[Nebullis]

This suggests two kinds of scope: (a) a sufficiently large scope of objects that merit legitimate scientific analysis; (b) the sufficiently large scope of information discovered about those objects.

Both of these require limitation by statements in the curriculum proposal (e.g. the confine of scientific knowledge).

First, the scope of the field is not limited by the curriculum guidelines for elementary and secondary schools.

Second, the scope of science changes as discoveries are made.

I don't know all that the ID proponents want--some of them appear to be kamikaze--but I'm all in favor of teaching the history of science, in science classes, both at the primary and at the secondary level.

I'm in favor of a historical presentation at, maybe a high school level. Currently, as you move up toward graduate education, the curriculum changes to only a historical and contextual presentation of experiments and thought processes. This, by the way, has nothing to do with ID.

[cornelis]

Right. The curriculum requirements are not the same as the limit implied by the concept "scientific knowledge." The curriculum proposal states that it abides by the restriction of what passes as scientific knowledge.

And true, some of the various scope of scientific thinking is expansive. Knowledge increases. It may be that this quantitative increase or progress is infinite, yet it occurs within the restricted meaning of "scientific knowledge." And so the limit of is one of kind, not quantity.