[lit-ideas] Re: My Blog on Teaching Intelligent Design
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:44:29 +0000 (GMT)
Somehat belatedly...
--- "Peter D. Junger" <junger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I recently posted this message to the Anthro-L list and believe
> that it may also be of some interest to some members of this list.
It is, even now.
> On the morning of New Year's day I was watching--or, at least,
> listening to--a television show that purported to review--or at least
> mention--the important news stories of the year 2005 of the Common
> Era.
I didn't before know that we lived in the Common Era, but given what follows
I guess Peter is not getting his nomenclature from an evolutionary textbook -
you know, jurassic... metazoic... Common. (Nevertheless there is such a thing
as a 'Common Park' isn't there, maybe as opposed to a Jurassic Park? So maybe
commonness is the appropriate way to characterise this era in evolutionary
history?..Anyway I'm confusing myself here - as usual).
(I suppose, in order to let you know where I am coming from,
> that I should confess that I have a tendency when I pronounce that
> phrase that it often comes out sounding like "the Common Error.")
This is a common enough error in some parts so is it those parts that
indicate where Peter is coming from? I may not have got a handle on the
argument here yet.
> And it thus came to pass that I heard a newspaper columnist named
> "George Will" pronounce, in a most authoritative voice, that
> "Intelligent Design" should be taught in the schools, but not in
> science classes.
>
> That, naturally enough, got me to wondering about where exactly
> Mr. Will thought that Intelligent Design should be taught: in
> Home Economics perhaps?
Surely, this got me wondering, there are more sensible alternatives than Home
Economics? Here's one, just a suggestion - but what about teaching ID in
designated 'Intelligent Design' classes? This might be thought somewhat
confusing but then we teach art and design in 'Art and Design' classes here
and on the whole most people seem to manage and indeed not even mind much.
> Since the proponents of Intelligent Design claim that it is a
> scientific subject, it is hard to conceive how it could be
> squeezed into a religion class,
Disagree. Because if the claim it is a scientific subject is, for example,
false - because ID is in fact pseudo-scientific bollix - might it not be
appropriate to discuss it in a religious class that teaches other
pseudo-scientic clap-trap, for example that God made the world within the
last 10,000 years (which apparently most Americans believe). Second, there is
no obstacle to discussing even a scientific subject, like biology or physics,
in a class devoted to religious studies - asking could it be true, given
biology and physics, that Noah replenished the earth from the contents of his
Ark, that Lazurus came back from the dead, the Red Sea parted, Christ
inhabits the communion wafer etc?
>where a discussion of the term
> "God," for example, would hardly be improved by mentioning that
> some people have argued that there is scientific evidence of an
> intelligent designer of the world who is not absolutely,
> necessarily, what the term "God" refers to,
But neither is the Intelligent Designer necessarily _not_ what God refers to,
and since some argue in discussion of the term 'God' that he does not exist
and that there is no 'designer', might it not be useful to mention that there
is "scientific evidence of an intelligent designer" who just might be what
the term "God" refers to? Just a thought.
>anymore that it would be
> helpful to refer to polyester science in a study of Leviticus 19:19:
> "Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender
> with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed:
> neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee."
This last bit escapes me. I mean the science of mixing linen and wool (and
even polyester - but Leviticus, it must be said, does not raise this) must be
distinguised from the normative proposition that "thou shalt not" so mix.
"Confusing 'is' and 'ought' is something that is done but which ought not to
be" [Donalaticus 1:1].
So my suggestion is that ID be taught 1) in special ID classes 2) religious
classes 3) philosophy classes 4) not at all. There is no strong reason in
Peter's post explaining why it should be taught in science classes -
certainly not that it claims to be a science, for then surely marxism,
freudianism, scientology etc should also get a shot at eating into the
science class curriculum.
Btw, anyway seen Richard Dawkins 'Root Of Evil' on C4 here? It was alright
but hardly that incisive as to how ID is refuted by modern science or how
modern science undermines the fundamental idea of a God.
Donal
I Never Saw His Face/So I'm Not A Believer
Not A Trace/Of Fervour In My Mind
Godless London
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo!
Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
