I think that is called College.

So basically, you think that while the students, starting at grade 6-7, can pick elective classes of their own choosing (which means, they pick what they learn); you dont think its a good idea to choose which science class to pick from in high school? Its either A) a widely disputed theory which has been argued forever; or covering all major theories, not putting one over the other...giving the students the ability to decide AND think for themselves what they want to learn.

The difference between high school and college as far as choosing classes is concerned, is null. There still is a specific class regimine to stick to, and the students pick their electives. And if they are so sufficiently educated to pick the right education for themselves, there wouldnt be such a large percentage of college students that change their degree path at least once during their college tenure.

Therefore let's wait until they have been sufficiently educated to pick the right education for themselves.

If this was truley the case, there are many people out there that shouldnt be allowed to vote. I hear lots of people say something like "Im going to vote for George...because he is a republican...and Im a republican...so yeah...voting for him." "Im going to vote for Al, because he is a Democrat and Im a democrat" Thats not a truley educated vote...chosing based on one political party. I personally vote for whoever most represents myself and where I stand on the issues, or most of them.

there are many people out there that shouldnt be allowed to vote

That is what Walter Cronkite says.

"Why not go farther and let them do their own evaluations?"

Well, yes another interesting topic of debate. Self-evaluation is increasingly being used as formative (not summative) assessment. When you ask students "what do you feel you need the most work in? What do you need help with? What don't you understand?", kids actually start to care about the task of learning, because they see it as a responsibility to themselves rather than a teacher imposing values on them that they don't care about. Again, primary/elementary school kids are better at this because they are more honest and haven't been disillusioned by teachers who don't seem to do anything but yell at them for being stupid. That sort of approach only leads kids to believe that the teachers don't actually care about them or like them. By giving them a say in their education, we remove that problem.

"But the selection of choices should be within that subject area, mixing science and religion does not count."

I'm coming from a primary school POV here, where there is far less separation of subject areas. I don't agree with the way high school separates subject areas. In the real world, scientists have to do maths, they often try to remedy topics that are covered in SOSE and they have to use forms of communication taught in English. That said, I do think when the teaching of ID is done, it should be said that the theory is not based on the same types of proofs that science uses, it is based on a different understanding of how the world works.

"Even in my very secular school it was mentioned but it was never advocated as a viable alternative and really that is what these creationist what."

Attending the same school, I always rallied against the teacher when they tried to shove evolution down our throats because it was never put for any sort of debate or questioning. The way it was taught to me did not make it seem logical. I had so many questions and became angry that I could not ask these questions, but simply had to regurgitate what the teacher said. Needless to say, that semester I got my only D in my schooling career.

"I know this sounds like a very scientifically arrogant point of view but look at this way: do we ask teachers of religion to read the origin of species along side genesis."

Point taken. My problem is just that science wants to present itself as the only way to come to the truth. Religion is often based on different, but equally valid philosophical assumptions that are attemtping to find truth. Science is increasingly being accused of being a religion because it refuses to acknowledge its own philosphical limitaions. (This is also why I advocate a return to the days where a Science degree had to include a Philosophy of Science course). Science provides good explanations, but why is it so scared of opening itself up to debate?

When you ask students "what do you feel you need the most work in? What do you need help with? What don't you understand?", kids actually start to care about the task of learning, because they see it as a responsibility to themselves rather than a teacher imposing values on them that they don't care about.

Good point. This reminded me of an alternative school program here in town. I have substituted there quite a few times as a para professional this school year. The students are there because of behavioral issues. They each have a points sheet each day that gives them up to 100 points each day. If the students bring the points back..they EARN that 100 points to put in a pretend checking account that they get to use to buy stuff on incentive Fridays. The students, at the end of each class period, are asked to evaluate themselves based on peer interactions, staff interactions, their 3 goals...etc, altogether 10 points for each period. By evaluating themselves alongside the teacher, they are taking responsibility for their choices and their behavior, and they see the good and the bad of their behavior choices.

