Replies

There is no "controversy" in the Scientific community.
***It looks like a scientific "controversy" to me and to 2/3 of the general public. Welcome to politics 101. The scientific controversy mixes with the political controversy and suddenly you're having discussions with boneheads like me over social policy. The key to social policy isn't whether or not some nitpicking scientific point is observed, it is on whether or not it is good for us as a society. Besides, what's the harm in exposing both sides to the controversy? If there is so little scientific basis for ID, it won't hold any water. But these are the same sort of guys who came up with the fact that the fine structure constant of light has changed, so the speed of light is not a constant.

Intelligent design isn't science.
***The haps side of evo/abio isn't science either, it is a philosophy bordering on a religion. The root word for science is "knowledge" -- we're supposed to be teaching what we know in the early science classes. We can teach what is projected to be known later on.

If you really want ID in the science classroom, what you will get is religion being subjected to the methods of science.

Everything is science is up for grabs. If you can't see it or devise a test for it, it goes.

Is this what you want for religious beliefs, testing by the standards of methodological materialism?

It looks like a scientific "controversy" to me and to 2/3 of the general public.

That's because more than 2/3 of the general public doesn't have a complex understanding of biology.

The scientific controversy mixes with the political controversy and suddenly you're having discussions with boneheads like me over social policy.

Which is exactly the problem. Attempting to use social arguments against scientific explanations is a gross misapplication of both.

The key to social policy isn't whether or not some nitpicking scientific point is observed, it is on whether or not it is good for us as a society.

And that's exactly the wrong way to discuss evolution or any other scientific theory. Scientific explanations are not invalidated just because people don't like the implications, though there are a lot of creationists who seem to think that this is the case.

Besides, what's the harm in exposing both sides to the controversy?

Because, as has been explained before, there is no "controversy" within science. The case for ID is based upon a gross misunderstanding or misstating of biology.

If there is so little scientific basis for ID, it won't hold any water.

Meaning that there's no purpose in putting it in a science classroom. Why teach non-science in a science class?

But these are the same sort of guys who came up with the fact that the fine structure constant of light has changed, so the speed of light is not a constant.

This is another attempt at someone who has only heard a smidgen of media-filtered information who now thinks that they have a deep understanding of relativity.

The haps side of evo/abio isn't science either, it is a philosophy bordering on a religion.

No, it isn't. Please try to do some research on the topic before making such dismissive statements.

Besides, what's the harm in exposing both sides to the controversy?

For one thing, it wastes valuable class time.

For another thing, intelligent design proponents use a lot of misinformation to advance their argument. Filling young minds with slick yet invalid and misinformed arguments is seldom beneficial to their education.

If there is so little scientific basis for ID, it won't hold any water.

It doesn't; that's precisely the point.