Santorum's good but hated idea for high schools

---"When I suggested in 2005 that high school biology teaching would be improved by allowing students to debate Darwinism vs. the intelligent design theory, I received more than 400 e-mails. Seventy percent of them said I was an idiot. Many added that I was a dangerous idiot."

And 70% of them were absolutely correct.

Obviously he hasn't read the Wedge Document. Otherwise he'd know how "sincere" the DI is.

"I don’t see any mention of his [Santorum] victories over evolutionary dogma on his Web site."

Dogma? Kinda dropped your drawers there, Jay.

One thread isn't enough to debate this issue?

Don't be down, it takes more than 1000 delegates to nominate the Republican challenger, Rick is only 10 delegates behind Mitt.

Brian_G wrote:

One thread isn't enough to debate this issue?

Heck, for you ID guys, 2300+ years worth of ABYSMAL FAILURE at producing any research, empirical evidence or anything of scientific value in support of "intelligent design" hasn't been enough.

Plato and Aristotle were unable to ... so it is highly unlikely that you or Santorum or any of the Discovery Institute pseudo-scientists will be any more successful.

Actually it is not all that bad of an idea. But it should not a class limited to Creationism versus Evolution. It should be a whole class of debating scientific ideas. The students would have to do research and learn how to argue logically and learn how to differentiate between good sources and bad sources. Other topics could be debating the germ theory, plate tectonics versus an expanding Earth, etc. You can see that the students might fairly quickly get an idea of what concepts are supported by science and which aren't.

The topics could be any that are well supported by science versus those that are not. After a while hopefully the students will notice a similarity between ideas supported by the scientific method and those that aren't.

Subduction Zone wrote:

Actually it is not all that bad of an idea. But it should not a class limited to Creationism versus Evolution. It should be a whole class of debating scientific ideas. The students would have to do research and learn how to argue logically and learn how to differentiate between good sources and bad sources. Other topics could be debating the germ theory, plate tectonics versus an expanding Earth, etc. You can see that the students might fairly quickly get an idea of what concepts are supported by science and which aren't.
The topics could be any that are well supported by science versus those that are not. After a while hopefully the students will notice a similarity between ideas supported by the scientific method and those that aren't.

Probably not how the amendment would get implemented though.

More like "see, the Theory of Evolution can't explain *X*, therefore IDdidit". Conveniently for the "creationistIDers", it does away with the need for logic, reason, research, empirical evidence and sound science.

I don't advocate ID, I advocate critical thinking.

No subject is sacrosanct in science; every theory is open to question and debate.

Brian_G wrote:

I don't advocate ID, I advocate critical thinking.
No subject is sacrosanct in science; every theory is open to question and debate.

Fine.

Bring the evidence, and we'll debate it.

Brian_G wrote:

I don't advocate ID, I advocate critical thinking.
No subject is sacrosanct in science; every theory is open to question and debate.

Correct. "God did it" is not critical thinking. It's a cop out.

Brian_G wrote:

One thread isn't enough to debate this issue?

Very good, you've just again demonstrated that you don't pay attention.

Subduction Zone wrote:

Actually it is not all that bad of an idea. But it should not a class limited to Creationism versus Evolution. It should be a whole class of debating scientific ideas. The students would have to do research and learn how to argue logically and learn how to differentiate between good sources and bad sources. Other topics could be debating the germ theory, plate tectonics versus an expanding Earth, etc. You can see that the students might fairly quickly get an idea of what concepts are supported by science and which aren't.
The topics could be any that are well supported by science versus those that are not. After a while hopefully the students will notice a similarity between ideas supported by the scientific method and those that aren't.

Hypothetically speaking pitting creationism vs evolution in a science class is a great way to teach critical thinking and why science works (if we leave out the DI's and Santorum's lies that is).

The ironic thing though is that in today's climate, if a teacher was to teach why IDCreationism is a load of crapp there would probably be calls from parents to sue the school for bad-mouthing their religion and violating church and state.

Another good reason to keep IDCreationism out of the classroom.

Brian_G wrote:

I don't advocate ID, I advocate critical thinking.

No you don't, liar. As a supporter of the Santorum amendment you advocate the complete opposite.

Brian_G wrote:

No subject is sacrosanct in science; every theory is open to question and debate.

By SCIENTISTS, not by kids in schools.

(the following is for anyone else's benefit as Brian doesn't like listening to rationality).

Having the kids spend at least one lesson debating both sides would be a good thing, to help them with critical thinking skills. This could even take up the length of several lesson periods, but most schools can't really afford to spend the time. Then at the end of it the teacher could review how both sides of the class did and then point out where both went wrong and what they got right. This then would be a good segue for the teacher to do a proper comparison between IDCreationism and evolution and why IDC fails and why evolution works. Some may argue that if kids take part in such a debate in school lessons it should be done in a philosophy or comparative religions class, thus leaving more time in science class for teaching science. I'd support any and all of these things if they could be implemented, but unfortunately these are ideals which are now mired in political interference, and also that not all schools necessarily have the time and/or funding to implement these things. Another problem is some teachers are creationists who may/would illegally take advantage by throwing in religious apologetics supported by Santorum or various fundie organisations.

