Are creationists returning to their YEC roots?

I don't know that I agree about creation science returning to its YEC roots. ID has a few death throes to go through before that. Having failed to get ID onto the biology curriculum, the discovery institute will move on to trying to insert it into philosophy class. There are already a few "philosophy of design" classes in existence.This is deplorable, and the fact that some biologists have supported the idea is, in my opinion, a disgrace. These biologists have the attitude of somebody who wishes to dump their shit into a neighbor's yard so that they don't have to worry about it any more.There is an article describing the California "Philosophy of Design" class, recently dropped, at ars technica. Here is a copy of the syllabus: Basically, they will be trying to get this antiscience into public schools, one way or the other. The vast majority of the material above has no philosophical content or value. It is worth noting that the two pro-evolution speakers on the course were a local parent (who didn't even know the class existed) and Francis Crick (who is dead). Philosophy classes are already underfunded and overstretched, so its a shame they might have to boot out Plato in favor of this junk.Once all of these options fail, then I agree with some of the posters above - we'll be back to YECs.MickEdited by mick, : No reason given.

gah considering what the class is about i think its awful and worse than it trying to be scienceI'm starting to think ID is out to turn education into a vacuum of stupity

quote:

---

Philosophy classes are already underfunded and overstretched, so its a shame they might have to boot out Plato in favor of this junk.

---

Most US public schools don't have a philosophy course. In fact, I've never even heard of one before now.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

---

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

I have to say. You guys are really something else. You'd just have students not even exposed to anything but your view of things. You're more close minded than the YEC crowd ever have been.I agree that ID isn't science and shouldn't be taught as such; but why on earth shouldn't it be taught as philosophy? Why should students only be exposed to the materialistic view. Heaven forbid that students should be given all sides of the discussion so they can actually make an informed decision.

Chiroptera has a point--public schools rarely have philosophy courses. Mine had one--Theory of Knowledge, which wasn't technically a philosophy course, but about, well, knowledge. Granted, we only covered philosophy, but . . .We did go over Paley's design argument. The other place it could fit is into history--and in the year 18?? Paley created the design argument philosophy with his watchmaker analogy.Unless you want to introduce philosophy to every high school, fund it, and teach both ID and naturalism, well, your shit out of luck.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

I'm not saying it has to be in every high school. Mick and RDG don't want it talked about anywhere. I just think that it would be positive that it be taught wherever it is wanted, in either high school or university, with both naturalist and ID points of view being available.

"You guys" may be something of an over-generalization. I have actually advocated teaching creationism and been successful - right along side phlogiston theory and geocentrism in a section in an IB Biology curriculum concerning the history of discarded concepts (a section on what makes science, science). Of course, I doubt the YECs and IDists would have appreciated the treatment - and I could never have pulled it off in the US. International curricula are generally more open to this kind of thing...

Well the you guys things was directed specifically to a couple of our posters. If you put YEC up against anything scientific then YEC stands no chance as you are contrasting something that can be scientifically demonstrated against a position of pure faith.However if you contrast the Theistic position (ID) against the Atheistic postion (naturalism) from a reasoned point of view it is my contention that Theism wins hands down.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

you know, in my IB biology (wait, they've got that in the mountains of virginia!?) we did discuss ID--as a false scientific theory. My philosophy class was due to the IB also.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

A philosophy class in high school is almost certainly an elective. Moreover, it is an elective that very few students will elect to take. Thus it is certain to be dropped.The only purpose in offering such a class is to impress some grandstanding politicians.

Do you mean the Theistic Postion - including various forms of Theistic Evolution or do you mean ID. They aren't the same thing. (And I don't see how a theistic position could win even in a philosophy class - let alone a science class But that's another thread).

I mean Theism period which is in my view the same thing as ID. It is not about how God did it, but a matter of did He do it.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

perhaps you should look at that curriculum. That isn't any philosophy. That is a anti-science curriculum. If wants to be taught as a philosophy, then it should be more focused on Paley, who did introduce it as a philosophy, and not a science. Also, why the negativity towards evolution and geology if it's a philosophy study? It should be focused on what, how, and why it's a philosophy, not what is "wrong" with evolution and geology. Mick and Rev. don't want this "science" class purporting to be a real philosophy class.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

There are commonly accepted definitions of these terms. Using those most of us non-believers have no arguements with theism.However, ID is not (using the common defintions) theism.

For those involved in the debate politically that may well be true, but for those of us who aren't so involved, (which would be the vast majority), we take the term at face value. At face value all that intelligent design infers is that there is an intelligence behind creation whether or not evolution is a part of that creation.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.