The Campaign Against ID

[Timothy]

With a small but increasing number of school boards (US state and local, and various countries) allowing the introduction of intelligent design in the science classroom, I'd like to develop a resource that both teachers and students can use in the classroom.

I'll be upfront. My intention is a tool that can be used to undermine the ID movement at the grassroots level. I personally think that the manipulative tactics of the IDers to turn science curricula into a political arena is abhorrent. So, a little tit-for-tat is in order. ID is a philosophy, not a science, and should be treated as such.

I'd like some concise ideas about two things
- What teachers who must teach ID can include in their teaching of the subject to make it look foolish and discredit it.
- What questions students can ask of the enthusiastic ID teacher (to make it look foolish and discredit it.)

Examples:

Teacher tactics
- Explain how the scientific method relies on observation, hypothesis, experimentation, conclusion. Show how ID does the first two and the last, but misses the crucial third step.
- Explain that "theory" does not mean "something that I thought up". Detail the history of a "proven" theory, and a debunked theory. Ask which category ID most closely resembles.
-Since we're supposed to present and have the students decide for themselves, have students present the arguments against evolution, ID, and FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monsterism) and compare the results.
- Ask students to come up with their own "theories" of the Designer, and have them formulate experiments they would use to prove or disprove its existence.
- Review the creation stories of several dozen cultures. (Anyone have a good reference for this?) Have the students put forth scientific arguments as to which is most plausible. Specifically exclude Christianity because "everyone already knows that one."
- Consistently refer to the Designers as "aliens from outer space"

Student tactics
- Ask what experiments have been done to support the theory.
- Ask why the "it's obvious that" argument can't be used in all other scientific fields.
- Point out the "irreducibly complex" mousetrap argument has been shown to be a fallacy.
- Ask how ID is different from religion.
- Demand that FSM (see above) be covered, as it is as valid as ID.

The more concise an idea, the better for the purposes of having a student question a teacher.

Contributions?

- Timothy

 

[Bronze Dog]

- Explain how the scientific method relies on observation, hypothesis, experimentation, conclusion. Show how ID does the first two and the last, but misses the crucial third step.

[Nitpick] The scientific method relies on coming up with a testable hypothesis, which ID hasn't done. [/Nitpick]

One thing I'd suggest doing is teaching kids about logical fallacies so that they can quickly invalidate just about anything IDers say. Of course, that requires that they have the drive to point them out.

 

[jmercer]

I hope there are teachers out there willing to take the political risks involved.

 

[Ashles]

As BronzeDog says, explain about falsifiability and how ID is, unlike testable theories, unfalsifiable.

Explaining what a scientific theory is is vital to all of this (how many people don't understand the concept).

And how prediction should be an important part of any scientific theory - what could be predicted to confirm the theory?

And the Invisible Pink Unicorns are always useful to demonstrate how theories differ in usefulness and testability.

Finally:
Talk Design and, of course, Talk Origins are essential to back up everything a teacher should say, and to answer any questions the students may have.

 

[SezMe]

Before going it alone, make contact with the National Center for Science Education, the nation's premier organization for battling ID. The lead person there, Eugenie Scott, spoke at TAM2. The NCSE deserves all the support they can get.

 

[Psi Baba]

Student tactics
- Ask what experiments have been done to support the theory.
- Ask why the "it's obvious that" argument can't be used in all other scientific fields.
- Point out the "irreducibly complex" mousetrap argument has been shown to be a fallacy.
- Ask how ID is different from religion.
- Demand that FSM (see above) be covered, as it is as valid as ID.

- Ask the teacher to explain the "theory" of ID without once mentioning or referring to Evolution in any way.
- Ask the teacher to offer two possible candidates for the Designer and to show hard evidence of both.

 

[Ashles]

Re: Re: The Campaign Against ID

- Ask the teacher to explain the "theory" of ID without once mentioning or referring to Evolution in any way.

Ooh... I really like that. Fantastically subtle.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Psi said:
- Ask the teacher to explain the "theory" of ID without once mentioning or referring to Evolution in any way.
- Ask the teacher to offer two possible candidates for the Designer and to show hard evidence of both.

Oh yes, these are both excellent. It has to be scientific evidence. Holy books don't count.

