Why is having it in a philosophy class sneaky
? I can see rejecting it anyways, because modern Intelligent Design is perhaps too narrow to be
taught in a high school philosophy class (though if it were 'from paley to behe' and such, that might be a 'big' enough subject). But why is it
The entire class is focusing on intelligent design?
I'd like to see this woman's lesson plans.
Because the teacher has no scientific training, students are not provided with any critical analysis of this presentation
So? Its a philosophy class. Rational Empiricism is a philosophy, and it is also (roughly speaking anyways) science, but why shoudl that make it the
supreme philosophy over which all other philosophies must be judged? Is Kierkegaard's thought invalid because there is no evidence of a god that
makes us fear and tremble? The only qalifications for this woman to teach a high school elective shoudl be if she is or is not certified to teach in
high school and that subject.
An initial course description sent to parents in December said it would examine "evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific,
biological, and Biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin's philosophy is not rock solid."
Hmm. That doesn't actually seem quite right. Where's the sense in having an entire class devoted to considering a particular portion of science
from a single philosophical perspective?
Also, if its considering the biblical aspects, then its not, in the strictest sense, Intelligent Design, no? So basically, from that, this looks
simply like a class in creationism.
I'd have to say that that shouldn't be permitted. Biblical Creationism is a religious interpretation, its religion. A particular religion
shouldn't get an entire class devoted to it.
Imagine if there was a class in "Proofs for the Koran" and it had lessons like "The non-divinity of Jesus".
Classes started two days later with a class plan that relied solely on videos, not guest speakers.
I'd be interested to see if it is Kent Hovind's videos, or Ken Hamms.
from another source
Sharon Lemburg, says she wanted “to tell people about the ideas of Intelligent Design,” but that “Everything happened quickly. I had to have a
syllabus overnight. I’m not an expert on this subject.” Lemburg is widely appreciated in the community and by this newspaper as the Lady
This is not a good test case for teaching intelligent design as a non-science class, to say the least.
Wow, here is the tenative original syllabus, with markups and comments (in blue on that page) from the guy that got it.