What would ID teach in schools?

[shunyadragon]

There have been numerous threads arguing whether ID had a scientific foundation or whether it should be taught in a high school science class, but this question has never been addressed. What would the proposed curriculum for Id be in a science class. A proposed theory in science should not be simply a negative attack on an existing theory. It should have its own basis and theories to be taught.

[Gromit45]

Off the topic of my head

- Start with Astronomy. The Big Bang may have already been talked about. Teach about the implication of it and the impossibility of spontaeneous "something coming from nothing", so that there needs to be a cause to the Big Bang. Perhaps a brief overview of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

- Show the intricate fine tuning of the universe. Show the highly improbable likeliness that something happens just by chance. It is not reasonable to say "well, we're here, aren't we, so it must have happened.

- Don't neglect the negative aspects of evolution. There is no reason not to teach the problems evolution has of providing an all-encompassing beginning of the universe

- Teach the pros and cons of string theory and "multi-verses"

- Other aspects I can't think of at the moment

Personally, I think teachers will have trouble just teaching the textbook material and will often bring their worldview slant into the class no matter what side they fall on them

[Jugulum]

Off the topic of my head

- Start with Astronomy. The Big Bang may have already been talked about. Teach about the implication of it and the impossibility of spontaeneous "something coming from nothing", so that there needs to be a cause to the Big Bang. Perhaps a brief overview of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

- Show the intricate fine tuning of the universe. Show the highly improbable likeliness that something happens just by chance. It is not reasonable to say "well, we're here, aren't we, so it must have happened.

- Don't neglect the negative aspects of evolution. There is no reason not to teach the problems evolution has of providing an all-encompassing beginning of the universe

- Teach the pros and cons of string theory and "multi-verses"

- Other aspects I can't think of at the moment

Personally, I think teachers will have trouble just teaching the textbook material and will often bring their worldview slant into the class no matter what side they fall on themIt's interesting that all of your points are of the general "The universe doesn't make sense without God" type, not the biological ID of Dembski, Behe, etc.

[rogero]

It's interesting that all of your points are of the general "The universe doesn't make sense without God" type, not the biological ID of Dembski, Behe, etc.

Yes, I noticed this as well. Perhaps this points out the kind of questions that could possibly be discussed in the classroom. But even so whether such deep philosophical matters ought be brought into a high school curriculum is certainly a matter of controversy. If so, there is a question of where such should be handled --- in a science course (which are inevitably short on time and resources and thus scarcely allow the basics to be covered) or in a philosophy course (which is very rare in high schools).

One could (and will certainly!) argue over the kinds of incredulity that are relevant to the brief science curricula taught in (U.S. ?) secondary schools. Biological sciences are lots more complicated than physics and chemistry in terms of the number of degrees of freedom involved. We know better the level of uncertainty in cosmology (as per Loogy's post) than in biology. IMHO, teaching the "gaps" in biological evolution in courses at this level, which often don't even bring up the evolution let alone the positive evidences for it, would result in a confusing mish-mash to the students. I anticipate rebuttals from the non-evolutionary creationists, but I would ask you what would you teach? Would it be, "anything we don't understand must mean that Goddunnit (oh, sorry -- Adesignerdunnit!)"? I hope you realize that such an approach is dull-witted and anti-heuristic.

R

[shunyadragon]

Yes, I noticed this as well. Perhaps this points out the kind of questions that could possibly be discussed in the classroom. But even so whether such deep philosophical matters ought be brought into a high school curriculum is certainly a matter of controversy. If so, there is a question of where such should be handled --- in a science course (which are inevitably short on time and resources and thus scarcely allow the basics to be covered) or in a philosophy course (which is very rare in high schools).

One could (and will certainly!) argue over the kinds of incredulity that are relevant to the brief science curricula taught in (U.S. ?) secondary schools. Biological sciences are lots more complicated than physics and chemistry in terms of the number of degrees of freedom involved. We know better the level of uncertainty in cosmology (as per Loogy's post) than in biology. IMHO, teaching the "gaps" in biological evolution in courses at this level, which often don't even bring up the evolution let alone the positive evidences for it, would result in a confusing mish-mash to the students. I anticipate rebuttals from the non-evolutionary creationists, but I would ask you what would you teach? Would it be, "anything we don't understand must mean that Goddunnit (oh, sorry -- Adesignerdunnit!)"? I hope you realize that such an approach is dull-witted and anti-heuristic.

R

You probably very quickly presented the point I wanted to hear. High School curriculum is based on the basics of different fields of academics. High school students lack the basics in statistics, philosophy, theology and scientific methods to make it meaningful to add this to the curriculum.

I will comment on the examples so far.