~~ Paul

 

[sphenisc]

[Nitpick] The scientific method relies on coming up with a testable hypothesis, which ID hasn't done. [/Nitpick]

One thing I'd suggest doing is teaching kids about logical fallacies so that they can quickly invalidate just about anything IDers say. Of course, that requires that they have the drive to point them out.

Okay, here's a testable hypothesis, all designers likes to label their products on the bottom; Levi's, label on the bottom; Wedgewood, label on the bottom. I hypothesis that the organism nearest you will have a label on its bottom identifying the Designer - please check it over, very carefully, take your time and let me know the results.


[Disclaimer: I accept no liability for any acts of violence experienced by experimenters as a result of this hypothesis testing, and remember to inform your chosen organism - "it's all in the interests of science."]

 

[sphenisc]

Re: Teacher tactics

Teacher tactics

- Explain how the scientific method relies on observation, hypothesis, experimentation, conclusion. Show how ID does the first two and the last, but misses the crucial third step.

Explain how this also applies to Astronomy, and why this suggests that it is better to redefine 'the scientific method' that to categorise things thoughtlessly. [ paraphrase of R . Feynman]

- Explain that "theory" does not mean "something that I thought up". Detail the history of a "proven" theory, and a debunked theory. Ask which category ID most closely resembles.

And then explain that ID resembles a debunked theory because it is a debunked theory. Then apologise for explaining that "theory" does not mean "something I thought up", because this is a strawman argument which none of your students would have suggested int he first place.

-Since we're supposed to present and have the students decide for themselves, have students present the arguments against evolution, ID, and FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monsterism) and compare the results.

Be pleasantly suprised when your students point out that FSM is merely a variant of ID and will have exactly the same arguments against it the more general ID theory, so why do you expect them to do the same work twice.

- Ask students to come up with their own "theories" of the Designer, and have them formulate experiments they would use to prove or disprove its existence.

Feel suitably humbled when your students point out that a theory isn't something that you "just think up", and that you would better describing them as provisional hypotheses to avoid confusion. When you reply that you used quotation marks, accept their retort that they can't SEE quotation marks when you're speaking to them.

- Review the creation stories of several dozen cultures. (Anyone have a good reference for this?) Have the students put forth scientific arguments as to which is most plausible. Specifically exclude Christianity because "everyone already knows that one."

Try remembering that not everyone on the internet lives in Colorado, that there are many cultures and societies where teachers cannot assume that "everyone already knows that one."
Secondly, apologise for including creation stories in a science class and get on with your job of teaching science.

- Consistently refer to the Designers as "aliens from outer space"

Explain why using logical fallacies in an argument is counterproductive and then direct your students to
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/define/narrow.htm

Cheers!

 

[juryjone]

Re: Re: Teacher tactics

Teacher tactics

...(some comments)...

Feel suitably humbled when your students point out that a theory isn't something that you "just think up", and that you would better describing them as provisional hypotheses to avoid confusion. When you reply that you used quotation marks, accept their retort that they can't SEE quotation marks when you're speaking to them.

...(more comments)...

Explain why using logical fallacies in an argument is counterproductive and then direct your students to
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/define/narrow.htm

Cheers!

My, my my! Aren't we special? I guess you've set all of us muddle-headed people to right with your rapier wit! Sarcasm accomplishes so much in a discussion on teachers being required to teach falsehoods, as you have demonstrated so neatly here. Kudos!

Timothy:
The only point I would care to make about your teacher tactics is: These arguments were not enough to sway the school board who is forcing the "alternatives" to be taught, so I doubt they would be enough to sway the student who is being exposed to evolutionary theory for the first time. Nevertheless, teachers still have to fight the good fight. As we can see, it's not enough to teach evolution and disregard the IDersm since their science is bankrupt. That's how teachers got the "opportunity" to teach evolution in the first place. It has become a battle between evidence and emotional appeal, and it will be a long, hard fight.

 

[Timothy]

Re: Re: Re: Teacher tactics

Timothy:
The only point I would care to make about your teacher tactics is: These arguments were not enough to sway the school board who is forcing the "alternatives" to be taught, so I doubt they would be enough to sway the student who is being exposed to evolutionary theory for the first time.

The school board members who push ID have an established agenda. The reason they aren't swayed is that they are entrenched in dogma and refuse to accept reason.

Children who are being introduced to the concepts of critical thinking are less likely to be completely immovable.

I agree that the better the argument can be presented rigorously, without appeal to emotion, the more students are likely to give it the attention it deserves.

