SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Katelew who wrote (101751)1/25/2009 2:52:41 AM
From: JohnM  Read Replies (2) of 542946
 
No doubt, someone will post the Pennsylvania court decision concerning ID. That's certainly one way to establish that it's not science.

After reading that it originated from within the scientific community itself and scanning some of their arguments relative to DNA microbiology, I now don't see how it could be presented other than within a scientific curriculum.

It would help if you would share the link to that, Kate. I do know that some scientists believe such but not on scientific grounds.

A lot of these discussions venture into the philosophy of science and thus into arguments about Kuhn's notions of how science changes. But that's hardly material for k-12 science textbooks.

Again, and I think the point is well worth making repeatedly, the arguments I've seen include the notion that intelligent design materials can be included in curriculums at this level, just not in the science curriculum. Since they are simply not that.

The frenetic push to include them is yet one more indication that the whole point is to undermine science itself. Because social conservatives see it at odds with their own views of how humans came to be.

If they wish to teach it at home, fine. But it makes no sense to take public education back to the early nineteenth century.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext