Jason Spaceman wrote:

From the article:
----------------------------------------------
Intelligent design is a red flag for some science teachers.

Jim Strayer of Ormond Beach taught biology in high school and
community college for more than 20 years. He calls the concept
"ridiculous."

Before it is introduced into public-school curriculums, he says, it
should first prove itself in scientific circles, at the university
level and in peer-reviewed journals.

"I believe these people are crackpots," he says. "To water down
science with something that has no scientific merit at all is child
abuse."

A Canadian elementary-school teacher, David Buckna, has proposed a
more neutral approach to teaching intelligent design than stickers
that question the validity of evolution.

Buckna's "Origins of Life" program is based on the premise that "no
theory in science is immune from critical examination and

evaluation."

His curriculum states simply that "whenever evolutionary theory is
taught, students and teachers are encouraged to discuss the

scientific

information that supports -- and questions -- evolution and its
underlying assumptions, in order to promote the development of
critical thinking skills."

If taught correctly, this would be taught at the beginning of science
education and not during biology. For the simple reason that it
applies to all science. There would be no reason to waste the class
time on it just for evolution. Buckna has to come up with a scientific
reason for singling out evolution for this type of obfuscation scam.
It would be nice if he could demonstrate that ID or creationism was
part of this "controversy." The fact is that if ID or creationism were
ever brought up, under his own standards it would have to be shot down
very effectively. If there are problems with evolution, the utter lack
of credibility for his alternative should require that this be pointed
out. These guys don't want an honest evaluation. If they did, they
would be pushing their ideas in the relm of science and not the public
schools.

It's not that simple, says Mark Perakh, a retired physics professor

at

California State University, Fullerton.

"The question of whether there was ever an act of creation by a
supernatural creator is beyond science," says the author of
Unintelligent Design -- a book that dismisses the concept.

"I expect that origin of life will be given a well-substantiated
natural explanation in the forthcoming years."

Yea, well we can't teach wishful thinking either, no matter who claims
what.

Guys like Buckna can take on guys like this if they want to teach this
kind of junk in the science class. As far as I know this isn't in any
textbooks. This is as bad as some ID arguments. How many years is he
talking about? What is his definition of "well-substantiated?" "I'll
know it when I see it" would put him firmly among the IDiots.