Re: NY Times Part 3: Scientists Speak Up on Mix of God and Science

On 23 Aug 2005 08:08:19 -0700, TomS <TomS_member@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>"On 23 Aug 2005 04:24:17 -0700, in article
><1124796257.936570.227980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ron O stated..."
>>
>>
>>Jason Spaceman wrote:
>>> Also see 'Daily Lesson Plan: Evolutionary Exchange: Investigating and
>>> Discussing Darwinism and Design' at
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/lessons/20050823tuesday.html
>>>
>>> From the article:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Overview of Lesson Plan: In this lesson, students learn about theories
>>> of "intelligent design" in evolutionary science. They then research
>>> and create dialogues between a Darwinist proponent and an intelligent
>>> design proponent.
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> J. Spaceman
>>
>>This is why such a lesson plan has never been written, and the IDiots
>>have never put an ID lesson plan forward. Just look at the warm up:
>>
>>Quote:
>>1. WARM-UP/DO NOW: Before entering class, the teacher should place a
>>watch, a rock and a picture of a bird in a location in the classroom so
>>that all students may see them. Upon entering class, students respond
>>to the following prompt in their journals (written on the board prior
>>to class): "Which of these items was the product of design? Which
>>occurred naturally? How can you tell?" The teacher may help steer
>[...snip...]
>
> Before anything else, I want to quote one of the questions from
>this lesson plan:
>
> "Do you believe in evolution?"
>
> This is an improper question for many reasons. Simplest of all,
>evolution is *not* a subject of belief, and therefore it is a biased
>question.
>
> Then, I also find a lot to complain about these objects: A watch,
>a rock, and a picture of a bird.
>
> First of all, everyone will admit that *a picture of a bird* is
>a designed object.
>
> Of course, I know that the student is supposed to know that the
>question is not about a picture, but about the object pictured.
>Probably they don't want to have the problems of dealing with an
>actual live animal, so they're using a picture, instead. But they
>could use a plant, for example.
>
> Or would there be some difficulty with ID if they used a plant
>instead of an animal?
>
> Secondly, ID is *not* about an individual animal (or plant)
>being designed. If it were about that, then ID would be opposed to
>the "theory that birds hatch from eggs".
>
> All of the examples that I have ever seen for ID are not about
>individual living things, but are about organs (or, rather, organ-
>types).
>
> Maybe the best example would be a chicken feather.

I'm no expert in how lesson plans are written but this whole exercise
strikes me as literally ridiculous. An *hour* for *6th graders* to
"explore" the nuances of the philosophy of science and its differences from
theology (less the time taken to do "research", of course)? An hour
*might* be enough to give a simplified *lecture* to the effect that science
does not address the same field of knowledge as theology and that your
religion is not "disproved" by science but cannot begin to scratch the
surface the way they are proposing to go about it.

This lesson plan seems . . . well . . . *designed* to do too much in too
little time.

--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

We have done amazingly well in creating a cultural movement,
but we must not exaggerate ID's successes on the scientific front.

- William A. Dembski -

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: NY Times Part 3: Scientists Speak Up on Mix of God and Science
    ... >> design proponent. ... >This is why such a lesson plan has never been written, ... a rock and a picture of a bird in a location in the classroom so ... >that all students may see them. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Symbolic AI, a waste of time?
    ... But the design of an airplane stayed as close as possible to ... closer to the bird design there would have been hanggliders 1000 years ... characteristics of the layer below. ... one against functionalism - the material substrate is fundamental. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: VB Circle Method Seems to be Seriously Flawed
    ... The best display accuracy you can hope for is +- 1 Pixel. ... > small changes once you're close to the final design. ... > modeling and all are displayed at the same time in the picture box at the ... >> probably know, the underlying objects can be very accurate, and should ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: Symbolic AI, a waste of time?
    ... But the design of an airplane stayed as close as possible to ... closer to the bird design there would have been hanggliders 1000 years ... characteristics of the layer below. ... one against functionalism - the material substrate is fundamental. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Update - Halloween Yard Art
    ... made a grid on the wood and picture. ... he engineer scale gave 18" wide, and 25" tall, which worked ... I've read that to avoid copyright infringement your design needs to ...
    (rec.woodworking)