How to teach ID?

[wastepanel]

This is flatly contradicted by the writings of the various ID proponents, including the Discovery Institute, and the authors of Of Pandas and People. See the recent Dover trial for examples galore, particularly in the testimony of Drs. Forrest and Behe.

That's the ironic part. Do a google search of "creationism", and you'll find a piece about all the different versions of "accepted" creationism theories. Some believe the earth is flat, others believe that the world is not as old as the carbon dates it. Others believe that science is correct, but God is unproven. The IDers involved in these disputes want the mention of God. That is the point of my post. If (hypothetically) they won the court battle, what version of creationism/intellegent design do you teach? Wouldn't this place each community in charge of teaching its own theories? If they taught all, the teaching of theories would take the entire year. I admit I do think there is a God, but I feel that without proof it cannot and shouldn't be taught in school. I think there would actually be a giant uproar between Christians because each segment believes something else. And, as I said, the religious community would cannabilize itself in an attempt to teach its "version".

I would also argue that the best situation for science is for the religious community to attempt to teach creationism. By keeping the issue off the table, this issue has blown up in alot of communities. What religions would be included in the discussion of creationism? How could they exclude any religion? What theories would be discussed? Could any compromises be reached? Wouldn't that go against the religious doctrine? I don't think it could ever be taught without exposing the ignorance of each theory and possibly destroy religious sects, and they'd be stuck back at "God created the world...".

 

[H'ethetheth]

Ah, I think I may have misunderstood the gist of your earlier post. In fact, reading it back, I completely made your point, while thinking I was arguing against something.

Sorry about that.

 

[wastepanel]

Ah, I think I may have misunderstood the gist of your earlier post. In fact, reading it back, I completely made your point, while thinking I was arguing against something.

Sorry about that.

No problem. I actually get that alot. Must be my writing skills.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

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.

I've been thinking about this question for a while. It is the best question raised about ID.

I simply cannot find anything to actually teach. It seems to just be, "an alternative theory is that an Intelligent Deisgner made living things the way that they are." Of course that Intelligent Designer could be a God or gods, green aliens, ancient machines, etc. The ID theory does not show what the Intelligent Designer is or how it works.

One on-topic post metioned "Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins". I haven't read the book, but I read some reviews. It seems mostly just to question Evolution theory. I've also watched a number of TV programs about ID theory. Again, they essentially just provide evidence that Evolution is wrong. There seems to bit little or no further substance to ID theory that could be taught or used for sceientific exploration. The answer to any more in depth biological question would be "because that's the way the Intelligent Designer made it." While that is a plausible scientific theory, it leads no where and doesn't seem to have anything else to teach about ID theory.

I reieterate the question for anyone that can answer: What would be taught of ID theory other than evolution may be wrong and life forms may just be what they are as a result of Intelligent Design. Anyone?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Someone around here said recently that you should ask for an ID curriculum that does not mention evolution.

~~ Paul

 

[Darat]

...snip..

The ID theory does not show what the Intelligent Designer is or how it works.

...snip...

It's even more sparse then that, according to one of the leading proponents of ID (Behe) it makes no predictions at all about the mechanisms that the IDer used and it makes no predictions about any characteristics or abilities of the IDer.

You'd almost think that they weren't interested in even discussing what was and is the "Intelligent Designer".

 

[StoatBringer]

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 like to put it like this :
An Unknown Being created the universe, using a Unknown Process, for Unknown Reasons

Yep, that certainly adds to the sum of human knowledge.

 

[Darat]

I like to put it like this :
An Unknown Being created the universe, using a Unknown Process, for Unknown Reasons

Yep, that certainly adds to the sum of human knowledge.

Or perhaps just for the sake of accuracy

An unknown agent (but could have been God) that was not designed created the universe, using unknown processes, for unknown reasons, some 6000 years ago,

 

[delphi_ote]

Or perhaps just for the sake of accuracy

An unknown agent (but could have been God) that was not designed created the universe, using unknown processes, for unknown reasons, some 6000 unknown number of years ago,

SSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! We're not supposed to say that! Otherwise people won't believe our talking heads are really scientists!

 

[lwsichsldt]

There is no competition between the theory of evolution and ID, by the way is ID already past the theory stage and has become the final answer, because the theory of ID it is based on faith and believe and not on scientific facts like the theory of evolution is.
ID should be teached in school but only in Religion or Philosophyclass (we have these in Germany), since it has nothing to do with science.

 

[Complexity]

Don't.

Just say no.

"Intelligent Design" is intellectually despicable and its proponents are disingenuous vermin and fools. No person of quality would consider putting this poison before students in a classroom.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

ALL of the ID classroom materials in existence poo poo evolution with strawmen. ALL of them. They say "evolution says x", then they say "x" is wrong because...

When you actually know something about evolution you can see quite clearly that it would NEVER say "x".

Strawmen strawmen strawmen, that are made up to just make evolution look ridiculous. That leaves their ID as the only default "right" answer. It's "teach the controversay"

Within the last decade or so, just such an alternative theory has emerged. Darwinian theorists have long acknowledged that biological organisms "appear" to be designed. Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, a leading Darwinian spokesman, has admitted: "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."4 Statements like this echo throughout the biological literature. Francis Crick, Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, writes, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."5 Nevertheless, Darwinists insist that this appearance of design is illusory since the mechanism of natural selection entirely suffices to explain the observed complexity of living things.

http://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm


Other suggested teacher resources for "Teach Strengths & Weaknesses of Evolution"
http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/Teacher.Resources.htm

Evolution: A Theory In Crisis (Book)

So how do you teach something that is only there to make another topic look stupid by taking things out of context, among other things? It's up to you. You might just have to teach evolution properly first (which is hardly ever done in school since most teachers are some sort of religious half the time and don't care to learn it themselves [that was my experience in school]).

I think most teachers would welcome ID. They can say "evolution is stupid" and be done with it. Then they can say "goddidit". End of story. Let's look at asexual plant reproduction for the rest of the semester.