[phelanw]

Why? Teach it and present the best possible refutations of it. That's real education. Education is always a dialogue between opposing viewpoints. Indoctrination is presenting the "truth."

[Bubbatuck]

Why? Teach it and present the best possible refutations of it. That's real education. Education is always a dialogue between opposing viewpoints. Indoctrination is presenting the "truth." Always? Should be bring in holocaust deniers to discuss the holocaust? Willwe arrive at the truth more readily by hearing their views? Should we bring in flat-earthers to discuss astronomy? Is heliocentrism a theory that is subject to debate? ID is not a competing theory to evolution.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

"Why? Teach it and present the best possible refutations of it. That's real education. Education is always a dialogue between opposing viewpoints. Indoctrination is presenting the "truth." "

My thoughts exactly. A real science education would equip students to challenge or defend any theory. One just has to look what happens on FR, whenever this topic comes up. The controversy creates a great incentive for learning.

[Dimensio]

Why?

Because it is not science. It fails to conform to the scientific method.

Teach it and present the best possible refutations of it.

You mean like explaining how Behe's "irreducable complexity" is founded upon a fundamentally false premise?

I can't say about any other refutations of it since it's simply impossible to pin down what ID is: some people say that it's the theory that evolution did happen, but it cannot by itself explain all species diversity; some say that it's the idea that evolution didn't happen at all, and some kind of unnamed "intelligent designer" created all life; some say that it also applies to the universe itself; and some say that it's literal six-day creationism with all of the overtly Biblical elements removed.

Education is always a dialogue between opposing viewpoints.

No it isn't! That's debate! Education is teaching an established viewpoint. I haven't learned "opposing" methods of computer design in my engineering studies. Students don't learn "opposing" methods for how gravity operates in physics class. Students don't learn "opposing" models of the atom in chemistry. Students don't learn "opposing" views of historical accounts in history classes. Students don't learn "opposing" views of grammatical structure and spelling in English classes (ebonics garbage notwithstanding). Where did people get the idea that high school classes were all about presenting a "dialogue" between "opposing viewpoints", and why do they only seem to apply that to biological sciences?

[Stultis]

Education is always a dialogue between opposing viewpoints.

Loosey-Goosey Intellectual Relativism alert!

As another freeper asked, do you really think we should "always" dialog in "opposing viewpoints" in curricula (for example when presenting the historical reality of the holocaust)? Or is this just antievolutionary special pleading falsely disguised as a general principle?

Education certainly can, and often should, at least in some number of illustrative cases, include "a dialogue between opposing viewpoints;" but only when genuinely contending viewpoints, each with some measure of objective viability and merit in the relevant domain of scholarship, actually exist.

Of course this is not the case with creationism or ID. Whatever you may personally believe about their truth value, it is a simple fact that neither has (at least yet) achieved substantive standing in the market place of scientific ideas. Certainly neither has achieved a standing remotely comparable to evolutionary theory. This is an objective fact confirmable by consulting the professional literature of science. To present creationism or ID on one hand, and evolution on the other, as comparable "opposing viewpoints" is to flat out lie to students.

Your rhetoric simply attempts to deny or avoid this uncomfortable FACT. This is the usual role of intellectual relativism and intellectual affirmative action, but it's unseemly for a conservative. Let the liberal-left engage in word magic: pretending that saying something is so makes it so.

Any good conservative should be willing to let ideas compete -- ACTUALLY COMPETE -- in the intellectual marketplace, where they can succeed or fail on their demonstrated merit or lack thereof. Conservatives should sneer at calls for the sham, non consequential psuedo-competition of contrived "balance" in textbooks and curricula, failure-free and carefully measured to appease identity groups and salvage their delicate self-esteem.

After all, creationists in these threads regularly inform us that evolution is teetering on the brink of collapse. I happen to think that's B.S. and bravado which even the claimants don't believe (not deep down). But if it's so then LET evolution collapse, and if it's genuinely surpassed and replaced by some superior scientific theory then let evolution be removed from science textbooks and curricula. Why do those who (supposedly) consider their ideas on the verge of victory wish to establish the precedent that substandard ideas -- ideas that can't cut the mustard in PRACTICE -- should be dishonestly presented as competitive in curricula? I think the answer is obvious.