instruction would include information about "intelligent design and information effectively challenging the theory of evolution."It's wrong to say that there's any science today that is "effectively challenging the theory of evolution"; it's important for the public schools to go with the scientific concensus on things like a sun-centered solar system and the fossil/DNA records of evolution.
However, I'm not against legislation allowing a discussion of the critics of evolution, even in science class. Too many people misunderstand what evolution is, how it works, and what evolutionary science is, and how that works (they say things like "it can't be falsified, therefore it's not real science").
It's important, in my opinion, in order to promote the understanding of evolution, to allow the debate about evolution (no matter how un-scientific on the other side) to proceed in public schools, even in science class. As long as the motives for allowing the debate are plainly stated: we're showing you these unscientific critiques, kiddies, so that you can contrast them with how science actually works.
"any science today that is "effectively challenging the theory of evolution";"
But the trick is to make Creation a Science and go after evolution that way. It is hard to challenge ZAP because it requires no proof or physical evidence. I can just about guarantee that if a reasonable challenge to evolution arises, scientists will be the first to perk up and listen. Creation is not a reasonable challenge.
Yes but. Yes, but given the demotic acceptance of such as alternative medicine, introduction of controversy before understanding of the heterodoxy is what got us to where we are. Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat the lessons of the past applies to science as well as everything else.
I applaud the spirit of your post, but in reality it doesn't work. Can you imagine alchemy in chemistry class as an alternative to show how real chemistry works? Prayer in physics class as a contrast?
You get the idea. And on top of that you would have to introduce ALL creation myths -- not just the Judeo Christian one.
I think that religion should stay in theology and philosophy class. Science should be taught in science class.
I do not agree. Do we debate the validity of molecular bonds in chemistry class? No difference IMHO..
I agree with this point stated by another freeper:
But the trick is to make Creation a Science and go after evolution that way. It is hard to challenge ZAP because it requires no proof or physical evidence. I can just about guarantee that if a reasonable challenge to evolution arises, scientists will be the first to perk up and listen. Creation is not a reasonable challenge.
This is a very important point as science is not absolute.
If you want to challenge the various scientific theories and hypotheses in evolution, you need to do it scientifically. And scientists do look at different observations and testing all the time to either prove or disprove the scientific theories. However, the various scientific theories involved in evolution have been tested over and over and continue to prove they are correct.
In science, you cannot use religion such as ID or creation to disprove a scientific theory since there cannot be an absolute conclusion (eg. there is a God) before you run your test.