We are not in fundamental disgree on the basics. Indeed, as noted, I didn’t start this thread to deabte ID per se. I do have concerns that many in the Christian community get overly caught up in these fights, which I sometimes think are more a distraction from, rather than a furtherance of, the gospel.

Bart

And despite a lifetime of extreme conservatism on the matter of taxes, living in Alabama for 8 years–and especially in Montgomery, does convince me that it is possible for taxes to be too low (and yes, I know you asked me not to say that).

And yes, we do need to meet and chat.

And I, too, enjoy the interchange.

Cheers.

P.S. I do think the framework for scientific inquiry can actually be ENCHANCED by a ID perspective. Guys like Newton certainly did say, “Well, who cares why objects fall to the earth, God knows–good enough for me.” Instead, he thought that scientfic discovery was a process which revealed God’s complexity–the uniqueness and beauty of his design–and it brought Him Glory. Juxtapose this with what some Darwinists might conclude: “Heck, there’s not much to discover, it’s all random anyway, no rhyme or reason to it. Might as well just go out and follow my animalistic instincts.” (I know this is unfair, I’m just on a roll.)

I do think there is a way you look at the sanctity of life in a Darwinstic world as opposed to a Theistic world. If it is true that the fittest survive, that means might makes right, why not develop and use weapons of mass destruction. When you see all life as “fearfuly and wonderfully made” I would hope a conscience comes into the equation.

I’ll leave you with the last word. Enjoyed this tremendously Steven. We’ll have to have coffee sometime. I feel like I know you.

I have no problem with debate, or with academic freedom. Understand: my point in the original post was about epistemology, not about cosmology (or even theology).

Fundamentally, you and I have no disagreement. I simply remain unsure as to really how the curriculum would change beyond simply stating that the system could have it origins by the hands of maker. And really, that seems to me to go to basic cosmology, rather than biology itself. In other words, even if every science teacher in the country today agreed to include the basics of ID of in their lesson plans, I am not sure what would change beyond an acceptance of the idea that their might be an intelligence behind creation.

I do confess as to wondering, really, whether there is as much to fight about here as some make it out to be, however. It isn’t as if High School students are getting whole semesters on evolution. Thinking back to my own HS biology class, I don’t even recall anything specific about origins or the development of species. There was likely some small section in the text book on it and that was it. My guess is that it is hardly unusual for a teacher to mention the possibility of creation or for a student to raise it.

In terms of studying biology proper, I still am not sure how an ID perspective alters the basic science beyond a discussion of why as opposed to how things developed. Now, a discussion of the shortcomings of evolutionary theory and the various problems with the evidence ought to be entered into, to be sure.

As I have noted, I am not especially passionate about this topic on either end. It does seem to me that the whole point of ID is to get a Theistic view of the universe into the classroom, more than it is about scientific theory, per se. Given that I accept such a view, I can’t argue–but it does remain unclear to me as to what ID then does for science education itself.

Indeed, you ask where debate has gone–depending on the class, I don’t recall there being much time or opportunity for debate on a wide range of subjects in HS. That has more to do with general pedagogy, I should think, rather than a question of academic freedom.

And, it occurs to me, public school teachers don’t actually have full academic freedom, as the curriculum is set by entities outside of the classroom. It is a different debate in that context than it would be at the university level.

I will take the debate issue a step further–as an educator, I have found that it takes a certain amount of education and knowledge before debate can actually take place. As such, most high school students aren’t equipped for debate. For example, I have taught intro to American Government as several different institutions for something like 12 years now. One would think that would be a class ripe for debate. However, usually there is very little. Why? because most of the students don’t know enough about US government and politics to debate the topics at hand. The only time I get interesting discussions is when I teach the Honors version of the course and have really bright, motivated students.

In short: you aren’t going to get the vigorous debate you are craving in our high schools regardless of what the curriculum is in most classes. You will get interesting discussion when you have a sufficient number of very bright students, but you will get that debate regardless of what the curriculum is. (i.e., even if you leave ID out of the texts, if you have a bright Christian student, the topic will almost certainly be raised).

Again: I am not arguing for or against a specific curriculum. Indeed, my initial point was simply that most evolution-minded individuals tend to look at the concept with “faith” in much the same way Christians view Genesis–as received knowledge.

Although ultimately I think that the debate isn’t about science as much as it is about theism v. atheism. One group wants at least generic acknowledgement of God in the schools and the other doesn’t.

And really, you have no specific fight with me–many of your questions ought be directed elsewhere. The onyl place we really differ, I suppose, is the degree to which we view the overall situation as a serious problem.

I would propose that evolution be thoroughly taught and understood and tested. However, I would say that numerous so-called proofs of transitional links (i.e., “Piltdown Man” if I recall correctly) were proven to be hoaxes. I would hope the teacher could say that fossil record is remarkably thin in terms of transitional links BETWEEN species (as opposed to intra-species, which is microevolution, which as I said earlier, I have no problem with).

I would spend some time (not inordinate) in making sure the students knew what creationists believed as well as ID’ers. I would discuss the evidence that supports creationism and ID as well as what evidence would be used to refute those theories. I would probably assign students to various sides of the question (not necessarily their favorite side) and make them debate it in class.

I think what you are implying is that there is a lot of evidence for evolution and none for ID–just, “Hey, it looks like this was planned.” I disagree. Evolutionary theory is pretty simple–given enough time, chance will try every conceivable adaptation and eventually get it right and produce a superior species (or subspecies). The rest is just going through the fossil and/or biological record and looking for proof of that. How is that, in nature, different from explaining that ID theory says that the biological record contains a lot of evidence that there is design or purpose in the development of species. The rest is looking at evidence to see if it supports this theory. How is that unscientific bible-thumping?

This, to me, is what academic inquiry is all about. At one time such inquiry was limited to exclude any discussion of evolution because was labeled “dangerous.” Now discussion of alternatives to evolution is limited because they too are now deemed “dangerous.”

Whatever happened to debate?