Demarcation Criteria (in reference to academic disciplines) (pt 1)

The intent of this post is conservative, I want to get my criticisms for the need to set up criteria to distinguish one academic discipline from another down in a virtually tangible fashion. I do not propose these claims as conclusive or necessarily even firm - but I will still write as if they are firm.

Background and Context: This weekend the UT Dept of Philosophy held its annual conference, and the with subject matter being "Philosophy of Science and Religion" it should come as no surprise that there was much debate concerning ID (with Dover references)...which of course gave rise to the question: "Is Intelligent Design, Science?" which itself begs the question, "What is science?" or better stated, "What are the criteria that can be used to demarcate science from non-science?"

It is not my desire or attempt to answer these questions, as a matter of fact I believe that there is absolutely NO way to make a necessary demarcation...what I want to question in this context is what is the VALUE(1) of making these demarcations. What service does it render, and conversely, what disservice does it render.

PEDAGOGICAL DEMARCATION
Now, I am quick to argue that demarcation is necessary AND valuable when we are referring, as in the Dover trial, towards pedagogical concerns. However, it is not the case that when delimiting what is to be taught in a "science" class we need to know what is science, and when delimiting what is to be taught in a "math" class we need to know what is math. Rather, we need to know "what is appropriate at this level of scholarship" (high school/middle school/elementary/college/graduate school) which begs questions efficient use of time in classrooms, of the capacity of the student, of the goals of the particular institution or level f schooling, etc...

It seems to me that ID should not be taught in science classes in schools, NOT because "ID isn't science" but because it's not appropriate, or necessary to discuss ID at that level of school. One should note that ID typically refers to an understanding of "origination of life" and thus would be opposed, not by "evolution" in a broad sense, but only Evolution as evolution refers to an origination of life (typically begging theories of Big Bangs...). With this in mind, teaching the Big Bang to a freshman biology class seems also futile - micro-evolution at the cellular level needs to be taught, because that is a foundational principle OF BIOLOGY. It has a purpose and utility to help students understand biology in a greater context, to prepare their ability to understand science, and (being foundational) is of critical import for later work. Note, that my advocacy of evolution being taught in schools is "not because it's science" but because of its ability to most efficiently help produce better scholarship in a school.

My question then isn't what is the value of demarcating on Pedagogical grounds, but rather demarcating in a broader sense. It is my intuition that most people will recognize the need to delimit for pedagogical reasons -> however I do not think agreement will be so quick after this.


MORE will be coming....


(1) - I am not sure what sort of value judgment adjective would best fit here. I shall probably use simply the word "valuable" or "worthwhile"...but meaningful, pragma, utility, usefulness all come to my mind as possibilities....