Teach the controversy!
Before this whole Expelled thing gains too much momentum, some honest light ought to be shed on the Intelligent Design movement. Their tactics are tawdry, asking real scientists to prove a negative, so there is certainly some bad blood between the two groups.
That said, nobody’s saying there’s no place in any classroom for Intelligent Design…
The truth is, I believe some form of “intelligent design.” But whether or not I believe it or a billion people believe it is irrelevant. Intelligent design, as has been discussed here and elsewhere, ad infinitum, it’s NOT SCIENCE and should not be taught as science or as an alternative to evolution.
On the other hand, if they want to teach it in a Religious Studies type class, I’m all for it. Go for it. That’s precisely where it belongs.
But not teaching it in the science classroom is somehow controversial. Teach the controversy, they say…
Its not just “Darwinists” that force their anti-Jesus dogma on the education system. I had a similar experience in my childhood.
Given a circle with a radius of 10, whats the circumference? Some would say that its 10 * 2 * “pi”!
But what is this pi? They can’t even define it; its completely irrational! Meanwhile they suppress the controversy. When I put down a much more reasonable answer - 60, because the literal Bible tells me the circumference of a circle is 2*r*3, I was marked wrong! The Nazis used these numbers to build their war machine and concentration camps and its being taught to children far too young to understand its deceptiveness. Inquiring minds are led to a literally endless and patternless series of numbers intended to confuse and dull the mind.
Teach the controversy!
Is denying Intelligent Design a place in science classrooms really a controversy? Evolution doesn’t have to be controversial…
Dawkins and many others notwithstanding, evolution doesn’t disprove god(s) or mandate atheism. What it does do is undermine (very thoroughly) an argument for god(s) that used to be a ’slam dunk’: the ‘argument from complexity in the biological world’.
Unfortunately, a lot of people don’t understand the distinction, and people like Dawkins don’t help. Many religious types treat ‘discounting an argument for god(s)’ the same as ‘advancing an argument against god(s)’, and go ballistic. But it’s important to note the difference. There’s still room to believe in god(s) even if you accept the ridiculously overwhelming evidence that evolution happened and is happening. (I don’t believe in god(s), FWIW, but many people do.)
Stein and his ilk really remind me of the worst features of Ned Flanders sometimes. “Well, I say there are some things we don’t want to know! Important things!”
So what could make it science?
“Intelligent Design” fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers.
Oh. Well no problem: just come back when you have something we can test.
Of course, the real tragedy of it all…
Isn’t it ironic that a whole generation of religious folks are doing nothing more than routing their kids into a backwater. Suspicion of science just means their children will distrust science and math and be shuttled, therefore, into a legion of burger flippers. Teaching your kids that Intelligent Design is the right answer is as close to child abuse as I can imagine.
Pardon my nomenclature, but those godless commie chinamen are going to eat our lunch!