American Federation of Teachers Statement on President Bush’s Comments on Intelligent

[Karin]

WASHINGTON, Aug. 4 – The following is a statement by Antonia Cortese, executive vice president, American Federation of Teachers, on President Bush’s Comments that ’Intelligent Design’ should be taught in the nation’s science classrooms:

President Bush’s** misinformed comments** on “intelligent design” signal a huge step backward for science education in the United States. The president’s endorsement of such a discredited, nonscientific view is akin to suggesting that students be taught the “alternative theory” that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth. Intelligent design does not belong in the science classroom because it is not science.

By backing concepts that lack scientific merit, President Bush is undermining his own pledge to "leave no child behind." If students are to reach higher standards, and if they are to compete effectively with their international peers, they must be exposed to high-quality curricula that are research based and that reflect the best available knowledge in any given field. In the science classroom, that necessitates the study of evolution, one of the most important, powerful, and well-substantiated concepts in science.

Intelligent design has been repudiated by every respected scientific organization in the nation, including the National Academies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Science Teachers Association. Even President Bush’s top science adviser, John H. Marburger III, has acknowledged that “evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology” and that "intelligent design is not a scientific concept." To preserve the integrity of science education, President Bush should heed this advice.

---

The AFT represents 1.3 million pre-K through 12th-grade teachers; paraprofessionals and other school-related personnel; higher education faculty and professional staff; nurses and healthcare workers; and federal, state and local government employees.
http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?SESSIONID=&aId=3602

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Normally I don’t like the conclusions of teachers’ unions, but in this case they hit it pretty close, with the obligatory political content influence of course.

Intelligent design is only speculation, or if one believes it, it is in faith and not through discovery through the scientific process. That is not to say it isn’t true, but it really is not subject to scientific or logical discovery, except that life is so amazing that it’s hard to imagine it wasn’t designed. That may a belief I might be convicted in, but it isn’t science any more than 1+1=1 is objectively true in a math class just because God’s teachings on marriage suggests such a formula in one case.

Karin:

In the science classroom, that necessitates the study of evolution, one of the most important, powerful, and well-substantiated concepts in science.

That all said, this one part of their letter bothers me.

First, I question whether evolution theory is really all that useful, except to the extent that we know and manage microevolution as it relates to mutating germs and the like. It is extremely useful for that. For “macroevolution,” from a scientific view I don’t see its importance other than academically. That may change in the future, I suppose but I still think they’re making a subjective, non-scientific value judgment here in making such as assertion.

Powerful? What useful technology or insight has evolution brought us that might be considered “powerful” except the powerful hot air that accompanies those on both sides of this artificial barrier between people? Has evolution given us alternative energy sources?

One of the most well-substantiated concepts? Where can I begin to take this one apart? It is so flimsy that it falls apart just looking at it. This theory has convincing circumstantial evidence I’m sure, and I don’t even claim it isn’t true. But well-substantiated? Considering macroevolution has not been demonstrated, nor can it be, by controlled experiments using the scientific method, than really we’re just connecting the dots. Maybe we got it right, maybe we don’t.

“Well-substantiated!” Please stop now, it’s starting to hurt!

Whew, thanks. “OK, now tell me that once more time.”

“Well-substantiated.”

Wow. Now I know what kind of fiction to read when I need cheering up!

Alan

 

[Edwin1961]

“President Bush’s misinformed comments on “intelligent design” signal a huge step backward for science education in the United States.”

The opening remarks alone says enough for me.

First, you can disagree with the President but when you say he is ‘misinformed’ is another thing.

Second, science in this country has ALWAYS gone forward ever since the beginning of this country. (and we are based on the Judeo-Christian base). So DON’T tell me we are going beckward because your agenda says that we can ONLY go forward and not so without it.
Give me a break!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

“President Bush’s misinformed comments on “intelligent design” signal a huge step backward for science education in the United States.”