My problem is just that science wants to present itself as the only way to come to the truth. Religion is often based on different, but equally valid philosophical assumptions that are attemtping to find truth. Science is increasingly being accused of being a religion because it refuses to acknowledge its own philosphical limitaions. (This is also why I advocate a return to the days where a Science degree had to include a Philosophy of Science course). Science provides good explanations, but why is it so scared of opening itself up to debate?

I agree that often scientists get dogmatic about their theories. I think this does needs to be addressed but if you want to provide an alternative theory you have to provide a valid one. ID/creationism is NOT in anyway a scientifically testable theory so even considering it doesn't teach you anything. It would send the message that a theory that is untestable is just as good as testable theory that may have some apparent holes in it (apparent being the operative word in that sentence). So really it would be a step backwards in terms of teaching kids critical thinking. So as I said before it isn't that creationism should not be mentioned at all just that it shouldn't be presented as viable theory. It is essentially a philosophical dead end because its answer to why life exists is simply "It just is, don't question it. Some guy in the clouds made life okay, now shutup!"
The truth is the theory of evolution doesn't stop with Darwin. It is made up of many smaller sub-theories with in that set out to explain specific problems (e.g. why did sex evolve). These sub-theories are constantly being contested within the scientific community. The problem is you usually only learn about these things at the university level.

I disagree that religion is based on equally valid philosophical assumptions. They are only valid within itself, as in if you believe it they are valid TO YOU but they can't be proved to be valid by any "objective" logical test. It is funny because you were the one who was arguing to me that you can only use logic to prove stuff. Well in this case the only way you could prove ID is to assume that logic isn't the only way of coming to conclusions, but of course in that case you couldn't use logic to prove that and any logical conclusion would be considered invalid *bang, my brain just exploded*.

Really if there are scientists that have a problem with becoming dogmatic it isn't a science problem. It is a human problem. How can you pin this on scientists when it is part of the human condition? Are we going to have classes on how to avoid gettin into emotive rather than logical arguements? Really the scientific method is set-up so that the scientists opnion shouldn't matter one way or the other. If science becomes dogmatic it is a problem with the scientist's methods not the scientific method itself.

Attending the same school, I always rallied against the teacher when they tried to shove evolution down our throats because it was never put for any sort of debate or questioning. The way it was taught to me did not make it seem logical. I had so many questions and became angry that I could not ask these questions, but simply had to regurgitate what the teacher said. Needless to say, that semester I got my only D in my schooling career.

It sounds like you got a shit teacher but that doesn't necessarily represent the whole of scientific education. I think if it is explained to you well it doesn't cause any problems and is quite easy to understand. In the hands of that teacher you probably would be MORE confused if ID was brought in as well. It would not really add anything to the teaching anyway because on one side you would get a whole explanation of how evolution works and on the other side you'd get "God made everything." I will explain why you couldn't argue its validity/invalidity below.

That said, I do think when the teaching of ID is done, it should be said that the theory is not based on the same types of proofs that science uses, it is based on a different understanding of how the world works.

Well there is the problem right there. It isn't based on any sort of logical proofs at all. It isn't really an understanding of the way the world "works" even (god works in mysterious ways), just why the world "is". I think the main distinction between science and religion is this:

Science: You start at your first premise point A (creation of the universe and matter etc.) go through point B (chemical and biological evolution) which leads to C (life that changes)

Religion: You start at your first premise point A (God made everything, so shut the fuck up). End of story.

See there is nothing you can argue about in religion in a scientific/logical way. Its first premise is also its conclusion there isn't ANY line of logic you can argue against. The only hope you have is to prove that God doesn't or does exist (which isn't, as far as I know, possible).

There is a huge difference between electives and core curriculum classes. I don't think people are making the proper distinction here when talking about student-driven curriculums and such. At the core of every public school program there are basic science, math, english and history requirements. Those form the core of just about everyone's education. In these core areas you are taught concepts to learn and understand. In these core classes, there is very little room for "exploring alternatives" That's not the objective of core classes. Core classes take one generally accepted view or approach to a topic and teach the material so the students understand it. From what I remember, there was very little "discovery" or experimentation in High School science. There were practical lessons where you took a concept you learned in theory and applied it in the lab, but as far as expanding knowledge or looking at alternatives, that wasn't the objective.

