students can form their own judgments.
They are arguing that this helps critical thinking and allows the child to make their own conclusions ... but curiously this "critical thinking" that presents an opposing view is curiously the view that the localized religion adheres to
Of course it is. Starting with viewpoints that students are at least familiar
Re: (Score:2)
it can neither be proved nor disproved in any scientifically valid sense.
It contradicts all existing evidence. To the extent any scientific theory can be disproved, it is.
Re:"Faith Science Basis?" (Score:5, Interesting)
They are arguing that this helps critical thinking and allows the child to make their own conclusions ... but curiously this "critical thinking" that presents an opposing view is curiously the view that the localized religion adheres to. If you want to teach critical thinking, expose the child to more views than what the adults are already largely marketing to them in the home and at religious services.
Yes. Oh God Yes (pun intended).
I went to a Catholic School growing, though here in Canada that doesn't mean a whole lot. Since there is such an unbelievable mix of culture, you get kids who are Half-Christian Half-Buddhist, or Catholic Jews, or just about any combo you can think of. Even people who weren't exactly Catholic could get in, there were kids who didn't have catholic parents, but said they weren't sure what they believed in, and were able to go.
In my High school year, one of the big projects was to research a religion you had little to no knowledge about, in small groups, and then present it to the class.
I think it was one of the most educational lessons I've ever recieved from High school. Not only do you see the differences between Eastern and Western Religions, but also why certain ones spark conflict, and the histories of how they've interacted.
I think most of all, it was interesting to hear a Jewish peer's view on Catholicism and Christianity as a whole, as well as a Buddhist and Hindu. Likewise, they found our explanations of their religions also valuable. I mean its easy to look at a hasidic jew and criticize their way of life, only to have someone point out how your holidays have evolved into some corporate spend-a-thon, since Santa Claus has nothing to do with Christ.
I dunno, it was kind of like taking a step back and seeing the big picture for once, and I wish more schools did this (and I hope mine still does)
Teach it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What, exactly, is there to teach about intelligent deign?
Well, I suppose you could use it as an example of what happens when you fail at science.
Re: (Score:2)
The duckbilled platypus.
There ought to be very little doubt about the integrity of Intelligent Design after that.
Lots of textbooks! (Score:3, Informative)
There are many textbooks available on Intelligent Design, and it is really easy to make more.
First, you get one of the wishy-washy creationist textbooks written in the 1980s, before the Discovery Institute decided that actually calling creationism creationism wasn't going to fly.
Then you do a search and replace, substituting "intelligent design" for "creationism."
Then you add a chapter at the end with the nuggets of sophistry that ID supporters came up with, and add some references to other ID textbooks and
Re:Lots of textbooks! (Score:5, Interesting)
You're talking about Of Pandas and People [wikipedia.org], the infamous Creationist textbook which was rewritten via search and replace after Edwards v Aguillard [wikipedia.org] banned the teaching of Creationism in public schools. The phrase was cdesign proponentsists, from an imperfect search and replace of "Creationists" to "design proponents" in one of the post-Ewards v Aguillard drafts.
It was that, coupled with the fact that the Dover Schoolboard were a bunch of incredibly inept liars (one even claiming an Oxycontin addiction to explain his clearly deceptive behavior) who perjured themselves multiple times during the Dover trial, that pretty much tossed it out of the water. The best bits were Michael Behe's time on the stand (William Dembski was too smart a fox to get involved), where his claims of irreducible complexity of bacterial flagellum were wiped out by article after article in the literature showing precisely how such a system could in fact evolve without intervention.
Actually, that's kind of the whole problem (Score:2)
Well, yes, there are a lot of books but basically they all boil down to going at length into some (logically invalid and/or based on strawmen) way in which Darwinism is all wrong.
Just ask anyone to explain ID to you without mentioning Darwin and evolution. No seriously. All that is left is basically "god did it!" No more, no less, no falsifiable claim of its own.
It's not even a theory or even hypothesis in its own right. It can't even tell you if God made the Platypus on day 5 of Genesis 1 together with the
Flying spaghetti monsters (Score:2)
Could Australian schools teach about flying spaghetti monsters too?
Faith (Score:2)
The fact that people who think we should teach ID in schools is what made me realize there's no god.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And that poor grammar is what made me realize there's a preview button.