The opening remarks alone says enough for me.

First, you can disagree with the President but when you say he is ‘misinformed’ is another thing.

Right. I don’t know what he knows or not. If I disagree with his conclusions I can speculate, but perhaps he is fully informed and just doesn’t agree with it or understand it like I do.

Certainly I can see how with all the issues a president deals with, he cannot spend as much time as we do discussing the details on the forum. Therefore I don’t have any problem being suspicious of his actions, and suspecting he is underinformed. To claim so is, as you have pointed out, an assumption without obvious basis.

[caution thread sidetrack] Another problem now that I’ve read it again, is that anti-Bush people tend to want to paint him as stupid. I admit he doesn’t always come off with the poise that Reagan (and even occasionally Clinton) comes off with in front of a camera, but didn’t he go to just as good a school as Clinton, and in fact achieve higher academically? Or was that Gore or Kerry? I remember somebody whom we were told was “objectively” smarter than the president turns out the president did better!

Second, science in this country has ALWAYS gone forward ever since the beginning of this country. (and we are based on the Judeo-Christian base). So DON’T tell me we are going beckward because your agenda says that we can ONLY go forward and not so without it.
Give me a break!

I’m not sure what you mean. Overall, science has gone forward, but not necessarily monotonically so on all issues. I’m not sure I know of any valid “scientific” evidence in favor of ID, other than that some of us find it so obvious it is beyond question.

Alan

 

[Karin]

“President Bush’s misinformed comments on “intelligent design” signal a huge step backward for science education in the United States.”

The opening remarks alone says enough for me.

First, you can disagree with the President but when you say he is ‘misinformed’ is another thing.

First can people read or not…??? I did not write this article! And what is wrong with saying Bush is “misinformed”?? Is he GOD and cant error in what he does or says…I think not!
This was not supposed to be a “Bush Bashing” but I have noticed if you post things that go against what Bush wants or thinks then you are Bashing…go figure!?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Karin:

First can people read or not…??? I did not write this article! And what is wrong with saying Bush is “misinformed”?? Is he GOD and cant error in what he does or says…I think not!
This was not supposed to be a “Bush Bashing” but I have noticed if you post things that go against what Bush wants or thinks then you are Bashing…go figure!?

What are you talking about? Who attributed this letter to you? I thought you were just showing it to us.

I didn’t see any particular sympathy for Bush, or antipathy for you, except that when I quoted that one part of the article I forgot to edit the quote thing and it showed by you. It might have given the impression that the part of the article I was bashing was written by you, to the relatively careless thread reader.

I voted for Bush. I was precinct committeeperson and walked the precinct handing out his campaign materials door to door. I am not pleased with some of his actions, and if he thinks ID is scientifically established then I must be misinformed or he is. I thought is was a purely speculative layer thrown on to of evolution in an attempt to make it more palatable to creationists, in an attempt to maximize votes. That’s all without knowing specifics, of course.

I have not seen any opinions from you, other than the one that “you people” cannot read. Perhaps you would like to opine on the article, or if we’re not coming through with the discussion you hoped to hear, guide us into it. Speaking for myself, I was not intended to either bash you or support you because you have not said anything to bash or support.

Alan

 

[BLB_Oregon]

“President Bush’s misinformed comments on “intelligent design” signal a huge step backward for science education in the United States.”

The opening remarks alone says enough for me.

First, you can disagree with the President but when you say he is ‘misinformed’ is another thing.

Second, science in this country has ALWAYS gone forward ever since the beginning of this country. (and we are based on the Judeo-Christian base). So DON’T tell me we are going beckward because your agenda says that we can ONLY go forward and not so without it.
Give me a break!

Why can’t the President be misinformed? I don’t get you. Why is it okay to say his conclusions are wrong, but not okay to say that he doesn’t have his facts straight in the first place?

