[Phys-L] Re: ID defenders

[thecraftyphantom at AUSTRALIA.EDU (Peter Craft)]

As a Christian and a physics (high school) teacher I have followed this
thread with some interest.  I was particularly struck by Jim's contribution
which says in part:

> This strikes me as a silly non-sequitur   It is true that "science" has
not
> been well defined in this discussion, but an arbitrary one such as this is
> not helpful.

Jim may not consider such definitions "not helpful" but here in NSW
Australia we have little choice, as a selection of our mandated teaching
outcomes state that students have to investigate:


5.2     the nature and practice of science
c)      apply scientific processes to test the validity of ideas and theories
d)      describe how an idea can gain acceptance in the scientific community as
either theory or law
g)      identify that the nature of observations made depends upon the
understanding that the observer brings to the situation

also...

5.4     the implications of science for society and the environment

d)      analyse reasons why different cultures or groups within a society,
including Aboriginal people, may have different views in relation to
scientific issues

5.5     current issues, research and developments in science

b)      evaluate the potential impact of some issues raised in the mass media
that require some scientific understanding

I cannot see how we could cover these outcomes without some appeal to a
working definition of science.  As a pedagogical issue, What would you
describe as the scientific processes (5.2)? Would you use ID as a means of
discussing science vs pseudo science in covering some of these outcomes
(5.4 and 5.5)?  What other areas would you consider investigating in order
to help students understand the implications behind these outcomes?

Regards
Peter Craft
HT Science Corowa High School