I agree with tomndebb. ID should be “taught” in science class for three reasons:
I would present ID solely to debunk it, and thus *inoculate *the students against it. After all, in America many of these students will encounter ID anyway, and I would rather have it done under my supervision. Examples of how irreducibly complex characters can evolve should be presented.
By way of contrast: It is difficult to teach heliocentrism without mentioning geocentrism and why it turned out to be unsatisfactory. Almost every time Darwin is introduced in biology, Linnaeus and Lamarck are mentioned as well.
To show how the peer-review, etc., process of modern science works, and why Behe’s appeal to the public opinion is flawed.
I was taught this way; earlier inadequate theories were always presented, as was why they were reject or, much more interesting, how they were modified in the face of new evidence.
Usually the instructor expanded greatly on a brief description in the text; it was the only thing that really interested instructors in introductory classes.
The major problem with doing that today is that there is no extra class time to add these topics. The students have mandatory tests to pass, thanks to No Child Left Behind, and the classes almost have to be designed around those tests. If you try to shoehorn in information about ID and other false and disproven “sciences”, something else that they are currently being tested on will have to be skipped, which will lower their grades on the mandatory tests, which will cause the school itself to get a lower rating, which might cause the school to receive less federal funding. There simply isn’t any spare class time to add these topics-there’s barely enough time to fit in the real sciences.
You have to let it go. Most Americans don’t accept evolution (at least concerning humans), and that has absolutely nothing to do with ID-- this has been the case before ID, and it’s the case now. Teach science, and if kids ask about ID be prepared to talk about it. No need to teach about astrology, dowsing, faith healing, ghosts, telekinesis, etc.
Evolution is but a tiny, tiny part of the science curriculum. It’s something that has ZERO practical value in almost anyone’s life (unless they are professional biologists). I’m fascinated by the subject, and wish everyone else was, too, but that just isn’t the case. Making room to debunk ID in the classroom smacks of some desire to “stick it” to the creationists. That might make people feel good, but it doesn’t make for good public policy.
Exactly. “Teach the controversy” is the mantra you hear from the ID crowd. They’re probably counting on the fact that evolution is controversial and not all that easy to understand, so all they need to do is get their foot in the door.
Let them believe whatever they want to believe, as long as we don’t have to teach those beliefs in the classroom. Any teacher who wants to address questions about ID has a great tool now-- the NOVA program. I assume it can be downloaded and watched by the students on their own time, if they really want to “explore the controversy”.
Teach that the earth is the center of the solar system?
How about alternative medicine (like the theory that germs do not cause disease).
How about including courses on spiritualism, and homeopathy.
Wait-this is rrational, you say??
Honestly, what COULD you teach about ID? There is no way that this stuff could be promoted-there are no rational proofs of ID. Again: just how would anybody teach this garbage-theories that the earth is flat make much more sense.
The problem with this is twofold: first, unlike other historically erroneous theories, Intelligent Design, unlike Lamarckism, vitalism, lumiferous aether, et cetera, is not and has never been widely accepted by authorities of the field, and second, basic science educators are not, by training, academically equipped to copy with detail nuances of Natural Selection any more than they are to talk to General Relativity, Quantum Electrodynamics, et cetera. Expecting them to teach it would just add to the general confusion, and incidentially give more attention, and therefore more credibility, to the Intelligent Design movement.
Intelligent Design is a scamster “theory” which provides only spurious, ad hoc explanations and offers no predictive or observational testability; it was never intended to explain the previously inexplicable, but rather to wedge in a God into the sometimes admitted gaps of knowledge by exploiting the intuitive logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. It has about the same moral virtues as Holocaust Denial, and its proponents use essentially the same tactics to create confusion and doubt. One might as well teach the Tolkienian theory of the Ilúvatarian origin of Man and Elf in science class. Of course, then it clearly wouldn’t be science; it would be A Study of Fictional Mythology.
The difference, as I see it, is that ID isn’t a historic erroneous theory supplanted by evolutionary theory, it’s a current false face for Creationism. By all means, mention Creationism as the predecessor to ToE, but leave ID out in the cold.
