Posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 19:35:12
In reply to Re: maybe god found them aesthetically pleasing (nm) » Toph, posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 18:54:07
>So, the question must be asked: Should we teach ID in our biology classrooms even though ID is not a viable alternative to natural selection? The answer is "yes, if we teach ID properly." The answer is "no" if we are asked to teach ID as a viable scientific theory worth spending precious classroom time on. To teach ID properly would be to demonstrate to the students that nothing of scientific interest follows after one posits an external agent to explain something. To say the eye was designed by God or an alien race is to say: Stop, go no further in trying to understand this. Students might be taught that ID is just the kind of theory that some philosophers and theologians find interesting but since it doesn't lead to any deeper understanding of biological mechanisms, doesn't lead to new discoveries or research ventures, and doesn't have any practical scientific applications, it is left to those in other fields to pursue. A good biology teacher ought to be able to explain why ID, even if true, is of little scientific interest in about 15 or 20 minutes. That should leave plenty of time for them to instruct their students in science.
From:
http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html
The link goes into a lot of detail...
It also has a commentary on the current state of legislation (in the US) near the end...I was very suprised at the poll results...
poster:alexandra_k
thread:551237
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050903/msgs/551555.html