Tuesday, January 23, 2007 | Science : Teaching Science | print version

Intelligent design to feature in school RE lessons

by Alexandra Smith, Guardian

Reposted from:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1996287,00.html

Teenagers will be asked to debate intelligent design (ID) in their religious education classes and read texts by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins under new government guidelines.

In a move that is likely to spark controversy, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has for the first time recommended that pupils be taught about atheism and creationism in RE classes.

ID, which argues that the creation of the world was so complex that an intelligent - religious - force must have directed it, has become a contentious issue that has divided scientists and Christians in Britain.

Some of the world's top scientists have expressed outrage over the teaching of creationism and ID in school science classes, which they say is an attempt to smuggle fundamentalist Christianity into science teaching. They argue that it should be made clear to pupils that science backs the theory of evolution.

Now the QCA wants pupils in England to debate the relationship between science and religion in their RE lessons. The teaching of ID and creationism should prove less contentious in this part of the curriculum (although the scientists who argue that ID is a science may be disconcerted), as pupils will investigate and role-play disputes between religion and science, such as Galileo, Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins.

Pupils will be expected to understand terms such as creation, God as creator of the universe, intelligent design, the Big Bang theory, the sacred story and purposeful design, as well as words that are specific to a religion, such as Bible, Rig Veda, and Qur'an.

The new guidelines for key stage 3 (11 to 14-year-olds), published yesterday, say: "This unit focuses on creation and origins of the universe and human life and the relationship between religion and science. It aims to deepen pupils' awareness of ultimate questions through argument, discussion, debate and reflection and enable them to learn from a variety of ideas of religious traditions and other world views.

"It explores Christianity, Hinduism and Islam and also considers the perspective of those who do not believe there is a god (atheists). It considers beliefs and concepts related to authority, religion and science as well as expressions of spirituality."

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 43 of 43 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #18783 by Ole on January 23, 2007 at 2:01 am

Daniel Dennett suggest some similar things in the interview with Bill Moyers.
For instance go to the end (at 49:10) "..if young muslims were taught about the history of Christianity.... and the history of atheism too!"

Yes, keep it in RE and out of science classes!

Ole

Other Comments by Ole

2. Comment #18785 by gcdavis on January 23, 2007 at 2:16 am

How about this for an RE lesson plan?

Question 1
Examine why it is that so many human beings believe in the existence of god.

Consider primitive belief systems and the social context in which they develop; worship of the sun or ancestors for example'

Consider ritual sacrifice or prayer and the idea that god's actions could be influenced by it.

Why did the monotheistic religions come to replace most of belief systems that preceded them?

Question 2
Examine morality

Consider the conflict between religions and their competing claims for the truth.

Is morality god given or can moral principles be established without it?

Consider a world without religion, would society be worse or better.

Should religious belief be given special rights, privileges and exemptions from laws that apply to society as a whole, like the circumcision of infants or the ritual killing of animals?

Question 3
Examine the effect that the enlightenment and growth of science has had on religious belief.

Consider the contradiction between scientific explanation and religious texts, can they be resolved?

Consider the effect of religious belief on political leaders and legislators and the political system.

In the UK the vast majority of 15-16 year olds probably haven't given a moment's thought to religion and belief; when they examine the issues in the hopefully neutral environment of a classroom, I reckon most will come to the same conclusion that we have. There's no god, so what!

Other Comments by gcdavis

3. Comment #18788 by kmccardle on January 23, 2007 at 2:28 am

I'm not exactly happy that anyone accepts ID or creationism as science, but if they want to teach it in RE classes I guess that's the best place for it. It should certainly NOT be called science though no matter what else they say about it.

Other Comments by kmccardle

4. Comment #18790 by Noodly on January 23, 2007 at 2:35 am

"the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has for the first time recommended that pupils be taught about atheism and creationism in RE classes."

I think this is a good move. We all know that religion has controlled the dissemination of knowledge in the past, but it can't control modern forms of communications like the Internet. Getting all the relevant information out there is the key to throwing off the shackles of ancient superstition.

Some atheists would argue that it's a bad idea to appear to give equal weight to discussing creationism/ID and atheism/evolution, but we have to trust our kids - give them the facts and they will see through the BS.