- Timothy

 

[sphenisc]

Re: Re: Re: Teacher tactics

My, my my! Aren't we special? {/QUOTE]

Yes. Did you know that the probability of one of my proteins forming by chance is 1:10^200?

I guess you've set all of us muddle-headed people to right with your rapier wit!

I doubt it . a) Muddle-headed people are more likely to respond with ad hominem attacks rather than addressing the points I've made.
b) My wit is less than rapier, it takes me ages to be this funny.

Sarcasm accomplishes so much in a discussion on teachers being required to teach falsehoods, as you have demonstrated so neatly here. Kudos!

I note that you didn't make this comment to the original poster. I'd assumed that if the OP is sarcastic then anyone else is allowed to be. Perhaps there's a rule which says that only prime number postings can be sarcastic? Do tell.... )

Love and kisses

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

-Since we're supposed to present and have the students decide for themselves, have students present the arguments against evolution, ID, and FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monsterism) and compare the results.

I want to hear more about Flying Spaghetti Monsterism!

LLH

 

[juryjone]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Teacher tactics

Yes. Did you know that the probability of one of my proteins forming by chance is 1:10^200?

My apologies. You are special.

I doubt it . a) Muddle-headed people are more likely to respond with ad hominem attacks rather than addressing the points I've made.
b) My wit is less than rapier, it takes me ages to be this funny.

Hey, if you want to dig at me, go right ahead. Since I comprehended that this was aimed at me, I guess I'm not totally muddle-headed.

I note that you didn't make this comment to the original poster. I'd assumed that if the OP is sarcastic then anyone else is allowed to be. Perhaps there's a rule which says that only prime number postings can be sarcastic? Do tell.... )

Love and kisses

The thing is, I didn't think Timothy's opening post was totally sarcastic. Granted, the "aliens from outer space" part came across that way, but not the entire post, as yours was.

I thought you made some good criticisms, but they were kind of overshadowed by your tone. In particular, I agree that Timothy's description of the scientific method could use some reworking, and that FSM is a variant of ID.

It usually takes another half-page of posts here before we erupt in full-blown sarcastic mode.

 

[Timothy]

Re: Re: The Campaign Against ID

I want to hear more about Flying Spaghetti Monsterism!

www.venganza.org

 

[Timothy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Teacher tactics

The thing is, I didn't think Timothy's opening post was totally sarcastic. Granted, the "aliens from outer space" part came across that way, but not the entire post, as yours was....

...In particular, I agree that Timothy's description of the scientific method could use some reworking,...

No, there was no sarcasm intended. I'm trying to compile a list of effective tools. Sometimes humor is a useful tool. My intent is to look at all the constructive suggestions, and to then select and edit to produce a tool that anti-ID teachers and students can use. My list as presented consisted of short examples, not my final edit on how they would be presented.

, and that FSM is a variant of ID.

Yes, that was the point. Show arguments for and against evolution, ID, FSM. Show how one has a vast heritage of supporting evidence, and how two are quite similar in their lack of evidence.

- Timothy

 

[sphenisc]

juryjone- You're special too.

I apologise for misinterpreting the OP as being sarcastic. Having re-read the post I don't think this was an unreasonable interpretation, but if Timothy says that wasn't the intention I'm prepared to take his word for it. I'll put it down to 'cultural differences.'

The only thing I have to add is that humour in the class room, as well as sometimes being a useful tool, can distract from serious points. Particularly when it appears mocking and unidirectional...

Cheers

 

[Ladewig]

Okay, here's a testable hypothesis, all designers likes to label their products on the bottom; Levi's, label on the bottom; Wedgewood, label on the bottom. I hypothesis that the organism nearest you will have a label on its bottom identifying the Designer - please check it over, very carefully, take your time and let me know the results.

Well, given God's attempt to kill Moses (Exodus), His sending the bears to kill those children (2 Kings) and His arbitarily preferring Abel's gift to Cain's gift (Genesis), I've always thought that the God described in the Old Testament is a bit of an a-hole, so I guess He did label the bottoms of His creation.

 

[Jas]

There was actually quite a good column yesterday in the Globe & Mail by Margaret Wente: link.

Unfortuanately, you have to pay to read the whole article online. The opening sentence cracked me up though:

Are Canadians more intellectually sophisticated than Americans? We like to think so. And now there's scientific proof. It's called "intelligent design."