tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10666901.post111888742145044437..comments2024-01-14T01:51:23.999-05:00Comments on DuckRabbit: Philosophy in the schools?Duckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11349267352262603510noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10666901.post-1118972950067799072005-06-16T21:49:00.000-04:002005-06-16T21:49:00.000-04:00Thank you, Doctor, for your excellent comment. I ...Thank you, Doctor, for your excellent comment. I readily concede both points (of course, I hadn't claimed otherwise). Maybe I hang out at the wrong places, but I certainly see more "What?? Never!!" than "It <I>would</I> be interesting, but ...".<BR/><BR/>In my own case, so long ago (late 70's, if you must know), all there was was a quick treatment of the Miller/Urey experiment (I remember Mr. Quad writing ZAP on the overhead to indicate the lightning bolt, which I dutifully copied into my notebook). For the most part we were indeed, as you suggest, memorizing the Krebs cycle (with the ATP and the NADPH) and the circulatory system of the shark.Duckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11349267352262603510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10666901.post-1118951183056189012005-06-16T15:46:00.000-04:002005-06-16T15:46:00.000-04:00I think the reasoning behind insisting that it isn...I think the reasoning behind insisting that it isn't appropriate for science class is less the 'design' inference (which, let's be honest, has never been reliably used, ever) and more the status of high school science education specifically. There are indeed certain very valuable lessons that can be learned from comparing ID to actual science -- but they tend, in my experience, to be the sorts of things that are only really useful once the relevant <I>science</I> has been pretty fully covered. <BR/><BR/>So there's a practical reason there - once the students have learned the biology, then they could perhaps spend some time on the not-biology. But of course there's never enough time to learn the biology in the first place, and so.... etc.<BR/><BR/>Secondly there's the simple (and again, practical) fact that most science teachers really aren't competent to be teaching the science in the first place. So adding new layers of complexity is really just asking for it (in the same way as having a Philosophy class in high school would be - you and I would probably both think it would be a great idea, but let's be honest here: they'd probably have the wrestling coach teach it). <BR/><BR/>In other words, at the very least I see good practical reasons to keep ID out of high school science classes entirely - even if in some sense it would probably be an interesting and useful issue. I think that's the motivation in the pro-science position (or, at least, I've heard similar "it would be nice to teach both together...." sentiments from many of them - usually followed by some of the considerations above - more than once).MHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00573343122387060193noreply@blogger.com