Other Comments by Noodly

5. Comment #18791 by flashbaby on January 23, 2007 at 2:44 am

I think this is great as it keeps ID and Creationism out of science classes and gets atheism into RE classes for the first time. Seeing the only mention of these things in school will be in RE classes reinforces the idea they are not science.

When ID or creationists have made testable predictions these have been easily refuted so this is then science but wrong, refuted science.

Other Comments by flashbaby

6. Comment #18792 by Roy_H on January 23, 2007 at 2:45 am

"...and read texts by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins under new government guidelines."
Well that's a good move.

Other Comments by Roy_H

7. Comment #18793 by Luthien on January 23, 2007 at 2:54 am

I can't imagine my old school (catholic) teaching any text by Richard Dawkins. I'm sure they will do what they did when they were supposed to be teaching us about contraception, hand out the leaflets while telling us that it was deeply wrong and against Catholic beliefs, and saying that the only reason they handed them out was because the government forced them to.

...still, an introduction like that is bound to make Dawkins popular reading with today's kiddies ;-)

Other Comments by Luthien

8. Comment #18795 by Tintern on January 23, 2007 at 3:19 am

This is excellent. It moves the issue to RE. The logic of Dawkins' arguments should hit home as, if I remember my own dim and dark past, we were just aching for a way to refute what we were being taught in Catholic school. Virtually none of us believed it but we lacked the verbal skills, the ammunition, to take it apart effectively. Most importantly, it isn't in science class. Let the education begin with the opinion of my fifteen year old niece in England on ID - "It's all crap".

Other Comments by Tintern

9. Comment #18799 by MC1R on January 23, 2007 at 3:33 am

This could be a really positive step, and should go down like lead welly within the creationist/ID camp.
It's quite funny really; they've put all this time and effort into their thinly disguised agenda, only for it to backfire.
Instead of ID finding its way into science classes, Darwin has invaded RE.
I would hope that (as noodly suggests) given the facts; we could see creationism consigned to dustbin of history.

Other Comments by MC1R

10. Comment #18801 by jose on January 23, 2007 at 3:34 am

In principle this sounds like a good idea. However, my experience of RE teachers suggests that it will be seen as a way to place religious superstition and scientific enquiry on an equal footing. My RE teacher put forward the Paley's watch argument as a fundamental disproof of evolution. She then failed to comprehend my explanation as to why this was ridiculous (not blind chance, power of accumulation etc) and i imagine that many people leeft the class thinking that evolution was on shaky ground. For this to work you need competent teachers and having left school 3 years ago, i'm not convinced they exist. Even my science teachers had limited understanding of evolution, again referring to it as a blind chance process. I had to explain to one of them why a predator oculd evolve camoflage.

Other Comments by jose

11. Comment #18802 by Ole on January 23, 2007 at 3:36 am

Luthien said: I can't imagine my old school (catholic) teaching any text by Richard Dawkins.

What about Bertrand Russell then?

Perhaps they could use some of his essays, like: Why I am Not a Christian

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell0.htm

Ole

Other Comments by Ole

12. Comment #18806 by jeepyjay on January 23, 2007 at 3:55 am

Where is all this going to stop? How do they decide what counts as "Religious"? Does it merely depend on the strength of the latest lobby group? What about Spiritualism, Scientology, Atlantis, Hollow Earth, Alien Abduction, Gnosticism, Aleister Crowley and the Golden Dawn, Kabbala, etc etc etc. There would be no time to teach anything sensible.

Other Comments by jeepyjay

13. Comment #18808 by Logicel on January 23, 2007 at 3:57 am

Jose wrote: "For this to work you need competent teachers..."
_____

And how do competent teachers happen? They happen because as students they had competent teachers. Can a top down decision like shaping coursework by edict, as this inclusion of religion and atheism in religion classes break the vicious circle of cruddy teaching or is something else needed?

Other Comments by Logicel

14. Comment #18811 by eccles on January 23, 2007 at 4:03 am

I think the idea is preposterous. How many young minds are capable of separating fact from fiction. The whole of religion is based on the false notion that there was/is a "God", a "Creator/God" something that can never be proved.

