Intelligent Design . . . coming to a classroom near you?
Keltie's friend Droo has a lot of posts about the new wave coming to some US public school science classes . . . the theory of 'intelligent design'. One particular post is on the oxymoron of teaching intelligent design along with the scientific method . . . see link below . . .
http://exitsection.blogspot.com/2005/09/on-intelligent-design-and-scientific.html
Here's my theory on teaching intelligent design and the scientific method . . . if the students are really encouraged to think for themselves and apply the scientific method, and not subject to a lot of brainwashing elsewhere, they should be fine. (Eventually, after they get over the confusion, and probably become more bitter and disappointed than your home bred agnostic).
Basically, the holes in many of the religious theories, or particularly some exposure to religious fanatics alone will convince kids or teens that something smells fishy about many fundamentalist teachings, forcing them to work out their own beliefs. If they are in the least bit contemplative, they will be disappointed in one of the systems, and when they get more logical than wishful, you can guess which way they will lean.
My parents didn't try to convince my brother that there was no God . . . they would just point out the holes in logic of some of the religious stories he brought home from school. They would explain how some of his assumptions about God differed from most Christian teachings (he was a pretty nice kid with an optimistic imagination) and now he is probably more jaded than someone who was taught to be atheist. Noone at home told him there was no God, but that has been his opinion since he reached the age of abstract thought, pimples and b.o. It wasn't that long after he stopped beleiving in Santa Claus, I'd expect.
With me, they did actually argue that there was no God. I am a milder version of agnostic/atheist than my dad or my brother, who are definitely Bitter Atheists, borne of closer association and earnest consideration of religion.
About the kids in the class that have already been brainwashed elsewhere . . . well, they were brainwashed. They weren't going to believe in the standard scientific version anyways, right?
http://exitsection.blogspot.com/2005/09/on-intelligent-design-and-scientific.html
Here's my theory on teaching intelligent design and the scientific method . . . if the students are really encouraged to think for themselves and apply the scientific method, and not subject to a lot of brainwashing elsewhere, they should be fine. (Eventually, after they get over the confusion, and probably become more bitter and disappointed than your home bred agnostic).
Basically, the holes in many of the religious theories, or particularly some exposure to religious fanatics alone will convince kids or teens that something smells fishy about many fundamentalist teachings, forcing them to work out their own beliefs. If they are in the least bit contemplative, they will be disappointed in one of the systems, and when they get more logical than wishful, you can guess which way they will lean.
My parents didn't try to convince my brother that there was no God . . . they would just point out the holes in logic of some of the religious stories he brought home from school. They would explain how some of his assumptions about God differed from most Christian teachings (he was a pretty nice kid with an optimistic imagination) and now he is probably more jaded than someone who was taught to be atheist. Noone at home told him there was no God, but that has been his opinion since he reached the age of abstract thought, pimples and b.o. It wasn't that long after he stopped beleiving in Santa Claus, I'd expect.
With me, they did actually argue that there was no God. I am a milder version of agnostic/atheist than my dad or my brother, who are definitely Bitter Atheists, borne of closer association and earnest consideration of religion.
About the kids in the class that have already been brainwashed elsewhere . . . well, they were brainwashed. They weren't going to believe in the standard scientific version anyways, right?
posted by Lu Hill at 9:10 p.m.
3 Comments:
Teaching ID in science class is like teaching evolution in sunday school... it is wrong and it makes baby jesus cry.
Personally, I'm more interested in understanding the Christian Right Wing's mentality with this one. Intelligent design is an inherently unscientific approach. They seek to patch any "holes" (real or perceived) in the theory of evolution with the blanket assumption that goddidit; which whether true or not, is quite possibly unscientific.
No intelligent design proponent, to the best of my knowledge, has successfully answered one simple question: what is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how can it be experimentally validated? In any science; whether it be biological, physical or chemical; this is the fundamental question which must be addressed first.
Also, notably, the curriculum in Dover Pennsylvania specifically states that the "holes" in Darwin's theory of evolution will be studied in detail. This is a laudable approach, as it encourages critical thinking.
However, not a damned thing is said about studying the "holes" in the "theory" of Intelligent Design. The biggest hole in ID? The fact that there is no theory of intelligent Design; at least not in the scientific sense of the word.
So, if the Christian Right Wing wants Intelligent Design to be believed by any of these students, how can they do it if they're also teaching the scientific method?
I don't think that they can.
The schools teaching Intelligent Design are setting themselves up as the aunt that insists that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real, long after you are 99% sure that it is all crap. Laughable . . . and in the end, sad (and embarassing to introduce to others).
I think that teaching Intelligent Design in school is wrong - though not mentioning it is also wrong, because apparently most of these kids are getting it in Sunday school. Schools can't pretend that all or even most kids go home to parents that will further rational thought.
My only comfort is that soon most kids will catch their parents stuffing the Christmas stocking anyways (or their college profs will laugh at them until they die of mortification).
Post a Comment
<< Home