Comments on: Intelligent Design and the Debate of Religion in our Public Schools

By: Robert Shumake

Robert Shumake — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:30:08 +0000

Hey very nice blog!!....I'm an instant fan, I have bookmarked you and I'll be checking back on a regular....See ya -Robert Shumake Paul Nicoletti

By: Name

Name — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:58:11 +0000

"and topics should be covered minimally as to protect the belief systems of individuals"

No. If a student said his religious belief was that the Earth is flat or the Sun revolved around the Earth, what would we do? We would continue to teach that the Earth is an oblate spheroid and that the Earth goes around the Sun.

Remember, everyone has a right to believe what the want, but no one has a right not to have their beliefs challenged. If evidence challenges certain beliefs, it's up to the individual to reconcile that; it's not up to the teacher, school, etc.

Dancing Crocodile's idea was good. If a student or parent wants ID taught, then they should provide "a test to falsify the idea teleological direction in de development of life on earth".

The notions of falsifiability, scientific standards, peer review, and science's usage of the word "theory" also need to be covered in high school science classes.

By: Name

Name — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:58:11 +0000

By: joepdegraaff

joepdegraaff — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:36:21 +0000

To my opinion it is the task of the science teacher to inculcate in his students the method of scientific thought. A scientist does not seek to prove his hypothesis, conversely he seeks deliberately tests to falsify it. The hypothesis holds only as long as it has not been falsified. There is not such a thing as “scientific evidence that backs up theory.” A scientist knows he never can prove a hypothesis as his tests never will cover all possible circumstances and conditions. Any idea that can't be tested does not belong to the realm of science. If some one can come up with a test to falsify the idea of a teleological direction in de development of life on earth then intelligent design can become a scientific hypothesis. It is an interesting thought and as such it could be introduced in the science room. It would be a nice task for students: “if you really want to study intelligent design you must come up with a test to falsify this idea.” It would baffle them because the religious believer is characterized by cringing from testing his belief.
Another aspect of scientific method is that a complicated hypothesis must give way to an easier, less complicated description. Darwin's hypothesis is less complicated than the idea of intelligent design. His ideas do not need intelligence to describe the development of life.
Darwin's theory is tested any moment that we discover forms of life, whether fossilized, in the laboratory or in nature. So far no discovery has falsified Darwin's ideas.
The science teacher should tell his students that he is not a believer. He doesn't believe in Darwin. He only sticks at Darwin for the time being. He will jettison the theory immediately when something falsifies the idea, or when a more elegant falsifiable theory might pop up that accounts better for the facts of life. He will challenge his students to come up with such a hypothesis. But they must come up with a test to falsify their idea. After all, they are in a science room, they are not in a church.