So you have core classes where they present one approach to the subject based on generally accepted guidelines. That's their objective. They give you a foundation of knowledge to work from.

Then you have electives. These are secondary courses that allow students to explore what they find interesting. These courses are not required specifically (beyond taking X number of electives). It is in this area that non-traditional, or not yet fully accepted scientific ideas could be explored. There could be an Intelligent Design elective science course where students explore this alternative theory. I don't think this would be such a problem for people since it would be entirely optional, and only those interested in the issue would take it.

High School is not the place where you get to explore new and exciting ideas, it's not the place where you tailor your education to fit your interests. As someone else pointed out, that's what college is for.

ID/creationism is NOT in anyway a scientifically testable theory so even considering it doesn't teach you anything.

Cant really test evolution either. All we are doing is putting monkey bones together and saying "hey, they look like us....we must have come from them...because a lot of things are the same" A cat and a dog have a crap load of similarities as well, but are two completely different things.

It would send the message that a theory that is untestable is just as good as testable theory that may have some apparent holes in it (apparent being the operative word in that sentence). So really it would be a step backwards in terms of teaching kids critical thinking.

Not really. Scientific theory is now being taught as what it is is, a theory, not fact. There are a bunch of steps to take with the final result being 'this theory has tested true using all of the methods that we have tried so far," not "this is set in stone"

I think the main distinction between science and religion is this:Science: You start at your first premise point A (creation of the universe and matter etc.) go through point B (chemical and biological evolution) which leads to C (life that changes)Religion: You start at your first premise point A (God made everything, so shut the fuck up). End of story.

With science, you have many different theories on how the world came into being....how it formed, how it evolved...etc. Creationism doesnt necessarily teach that God created the world because that, to me, is teaching religion. Instead...focus on the fact that there are a large number of people out there that think the world was created by other means, other powers.

In these core classes, there is very little room for "exploring alternatives" That's not the objective of core classes.

Yes it is. How many ways do you know how to multiply? Horizontally, vertically, grid...etc. Division? There are actually a few ways to do division. Fractions? Subtraction? We learn how to do all of these many different ways, we are taught many different approaches in every subject....except science.

From what I remember, there was very little "discovery" or experimentation in High School science.

Not sure how this happened. Science classes today are very hands on, lots of experimentation, forming ideas and testing them out....blowing stuff up, dissecting...etc. Lots of figuring out how stuff works.

There were practical lessons where you took a concept you learned in theory and applied it in the lab, but as far as expanding knowledge or looking at alternatives, that wasn't the objective.

But yet, alternatives are free to explore everywhere else in any other subjects.

So you have core classes where they present one approach to the subject based on generally accepted guidelines

Creationism is a widely accepted guideline. Id be willing to say that out of all the worlds people...more people believe it was created by something / someone, than just evolution. Mainly based on the fact that this is because the creation belief comes from many world religions and a large number of the worlds population believes in these religions.

There could be an Intelligent Design elective science course where students explore this alternative theory. I don't think this would be such a problem for people since it would be entirely optional, and only those interested in the issue would take

Oh yeah...people throw a huge ass fit when it comes to their tax dollars being spent in the schools. Wouldnt stand for it.

Cant really test evolution either. All we are doing is putting monkey bones together and saying "hey, they look like us....we must have come from them...because a lot of things are the same" A cat and a dog have a crap load of similarities as well, but are two completely different things.

That isn't really true, there are many other lines of evidence. Genetic mutation analysis, microevolution (antibiotic resistance) and many other things point to evolution. Cats and dogs aren't two completely different things when you look at their genetic similarity. In evolutionary terms they had a common ancestor comparitatively recently, though not as recently as say dogs and wolfs (which by some definitions are the same species). I agree their are certain limits to testing the theory, after all it would probably take several human life times to see two populations of a species diverge in to different speices. There are many lines of evidence to shown how species divergence would occur over a long period of time though.