Science…has always gone forward…since the beginning of this country? And it has a Judeo-Christian base? Huh? Do you mean that our scientists are always right? They don’t even agree! How can they all be going in the same direction, let alone the one correct direction? Scientific theories aren’t born in a conclave.

The Founding Fathers weren’t all Christian, let alone Jewish. The scientific method is far more akin to the Enlightenment than to Christianity. The working method of science is two steps forward, one step back… a great many scientific ideas are carried for a time, only to be discarded as more facts accumulate. Maybe in the 18th or 19th century there was some romantic ideal of unmitigated progress, but in practice that isn’t the way science works. It never has been. I don’t know where you’re coming from, but it sounds as if it isn’t anywhere within miles of a laboratory.

Besides, the quote was about science education, not science in general. Even Newton was only correct up to a point! That hardly means that we’re going to boot Newtonian mechanics from the physics curriculum. The uncertainty principle doesn’t mean that that it’s okay to write “God only knows what’s going to happen” on your physics test. If you could measure closely enough, that answer is absolutely right… but a science teacher would be shorting you if they let you get away with it.

This is not about whether intelligent design is the truth. The argument is over whether it is a philosophical concept or a scientific one. I think it is not scientific: that is, it is not an explanation that provides a mechanistic explanation for natural phenomenon which can be disproved by the discovery of additional data. It is possible you could disprove Darwinism… aspects of his theories have been disputed, certainly. I think that there’s positive evidence of intelligent design all over the place, but how you could scientifically disprove intelligent design is beyond me. For instance, you can’t remove the intelligent designer in order to run the control experiment. You can’t dig up a new fossil, run some tests, and conclude, “Intelligent design must necessarily be hogwash, because only an idiot or a sadist could come up with this.” I jest, but do you get my meaning?

Because we have compartmentalized education and (to my mind) have almost utterly neglected the teaching of philosophy in primary and secondary schools, I don’t know where intelligent design would fit into the curriculum. Frankly, I’d be thrilled if they just taught rhetorical logic, and bravo for the schools that do!

As for President Bush being painted as stupid: he does come off as less intelligent than he is because he is inarticulate, sometimes painfully so. When he gets off of his prepared notes, the literal meaning of what he says can be utterly nonsensical. If you don’t hear that when you listen to his remarks, you need to read some transcripts. His grammar can be almost random, he mixes metaphors with unintentionally comic effect, and his vocabulary and pronunciation often fail him. Those handicaps in oral communication could lead some people to believe that he hardly has two neurons to rub together.

John Kerry, in contrast, has greater grammatical and verbal skills, but is socially handicapped. He doesn’t have the President’s obvious ability to connect on a personal level, so the President comes off as much more human.

Now John Kerry’s daughters may tell us he’s a wonderful, compassionate, fun guy and Condi Rice may assure us that the President has a mind like a razor, but as anyone with buck teeth, crossed eyes, and a lisp could tell you, prejudices are hard to overcome. Of all the people with a legitimate complaint that life’s not fair, John Kerry and George Bush don’t make the top 10 list.

 

[CatholicCid]

I thought all theories on Evolution were… well, just that… theories…

Years ago, the Earth being flat and the sun revolving around it were set scientific theories… Yet they were wrong…
Why should any “theories” of evolution be taught at all, when they are just that… THEORIES…
If you won’t teach them all, then don’t bother teaching any.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

CatholicCid:

I thought all theories on Evolution were… well, just that… theories…

Years ago, the Earth being flat and the sun revolving around it were set scientific theories… Yet they were wrong…
Why should any “theories” of evolution be taught at all, when they are just that… THEORIES…
If you won’t teach them all, then don’t bother teaching any.

Ack. No. Good heavens. And I thought I’d have a coronary when they decided to cut art and PE instead of adding home ec back in.