NOOOOOO! (Score:2, Insightful)
WTF! Seriously. I'm glad I don't live in Queensland. I hope intelligent people are working to put a stop to this absolute fucking garbage! Christian "values" are taking Australia straight to a Authoritarian Theocracy. Americans we have uranium I promise to let you have some if you bring us democracy.
Totally blown away by this article!
Double-you tee eff, mate (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Double-you tee eff, mate (Score:4, Funny)
What is the election cycle like there?
It's a unicycle: ridden by clowns.
Re:Double-you tee eff, mate (Score:4, Funny)
Q: What is the election cycle like there? A: It's a unicycle: ridden by clowns.
Hey! Stop copying the American system!!
Re: (Score:2)
Three years between elections. I hold out hope as both major parties (liberal and labor) who are run by religious whackjobs and control freaks are losing ground to the greens. Hopefully we will get a Hung parliment like they had recently in the UK.
They must have unlimited funds for education (Score:2)
In good company (Score:2)
Intelligent Design fits well between all the other failed theories: Earth-centric universe; immovable stars; bleeding patients; Froot Loops over Frosted Flakes....all famous in their time, all horribly misguided. In 2000 years, people will look back at our history, now ancient to them, and be amused just like we are.
Re: (Score:2)
Intelligent Design fits well between all the other failed theories: Earth-centric universe; immovable stars; bleeding patients;
And my favorite: Phlogiston [wikipedia.org]
"controversy" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason it's going to be in Ancient History... (Score:2)
Studies is that that field is less likely to be taught by people with a scientific background. If I wanted to peddle pro-religion non-science, I'd rather take my chances with history teachers than biology or physics teachers.
Not being familiar with Australian education, I don't know what sort of qualifications high school teachers have with regard to the field they teach, but even if in-field qualifications are much better than in the US, a lot more people study history seriously as a result of their relig
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do a bit of research yourself and you will find many valid, well-informed professors thrown out of universities for presenting or even researching on the side aspects that did not agree with the status quo.
Can you point out some examples?
I believe it is much more ignorant to just flat out silence opposing views rather than actually investigate them for real merit.
Seriously, these "opposing views" aren't silenced or ignored so much as they are disqualified because they fail to pass simple theoretical tests. Why would we want to spend time and resources to "investigate the merits" of something that fails even casual theoretical examination?
Which VERSION? (Score:5, Interesting)
There are at LEAST 6 different versions of this:
1. Biblical Creationism- the world is 6000 years old (maybe 7000 now) and was created in 7 days.
2. Darwinian evolution- life was created in stages by natural selection.
3. Intelligent Design Engineer/Scientist- Life was created in stages by an engineer-diety using natural selection as an engineering process to an intended end.
4. Intelligent Design Parenthood- God gave birth to the first DNA as an offspring and only interferes as a kindly parent guiding, but not influencing, the end result. God doesn't know the future in this version.
5. Quantum Mechanical Atheistic Evolution- Natural selection is entirely unguided and random- the only thing limiting evolution is death of bad mutations.
6. Intelligent Design Creationism- a bad quasi-scientific cover for Biblical Creationism.
And that's not even going into NON-CHRISTIAN myths, I'd expect in Australia they should at least be teaching the myths of the natives in an ancient history class!
God helps those who help themselves.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Make up their own minds? (Score:5, Insightful)
"We talk to students from a faith science basis, but we're not biased in the delivery of curriculum," Mrs Doneley said. "We say, 'This is where we're coming from' but allow students to make up their own minds."
Without a solid foundation in scientific methodology and critical thinking, students aren't equipped to determine what is evidently correct and what is not. I can't tell from the article what grade they're including this topic for, but unless their schools are a lot better than US schools, I doubt that any high school student is equipped well enough to determine the validity of an assertion such as Intelligent Design.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't tell from the article what grade they're including this topic for, but unless their schools are a lot better than US schools, I doubt that any high school student is equipped well enough to determine the validity of an assertion such as Intelligent Design.
WTF? Scientific theory is something that can be taught at the 8th grade. A 6-year old can understand the difference between"magic" and "here's how you test it".
Start expecting more from kids, and you will get more from them. Expect less, and you will get exactly that.
Well, it pretty much is copied (Score:2)
Design filed in Ancient History, not Engineering? (Score:2)
Just as bad in history as it is in science class (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but ancient history classes for me included discussions of the paleolithic. You know, things that happened more than 6000 years ago?