With science, you have many different theories on how the world came into being....how it formed, how it evolved...etc. Creationism doesnt necessarily teach that God created the world because that, to me, is teaching religion.

Huh?! I thought that was the very definition of creationism. What is creationism if it doesn't teach that god created the world?

Instead...focus on the fact that there are a large number of people out there that think the world was created by other means, other powers.

Sure you can say that but to present those other powers as a viable alternatives you need some sort of line of logic to argue with. Essentially you need to argue first the existance of God and then teach ID, which is basically teaching religion. If you don't teach them to come to the conclusion with logic you are asking them to take it on faith. WIth evolution the students have access to over a century of research on the subject. WIth religion there isn't any effort to provide proof, despite the fact they have been around for thousands of years.

Yes it is. How many ways do you know how to multiply? Horizontally, vertically, grid...etc. Division? There are actually a few ways to do division. Fractions? Subtraction? We learn how to do all of these many different ways, we are taught many different approaches in every subject....except science.

The difference is that all those different ways to multiply are based on logic. Teaching Creationism/ID in science is essentially ignoring logic. I don't think there is anything wrong with scienctific method. I think there IS a problem evaluating whether experiments are truly testing what they think they are testing. It isn't the scientific method itself but the interpretation of results and evaluation of experimental protocols where things fall down. Even then we have peer reviewing and much debate over experiments and their validity or lack of it.

Huh?! I thought that was the very definition of creationism. What is creationism if it doesn't teach that god created the world?

ok hmmm Im looking up definitions of creationism and they are all pointing towards the Bible version of how the world was created. What I meant was that creationism, at least how I look at it, is not just a Biblical point of view of the worlds creation, but any view that the world was created by someone / something else. Native americans believe we came into being in some other fashion. Many people believe that the world came into being by some other method than swirling around by gravity and things mutating.

From str.org

"When scientists attempt to draw metaphysical conclusions from physical data, they've stepped out of line. Natural science can explain the "what," but not the "why." It answers questions about physical properties, physical behavior, and the formative history of the observable universe. That's all.

The non-physical realm, on the other hand, is the object of a different sort of inquiry. Science cannot tell us of the ultimate origin of the universe. Since science uses empirical data--that known by the five senses--something must exist first for science to examine. Questions regarding an immaterial "something" that might have produced the material realm can't, even in principle, be answered by science.

Neither can science answer questions about the governance of the universe, though it's quite capable of drawing conclusions about its behavior. Even the so-called laws of nature are not truly laws. They don't compel behavior; they merely describe it. That which is behind this behavior is not natural, but supra-natural, outside the proper domain of science. "
"For millennia science was viewed differently. The older tradition had one aim: to identify ideas worth believing. According to Aristotle something was scientific if it was assured or certain, regardless of which realm it referred to. The important thing was whether or not a view was properly justified. It was also distinguished by its "know-why"--its comprehension of first causes--as opposed to its "know-how."During the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance this view began to change. The emphasis switched to methodology. Instead of starting with directly intuited first principles, scientists offered ad hoc theories to predict events (e.g. planetary motion) and then tested them by observation.

The shift in science from a general methodology to determine truth to one that was solely empirical was complete by the modern era. Scientific empiricism became scientific imperialism: science as the final measure of all truth. This view is called scientism. Science deals with fact. All else, including morality and theology, is mere opinion, personal preference and private fantasy.
"

Ziggy, you're falling into the common trap of not knowing what scientific theory is. Scientific theory is a reasonably proven (but not absolutely proven) hypothesis. A Hypothesis is a statement that is almost completely unproven.

We have Atomic Theory
We have the Theory of Relativity
Gravity was at one time considered a theory.

Theories are hypothesis proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but not necessarily complete. A car is a good analogy. It works, we know it works and we know generally how it works. However, individual parts of the car can be taken out, improved upon, maybe combined with other parts as our understanding improves.

Creationism/Intelligent Design hinges on a completely unproven (or in the case of religious creationism, unprovable). In science, you have to have a solid foundation for it to be considered a theory, and Creationism/ID lacks that. It is a hypothesis seeking proof.