This is a common misconception. A scientific theory is not a theory in the sense that you mean it. The term for that is a hypothesis. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has withstood a great deal of scrutiny and is at very least a useful mneumonic for explaining the preponderance of the known facts that it attempts to explain. (Note: we don’t test whether hypotheses are true. We test whether they are consistent with the known facts. It is like the difference between “innocent” and “not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”)

If you don’t teach scientific theories, in the sense that scientists use the word, you cannot teach the art or practice of science. Science is a conceptual intellectual discipline. If you tried, you could only teach empirical description… memorizing directly measurable facts. This would indeed kill science education. Not bothering to teach any scientific theories is not an option.

If you do not teach the art and practice of science in primary and secondary schools, then you will have an electorate that will be too conceptually ignorant to evaluate the decisions that we as a society have to make in order to use the discoveries of science. You will also have a populace that will be greatly handicapped in their ability to generate innovations. You cannot be an engineer, practice modern medicine, operate the machinery of modern warfare, or even fight fires effectively without a scientific background.

I have taught science at the college level at two selective institutions. With some shining exceptions, science education is already in dire straits. There are some very bright students out there with barely a clue about science when they enter college. Science education needs all the help it can get.

 

[jman507]

BLB_Oregon:

This is not about whether intelligent design is the truth. The argument is over whether it is a philosophical concept or a scientific one. I think it is not scientific: that is, it is not an explanation that provides a mechanistic explanation for natural phenomenon which can be disproved by the discovery of additional data. It is possible you could disprove Darwinism… aspects of his theories have been disputed, certainly. I think that there’s positive evidence of intelligent design all over the place, but how you could scientifically disprove intelligent design is beyond me. For instance, you can’t remove the intelligent designer in order to run the control experiment. You can’t dig up a new fossil, run some tests, and conclude, “Intelligent design must necessarily be hogwash, because only an idiot or a sadist could come up with this.” I jest, but do you get my meaning?

Because we have compartmentalized education and (to my mind) have almost utterly neglected the teaching of philosophy in primary and secondary schools, I don’t know where intelligent design would fit into the curriculum. Frankly, I’d be thrilled if they just taught rhetorical logic, and bravo for the schools that do!

I’ll just quote this part of your post, but really I think it’d be good to have to explain all of this to students. Part of what science is what science is not. This would make a good example. One may say that ID cannot be scientifically proven, but yet it cannot be disproven. So even if it is not scientific it might not be false, and very well true. But that dwells more into philosophy. Or is any of this what I said untrue? Or students should have no right to have this brought up in a science class?

 

[BLB_Oregon]

jman507:

I’ll just quote this part of your post, but really I think it’d be good to have to explain all of this to students. Part of what science is what science is not. This would make a good example. One may say that ID cannot be scientifically proven, but yet it cannot be disproven. So even if it is not scientific it might not be false, and very well true. But that dwells more into philosophy. Or is any of this what I said untrue? Or students should have no right to have this brought up in a science class?

To my mind, the first thing that the first week of science courses should deal with – and many if not most do – is what a hypothesis is, what a theory is, and in what philosophical sense scientists use the words “true” and “false”. I have seen that first week go zipping over a lot of heads, though.

When it comes to student questions, they should be able to ask anything they want. For instance, they deserve an answer to why scientists have reason to believe that creation is not 6,000 years old. But there isn’t time to raise how each scientific theory conficts with this philosophy or that political point of view, and frankly, many science teachers aren’t up to doing the discussion justice. Science class, as the curriculum is now structured, needs to stick with what science can speak to. Where to draw that line, though, is the sticking point!

A problem is added in because science courses generally teach the history of science, to show how scientific thought has developed and to treat why discarded ideas have been discarded. The history of science if full of politics and social ramifications, and all the rest. This is particularly true of Darwinism, but it goes all the way back to Galileo. The relationship between scientists, philosophers, religious and political leaders, and the general public is a complicated one. And of course, students are very interested in what science really has to say about politically-charged issues.

