Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Not-so-intelligent Trojan Horse
)
This move has been prompted by reports from the opening salvos in a high profile court case in Pennsylvania, USA, brought by parents against a school board in Dover. The parents of 20 children are demanding that ID be scrubbed from the school curriculum. They claim that it is merely Christian instruction masquerading as science and therefore unconstitutional, as it breaches the concept of the separation of church and state.
The school board, dominated by good church-going folk, voted last year to include ID in school science classes, claiming that it is valid scientific theory and an equal alternative explanation to the theory of evolution.
Worryingly, our current federal Education Minister, Dr Brendan Nelson, recently flirted with the Australian Christian Right by suggesting he too was not averse to ID entering the school science labs of this country, if that's what parents wanted. Nelson's foray into pseudo-science is of grave concern, given the current administration's affinity to all things American and Christian. Two Australian organisations, 'Focus on the Family' and the 'Campus Crusade for Christ', are wanting to distribute a DVD about intelligent design to every school in Australia.
While the Dover court case will only settle the argument in just the one schools district, the implications are much broader. It is not difficult to imagine that victory for the fundamentalist Christians in Dover would see ID rolled out across the entire south of the USA. And from there, who knows?
The 70,000 scientists argue that if ID could be defined as 'science', the demarcation criteria defining what is and what is not valid scientific theory would have to be sufficiently liberal so as to include astrology and palmistry.
No reasonable person can claim that ID is not creationism by another name. But for those that doubt that ID is not a Trojan Horse for the Christian Right, you can have it spelled out for you - in blunt pretty terms - by reading this.
Alternatively, you can send your child to a denominational school where s/he can receive instruction in your chosen dogma.
Either way, in Queensland curriculums are set at the school level within a conceptual framework of philosophies of teaching. The moment I get a whiff of ID being taught at Nundah State School I shall be withdrawing my children.
Again, ID has sparked huge debate on Online Opinion, with another huge raft of comments underlining a general misunderstanding by ID proponents of exactly what are the demarcation criteria of science are and just how evolution is thought to work. (Emphasis should be on 'thought to work', as, while science most certainly always attempts to further understand and explain the natural world, a proponent of any scientific theory would never contend that they are the harbingers of any final truth but merely the best understanding that we have, until someone can demonstrate otherwise.)
See also:
Not-so-intelligent Trojan Horse
Posted by Living with Matilda at 4:21 PM
hereThis move has been prompted by reports from the opening salvos in a high profile court case in Pennsylvania, USA, brought by parents against a school board in Dover. The parents of 20 children are demanding that ID be scrubbed from the school curriculum. They claim that it is merely Christian instruction masquerading as science and therefore unconstitutional, as it breaches the concept of the separation of church and state.
The school board, dominated by good church-going folk, voted last year to include ID in school science classes, claiming that it is valid scientific theory and an equal alternative explanation to the theory of evolution.
Worryingly, our current federal Education Minister, Dr Brendan Nelson, recently flirted with the Australian Christian Right by suggesting he too was not averse to ID entering the school science labs of this country, if that's what parents wanted. Nelson's foray into pseudo-science is of grave concern, given the current administration's affinity to all things American and Christian. Two Australian organisations, 'Focus on the Family' and the 'Campus Crusade for Christ', are wanting to distribute a DVD about intelligent design to every school in Australia.
While the Dover court case will only settle the argument in just the one schools district, the implications are much broader. It is not difficult to imagine that victory for the fundamentalist Christians in Dover would see ID rolled out across the entire south of the USA. And from there, who knows?
The 70,000 scientists argue that if ID could be defined as 'science', the demarcation criteria defining what is and what is not valid scientific theory would have to be sufficiently liberal so as to include astrology and palmistry.
No reasonable person can claim that ID is not creationism by another name. But for those that doubt that ID is not a Trojan Horse for the Christian Right, you can have it spelled out for you - in blunt pretty terms - by reading this
EXTRACT:Currently, State schools in Queensland have religious education at Primary and Junior level, funded by donations and taught by volunteers. As a parent you can opt your child out and can them supervised doing something more useful, like staring out of a window at the wonder of nature or reading a book (about dinosaurs and evolution perhaps?). Sadly there are no classes that deal with ethics and philosophy from a non-religious standpoint.
By accomplishing this goal the ultimate goal as stated by the Centre for Science and Culture is the "overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies" and reinstate "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God," and thereby "renew" American culture to reflect conservative Christian values.
Alternatively, you can send your child to a denominational school where s/he can receive instruction in your chosen dogma.
Either way, in Queensland curriculums are set at the school level within a conceptual framework of philosophies of teaching. The moment I get a whiff of ID being taught at Nundah State School I shall be withdrawing my children.
Again, ID has sparked huge debate on Online Opinion, with another huge raft of comments underlining a general misunderstanding by ID proponents of exactly what are the demarcation criteria of science are and just how evolution is thought to work. (Emphasis should be on 'thought to work', as, while science most certainly always attempts to further understand and explain the natural world, a proponent of any scientific theory would never contend that they are the harbingers of any final truth but merely the best understanding that we have, until someone can demonstrate otherwise.)
See also:
Posted by Living with Matilda at 4:21 PM
Disclaimer:
| I am employed by Brisbane City Council. All views expressed in this blog are my own and in no way reflect the views of my employer. |
Weasel Word(s) of the day:
From WeaselWords.com.au
2 Comments:
http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/10/intelligent-design-maybe-honest.html
I suggest that ID does not even belong in the history class, unless it is taught as part of the ‘history if ideas’ or the history of faiths’.
You’re right about Hawkes and his wedge politics (though where I come from, its called ‘arguing the toss’). Hawkes is making inflammatory remarks, yet still indirectly says that ID should be only be taught in religious instruction. “Challenging students to think through the implications of there being a grand architect” is a non-argument; as a starting point it assumes there is a designer. All he is doing is imploring students to think through the implications of that.
If you do, the implications are clear, if not very challenging:
- There is a designer
- That designer designed everything
- That designer must have been very, very busy, because he/it/John Howard/she did a pretty shoddy job, just look at the Dover Sole, Mammalian Eye, Biblical Floods, Human Appendix, George Bush et al.
- End of lesson
While I would oppose ID being taught in anything other than religious instruction (from which I can withdraw my child), I often feel more mischievous: Go on – let it into the science labs, even 3rd Graders are sophisticated enough to tear it down in scientific review!
Post a Comment
<< Home