I have just read that the Television Evangalists have won the right to appeal for funds on TV for their British TV programs, etc. I have been appalled at the way the IDer's have been trying to get the right to peddle their "Creation" in US Schools. Now it seem they are mounting attacks on Britian.

Religion is the worst curse to ever befall mankind. The sooner it is erdicated the better.

Other Comments by eccles

15. Comment #18816 by BaronOchs on January 23, 2007 at 4:13 am

This discussion brings back bad bad memories of my high school RE. The teachers of which were so thick I thought a restraining order should state they are not to come within 500 metres of any school at any time.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

16. Comment #18817 by John Phillips on January 23, 2007 at 4:20 am

I think this is excellent news as in one fell swoop it has not only formally negated all attempts by the Truth in Science to smuggle this into the science classroom but it has also introduced atheism into the RE curriculum for the very first time as a legitimate subject. Of course there will be dishonest teachers and even possibly some schools who will try to twist it to their religious ends, as other posters have mentioned, but if caught they would be in big trouble and could even affect their state funding. Of course, I doubt if Truth (and there is an ironic use of the word truth if I ever saw one) in Science and their ilk will give up that easy. But it is rather satisfying and ironic that it is their very own actions in trying to promote ID as science with their DVD teaching packs and the questions it raised in parliament that has led to their downfall by relegating ID from the science classroom and into the RE classroom. Additionally, think how the creationists in the UK must now be looking at the IDiots actions as being effectively responsible for atheism being introduced in RE classrooms. I know we shouldn't gloat, but in the short or medium term, could it get any better.

Other Comments by John Phillips

17. Comment #18818 by jose on January 23, 2007 at 4:24 am

It's a difficult question, but i think offering vastly bigger salaries to the best and brightest to atttract them into teaching would be a start. Also, i've had teachers who put in so little effort that it was embarrassing. A science teacher who put on the same 1980's video every week while we did a poster on the dangers of electricity. He should have been teaching us about the wonders of the universe, inspiring people. Teachers like him should be sacked. i know, from talking to governers, that having such bad teachers in an institution brings everyone down.
Obviously these suggestions may not work/be unworkable but speaking from experience i know that the teachers i had would not have handled this interesting idea. My RE teacher was afraid of debate because she was religious and felt like any criticism of religion was a direct challenge to her. It was not unusual to be sent out of class for picking her up on the absurdity of her arguements, even when it was done in a polite manner. There is no way that she could address a piece of work by Dawkins or Steve Jones on evolution. Apologies for the slightly ranting format but i had to sit through several years of inadequate teaching while my interest in subjects was undermined rather than strengthened.

Other Comments by jose

18. Comment #18820 by john_eg on January 23, 2007 at 4:31 am

R.E should be an oppurtunity for students to learn about the nature and history of religious thought as well as other areas of discourse like ethics. It should not be a niche for bullshit that can't make it in the science classroom.

Other Comments by john_eg

19. Comment #18823 by Lionel A on January 23, 2007 at 4:40 am

Jose and #18818

I am with you on the dangers of bias or incompetence from those teachers assigned to the teaching of RE.

The way out of this is to split the RE course, part to be taught by an RE teacher, a part by a Science teacher and another part with teachers from both sides of the debate present to shake down the arguments.

As for the likes of Richard Buggs they should be hounded on the title of the organisation that they belong to, Truth in Science is an oxymoron of diabolic proportions and should be challenged in court.

Other Comments by Lionel A

20. Comment #18825 by jose on January 23, 2007 at 4:46 am

Lionel,
That's a good idea. I was fortunate in that i had read 'life on earth' and 'almost like a whale' before i encountered an RE teacher who had no understanding of the process. There must have been numerous other kids who came out of it with a distorted and just plain wrong view of evolution and science in general. Having a science teacher there who could intervene and ensure that the right debate was taking place- no straw men- would be useful. Although i suppose they may be concerned about undermining other teachers. It's easy enough to do...

