Too Much Time, Too Many Causes
Here's a new one for you. Indian Cowboy has started up a new group because apparently there were too many causes and political groups in existence. He's started a group called Conservatives Against Intelligent Design. Okaaay.
The group exists toto give a voice to Republicans, Independent Conservatives, and Libertarians across the country who stand opposed to the teaching of ‘intelligent design’ and other forms of creationism in the classroom.
I have to admit, I'm not quite sure why a group needs to exist to oppose teaching a certain type of teaching. And if they want to join an already existing group that's well-funded (with endless taxpayer dollars) that's vehemently opposed to intelligent design, there's the ACLU. I'm with Dangerous Liberty where he responds with A little Depth Would Be Nice:
Indian Cowboy reveals the astounding ignorance of what ID proposes which is sadly so common among those who oppose it, especially those who do so because they consider it a "perversion of science".
The real reason that appears to be behind those who oppose teaching ID is a vehement opposition to anything resembling religion. Of course, there's a real simple solution that would completely and totally end all this discussion and all these groups -- which is why it won't happen: get government completely out of the education business. Why does the government have a monopoly on education? If everyone were free to make their own decisions regarding their own education without any government interference, each family could decide for themselves if they wanted ID, creationism, or evolution taught in whatever manner they wanted. But there's few people interested in freedom these days.
Comments
1
I'm with you there. I don't believe the central government has any business whatsoever in education and it certainly should not be advocating one theory over another. What is so harmful in teaching about an opposing view? We have courses in some schools about becoming Muslim, so how on earth does this alone fall under the so-called anti-establishment clause?
One of the ethics topics that came up in one of my teaching courses dealt with evolution. A hypothetical student knew the theory of evolution inside and out...she had attended a seminar with her church and learned a lot. She wrote her papers in such a way that she demonstrated understanding for the material, was able to answer all questions but she clearly did not believe evolution. The question was whether or not it was ethical to pass her for her knowledge even if she didn't accept it as truth.
How is that a matter of ethics?
One of the ethics topics that came up in one of my teaching courses dealt with evolution. A hypothetical student knew the theory of evolution inside and out...she had attended a seminar with her church and learned a lot. She wrote her papers in such a way that she demonstrated understanding for the material, was able to answer all questions but she clearly did not believe evolution. The question was whether or not it was ethical to pass her for her knowledge even if she didn't accept it as truth.
How is that a matter of ethics?
Posted by: Dana at June 06, 2006 06:00 PM (aymNT)
2
You bring up a good point -- how about forming an organization that's purpose is to remove teaching a religion in school that's openly violent to the American way of life (Islam) before we work to eradicate just Christianity.
And your ethics situation indeed shows a clear indoctrination view as opposed to an educational view. To even ask that question supposes that the purpose of the "passing grade" is to ensure the student AGREES with what is being taught and has nothing to do with whether they have learned it.
But, in today's government-run education system, it is NOT about education -- just another reason the government shouldn't be doing it.
And your ethics situation indeed shows a clear indoctrination view as opposed to an educational view. To even ask that question supposes that the purpose of the "passing grade" is to ensure the student AGREES with what is being taught and has nothing to do with whether they have learned it.
But, in today's government-run education system, it is NOT about education -- just another reason the government shouldn't be doing it.
Posted by: Ogre at June 06, 2006 07:01 PM (/k+l4)
3
You know where I first learned about ID? In school. Specifically in a philosophy course. Which is exactly where it belongs.
It is a philosophical theory inspired by biology, but it is not biology in and of itself.
This has nothing to do with hating religion; I'm a religious man, many of the signers are religious. Instead it has to do with teaching the right thing in the right place. ID isn't an 'alternative' to evolution. IN fact, if you read Behe's own words, ID is at best an alternative to 'abiogenesis', or the origin of the first living organism. Evolution doesn't speak to that and has never claimed to.
Neither abiogenesis (primordial soup might ring a bell) nor ID are currently taught in much depth. Why? Neither has much evidence. Tantalizing suggestions yes, but nothing concrete enough to be taught in a science class.
The problem here is that ID never had a place in the science class, religiously inspired or not.
It is a philosophical theory inspired by biology, but it is not biology in and of itself.
This has nothing to do with hating religion; I'm a religious man, many of the signers are religious. Instead it has to do with teaching the right thing in the right place. ID isn't an 'alternative' to evolution. IN fact, if you read Behe's own words, ID is at best an alternative to 'abiogenesis', or the origin of the first living organism. Evolution doesn't speak to that and has never claimed to.
Neither abiogenesis (primordial soup might ring a bell) nor ID are currently taught in much depth. Why? Neither has much evidence. Tantalizing suggestions yes, but nothing concrete enough to be taught in a science class.
The problem here is that ID never had a place in the science class, religiously inspired or not.
Posted by: IndianCowboy at June 06, 2006 10:58 PM (xV6tD)
4
i'd be all for getting government out of education if I could be confident that parents wouldn't screw their kids by concealing truth from them.
I've read a fair amount of the ID and creationist 'educational material'. Lies, straw men, and oversimplifications abound, not to mention outright denial of extant evidence.
I dont much like the idea of indoctrinated kids whether it's from bible thumpers (which is different from chrsitian) or leftists.
