Joined: Feb. 2006
|Quote (Mark Frank @ Aug. 27 2006,12:49)|
|Actually I would vote for (b). Note that "teaching X" in a philosophy class is quite different from "teaching X" in a science class. All sorts of views are covered in a philosophy class, some of which are much nuttier than ID (solipism for instance) and ID raises all sorts of quite deep issues about probability, scientific explanation, and the relationship between religion and science. After all the argument from design has been covered in philosophy classes for centuries.|
Teaching the argument for design in a philosophy class is fine, but skeptic asked about teaching ID. That's different.
ID proponents claim that ID is science. If that were so, why would you teach it in philosophy class? Does anyone teach evolution in philosophy class? I doubt it.
OTOH, if ID is really philosophy pretending to be science, why teach it that way in philosophy class? If you consider it equivalent to a legitimate philosophical argument from design, just teach that argument directly. Teaching it under the pseudoscientific guise of ID makes no sense.
The truth is that ID is neither science nor philosophy. It's politics. Religiously & philosophically motivated, to be sure, but politics all the same.