Other Comments by jose

21. Comment #18837 by Dogbreath on January 23, 2007 at 6:12 am

We should all be extremely concerned about any proposal to deal with the issues at hand in a way that requires non-scientists to espouse a scientific critique. Let's be really clear about this, I know that the overwhelming majority of RE teachers are practising Christians in the UK. Posts above have already highlighted how unenlightening these teachers can be, even when dealing with the central pillars of their faith. Requiring them to present an issue of this importance in RE lessons is like asking Pol Pot to speak on humanitarianism.

Arming a whole batch of well-intentioned, happy clappy Christians with the power and responsibility to control this debate is very dangerous. Keep scissors away from children.

Other Comments by Dogbreath

22. Comment #18854 by epeeist on January 23, 2007 at 8:28 am

In Comment #18802 Ole says

What about Bertrand Russell then?

The one paragraph in Russell's lecture Why I am not a Christian that always finds a chord is:

"You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress of humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or ever mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world."

Other Comments by epeeist

23. Comment #18855 by yogibear on January 23, 2007 at 8:35 am

Creationism always was taught in RE at least in Northern Ireland, by that i mean genesis. To have atheism and evolution on the curriculum as well in RE is a positive step, at least kids get to see both sides of the argument, and if evolution is also taught in Science then hopefully they will see the truth in the science. Nobody then can say they where coerced into a scientific viewpoint. Just keep ID out of the science classroom

Other Comments by yogibear

24. Comment #18861 by Ole on January 23, 2007 at 9:24 am

Informed citizenship!

Here is a talk that Dennett gave at TED in 2006. It points out his proposal from "Breaking the Spell":
That we should have a curriculum where facts about all religions in the world are taught:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4987372252730586158

"Facts, facts about all religions, no values..."

Ole

Other Comments by Ole

25. Comment #18863 by Janus on January 23, 2007 at 9:41 am

I suppose this is a good thing... or it could be if the teacher's good.

What really worries me is, what is there to teach about ID that isn't grossly flawed, an outright lie, or a misrepresentation of what evolution is? What is there to say about ID beyond, "Well, some Christians, Muslims, and Jews are scientifically illiterate and thinkg Goddidit is a valid explanation"?

Other Comments by Janus

26. Comment #18867 by Dogbreath on January 23, 2007 at 10:00 am

Comment #18863 by Janus "What is there to say about ID beyond, "Well, some Christians, Muslims, and Jews are scientifically illiterate and thinkg Goddidit is a valid explanation"?"

This is my entire point about why this is such a bad move, except for the opposite reason. Just as Janus would find it impossible to "teach" ID, we would be expecting happy clappy RE teachers to present a balanced comparison of Dawkins?

On which planet have we all evolved?

Other Comments by Dogbreath

27. Comment #18872 by jose on January 23, 2007 at 10:49 am

Exactly, unless there is an incredible amount of retraining, supervision of lessons etc this will end up with science and superstition put on an equal footing by RE teachers who have very limited understanding of what evolution actually means. It will be portrayed as design vs blind chance with paley's watch as the the decider. Or at least it will be in my old school (not a religious school by the way, just an average, rural comprehensive). And while some of the kids will be able to sort the wheat from the chaff many others will go on to contribute to articles like "Britons Unconvinced by Evolution" on this site.

Other Comments by jose

28. Comment #18878 by Sean on January 23, 2007 at 11:39 am

It would be excellent if R.E could simply be changed to 'philosophy'. If all religious/philosophical ideas could be presented equally then it would be genuinally valuable. Children need to learn about these ideas so they understand how to refute them.

I agree with earlier posts though. The subject of religion is very open to bias so some teachers are going to explain ID with passion while giving a bland explanation of evolution.

I wonder if creationists will argue strongly for "ID/creationism is only a theory, not a fact. It is a controversial idea that is being strongly debated by the theological community and widely viewed by the scientific community as being a fairy tale" stickers on ID books?

Other Comments by Sean

29. Comment #18884 by Vadjong on January 23, 2007 at 12:45 pm

I'd like to see stuff like "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Shermer as a starting point on any curriculum.

Other Comments by Vadjong

30. Comment #18923 by Veronique on January 23, 2007 at 4:41 pm

gcdavis - 18785

I don't have a problem with your suggested RE questions and their content.

The problem, as I see it, is who instructs in RE classes.

