> -----Original Message----- > From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 5:20 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Discovery Magazine article on the candidates science > policies > > Didn't you conclude discussing it and answering question like these in > science class helps explain what science is and isn't?
Answering a question raised and setting aside time and resources are two different things. The "traditional" discussions that covers this (scientific truth versus social or religious truth) are Galileo and the Heliocentric view of the universe. While I'd personally be happy enough to have a lesson in science class on why ID isn't science I think at the level that I assume we're discussing (high-school) it would be disruptive. The lesson about "what is science" can be taught using a less volatile subject. > I liked that conclusion I'm firmly in the "there are no bad questions" camp (although the same question can definitely be asked too often). But I still see nothing in ID that merits inclusion in the curricula. Inclusion as science would be disingenuous, specific inclusion as "not-science" would be controversial and possibly disruptive without specifically adding to the educational value. I guess what I'm saying is that it's definitely not paid it's dues as science. But it's also not paid it's enough to be a classical example of bad science yet either. Maybe in another 50 or 100 years it'll have enough clout to stand as a really good example of nonsense. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:275914 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