That is the key difference.

That isn't really true, there are many other lines of evidence. Genetic mutation analysis, microevolution (antibiotic resistance) and many other things point to evolution. Cats and dogs aren't two completely different things when you look at their genetic similarity. In evolutionary terms they had a common ancestor comparitatively recently, though not as recently as say dogs and wolfs (which by some definitions are the same species). I agree their are certain limits to testing the theory, after all it would probably take several human life times to see two populations of a species diverge in to different speices. There are many lines of evidence to shown how species divergence would occur over a long period of time though

It really is true. Lines of evidence are NOT testing anything. And as far as your dogs and cats theory goes.....you're wrong there too. Look at the latin name for each:
dog (Canis familiaris) and cat (felis domesticus). Notice how the genus is different for each? Lupas (from wolf ancestory) vs felis (from a "feline" ancestory which would include all the big cats)? "If" they had a common ancestor their genus would be the same. The ONLY things they hold in common is that they are both carnivores and invertebrates.

"Good point."

Thanks Ziggy.

"ID/creationism is NOT in anyway a scientifically testable theory"

That was my point.

"it shouldn't be presented as viable theory."

Sure cos you know better than every religious person that has ever existed before your God, Science. Very multiculturally tolerant view there, Canberra boy (sorry, I'm being harsh for the sake of JU ;> )

"They are only valid within itself, as in if you believe it they are valid TO YOU but they can't be proved to be valid by any "objective" logical test. It is funny because you were the one who was arguing to me that you can only use logic to prove stuff. "

No, no, I argued the opposite. Logic is merely a body of philosophy, and scientists used to learn that at Uni. Science deals with material proofs. It is based on observation of material occurrences. It works on certain philosophical assumptions such as that all material effects must have a material cause. That was simply a philosophic assumption that Descartes adopted because he wanted to show that you could believe in God based on Faith + Scientific Reason, whereas the Church advocated using only Faith. However, many people say Descartes was really an atheist, and personally I think ID is the greatest potential threat to the Church since Descartes, but if the churchies wanna go with it, let 'em.

For instance, an atheist will point to there being no proof of God. They often rely on science to explain everything. Yet why should there be any material proof of God? Why would an immaterial force act according to material laws? It doesn't make sense.

"Really if there are scientists that have a problem with becoming dogmatic it isn't a science problem. It is a human problem"

Agreed and that was funny.

" I think if it is explained to you well it doesn't cause any problems and is quite easy to understand."

I agree, but I still think it should be open to question and debate if students have questions.

"Its first premise is also its conclusion "

I would say the same of science. The search for a beginning to the Universe based on the linear time model it has adopted and the cause and effect principle lead to an endless search that can never be logically answered. Therefore it is circular, but it is a practical way of operating within the world (as is not believing in the Evil Demon Theory, but it doesn't make the Evil Demon Theory wrong).

There were practical lessons where you took a concept you learned in theory and applied it in the lab, but as far as expanding knowledge or looking at alternatives, that wasn't the objective. So you have core classes where they present one approach to the subject based on generally accepted guidelines. That's their objective. They give you a foundation of knowledge to work from.

Hopefully this is becoming more and more old school. The Science Unit I just finished writing is almost entirely hands-on. Some of the students have a hypothesis that clouds are made of cotton wool ( a common misconception in Year 1), so we're going to make cumulus and nimbus and stratus clouds out of cotton wool and then throw the into the air to see if they float up to the sky. Then we're going to discuss what do the students know that floats into the air (eg smoke, steam) and test that theory.

there are many other lines of evidence.

Yes, but you couldn't really say it's a proven law could you. Certainly there is strong evidence that evolution is very likely. Many people consider it the most likely theory. Yet some,even scientists are unconvinced. The main reason being that until it is observed directly, we will never have the complete picture to be able to prove that it happened, we have to use a bit of assumption and very well-educated guesswork. Even then, there is nothing to say that evolution isn't one of God's tools, which as I understand it is the main tenet of ID theory. (Which is why I think it's a threat to the Church because I don't agree that you can base your Faith in God on a combination of Logic as a true body of philosophy and Faith).

