no1tovote4
Gold Member
The ClayTaurus said:I also take issue with your claim thatI think there is a slippery slope argument that can easily be made. I think that they very easily will be trying to redefine the scientific process so that ID fits. This particular statement, in contrast to the rest of your argument, I feel to be quite naive.
I think that the controversy itself breeds interest. Competing ideas like this are not so easily found.
However a more full understanding of the process itself would be extremely helpful to future generations. Regardless of this issue, discussions of that type should be held, with examples. Even leaving this one out I am sure that examples that are less controversial can be found where the children can be shown examples and discussion can be formed as to which scenario fits into scientific process and which does not and why.
Discussion of that type could make science more than heating a few test tubes putting it together like it says in the book and writing down observation without really getting into what makes it scientific process and what does not. I think that some of this misunderstanding and the dryness of science classes tends to put many people that might be gifted scientists right out of interest in such subjects.