What you do not want to do is to give students the idea that scientific theories are no more than someone’s opinion. Knowing when a scientific theory is sufficiently established to put it in the category of “beyond reasonable doubt” is very important, for instance, in a jury trial that is hearing forensic evidence. For the purpose of a jury trial, ID can be scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Not beyond all possibility of being false, but well enough to use in good conscience to put someone in prison. That’s pretty certain.

 

[Orogeny]

BLB_Oregon:

Ack. No. Good heavens. And I thought I’d have a coronary when they decided to cut art and PE instead of adding home ec back in.

This is a common misconception. A scientific theory is not a theory in the sense that you mean it. The term for that is a hypothesis. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has withstood a great deal of scrutiny and is at very least a useful mneumonic for explaining the preponderance of the known facts that it attempts to explain. (Note: we don’t test whether hypotheses are true. We test whether they are consistent with the known facts. It is like the difference between “innocent” and “not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”)

If you don’t teach scientific theories, in the sense that scientists use the word, you cannot teach the art or practice of science. Science is a conceptual intellectual discipline. If you tried, you could only teach empirical description… memorizing directly measurable facts. This would indeed kill science education. Not bothering to teach any scientific theories is not an option.

If you do not teach the art and practice of science in primary and secondary schools, then you will have an electorate that will be too conceptually ignorant to evaluate the decisions that we as a society have to make in order to use the discoveries of science. You will also have a populace that will be greatly handicapped in their ability to generate innovations. You cannot be an engineer, practice modern medicine, operate the machinery of modern warfare, or even fight fires effectively without a scientific background.

I have taught science at the college level at two selective institutions. With some shining exceptions, science education is already in dire straits. There are some very bright students out there with barely a clue about science when they enter college. Science education needs all the help it can get.

AMEN!!!

Peace

Tim

 

[BLB_Oregon]

jman507:

IOne may say that ID cannot be scientifically proven, but yet it cannot be disproven. So even if it is not scientific it might not be false, and very well true.

Oh, my. I thought by “ID” you meant identification!

I don’t know the particulars of how some particular part of what is called intelligent design theory contrasts with random selection.

For instance, proteins do not fold up randomly as they are made, as might have been suspected at one time. You can show mathematically by statistical thermodynamics that the process of randomly trying configurations would be far too slow. But neither do you literally need to directly invoke the hand of God to explain how it happens, imagining that our proteins couldn’t fold up right without a guardian angel there to do it. There are wholly physical factors that guide the folding of the protein.

Now, if ID similarly invokes specific physical factors that guide the evolution of species, then yes, it could be introduced as a new testable hypothesis that treats weaknesses in classical Darwinian evolution. At present, though, you’d have to add the caveat that the calculations have not been done to justify putting ID on the same footing as modern Darwinian evolution. So yes, you could teach: Here is where Darwin’s original theory was weak or wrong, here is what the modern version of the theory currently says, here is a hypothesis that questions that, and this is why it is currently a hypothesis and not an established theory. As popular as ID is getting, that could be very useful.

Still, I wouldn’t mandate that in the curriculum… there are an awful lot of hypotheses out there with more data to back them up than ID. When you start adding stuff to the curriculum for political reasons, then politically hot hypotheses are going to take on importance in the minds of students that the science behind them does not yet warrant. That is what has the scientists and science teachers so hot under the collar.

The other bone of contention, of course, is the moniker “intelligent design”. Since we’re not talking about humans or any other “intelligent” creature as “designer”, that screams “supernatural,” which by definition is outside of the realm of the mere study of nature.

 

[Brad]

And now we see the major force behind keeping our kids in the dark. The very people responsible for teaching them. It is the secularlists that oppose God that start hyperventilating when any of their anti-God, pro-femminst, pro-liberal sex, pro-homosexual agendas are under attack by rationale thinking and praying persons.

This is demonstration of why our public schools need radical reform.