When I was at school, the major religious groups were segregated so students went to one or another (depending on their parental influences). I went to the Library because my revered pater wrote to my school, at my behest, to excuse my from any religious indocrination.

Those who teach RE are committed moderates (maybe some extremists?) in their religions. How would they tackle (objectively and without subtle voice intonations) such questions like those you have posited?

The power of tonal voice authority is something we all grew up with, with our parents as the first purveyors of authority.

So I still see difficulty in presenting RE students with reasons to think for themselves in such a setting.

How say you? Any ideas how to rectify what I see as a problem?

Regards
V

Other Comments by Veronique

31. Comment #18954 by Homo economicus on January 24, 2007 at 1:08 am

I managed to escape RE at school, and when in the library did extra maths and english - this proved more benefical I think.

However, that was when studying with JWs as a child. Out of the pot and into the fire ...

The good thing about the curriculum is showing to children that there are diverse opinions out there, especailly if logic and reason is included. Usually (especially in religion) if any difference is mentioned it is done in a way that you would not accept it.

Other Comments by Homo economicus

32. Comment #18956 by gcdavis on January 24, 2007 at 1:39 am

18923 by Veronique

I suppose because my suggestion has a zero percent chance of being adopted, I rather side-stepped the issue you raise.

In an ideal world I would like to change the priorities within education so that a child learns to appreciate the interdependency of individuals within the family, the society and the world in which they live and the importance of personal moral responsibility.
This ethos would underpin all academic instruction and would result in an education system that would produce a well rounded individual as well as enabling them to develop their interests and natural talents.

Oops, sounds a bit like a faith school, without the faith!

I know that PSHE (Personal, social and health education) attempts to cover this ground but as an add-on.

So to answer your question I guess there would be no need for RE as a discreet subject.

Other Comments by gcdavis

33. Comment #18986 by StephenH on January 24, 2007 at 7:21 am

Something else to raise consciousness about
Some terminology concerns me

The word 'pupil' is pretty ugly, during these modern times.

I prefer the word 'student', or simply 'person'
I deleted 'young person' because plenty of adults also study as well

Ok, it might sound nit-picking

As long as there are materials there to represent the various angles of the debate. Then people should be in a position to make an informed decision... and that this takes place in RE classes rather than Science classes

Other Comments by StephenH

34. Comment #18990 by Vigilant Watcher on January 24, 2007 at 7:30 am

On the surface of it the proposals appear to be an advance on the current curriculum and practice in our schools.

And, it is certainly an advance to have ID, if it has to be acknowledged at all, included in RE. The assumption, and Veronique alluded to it above, is that RE teachers being, in the main, moderate christians will undertake the task responsibly.

However, being in the process of reading 'The End of Faith' by Sam Harris it strikes me that, as he argues, it is the moderates who give strength and sustenance to the 'real' extremists that threaten not only rational thought and beliefs about the real world but our actual existence itself.

To expect or assume that committed christians will present an honest, unbiased, and, to lead a discussion that threatens their own deeply held worldview is flawed.

The only answer is to relegate RE to where it belongs; in the bucket with other, at one time, sincerely and deeply held misguided perceptions of the world.

Other Comments by Vigilant Watcher

35. Comment #18991 by jeff_n on January 24, 2007 at 7:51 am

Vigilant Watcher says:
... it is certainly an advance to have ID, if it has to be acknowledged at all, included in RE.

Hopefully it won't be too long before RE is included in History!

Other Comments by jeff_n

36. Comment #18995 by beebhack on January 24, 2007 at 8:11 am

Sean
Dead right. Such a course could encompass logic, critical thinking, how to form an argument etc. I'm sure if it had been open to me when I was at school it would have had positive implications for other classes, whether sciences or humanities. Of course, it would be anathaema to the religious.