Look at the latin name for each: dog (Canis familiaris) and cat (felis domesticus). Notice how the genus is different for each? Lupas (from wolf ancestory) vs felis (from a "feline" ancestory which would include all the big cats)? "If" they had a common ancestor their genus would be the same.

Wrong. Just because two species don't belong to the same genus does NOT mean they didn't have a common ancestor, anymore than not sharing your last name with your maternal grandparent means your not related to them. Remember a genus is just a convienient way of catagorising things not an indication of a line that actually exists in nature. There are several levels of catagories kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species. As you said that are bot carnivores which puts them in the order carnivora (incidently they are vertabrate not invertabrates) and they are in the same family Mammilia.
Remember that animals were original categorised by morphology (looks) so these category are arbitary. Recently genetics has helped us determine true relationships through genetics which often turns up suprises.

It really is true. Lines of evidence are NOT testing anything.

Not all tests are direct physical tests. Some are tests of predictions made by a theory(note ID makes NO testable predictions). Evolution predicts certain things about the ancestors and cousins of species. For instance genes don't just come out of no where. So if you find a gene there should be some form of that gene or components of it in ancestors (or closely related descendants of those ancestors), or cousins of that animal. For instance we find genes responsible for embryo formation in coral (a "primative" animal) in insects as well (a more complex, more recently evolved group of animals). Genes don't usually don't just diappear either. One thing you find in animals including humans is DNA sequences that resemble (or are nearly identical to) working genes in other animals but aren't genes called psuedo-genes. In evolution these are easily explained by saying that they are genes that have become non-functional. For instance humans have psuedo-genes for an organ called the VNO which in other animals detect pheromones. Humans don't have a functioning VNO but we do have VNO genes. ID can't explain the presence of psuedo-genes or vestigal organs. Why would a creator design an animal and put in non-functional genes? In evolution however you would predict the presence of these things because as the lifestyle of an organism changes you would expect some genes to become unecessary and become non-functional. So many lines of evidence although not direct tests of the theory of evolution (like observing a new species evolve) are tests of the predictions of the theory which lends support to the theory itself. You cannot conclusively prove a theory that is just a limitation we can't avoid because for that you would need perfect knowledge. You can only test a theories predictions and see if the theory matches reality. A theory is a best fit, and evolution is a far better fit in terms of a theory that can be tested. Sub-theories of evolution are changing all the time because of new evidence. The only way you could prove intelligent design is to prove the existence of the creator and perhaps talk to it. Since it doesn't propose TESTABLE theories it isn't science, it is psuedo-science and hence should not be taught in science class.

Yes, but you couldn't really say it's a proven law could you.

That's the whole point, you CAN'T fully prove a theory in science (as Zoomba stated above). The closest you get to a proven theory is a theory that is a very good fit.

Even then, there is nothing to say that evolution isn't one of God's tools, which as I understand it is the main tenet of ID theory

Whether evolution is tool of God is essentially irrelevent.

Yet some,even scientists are unconvinced.

Yeah the ones that proposed ID.

"it shouldn't be presented as viable theory."Sure cos you know better than every religious person that has ever existed before your God, Science. Very multiculturally tolerant view there, Canberra boy (sorry, I'm being harsh for the sake of JU ;> )

It has nothing to do with whether I know better or not. Presenting ID as a viable theory would be like forcing someone who practices Judaism to believe in the divinity of Christ. It is simple incompatible. ID is worse than wrong (even assuming it is right), it is useless. A theory that makes no testable predictions also makes no useful predictions. The predictions made by evolution help us in fields like genetics and medicine. In ID you can't make useful predictions unless you know the mind of the creator. Oddly enough Einstein said he was trying to undstand the mind of God. The point is in terms of science it is a non-viable theory because it doesn't have any predictive power except perhaps in a reality inaccessible to us.

Science isn't my God. I have a God quite seperate from science. Science doesn't prove the non-existence of God but it is up to other people to keep the faith not scientists.