How to teach ID?

[H'ethetheth]

From this thread

Perhaps the solution to the whole creationism debate is to make it a manditory part of the curriculum. Specifically, it should be part of a program to teach critical thinking skills to students. I'd be happy to put it and evolutionary theory to equal scrutiny.

This thread made me wonder; if the unthinkable should happen and ID becomes part of education in schools somewhere, what is there to teach?
It appears to me that ID theory doesn't actually contain anything, it mainly just says that evolution is wrong.
For instance, have they specified some mechanism for design beyond regular physics?
Do they know what the supposed purpose of the design is, other than creating more specimens of the same design? Is it perhaps the worship of the intelligent agency?

Can anyone from an endangered country shed some light on this?

 

[Melendwyr]

Step 1: Hold up the teaching material with the creationist additions.
Step 2: Drop it into the nearest wastebasket.
Step 3: Continue as normal.

That's pretty much the only way a science teacher can teach ID.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Step 1: Hold up the teaching material with the creationist additions.
Step 2: Drop it into the nearest wastebasket.
Step 3: Continue as normal.

That's pretty much the only way a science teacher can teach ID.

In that case I shall welcome the teaching of ID around the world with glee.

However, I'm asking this under the assumption that ID proponents actually propone⁽¹⁾ something.


⁽¹⁾Yes, propone.

 

[Pastor Bentonit]

OK, I happen to know what in ID(C) there is to teach, and here it follows in all its glory:

Some time(s) during the history of the earth/universe, an unspecified, intelligent entity did something. Now move on, nothing here to see.

There.

 

[H'ethetheth]

OK, I happen to know what in ID(C) there is to teach, and here it follows in all its glory:

Some time(s) during the history of the earth/universe, an unspecified, intelligent entity did something. Now move on, nothing here to see.

There.

I suspected as much. A couple of hours of googling and reading didn't get me farther than that either.

 

[dann]

From this thread "Specifically, it should be part of a program to teach critical thinking skills to students. I'd be happy to put it and evolutionary theory to equal scrutiny."
Can anyone from an endangered country shed some light on this?

Well, one of the biology teachers at my high school said that she couldn't imagine teaching evolution without including creationism. I don't think that they should be put to equal scrutiny, however, but as long as it's possible, i.e. as long as creationism isn't mandatory, the best way of fighting it is to introduce students to the arguments presented by advocates of Intelligent Design/Creationism.
It's an entirely different matter if/when ID becomes mandatory, mainly because the adherents of these ideas don't really want them to be taught alongside but instead of evolution.

 

[hammegk]

Well, one of the biology teachers at my high school said that she couldn't imagine teaching evolution without including creationism. I don't think that they should be put to equal scrutiny, however, but as long as it's possible, i.e. as long as creationism isn't mandatory, the best way of fighting it is to introduce students to the arguments presented by advocates of Intelligent Design/Creationism.
It's an entirely different matter if/when ID becomes mandatory, mainly because the adherents of these ideas don't really want them to be taught alongside but instead of evolution.

Here is the text that the Dover PA school board wanted to be read to 9th grade biology students:

"The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

"Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

"Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, 'Of Pandas and People,' is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

"With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments."

That was all the teaching to be required, sfaik.

 

[eri]

OK, what about 'Of Pandas and People' then? Anyone read it? Does IT have any 'evidence', or is it just an attack on science?

And what gaps are they referring to? Missing links? If you have one thing changing into another, how can you possibly hope to find every single step in that chain, especially when it's so hard to fossilize something?

 

[Darat]

OK, what about 'Of Pandas and People' then? Anyone read it? Does IT have any 'evidence', or is it just an attack on science?

And what gaps are they referring to? Missing links? If you have one thing changing into another, how can you possibly hope to find every single step in that chain, especially when it's so hard to fossilize something?

Have a look at the evolution of the book: http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/sixslides.PDF . Considering that all it seemed to require was that "creationism" to be replaced with "intelligent design" then I would say that "Pandas.." remains a theology book.

 

[Mojo]

OK, what about 'Of Pandas and People' then? Anyone read it? Does IT have any 'evidence', or is it just an attack on science?

Well, it was certainly subjected to rigorous peer review!

After all, if you aren't your own peer, who is?

 

[delphi_ote]

That was all the teaching to be required, sfaik.

Why should that particular fictional book be recommended to all of the students in a science class? If you're going to point them to an absolute pant load anyway, you might as well point them directly to the bible.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Well, it was certainly subjected to rigorous peer review!

After all, if you aren't your own peer, who is?

Hehehe, the inanity of ID keeps slapping you in the face once you start asking questions.

Nice, though I didn't expect it would get this bad this afternoon.

 

[hammegk]

Why should that particular fictional book be recommended to all of the students in a science class? If you're going to point them to an absolute pant load anyway, you might as well point them directly to the bible.

I agree it was idiocy to add paragraph 3, viz:

"The _____________ Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments."

would be a statement more preferable to me.

 

[delphi_ote]

I agree it was idiocy to add paragraph 3, viz:

"The _____________ Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments."

would be a statement more preferable to me.

What is the purpose of the statement? Do we read one before we teach the students about gravity, thermodynamics, and The Holocaust as well?

 

[hammegk]

I think "... Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part..." specifically limits the statement's intended use.

 

[Pyrrho]

My cynicism suggests that what this is really about is textbook contracts. Kind of like when you take a class in college and you have to shell out 50 bucks for the professor's own book.

 

[eri]

Thanks for the link! I didn't realize we had access to the courtroom transcripts. Now there goes my night ...

 

[Pastor Bentonit]

To understand the "scientific" content of the textbook mentioned in the above statement, "Of Pandas and People" (or whatever, next edition will be renamed), read Dr. Kenneth Miller´s expert statement to Kitzmiller vs. Dover. OPaP is essentially YEC bunk, with "intelligent design" substituted for "creation", where applicable.

 

[emperorchaos]

To understand the "scientific" content of the textbook mentioned in the above statement, "Of Pandas and People" (or whatever, next edition will be renamed), read Dr. Kenneth Miller´s expert statement to Kitzmiller vs. Dover. OPaP is essentially YEC bunk, with "intelligent design" substituted for "creation", where applicable.

Thanks for providing the link to Dr. Miller's statement. I found it very informative.

To be honest I haven't been folliwng the whole Dover, PA Intelligent Design thing, though I myself am a proponent of evolution and have participated in many debates myself. (I'm know for saying Australopithecus afarensis a lot. I like the way it rolls off your tongue. Go on try it it everyone.)

Thanks again.

 

[delphi_ote]

I think "... Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part..." specifically limits the statement's intended use.

Being that it's fairly obvious I meant the statements would be tailored to each respective theory, I'm going to interpret your post as, "I'm a troll with nothing to contribute. Please give me the attention I can't find in my sad, sad life."