The Creationist Motto: If At First You Don't Succeed

[Chicago1871]

Try Again (http://www.slate.com/id/2133988/)

Creationists are turning from science to philosophy class.
Creationists are turning from science to philosophy class. Last month, a judge struck "intelligent design" from the science curriculum in Dover, Pa., calling it "an interesting theological argument, but … not science." A California school board responded by approving a course called "Philosophy of Design." The course description says it "will discuss the scientific, biological and biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin's philosophy is not rock solid," and "evidence will be presented suggesting the earth is thousands of years old." Critics have sued, saying 1) the course is "designed to advance religious theories" rather than open-minded debate, and 2) it's taught by a fundamentalist minister's wife. The district says it's legal "to explore cultural phenomena, including history, religion or creation myths."
I say go ahead and teach it in philosophy, it's where it belongs. Should be interesting to see how they fit the science and biology into the philosophy curriculum.

[Chicago1871]

More on the issue (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-design11jan11,0,7737779.story) from the LA Times.
The course, which began Jan. 3 and is scheduled to run for one month, is being taught by Sharon Lemburg, a special education teacher with a bachelor of arts in physical education and social science.

The suit adds that Lemburg "has no training or certification in the teaching of science, religion or philosophy," and is "the wife of the minister for the local Assembly of God Church, a Christian fundamentalist church, and a proponent of a creationist world view."

[fiddlestick]

I'll leave the joke about the special ed. teacher teaching this course to someone else.

[bojendyk]

Try Again (http://www.slate.com/id/2133988/)

I say go ahead and teach it in philosophy, it's where it belongs. Should be interesting to see how they fit the science and biology into the philosophy curriculum.

It doesn't belong in a philosophy class either, as I've been saying since the start. A comparative religion class, maybe, but that's it.

[Chicago1871]

It doesn't belong in a philosophy class either, as I've been saying since the start. A comparative religion class, maybe, but that's it.
You're probably right on this point.

[christopher d]

Try Again (http://www.slate.com/id/2133988/)

I say go ahead and teach it in philosophy, it's where it belongs. Should be interesting to see how they fit the science and biology into the philosophy curriculum.
Should be just as interesting to see how they 'debunk' carbon dating. "Thousands" of years old... :rolleyes: We've found humans older than that.

[Foosinho]

I want to know why a non-science class is discussing science issues (ie, "will discuss the scientific ... aspects that suggest why Darwin's philosophy is not rock solid"). A philosophy or comparative religion class has no relation to prevailing scientific theory, IMO, and shouldn't be addressing scientific theories at all.

Discuss creationism (I mean, "intelligent design") independent of prevailing scientific theory, if you want to discuss it at all.

[DJPoopypants]

It doesn't belong in a philosophy class either, as I've been saying since the start. A comparative religion class, maybe, but that's it.

I fully disagree. In a comparitive religion class, the unwritten law would be to present each side's perspective, but not denigrate any of them.

On the other hand, a philosophy class is ideal for ridiculing creationism and intelligent design. Because almost every philosophy class starts with....

Socrates and Plato. And how logic and observation are key to understanding and goodness. And how tossing up your hands and saying "God did it" is a cop-out, counterproductive, and illogical given the evidence so far.

And make sure to touch on the death of socrates. the guy who was executed because a bunch of hyperreligious leaders needed a scapegoat for losing a war, and chose the guy who said people should use their brains and not just follow what their religious leaders tell them. what an excellent segway to creationism, don't you think?

the key is that once logic is applied to ID/creationism, their ideas break down. So introduce them in philosophy, which is highly focused on logic.

[Norsk Troll]

"Thousands" of years old... :rolleyes: We've found humans older than that.

http://www.artcelebs.com/images/Diller/diller_photograph.jpg

[christopher d]

Question for those in secondary education:

Does a class necessarily need to be in a "department", as it does in college? Couldn't they simply hold the class without classifying it either as "Philosophy, Religion, or Science?"

IMHO, since it will certainly be an elective, they're simply going to have a choir show up to whom they could preach, so what's the harm in holding it?

[minorthreat]

I want to know why a non-science class is discussing science issues (ie, "will discuss the scientific ... aspects that suggest why Darwin's philosophy is not rock solid"). A philosophy or comparative religion class has no relation to prevailing scientific theory, IMO, and shouldn't be addressing scientific theories at all.A lot of non-science classes deal with scientific topics, though, ranging from the nature and limitations of empirical observation to scientific ethics. Hell, some universities (I know my alma mater did) have entire undergraduate majors devoted to 'philosophy of science.'

[minorthreat]

Damnit! Somebody give this man some rep. I accidentially negrepped himGot your back.

[Foosinho]

A lot of non-science classes deal with scientific topics, though, ranging from the nature and limitations of empirical observation to scientific ethics. Hell, some universities (I know my alma mater did) have entire undergraduate majors devoted to 'philosophy of science.'
That's a wee bit different than discussing the scientific merits of a specific theory.

[Chicago1871]

That's a wee bit different than discussing the scientific merits of a specific theory.
Especially when the teacher is used to teaching the not-so-sharp kids that pencils are for writing, not for eating.

[Chicago1871]

So basically, the ID/Creationism folks are using "The Newdow Maneuver" to get their foot in the door. Amazing how much they're alike
More like frightening.

[Benedict XVI]

It doesn't belong in a philosophy class either, as I've been saying since the start. A comparative religion class, maybe, but that's it.Isn't "Intelligent Design" simply Aristotle's cosmological argument for the existence of God?

Why isn't it philosophy?

[Shabs]

Well, since it's a "philosophy" class, I hope some smart genetics students take it and rip the teachers arguments to shreds.

[royalstilton]

It doesn't belong in a philosophy class either, as I've been saying since the start. A comparative religion class, maybe, but that's it.
---
but what is "religion" but a philosophy, a world-view, a perspective of ideas about the nature of spiritual realities?

are you open to that view?

[royalstilton]

So basically, the ID/Creationism folks are using "The Newdow Maneuver" to get their foot in the door.


Amazing how much they're alike
---
but fortunately, atheists are completely disparate...:)

[bojendyk]

Isn't "Intelligent Design" simply Aristotle's cosmological argument for the existence of God?

Why isn't it philosophy?

No. For one, ID textbooks make claims (such as that the age of the universe could be anywhere between 10,000 years and several trillion years old) that are flatly contradicted by evidence. More importantly, ID is NOT a cosomological argument for the existence of God. It is a pseudo scientific argument that human beings and all other animal and plant life were created a short time ago in exactly the forms in which they now exist, and that species have not evolved at the macro level at all since then.

ID is creationism. It is not philosophy.