Originally Posted by Taltos

This is the problem with using words like "ID" and "education reform". They're great for communicating a plethora of ideas and for identifying large groups of people, but they are absolutely terrible for any reasonably practical debate.

What words would you recommend we use instead?

I don't think anyone here (except for the mentioning of introducing an Honors/AP Philosophy course) has mentioned "creating yet another unfunded mandate" in our discussion about "education reform". What we've been discussing is censorship and whether or not there should be restrictions about what can cannot be taught by teachers and textbooks in regards to evolution and the scientific views of the origin of, well, everything.

Actually, this was the text in the OP:

"If there is anyone here with a deeper understanding on this issue, or some insight I may be missing, please help me answer a few questions. If by chance, ID becomes a standard subject in public schools, How can it possibly be taught without reverting to religious doctrine? And after the first few hours of explanation concerning this hypothesis.....what is left to discuss?"

Granted it did evolve quite nayurally into discussion on the value of ceationist dogma in a science class....but they are pretty much the same animal.

Then we have this-"regardless, i like the cut of your jib. education reform, perhaps, would be a topic for another thread? i guess tec can specify that a bit in context of this thread. i certainly don't want ID used a sacrificial lamb in order to get cross-disciplinary studies into highschools. as i said earlier, i'd love to see some sort of intro to philo class offered in high schools as a part of the gifted or ap courses..."

Followed by-"
seems this thread could use a change of direction at this point, and would neatly tie into education reform if prodded. I see problems however in attempting to create yet another unfunded mandate, all the while expecting overwhelmed teachers to meet regency testing standards. Eating a huge dinner while sitting on a broken chair might be a bad Idea."

If you read the article that was the original subject of this topic, it talks about ideas that we haven't even discussed yet, and doesn't make mention to ideas that we have.

It would seem we have indeed tried to discuss the intended topic, and a consensus has formed that there is very little actual Data to discuss in a science class as far as ID is concerned. You have done nothing to change this consensus. Thus we have moved thew thread into the realms of educational reform, though I am sure that if you present new information on the first topic we will discuss it.

1) The article under question does not call for a new course curriculum to teach ID.
2) The article under question does not call for a mandate requiring the instructors to teach ID.
3) What it does do is expand the restrictions on what can be taught, allowing material that could not previously be introduced in a science class.
4) People are upset that an unpopular candidate was allowed to become a supreme authority in science education "by default".
5) People are upset that a person is allowed this esteemed position of scientific educational authority even though he is a creationist. (Or IDist, a makeshift term that I find particularly amusing.)

People are concerned that this may lead to a corruption of established practices in a science class, and possibly take away from an already struggling school envirinment.

There's also a potential #6 not related to the article but relavent to the discussion, "6) The current situation can cause instructors backlash and trouble for instructors if they mention ID in the classrooms, or make public known that they personally are in favor of the ID ideology." Since I'm the only one to mention this though and no one else cares to discuss it, it's not really on topic.

Much of the contraversy in the discussion comes from people insisting that #3 above will "open the door" to #1 and #2 above, in terminology that vaguely reminds me of the red scare and how we should not "open the door" to hostile communist ideas).

Well,at least you didn't mention Hitler....heh

#5 also strikes me as a bad position to hold, because the implication is that he won't (or can't) 'do his job' but will instead abuse his position to put forward his own personal agenda. Proponents of this view tend to suggest that allowing for #3 is just the first demonstration that proves #5 correct, though I disagree.

There also seems to be a side issue here, unrelated to the article but important to the discussion, as to whether or not scientific classrooms should teach controversial topics that have not been adopted as mainstreams facts.

Um....Science consists of mainstream facts,You know, things that fit into the scientific method.

I am unsure enough in my position that I have refrained from discussing this, the question being largely irrelevent to my case (since I don't hold to the position that ONLY facts can be mentioned in a highschool science class, or to the position that highschool children are too young/ignorant/whatever to make value/fact decisions on their own if all alternative viewpoints are presented and weighted in an academic environment). (I'm working on the premise that highschool is an academic environment, which I may not actually agree with, but don't want to discuss it on this thread.)

Again, the hypothesis can certainly be discussed in the right setting, but not in a science class.

This is a summary of the topic as I understand it as it relates to educational reform, intelligent design, and the original article posted (along with my opinion on these issues). So it's not really about whether or not we should have educational reform. It's more of "this thing has happened, and how should we react?" It's more of a question of setting values and agendas for future practical decisions rather than deciding if we have funding for new mandates, or what kind of mandates we should have.