Posted: Jan 16, 2018 6:01 pm
Jonathan McLatchie wrote:@Weaver:
No, the Discovery Institute attempted, unsuccessfully, to persuade the Dover school board not to go through with what they were doing. It has been Discovery's long time education policy to oppose attempts to mandate the teaching of ID in public schools. The foolish actions of the Dover school board did a lot of damage, and we saw an intense spike in academic persecution of ID scientists following 2005.
As to my approach, I seek to determine the most natural interpretation of the scientific evidence. I think there are clear hallmarks of design in biology, but I would be inclined to affirm the proposition of common ancestry, for reasons I'm happy to go into.
Except you have no basis on which to apply your "design" theory and teach it as fact. Put it this way, by allowing your guys to teach "ID" you open the floodgates for every other psuedo science to come in and have a go to.
Not only that, but you're coming from a position that you are right, I assume? However, you do not know that you even have a case to make.
So the question left is, why should we allow people to teach theories they've thought up in their heads that have no supporting evidence to even say they're correct.
Schooling is precious time for students and as we discover more, they need to learn more. What good is there teaching them something that you yourself can't even demonstrate in the slightest to be true and yet think you should get time over everyone else and over every other religion?
If you were genuinely concerned about education, you'd be against putting anything into the curriculum that wasn't fact based.