Another problem is that a teacher would have to tread very carefully, and there is always the possibility they could slip up and go too far in their criticism of IDCreationism, and the fundies would (in that case) quite rightfully be able to take the school to court, just as supporters of science could do if they found out Santorum/ID style apologetics was being taught (think Freshwater case). Due to all this fuss many schools would sadly prefer to avoid this to avoid getting stuck with large bills like Dover. The unfortunate thing here is that some schools will avoid teaching evolution completely or any other sciences which are a religious hotbutton, leaving them with substandard science education. This isn't a perfect scenario for Ricky or fundies like the DI, but it'll do. The small blessing though is that for those schools who still teach a full science curriculum would likely not need to worry too much about NCLB apologetics.

Brian_G wrote:

I don't advocate ID, I advocate critical thinking.
No subject is sacrosanct in science; every theory is open to question and debate.

I seriously doubt you either advocate or practice "critical thinking" when it comes to the validity of your Christian beliefs.

How about a federal law mandating that all Christian churches allow one full hour of prime pulpit time during services each Sunday morning for a qualified, non-religious scientist to clearly and systematically explain what the science behind evolution really IS and how it came to be the universal understanding of biologists worldwide, as well as the science behind an old earth and the scientific rebuttal to ideas about a global flood, etc.

You would support that, right?

I mean, WHY NOT? You're all for :critical thinking," right? What would you be afraid of?

Gillette wrote:

<quoted text>
I seriously doubt you either advocate or practice "critical thinking" when it comes to the validity of your Christian beliefs.
How about a federal law mandating that all Christian churches allow one full hour of prime pulpit time during services each Sunday morning for a qualified, non-religious scientist to clearly and systematically explain what the science behind evolution really IS and how it came to be the universal understanding of biologists worldwide, as well as the science behind an old earth and the scientific rebuttal to ideas about a global flood, etc.
You would support that, right?
I mean, WHY NOT? You're all for :critical thinking," right? What would you be afraid of?

Include sermons based on some of the other gospels and see how they like it.

Mary Magdalene was Jesus' lover and wife? Judas was actually instructed by jesus to betray him? We're advocating critical thinking, right?

MIDutch wrote:

<quoted text>
Include sermons based on some of the other gospels and see how they like it.
Mary Magdalene was Jesus' lover and wife? Judas was actually instructed by jesus to betray him? We're advocating critical thinking, right?

Hell,*I* might even go to church for that!

Elohim wrote:

Correct. "God did it" is not critical thinking. It's a cop out.

I agree. That's why I don't advocate ID or creationism.

Evolution is open to debate and challenge; science is verified by experimental test, not consensus.

Gillette wrote:

I seriously doubt you either advocate or practice "critical thinking" when it comes to the validity of your Christian beliefs.

I'm not a Christian.

.

Gillette wrote:

How about a federal law mandating that all Christian churches allow one full hour of prime pulpit time during services each Sunday morning for a qualified, non-religious scientist to clearly and systematically explain what the science behind evolution really IS and how it came to be the universal understanding of biologists worldwide, as well as the science behind an old earth and the scientific rebuttal to ideas about a global flood, etc. You would support that, right?

No, everyone has a Constitutional right to practice religious rites without government interference.

.

Gillette wrote:

I mean, WHY NOT? You're all for :critical thinking," right? What would you be afraid of?

Science must be subject to critical thinking; religion is about faith. Everyone has irrational beliefs, the religious are self aware so they don't impose theirs on others.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>I agree. That's why I don't advocate ID or creationism.
Evolution is open to debate and challenge; science is verified by experimental test, not consensus.

However it has consensus because it's been verified via experimental testing. I don't find it very likely most school-kids would be able to perform many orthologous endogenous retrovirus analyses.

Brian_G wrote:

Science must be subject to critical thinking; religion is about faith. Everyone has irrational beliefs, the religious are self aware so they don't impose theirs on others.

Fundies try exactly that. That's why they came up with "creation science" and the Santorum Amendment. You may not be aware of the decades long legal history of this, but the rest of us are.

Brian_G wrote:

No subject is sacrosanct in science; every theory is open to question and debate.

Don't confuse "hypothesis" with "theory". When people like you use the word "theory" in reference to evolution,you use it in the same sense as having a hunch,or guessing.That's rather deceitful of you,since that's not what a scientific theory is.A theory is not a mere hunch or guess.A theory is the explanation for how something works, to put it simply.A good analogy would be a puzzle.Each piece is like a fact.A theory puts all these pieces together to form the final picture.Enough pieces have been put together to know what the final picture is.Unfortunately, some pieces are missing,and other pieces are put in the wrong place.However, that doesn't change what the final picture is and the knowledge of what the picture is.

When there are changes in the theory of evolution, it doesn't show that evolution is wrong.....just as how when a puzzle piece is moved it doesn't change what the picture is.What it means is that it was discovered that a piece of that puzzle was in the wrong place, so it was moved or put aside until there's more info that helps in knowing where it's supposed to go.