Thursday, September 29, 2005
Clarifying Creationist Classroom Chaos in the Current Court Case
I do so love having friends both more liberal and more conservative than I in their political views.
So, in talking to one such friend, I feel i must make an addendum to my previous statements concerning the current court case.
Point the first, I am a Christian and my beliefs do include, to at least some extent, the creation of living things by God. As others have mentioned and let me intone my agreement, I do not think that teaching this in a classroom is appropriate, unless it does have some scientific weight to it. Being that I am not a scientist, I can only assume that all my friends who working or have degrees in a field of science have valid points in saying that thoughts of Intelligent Design have no basis in science. Point taken, point accepted. If there may be some scientific weight to an arguement for Intelligent Design, likewise, I think it would be inappropriate to exclude it from the classroom, at least in mention, but that doesn't seem to be the case now, so it's beside the point.
Point the second, the best argument for putting the phrase (whether or not it need some editing) in a science class is to allow the teacher to address a political/religious concern that, at least in this day and age, will be in the fore of most students' minds throughout the evolution discussion, if it isn't treated at the very beginning. A certain school-teacher friend of mine mentioned to me that school teachers, this court case aside, are free to do so if they so wish, meaning that all this court case would do is require such statements to be said/read aloud. It is a bit silly to require this, but I'm still not opposed to it because i don't mind appeasing people on points that are relatively unimportant. I think any high school science teacher worth their weight would want to get this topic quickly out of the way so that they can teach and the students might actually be listening.
Point the third, This means that the only major point that the court case is fighting for is requiring the provision (or announcing the provision) of material explaining intelligent design. I think that such is a worthy cause, although I doubt that the points making it worthwhile are being fought for in the current case. The only way such material would be appropriate is: The Material is not merely a discussion of Judeo-Christian beliefs on Intelligent Design, but explores all other options as well, including the marriage of Intelligent Design with Evolution [It was mentioned to me at this point that "Intelligent Design" is merely a different wording for "Creationism" and that it is still the same group of Conservative Christians that are fighting for it. Even if that is true on the surface (which is to say, the beliefs of those people who are funding the legal side and most if not all of the supporters), the inclusion of material on "Intelligent Design" must by its attempted use at a more general term, provide more general information. Intelligent Material would offer critique of Intelligent Design while discussing it and I think that if someone from the Evolution side of the argument were to write such material, describing beliefs and noting points both opposing and in favor of Intelligent Design, it might be more helpful to...well, to either the shutting up of the other side, or at least their being made to look fools. As it is, neither side will consider the other and both just want to throw mud.]
I don't suppose there is any way to make a state-sponsored board to provide and approve such material and let it go to state legislature or something.
So that: *ahem* If by "Intelligent Design" they mean "Judeo-Christian beliefs on the origins of life on earth," then I am opposed. If they mean that, because that's the only thing they really want added, but they are actually adding in a well-rounded discussion of alternatives to Evolution, I am in agreement, because the motives of the supporters is really beside the point, if they are doing the right thing. If they are trying to get subject matter that is not considered science taught in a science classroom, I am opposed. If they are trying to require that a teacher mention that there are other opinions and that there is material available to read about them, I don't really care either way, although I think a short mention will help out the teacher in the long run. I think the points being made are valid points in this court case, but I think that instead of constantly shooting down the people who are doing it wrong because of this little thing and that little thing, a committee ought to be created to sit down and do it right. [And I mean on the state level and may the federal government get its unconstitutional nose out of education.]
So, in talking to one such friend, I feel i must make an addendum to my previous statements concerning the current court case.
Point the first, I am a Christian and my beliefs do include, to at least some extent, the creation of living things by God. As others have mentioned and let me intone my agreement, I do not think that teaching this in a classroom is appropriate, unless it does have some scientific weight to it. Being that I am not a scientist, I can only assume that all my friends who working or have degrees in a field of science have valid points in saying that thoughts of Intelligent Design have no basis in science. Point taken, point accepted. If there may be some scientific weight to an arguement for Intelligent Design, likewise, I think it would be inappropriate to exclude it from the classroom, at least in mention, but that doesn't seem to be the case now, so it's beside the point.