- Start with Astronomy. The Big Bang may have already been talked about. Teach about the implication of it and the impossibility of spontaeneous "something coming from nothing", so that there needs to be a cause to the Big Bang. Perhaps a brief overview of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

High school students do start with the basics of astromomy, but surveys of graduates indicate that they do not yet grasp the basics such as, what is the solar system?, the life of stars, galaxies, and black holes.

Understanding the 'implications of the impossibility' and the 'Kalam cosmological argument' are not science, much less basic level science.

- Show the intricate fine tuning of the universe. Show the highly improbable likeliness that something happens just by chance. It is not reasonable to say "well, we're here, aren't we, so it must have happened.

Very deep hypothetical philosophy and theology.

- Don't neglect the negative aspects of evolution. There is no reason not to teach the problems evolution has of providing an all-encompassing beginning of the universe.

The beginning of the universe is not an aspect of the study of the evolution. The closest it would come to is advanced theoretical physics and mathamatics. Negative aspects of any theory are problematic unless you could offer more specifics instead of argument from assertions.

- Teach the pros and cons of string theory and "multi-verses"

Very hypothetical area of science. The most advance mathematicians and scientists in the field of physics and astronomy do not understand the 'pros and cons'

[Scruffy]

I believe this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0914513400/102-4409103-3720111?v=glance) is a possible ID text book for schools.

[JonF]

I believe this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0914513400/102-4409103-3720111?v=glance) is a possible ID text book for schools.
It's been touted as such. But it's not appropriate, for both scientific and legal reasons. As Kevin Padian wrote at Gross Misrepresentation (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9767_22_padian_1989_gross_misr_10_26_2004.asp):

Of Pandas and People is a wholesale distortion of modern biology. It is straight fundamentalist creationism, but this may not be apparent to many readers because the philosophy is couched in a user-friendly voice, with plenty of slick graphics and nice photographs. The text seems sweetly reasonable, but as one reads farther and deeper, the tone becomes angrier and the distortions of science more pervasive.

This book purports to present for teachers "reliable information on plausible alternatives to balance their curriculum." What it presents instead is the same old dichotomy of evolution vs. sudden creation that allows no accommodation for intermediate views, for religious scientists or laymen who think that it is possible to approach the ways of God through science, or for scientists who carry out science without a preconceived idea of "intelligent design." The theme of "intelligent design" consists mostly of denying any possibility of evolution, and explaining all the evidence adduced for it as "specially created." Thus, homology cannot result from descent, biochemical similarity must be functional in some way because it is not inherited, and the fossil record is a grand illusion.

In fact, the book's publisher recently admitted in a legal deposition that the original manuscript used the term "creationism" ... but when it became apparent that such a book could not legally be used in public school systems, they changed "creationism" to "intelligent design" by search-and-replace. (see Creationist Credibility (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/07/creationist_cre.html); the original newspaper article requires paid subscription and the legal transcripts are not available on-line). Covering up in this manner doesn't make it any more legal or change that fact that the "science" is invalid.

Many more reviews and background information, includein one or two favorable reviews, at Resources: Of Pandas and People (http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=21)

[shunyadragon]

I believe this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0914513400/102-4409103-3720111?v=glance) is a possible ID text book for schools.

The text should reflect ID and not fundimentalist creationism. The current proponants claim that is not necessarly Christian oriented. To propose this text would be to teach one fundimentalist Christian religious view of ID, which would be illegal.

[Jugulum]

The text should reflect ID and not fundimentalist creationism. The current proponants claim that is not necessarly Christian oriented. To propose this text would be to teach one fundimentalist Christian religious view of ID, which would be illegal.Pssst. It's "fundamentalist." Carry on.

[shunyadragon]

Pssst. It's "fundamentalist." Carry on.

Responses have been limited, but based on the responses so far the only proposed curriculum is a fundimentalist Christian oriented study of ID. This would reveal the dishonest position many Christian offered in other ID threads that the ID movement had a broader base.

[Scruffy]

Responses have been limited, but based on the responses so far the only proposed curriculum is a fundimentalist Christian oriented study of ID. This would reveal the dishonest position many Christian offered in other ID threads that the ID movement had a broader base.

What is it about that text that makes you think it is fundimentalist Christian oriented study of ID?

[JonF]

What is it about that text that makes you think it is fundimentalist Christian oriented study of ID?
Did you read my reply?

"In fact, the book's publisher recently admitted in a legal deposition that the original manuscript used the term "creationism" ... but when it became apparent that such a book could not legally be used in public school systems, they changed "creationism" to "intelligent design" by search-and-replace."

Of Pandas and People was, and has been acknowledged to have been, written as a fundamentalist Christian text and then ID was "pasted over" the word "creationism". That pasting does not change the nature of the text.