 

[Brad]

The stategy of the secularlists and how they attempt to set up the President and other leaders in order to discredit anyone with a Christian persuasions is revealed here:

americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4702

 

[CatholicCid]

BLB_Oregon:

Ack. No. Good heavens. And I thought I’d have a coronary when they decided to cut art and PE instead of adding home ec back in.

This is a common misconception. A scientific theory is not a theory in the sense that you mean it. The term for that is a hypothesis. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has withstood a great deal of scrutiny and is at very least a useful mneumonic for explaining the preponderance of the known facts that it attempts to explain. (Note: we don’t test whether hypotheses are true. We test whether they are consistent with the known facts. It is like the difference between “innocent” and “not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”)

If you don’t teach scientific theories, in the sense that scientists use the word, you cannot teach the art or practice of science. Science is a conceptual intellectual discipline. If you tried, you could only teach empirical description… memorizing directly measurable facts. This would indeed kill science education. Not bothering to teach any scientific theories is not an option.

If you do not teach the art and practice of science in primary and secondary schools, then you will have an electorate that will be too conceptually ignorant to evaluate the decisions that we as a society have to make in order to use the discoveries of science. You will also have a populace that will be greatly handicapped in their ability to generate innovations. You cannot be an engineer, practice modern medicine, operate the machinery of modern warfare, or even fight fires effectively without a scientific background.

I have taught science at the college level at two selective institutions. With some shining exceptions, science education is already in dire straits. There are some very bright students out there with barely a clue about science when they enter college. Science education needs all the help it can get.

Ack too…

I didn’t mean don’t teach Science… I was speaking directly on Evolution…
They don’t want to teach ID as it dwells in philosphy? No matter which theory of Evolution you look at, your going to eventually draw out questions of a greater power and such…
There is no way to prove any type of Evolution is correct, and as time shows, theories and beliefs can change on what really happened…
They don’t want to “offend” anyone by teaching this material so they say don’t teach it, when they are then offending people who believe such things…
We kids can make up our own minds… Trying to supress beliefs in such things as ID will only be an obstacle in our way as we will find it out somehow.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

CatholicCid:

Ack too…

I didn’t mean don’t teach Science… I was speaking directly on Evolution…
They don’t want to teach ID as it dwells in philosphy? No matter which theory of Evolution you look at, your going to eventually draw out questions of a greater power and such…
There is no way to prove any type of Evolution is correct, and as time shows, theories and beliefs can change on what really happened…
They don’t want to “offend” anyone by teaching this material so they say don’t teach it, when they are then offending people who believe such things…
We kids can make up our own minds… Trying to supress beliefs in such things as ID will only be an obstacle in our way as we will find it out somehow.

We absolutely should suppress the teaching of opinion as science. If we don’t teach you kids anything else, we at least need to teach you what science is and what it is not.

In science classes, we should be teaching science, not merely scientific opinions, let alone personal beliefs. It isn’t that one is better than the other, although the evidence behind a scientific theory gives it good claim to be believed. It is that these things have fundamentally different intellectual underpinnings. You don’t get an education just to put you behind this idea or that. You get an education in part so that you know why you believe what you believe. It is not enough for something to be true for it to be science. Science requires one to follow a very particular set of intellectual pathways in way of proof. The theory of evolution has earned scholarly chops that intelligent design has not.

To call something a scientific theory, scientists have to thoroughly and in good faith compare their hypotheses with fact and show at least substantial agreement. An established scientific theory does not have to be beyond improvement, but it should have withstood some real intellectual assaults, and with a degree of success that other theories treating the same question have not. ID has not yet met that standard.

 

[Brad]

BLB_Oregon:

We absolutely should suppress the teaching of opinion as science. If we don’t teach you kids anything else, we at least need to teach you what science is and what it is not.