Point the second, the best argument for putting the phrase (whether or not it need some editing) in a science class is to allow the teacher to address a political/religious concern that, at least in this day and age, will be in the fore of most students' minds throughout the evolution discussion, if it isn't treated at the very beginning. A certain school-teacher friend of mine mentioned to me that school teachers, this court case aside, are free to do so if they so wish, meaning that all this court case would do is require such statements to be said/read aloud. It is a bit silly to require this, but I'm still not opposed to it because i don't mind appeasing people on points that are relatively unimportant. I think any high school science teacher worth their weight would want to get this topic quickly out of the way so that they can teach and the students might actually be listening.
Point the third, This means that the only major point that the court case is fighting for is requiring the provision (or announcing the provision) of material explaining intelligent design. I think that such is a worthy cause, although I doubt that the points making it worthwhile are being fought for in the current case. The only way such material would be appropriate is: The Material is not merely a discussion of Judeo-Christian beliefs on Intelligent Design, but explores all other options as well, including the marriage of Intelligent Design with Evolution [It was mentioned to me at this point that "Intelligent Design" is merely a different wording for "Creationism" and that it is still the same group of Conservative Christians that are fighting for it. Even if that is true on the surface (which is to say, the beliefs of those people who are funding the legal side and most if not all of the supporters), the inclusion of material on "Intelligent Design" must by its attempted use at a more general term, provide more general information. Intelligent Material would offer critique of Intelligent Design while discussing it and I think that if someone from the Evolution side of the argument were to write such material, describing beliefs and noting points both opposing and in favor of Intelligent Design, it might be more helpful to...well, to either the shutting up of the other side, or at least their being made to look fools. As it is, neither side will consider the other and both just want to throw mud.]
I don't suppose there is any way to make a state-sponsored board to provide and approve such material and let it go to state legislature or something.
So that: *ahem* If by "Intelligent Design" they mean "Judeo-Christian beliefs on the origins of life on earth," then I am opposed. If they mean that, because that's the only thing they really want added, but they are actually adding in a well-rounded discussion of alternatives to Evolution, I am in agreement, because the motives of the supporters is really beside the point, if they are doing the right thing. If they are trying to get subject matter that is not considered science taught in a science classroom, I am opposed. If they are trying to require that a teacher mention that there are other opinions and that there is material available to read about them, I don't really care either way, although I think a short mention will help out the teacher in the long run. I think the points being made are valid points in this court case, but I think that instead of constantly shooting down the people who are doing it wrong because of this little thing and that little thing, a committee ought to be created to sit down and do it right. [And I mean on the state level and may the federal government get its unconstitutional nose out of education.]
# posted by Adam @ 11:28 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
You pose good points, and that was very well put. I know that for my evolution classes they were started out this way, just to get the discussion out of the way...
Evolution is not wrong, there are no holes in the theory (as we learned later) and any real scientist will tell you that its a perfect theory so far (though it can be prooven wrong at any time). That is what we will study in this class, evolution. If you believe in other theories of evolution thats fine, but they will not be discussed in this classroom because this is a science class, and so we will only discuss scientific evolution.
They have always offered to talk to some one after class about it, or direct them to some one else who can explain other theories to them. But it has always firmly been stated that other theories would not be discusses in this class.
I do think that with all this interest in creationism, intelligent design and all of that, that perhaps it would be usefull to create another optional class where kids can learn about other theories if they choose too. This way they can form their own decisions on what they want to believe if they are confused or want more information on other beliefs.
Post a Comment
Evolution is not wrong, there are no holes in the theory (as we learned later) and any real scientist will tell you that its a perfect theory so far (though it can be prooven wrong at any time). That is what we will study in this class, evolution. If you believe in other theories of evolution thats fine, but they will not be discussed in this classroom because this is a science class, and so we will only discuss scientific evolution.
They have always offered to talk to some one after class about it, or direct them to some one else who can explain other theories to them. But it has always firmly been stated that other theories would not be discusses in this class.
I do think that with all this interest in creationism, intelligent design and all of that, that perhaps it would be usefull to create another optional class where kids can learn about other theories if they choose too. This way they can form their own decisions on what they want to believe if they are confused or want more information on other beliefs.
<< Home