Intelligent design is creationism in a cloak of pseudoscience bullshit. Intelligent design attempts to pass itself off as a scientific theory when you can't prove it, therefore it's not a theory, it's a random hypothesis with no supporting evidence. And yet because proponents of ID keep trying to do this annoying tap dance around scientific principles when it's not science.
I refuse to allow ID in any school in any way because it's a lie. Creationism as a philosophy isn't a lie, it shows itself exactly for what it is, it's a philosophy of how people think the universe was created, but there's no science behind it. Fine, so it belongs in a philosophy class that discusses multiple philosophies and ideas and critical thinking and that's it. ID is an attempt to get creationism outside of philosophy and into any other class, and that's because when you allow people to think about and question an idea, critical thinking will expose the truths and flaws. By getting it into another class, it suddenly becomes something that gets more legitimacy. The average person in a history/science/math class simply accepts what they are taught as so. People who are vested in teaching creationism don't want you to think about this or have a real critical thinking discussion, they are just hoping for more sheep.
They taught ID in my school.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, why is this still an issue 150 years later? Why do people feel that evolution needs to conflict with religion, and not say, geology?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, why is this still an issue 150 years later? Why do people feel that evolution needs to conflict with religion, and not say, geology?
Religion is resistant to change by its very nature. A lot of the change happens by groups breaking away and forming new sects with somewhat different beliefs because its very difficult to change beliefs from within the group. When the changes do occur within the group, then you still often get a part of the group that wants to stick to the old beliefs, so they break off anyway.
Wrong wording. (Score:2)
“teach” is for actual information about reality.
The word for bullshit and brainwashing is “indoctrination”.
You know, like people in North Korea are brainwashed into thinking touching something with the US flag on it, would make their hands rot of. (According to a guy who helps people get out of there.)
Same thing here. Exactly the same thing.
Only that the churches are the power-hungry dictators.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
Scientists don't agree with Intelligent Design. There's no scientific evidence to support it.
Most Christians don't agree with ID. Nowhere in the bible is ID mentioned.
No other religions propose ID.
Most surveys indicate hardly anyone asked believes ID. (most either believe full religious creationism or evolution, not ID).
Why then is it being taught in schools?
question for the peanut gallery (Score:3, Insightful)
So, generally speaking, I don't find the ID arguments very convincing. That said, I find part of this article's summary, and a common refrain from the anti-ID crowd (i.e. most everyone) to be troubling. Namely that ID "isn't science".
It seems pretty obvious to me that one could "scientifically" go about determining whether something was "designed" or not. Suppose a meteor lands on earth with some "interesting" properties. Maybe it has a particularly regular stucture. Maybe its engraved with the prime numbers expressed in binary. Etc. Are we going to say its impossible to scientifically approach the problem of determining whether this object was "intelligently designed" or "naturally occurring"?
It may well be that ID arrives at wrong conclusions for ideological reasons, but it also seems like the scientific establishment is overstating its case when it dismisses the entire problem of "design detection" (for lack of a better word) as "not science".
Re: (Score:2)
Wish I had mod points so I could mod this up, even though anonymous, as informative. Must be the most well thought out response I have ever seen on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's a stupid old creationist argument based on the erroneous notion that evolution is random. The only significant part of the evolutionary mechanism that could be said to be random is the relation of mutation to fitness. Mutations aren't random, and selection certainly isn't.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Mutations are random with respect to fitness, but they are in themselves constrained by the laws and processes of organic chemistry, so cannot be said to be entirely random. Some base pairs are more fragile than others, for example.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO (Score:5, Informative)
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution [talkorigins.org]
The number of scientists, and more importantly biologists, who think there is any question about the factuality of evolution is so exceedingly remote as to pretty much be considered universal consensus.
As to how the world started, um, that's cosmology, stellar formation, planet formation and geology. Evolution is the study of genetic change in populations, not in how the world came about.
Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it's a scientific theory, which is something considerably different than the colloquial definition. Why you guys keep trotting out this faulty and fallacious argument is quite beyond me. In formal definition, what you've committed is the etymological fallacy. Because a word or phrase may have multiple meanings doesn't mean that every application of the word invokes the same meaning. In science, a theory is a considerably more rigorously formulated claim or set of claims than just "wild ass guess", which is where you appear to be going. But it's a standard Creationist and ID stunt to try to diminish the rigorous nature of scientific theories to give a sort of rhetorical bump to claims that aren't even remotely scientific (and ID/Creationism is not science by any useful definition of the word).
I'm doubting that very highly.