In science classes, we should be teaching science, not merely scientific opinions, let alone personal beliefs. It isn’t that one is better than the other, although the evidence behind a scientific theory gives it good claim to be believed. It is that these things have fundamentally different intellectual underpinnings. You don’t get an education just to put you behind this idea or that. You get an education in part so that you know why you believe what you believe. It is not enough for something to be true for it to be science. Science requires one to follow a very particular set of intellectual pathways in way of proof. The theory of evolution has earned scholarly chops that intelligent design has not.

To call something a scientific theory, scientists have to thoroughly and in good faith compare their hypotheses with fact and show at least substantial agreement. An established scientific theory does not have to be beyond improvement, but it should have withstood some real intellectual assaults, and with a degree of success that other theories treating the same question have not. ID has not yet met that standard.

A lot of the comparative facts taught as truth have been scientifically refuted. “Real intellectual assaults” do not make something true or more than true. There are real intellectual assualts going on now that are being attacked rather than taught.

wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45377

iconsofevolution.com/

caseforacreator.com/home.php

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Brad:

A lot of the comparative facts taught as truth have been scientifically refuted. “Real intellectual assaults” do not make something true or more than true.

By “comparative facts”, do you mean the actual data, the theories used to explain them, or the extrapolated values that you get by combining measurement with theory and cranking through an equation or conceptual line of reasoning?

Withstanding rigorous intellectual comparison of hypothesis with observation doesn’t make an idea true. It makes it scientifically established, and hence the proper topic of a science course. The tension of living with explanations that one knows to be imperfect is the common lot of scientists. Only the lay public ever imagines that those neat packages exist. Science textbooks do have a shelf life, yes.

Intelligent design is not currently a scientifically established theory. It is an informed scientific opinion. It also carries an unfortunate moniker, IMHO. Since the “intelligence” in question is supernatural, it is beyond scientific inquiry. Science has nothing to say when God doesn’t have the system at least seemingly on a version of auto-pilot. The miraculous, while true, is by definition that which is beyond the explanations of science.

This is what I mean: it is proper to teach in a science class that an established theory does not completely explain the known data. It is not okay to propose an alternative opinion as an equally valid theory when that opinion has not undergone and sufficiently withstood similar scrutiny, let alone when there is no way the scientific method could be used to scrutinize it.

The fact that medical miracles occur is not a valid reason to throw out the teaching of modern medical science in favor of rosaries, anymore than the lack of an explaining scientific theory is a reason to dismiss rosaries out of hand. Lack of scientific theory only means that the power of prayer, until tested, doesn’t belong in science class. (BTW, the power of prayer is being investigated and is being established as observable fact… this is also different than established theory.)

Unless a superior natural explanation is proposed and tested, the best you have is the best you have. You admit that it has its problems, muddle through with it where it has value, wish the students luck on their scientific attempts to improve it or retire it during their careers, and go on.

PS What does “more than true” mean?

 

[jman507]

BLB_Oregon:

Still, I wouldn’t mandate that in the curriculum… there are an awful lot of hypotheses out there with more data to back them up than ID. When you start adding stuff to the curriculum for political reasons, then politically hot hypotheses are going to take on importance in the minds of students that the science behind them does not yet warrant. That is what has the scientists and science teachers so hot under the collar.

It may not seem like it fall under the purpose of ‘science.’ But I think there is a further question of what is the purpose of education. It would be excellent if there was a philosphy course required, but its not going to be there in high school. There must be something there that connects with everything else. What is the point of teaching someone something, if you don’t also teach someone what it’s purpose is, and the limations of it.

There really seems to be a problem when you keep everything so compartmentalized. If one was to only go to science class, it would seem to me that one would get an idea, that unless it can be proven scientific it cannot be true.

Given the contraversey here in this subject, it would seem to be a good place to bring it back the topic of what science is and is not. As far as I’m concerned, I’d rather you explain you give an idea with what is going on here in this subject to students. It might not be hard science, but one needs to know a proper purpose and direction of science. Much like a person needs to now only know how to drive a car, but the rules of the road too.