Some Intelligent Thoughts (if I do say so myself) On the Teaching of Intelligent Design
I think it's perfectly fine if every individual on the planet has their own individual theory on the origins of the universe and/or the origins of Life. I also have no problem if anyone wants to play mix-and-match when it comes to religion and science, picking pieces of one to mix and match with the other, calling a religious belief or matter of faith a scientific theory and so on. Different strokes for different folks. It's all good.
When it comes to public school curriculum, the State and local Boards of Education have to determine a standard curriculum that all the schools under their purview must adhere to in order to continue as accredited institutions of learning.
Part of that would involve making the determination of what belongs in specific science classes. The boards of education must determine exactly what IS science. It must be defined and then a curriculum based on that definition is approved.
It seems that religion, religious theory, even a very teeny tiny dose of it by way of referencing a divine intelligence that got the universe rolling does not meet the standard to qualify itself as a science and therefore, does not belong in a science classroom.
I don't see that as completely discrediting such a theory, only as an attempt to place such teaching in its proper setting which would be a religion or philosophy class.
And having said all of the above, some science classes DO study religions but they study them AS RELIGIONS and not as scientific theories. When I took two years of cultural anthropology that was in fulfillment, in part, for my general ed "life science" requirement. And we did study the impact of religion on societies and how it ruled some cultures. And that was all science.
What's really going on with the proponents of ID is that they are feeling neglected and squeezed out of society and they want to shift the balance of power more in their direction. They insist that their religious beliefs (as in a divine power or intelligence being the source of creation) be taken out of Comparative Religion and forced into the curriculum of secular science classes. It is not enough for them to attend their own churches and privately instruct their own children in religion. Now they want to teach everybody else's children, too.
Like a smoker who believes they have every right to smoke cigarettes whenever and wherever they want even if they are smoking up the atmosphere in a restaurant where other non-smoking diners are eating, the pro-ID folks want to "smoke up" secular science curriculum for all children attending public schools even if the parents of those children may be even MORE religious than the pro-ID proponents and be horrified that their children may get a watered-down version of faith at public school. Maybe the parents are athiests and don't want their children to be taught ANY religious theories at all but they still believe they have a right to send their children to school. What choices are the pro-ID folks taking away from them?
The school boards must agree on a definition of "Science" and "Religion" and then decide how best to implement the curriculum. Parents should not have to worry that sending their children for an academic education in a public school will subject their children to what's best left to religious instructors as opposed to secular teachers.
If the ID folks are the same folks who believe that pharmacists have a legally sound right to inflict their personal religious beliefs on the public by way of refusing to dispense certain prescriptions, then the ID folks would also have no problem with individual teachers refusing to teach a religion or any religion in their secular science classes because that might offend their personal belief system. This follows the same logic, right?
And then the teachers who harbor racist beliefs can refuse to teach any United States history dealing with the civil rights movement.
And English teachers can refuse to introduce a writer like Mark Twain to their students because of his irreverant humor or refuse to allow poetry students to learn about Walt Whitman because he was gay.
There would have to be separate curriculums, of course. One to accomodate teaching religion in a science class and the other to accomodate outraged parents with expectations that only science will be taught in a science class. The ID folks certainly aren't suggesting that choice be taken away from everyone who does not share their belief system, right? Plus, the ID folks would vigorously defend the rights of individual teachers who refused to teach ID or any other belief system that personally offended their own beliefs.
The poor students. They may end up being required to take 1,000 different versions of the same class so as to accomodate the demands of religious and political pressure groups.
Why not just let the subjects be what they are without pretending they are something else? Anything that references anything divine such as a divine intelligence is religious in nature. Let religion be taught as religion and let science be taught as science.
Amen.
When it comes to public school curriculum, the State and local Boards of Education have to determine a standard curriculum that all the schools under their purview must adhere to in order to continue as accredited institutions of learning.
Part of that would involve making the determination of what belongs in specific science classes. The boards of education must determine exactly what IS science. It must be defined and then a curriculum based on that definition is approved.
It seems that religion, religious theory, even a very teeny tiny dose of it by way of referencing a divine intelligence that got the universe rolling does not meet the standard to qualify itself as a science and therefore, does not belong in a science classroom.
I don't see that as completely discrediting such a theory, only as an attempt to place such teaching in its proper setting which would be a religion or philosophy class.
And having said all of the above, some science classes DO study religions but they study them AS RELIGIONS and not as scientific theories. When I took two years of cultural anthropology that was in fulfillment, in part, for my general ed "life science" requirement. And we did study the impact of religion on societies and how it ruled some cultures. And that was all science.
What's really going on with the proponents of ID is that they are feeling neglected and squeezed out of society and they want to shift the balance of power more in their direction. They insist that their religious beliefs (as in a divine power or intelligence being the source of creation) be taken out of Comparative Religion and forced into the curriculum of secular science classes. It is not enough for them to attend their own churches and privately instruct their own children in religion. Now they want to teach everybody else's children, too.
Like a smoker who believes they have every right to smoke cigarettes whenever and wherever they want even if they are smoking up the atmosphere in a restaurant where other non-smoking diners are eating, the pro-ID folks want to "smoke up" secular science curriculum for all children attending public schools even if the parents of those children may be even MORE religious than the pro-ID proponents and be horrified that their children may get a watered-down version of faith at public school. Maybe the parents are athiests and don't want their children to be taught ANY religious theories at all but they still believe they have a right to send their children to school. What choices are the pro-ID folks taking away from them?
The school boards must agree on a definition of "Science" and "Religion" and then decide how best to implement the curriculum. Parents should not have to worry that sending their children for an academic education in a public school will subject their children to what's best left to religious instructors as opposed to secular teachers.
If the ID folks are the same folks who believe that pharmacists have a legally sound right to inflict their personal religious beliefs on the public by way of refusing to dispense certain prescriptions, then the ID folks would also have no problem with individual teachers refusing to teach a religion or any religion in their secular science classes because that might offend their personal belief system. This follows the same logic, right?
And then the teachers who harbor racist beliefs can refuse to teach any United States history dealing with the civil rights movement.
And English teachers can refuse to introduce a writer like Mark Twain to their students because of his irreverant humor or refuse to allow poetry students to learn about Walt Whitman because he was gay.
There would have to be separate curriculums, of course. One to accomodate teaching religion in a science class and the other to accomodate outraged parents with expectations that only science will be taught in a science class. The ID folks certainly aren't suggesting that choice be taken away from everyone who does not share their belief system, right? Plus, the ID folks would vigorously defend the rights of individual teachers who refused to teach ID or any other belief system that personally offended their own beliefs.
The poor students. They may end up being required to take 1,000 different versions of the same class so as to accomodate the demands of religious and political pressure groups.
Why not just let the subjects be what they are without pretending they are something else? Anything that references anything divine such as a divine intelligence is religious in nature. Let religion be taught as religion and let science be taught as science.
Amen.
posted by uhuru1701 at 11:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home