And now you're inventing definitions for ID and Creationism to bolster your argument. Creationism may certainly be more expansive, but ID, as formulated by Behe and Dembski, is not about how planets form, but as a direct challenge to features of biological evolution.
I have a pretty good suspicion that you are not at all familiar with biological evolution and Intelligent Design. You certainly know nothing about science judging by the statement Yet, we still call it a "Theory" for some reason.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Boy, you sure know how to throw out the etymological fallacies. "Law" is an outmoded term that hasn't really been used in science since the beginning of the 20th century. There is fundamentally no difference between the old 18th and 19th century notion of a "scientific law" and the 20th and 21st century notion of a "scientific theory". It's just a change of usage.
You're floundering. Your lack of knowledge is such that your just aping very bad Creationist arguments.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO (Score:4, Informative)
After reading about this a bit more, I have to say that you are right. Why the change of usage and why the deprecation of the word "law"?
Because "law" implies that it is absolute, unchanging, and untouchable. Everything in science is up to repudiation because scientists concede that we don't know everything. The revision was made because "laws" like gravitation were modified showing that they are not absolute.
Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO (Score:5, Informative)
Yet, we still call it a "Theory" for some reason. And yes, I know about most of the evidence, and yes I buy that (more than anything else right now). I also understand that we might possibly be all wrong at any moment.
We still call gravity a "Theory" as well. You are making the common mistake about the scientific use of the word.
According to the United States National Academy of Sciences: Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time.
Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we should teach science in science classes, and leave religious education to churches. ID and Creationism are not scientific theories. At the very most they belong in religious studies or philosophy classes.
Re:history is a good place for it IMNSHO (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the evolution theory is the best we have right now, and the big band sounds plausible considering the expansion rate of the universe. Is that how it happened ultimately? No freaking clue and I think we fight and evangelize about it too much (myself included at times).
The problem with letting them believe that is that it validates all the other crazy crap they believe and that they try to get turned into law that the rest of us have to abide by.
Maybe teach creationism, ID AND evolution in school... teach them as the three most widely-accepted ideas on how the world started and push them forward as all *theories* and there is no scientific proof (there is evidence for some, but that is not conclusive proof) for any of it yet?
No. Evolution is a scientific theory based on the evidence. No scientific theory is ever proven absolutely true, but evolution is one of the strongest scientific theories out there. ID and creationism are not scientific theories. They aren't based on evidence, they don't make falsifiable claims, and they don't have any predictive power. They are simply myths that some religions have adopted as an explanation for that which they don't understand. To teach them as anything but that would be a lie.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's hard to speak on being a Christian when some here are against religion in general and very outspoken about it, so I avoid conflict when I can. They want you to rationalize something irrational. To them human emotions are nothing more than chemicals, life nothing more than chance in the dice game of life. I believe different. Some can't accept this and want to change me. You might as well fight the Sun from coming up. My devotion to God is never ending. In my mind science is just proof of a creator, wit
Re: (Score:2)
Design theories go all the way back to ancient Greece. There is plenty to teach about.
Darwin's argument is many ways theological/philosophical and is trying to falsify design theories. So I guess if design arguments of any type isn't worth teaching and isn't science, Darwin shouldn't be taught either. How can a negative answer to design be considered science but a positive answer (even if you think it is false) is science? It just doesn't work unless you simply want to say any argument we find wrong or fault "isn't science", which opens its own can of worms.
You apparently have no idea what the theory of evolution actually is, or of the evidence for it. Please educate yourself [talkorigins.org] on it before making further ridiculous statements.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ah yes, argumentum ad dictionarum. Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive, and are meant only for cursory definitions.
ID is not science. It makes virtually no testable claims at all, beyond overly expansive ones, and the two cases where it has been attempted to use it; bacterial flagellum and the vertebrate immune system, there were decades worth the literature already in place demonstrating how those systems evolved.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Odd that the bible, including creation, was taught in public education until approx 1948.
Why is that odd? Lots of unconstitutional things have been done throughout our history, and continued until they were successfully challenged in court. Creation is obviously a religious belief, and public school teachers are obviously employees of the state, so it's quite evident that teaching creationism is the advancement of specific religious belief by the government. This is quite plainly unconstitutional. Unless we are going to teach all of the other religious creation myths alongside it, it has no
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ [talkorigins.org]
You're either an ignoramus or a liar. There really are no other choices.
And just to put it in your pipe and smoke it, macroevolution (speciation) has even been observed:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html [talkorigins.org]