Other Comments by beebhack

37. Comment #19253 by opposablethumbs on January 26, 2007 at 12:29 am

Recommended reading for - well, anyone really, from last-few-years-of-primary-school age upwards: Stephen Law's "The Philosophy Files", "The Philosophy Files II" and "The Philosophy Gym". Just reading and discussing these would make a pretty good start to the classes I wish I could see replacing RE in the UK curriculum. They are a lot of fun, kids really enjoy them and they stimulate the little grey cells .... what an idea, a school lesson devoted to logic and critical thinking, rather than rote-learning what are supposed to be the similarities and differences between different versions of a fairytale.

opposablethumbs

Other Comments by opposablethumbs

38. Comment #19383 by Veronique on January 26, 2007 at 7:19 pm

Michel de Montaigne, writing in the mid to late 16th century has a wonderful essay 'On Educating Children'. His main thesis is that the child should be encouraged to ask questions; the educator not to ram rote learning but to discover what the child is straining to learn and then facilitate that.

He also postulates a sort of socratic learning process by which the child discovers his strengths and interests without having to learn stuff that doesn't interest him. de Montaigne opts for a child who finds what he is good at and interested in and so has the potential to contribute far more to the happiness of his own life and to possibly make a contribution to the larger society. This, he says, is far preferable to having a mediocre 'learned' child with little, if any, interest in anything.

Sounds a bit familiar, doesn't it? Mind you in the 16th century he was writing to a friend (a mother) and advising her on the qualities to look for in a tutor for her son.

We now have 30+ students in classes, taught by teachers who, in the main, have themselves been taught in steadily declining quality-in-education systems.

I left school after matriculating in 1960. That's a long time ago. I despair of the level of language skills students are taught. Critical thinking is difficult to achieve when language becomes sloppy.

Religion consigned to history classes is a terrific idea. That then gets rid of RE altogether. Wunderbar!

Wishful thinking I know. We can but dream.

Regards
V

Other Comments by Veronique

39. Comment #19385 by Dogbreath on January 26, 2007 at 7:30 pm

I wonder how many students in school experienced the annual abuse of visiting Gideons handing out free bibles? Ever wonder why that was allowed to happen? Ever wonder who organized it? - the same RE teachers who some of the folk on this thread would be quite happy to entrust the teaching of ID and "other theories of creation".

I don't get it. This sounds preciously close the the idea of "teaching the debate" that was so roundly condemned in the judgement at Dover, PA. There is no debate.

Other Comments by Dogbreath

40. Comment #19411 by alanmackenzie on January 27, 2007 at 1:35 am

Talking of "Intelligent Design", check out the new Wikipedia article on the matter of the manufactured "controversy", courtesy of our friends at "Truth" in Science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_in_Science

Alan.

Other Comments by alanmackenzie

41. Comment #36331 by mayzee on May 1, 2007 at 12:20 am

Well I'm actually training as a teacher at the moment... a physics teacher no less...

and I can quite safely say, from my experience with the kids, that it doesn't matter what you teach them in RS (its religious studies now, rather than education)... they all hate it as a subject... I did explain to them that its important to know about other peoples beliefs so that you can a) not offend them too much and b) be able to discuss it with them (I managed not to say pick holes in it...)

There is also a push in education at present to teach thinking skills, encourage metacognition... this is only going to help... when pupils think about thinking they will be able to think about the thought processes which led our ancestors down the religious path, and see that now, actually, we don't need that to explain why the sun come up...

:)

Other Comments by mayzee

42. Comment #36339 by scottishgeologist on May 1, 2007 at 12:47 am

What mayzee says rings a bell. When I was at school, we had one period of RE per week. First thing on a Tuesday morning. Complete and utter pish, so it was. Time that would have been much better spent dealing with Calculus, Chemistry or Physics.

Actually in some respects, it was a bit of light relief - it never taxed the brain. Not one pupil took it remotely seriously.

Of course, at school assembly, there was always the religious component. And music lessons always managed to bring in hymns and stuff like that now and again.

On the other hand, my maths and science teachers were briliant. Inspiring, funny and dedicated. Fond memories of them all. Thanks guys!

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

43. Comment #65558 by Dadeolus on August 24, 2007 at 8:09 pm

Hmm, how long ago did some of the posters here go to school? Surely assuming that teachers nowadays are rubbish based on the small sample size of your own teachers long ago is bad science? A larger and recent sample would tell a different story (possibly).
I am a chemistry and physics teacher and I do talk about ID in science, but only as a new part of the curriculum called "how science works" and only then to show that it doesn't hold up to rational analysis.

Other Comments by Dadeolus