I've read a fair amount of the ID and creationist 'educational material'. Lies, straw men, and oversimplifications abound, not to mention outright denial of extant evidence.
I dont much like the idea of indoctrinated kids whether it's from bible thumpers (which is different from chrsitian) or leftists.
Posted by: IndianCowboy at June 06, 2006 11:00 PM (xV6tD)
5
I disagree with what's taught in the schools -- I see it up close. Uniformitarianism is accepted as fact. The big bang theory is the #1 "fact" taught as accepted "fact" and most instructors make fun of anyone who dares to question or challenge that "Fact." That's not science, either.
And I'm surprised you're opposed to freedom! At least that's what you reveal in your second comment -- you don't trust parents to teach their parents what they want. If I want to teach my children that Africa doesn't exist, why would you presume to stop me?
Someone is going to "indoctrinate" the kids -- you seem to presume that government is better able to do that than I am. I don't trust government to do ANYTHING right, certainly not education.
I'd rather see an organization that's interested in getting the direct teaching of Islam as a Religion of Peace out of schools than one dedicated to the removal of adding a new theory into classrooms.
Thanks for stopping along!
And I'm surprised you're opposed to freedom! At least that's what you reveal in your second comment -- you don't trust parents to teach their parents what they want. If I want to teach my children that Africa doesn't exist, why would you presume to stop me?
Someone is going to "indoctrinate" the kids -- you seem to presume that government is better able to do that than I am. I don't trust government to do ANYTHING right, certainly not education.
I'd rather see an organization that's interested in getting the direct teaching of Islam as a Religion of Peace out of schools than one dedicated to the removal of adding a new theory into classrooms.
Thanks for stopping along!
Posted by: Ogre at June 06, 2006 11:12 PM (acZAM)
6
Dana: It's a matter of ethics. By asking the question, and implying that the student might not pass, the course designer shows that there are a large number of unethical and/or dogmatic teachers that need to learn this.
For some reason my trackback to this post didn't work, but I've got a thread going at Tucents. It's interesting seeing an avowed socialist and an avowed libertarian in agreement.
For some reason my trackback to this post didn't work, but I've got a thread going at Tucents. It's interesting seeing an avowed socialist and an avowed libertarian in agreement.
Posted by: DaveTucents at June 07, 2006 04:47 PM (VA6Gs)
7
That could be, Dave, if the implied answer was that the student should pass. I'm betting in most cases that there are indeed a large number of teachers that would say that the student is an idiot and shouldn't pass. Clearly that's wrong, but I wonder if the ethics class that he attended even considered there was right and wrong...it was a "teaching ethics" course...
Posted by: Ogre at June 07, 2006 05:01 PM (/k+l4)
8
Every time I've tried to come over here I get a message saying that the server cannot be found...hence the lateness of any reply : )
Anything other than evolution has been determined to not be "science" since it involves God. Science, I am told, is inherently atheistic. I always thought it was a method of reasoning which involved forming hypothesese and testing them. True, God cannot be tested in such manner. Nor can man coming from ape. Both, I suppose, are postulation. But determining from the outset that there is no God serves to skew any viewpoint on the matter. But much of what evolution teaches cannot be proven any more than God can. Yes, species change over time...but we are yet to find any actual evidence of one species changing to another. And as to that primordial soup and abiogenesis stuff...it is exactly what I was taught in my high school biology class.
So long as we are indoctrinating children, I maintain that as the right of the parents, not the state. (By the way, I'm not big into ID. Under the theory, you can be one of the many who believe life on earth was seeded by alien life forms. But it is a theory...one of many. And some scientists have noted that it does a disservice for a student to not know about it.)
Anything other than evolution has been determined to not be "science" since it involves God. Science, I am told, is inherently atheistic. I always thought it was a method of reasoning which involved forming hypothesese and testing them. True, God cannot be tested in such manner. Nor can man coming from ape. Both, I suppose, are postulation. But determining from the outset that there is no God serves to skew any viewpoint on the matter. But much of what evolution teaches cannot be proven any more than God can. Yes, species change over time...but we are yet to find any actual evidence of one species changing to another. And as to that primordial soup and abiogenesis stuff...it is exactly what I was taught in my high school biology class.
So long as we are indoctrinating children, I maintain that as the right of the parents, not the state. (By the way, I'm not big into ID. Under the theory, you can be one of the many who believe life on earth was seeded by alien life forms. But it is a theory...one of many. And some scientists have noted that it does a disservice for a student to not know about it.)
Posted by: Dana at June 11, 2006 02:16 AM (pOl/v)
9
Sorry -- the server was under attack for a number of days there.
You are correct in your analysis of science, and especially that of evolution. The way that the theory of evolution was developed was specifically and intentionally anti-God. The theory started like this: There is no God, there is nothing that can influence this world other than natural forces. Now, let's propose stuff.
And yes, absolutely, the parents should have total control. That's what freedom is all about!
You are correct in your analysis of science, and especially that of evolution. The way that the theory of evolution was developed was specifically and intentionally anti-God. The theory started like this: There is no God, there is nothing that can influence this world other than natural forces. Now, let's propose stuff.
And yes, absolutely, the parents should have total control. That's what freedom is all about!
Posted by: Ogre at June 11, 2006 03:02 PM (acZAM)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.006 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0046 seconds, 17 records returned.
Page size 13 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.