Friday, March 7, 2008

A Solution to ID in Public School science classes.

The Solution to getting Creationism Taught in Public School

Okay, I know a lot of people will say that this idea is crazy, because it dignifies the Creationists by treating them seriously, but after reading my article, maybe you'll understand where I am coming from, and that I'm really being quite devious.

No self-respecting science teacher wants to have to teach creationism or "Intelligent Design" (ID) in their science class, and every year, there seems to be yet another attempt by a Fundamentalist-dominated school board to include ID or challenge evolution (and all of science in general, as a result). Well, they will keep trying, and they'll probably keep losing.

So here's a way I thought of to try and get both Evolutionary biology teachers and ID proponents satisfaction.

First, we pass a bill to include ID in public school science class as a topic. The Bill will be deceptively titled and promoted as a bill that would introduce ID in the classroom. The actual text of the bill would contain the following:

(1) ID would be introduced as a topic in biology class.
(2) When discussing ID, teachers must use only what is considered current, modern, science, as approved by the world's academies of science.
(3) All materials used to teach about ID cannot be given to teachers by organizations with religious ties, or which are not considered part of the body of scientists from the world's working scientists. The only materials allowed must be comprised of current, accepted science.
(4) All science classes will teach the scientific method, and the characteristics of science as part fo their curriculum.
(5) Everthing taught in science class must be factual in nature, and scientifically justified.

Secondly, we get America's academies of science to develop a short, but effective seminar that wouldn't take more than a class or two, where students will be taught about ID. Of course, the material will not be from the Discovery Institute or a church. It will be only what the plain simple facts about ID are. It will teach that most of the literature from ID proponents is rife with inaccuracies and outright lies (which can easily be demonstrated objectively very easily) and that Michael Behe, the originator of the term "Intelligent Design" defines science in a way that allows Astrology to be considered a science. The material will contain just facts about ID, and make it clear to the student (hopefully with dramatic and practical demonstrations and diagrams) that ID should not be taken seriously as a science. We have this material be in the early introductory biology classes.

Thirdly, we incorporate more logic and reason into the Public School curriculum -- not just classes in formal logic, but logic and reasoning that is simply part of the way things get taught, so that students pick it up, and get used to using it in all aspects of their studies. The idea is to offer an education that actually improves thinking by promoting good logic.

ID will get talked about in public school, and science teachers will not have to fight it, because they would be teaching only what current standard modern science says. Of course, the ID people will eventually see the trick, and complain about it, but who can be taken seriously when they try to argue that science classes shoudl not be teaching what is currently accepted standard science by the world's science academies? It wouldn't sound very good.

This sort of stealth tactic is how ID proponents thought they'd get ID in the class, and this is a sort of a reversal of it.

People have already said that my idea just legitimizes ID by giving it a mention in the first place. I agree only partially. ID is a legitimate topic that is a very hot issue, but it certainly is not science, and does not deserve to be given equal time. My tactic would make ID proponents think that they're getting inclusion, but on Science's terms. It could actually be fun to watch them protest after they've realized they've been had!


GamingAsshole said...

Nah, Creationist are too smart for that ;)

David W. Irish said...

If they really were smarter than that, then they wouldn't be promoting creationism :)

GamingAsshole said...

Well...yeah, that's true. But it's intelligent design, not creationism. There's a difference. The names are different, hence difference!