The idea behind irreducible complexity is that it can’t exist in a less complex form (i.e. with fewer parts) - the structure should not be functional (according to Behe) with even one, much less four of, its subunits missing.
Demonstrating that a functional structure exists with less than the parts of the structure claimed to be irreducible demonstrates that the complexity is reducible.
The evolutionary response to the notion is that a functional less complex structure exists that can be favored by natural selection, and that through time might be co-opted and added to (an exaptation), creating the flagellum by natural rather than artificial processes.
I’m not sure how one might think the flagellum is still irreducible after this evidence is presented. Behe will doubtless find something else that he will claim to be irreducible, but that’s a discussion for another day.
My only point was that I do see how some one first exposed to the idea could possibly not be completely convinced the argument is spurious by the dramatization.
(I thought the OP sincere, and not trying to sneak ID into schools through the back door; I also think that demonstrating the flaws in position to children is a good idea.)
I happen to be one of that 88%. The difference between me and most Christians I know, and the people who are proponents of ID is that we believe that God created humans in our present form by using the mechanism of evolution. For us, acceptance of evolution and belief in God are completely and utterly compatible, and I wasn’t aware they could be considered incompatible until I got into my 30s and started hanging around here and arguing religion.
I can’t see teaching ID in science class because, as others have pointed out already, there really isn’t much to teach beyond, “God did it.” If the conflict between evolution and Christianity must be taught (other religions don’t seem to have as much of a problem with it), why not point out that Darwin et al were not out to debunk religion and get rid of God but see how the mind of God works, assuming reasonable evidence for it. This may still be a topic better left to history or philosophy, though. Frankly, I find the answer “God did it” to be far too simple and boring for my taste.
Some of us religious folks do in fact believe something quite a bit like that. The list of religious people or groups who believe something like that includes the Catholic and Anglican/Episcopal churches, most mainline Protestant denominations, the non-Orthodox movements of Judaism and some Orthodox Jews, most Hindus, and at least some Buddhists.
We generally don’t try to get our view into the public schools, unlike the religious types who believe in young-earth creationism. It’s not necessary, because nothing taught in a science class about evolution is going to contradict our view.
Move the goalposts much? That’s quite a bit different from:
Nothing is going to be so thorough that it will ensure everyone will be convinced of an argument. Especially when half the country is predisposed not to believe in the first place.
It was good show, but didn’t live up to your standards. BFD.
And I don’t think the opposing view gets into the public schools either, nor should it. If anyone asks if the hand of God was involved with evolution, the only reasonable answer for a teacher would be that this is not a question science can address.
That statistic is quite misleading, though. A fair percentage of that 88% believe that evolution happened as scientists say it did, but God had some role in it. Saying “88% of Americans believe God had some role in the creation or evolution of life” isn’t at all the same thing as “88% of Americans believe in Intelligent Design”, at least not in the way the term Intelligent Design is normally used.
Could we be seeing an example of this phenomenon, in which debunking myths just serves to reinforce the myths in many people’s minds? Given that, teaching in schools that Intelligent Design is false might be a very bad idea- it will just reinforce the idea of Intelligent Design in those who want to believe it.
I could see “schools teaching why Intelligent Design is false” turning into just refuting a few specific claims made by proponents of Intelligent Design, or students remembering only that part. And that won’t help. A science class couldn’t possibly refute every claim made by every proponent of ID, and only refuting some of them might make the other ones look stronger.
Instead of teaching or reviewing Intelligent Design I recommend having an assignment. Every student must scour the Internet or books for one debate point that Intelligent Design puts forth, to be later addressed in class. The teacher will of course need to read them first as complex knowledge in an incredible number of fields is sometimes required.
Some answers will require only a few minutes, some the entire day so this project may take a week or so, but I can’t think of anything the average High school student could learn in a week that is more important that this. For students to fully understand what Intelligent Design is bringing up and why science doesn’t agree is to understand science itself.
What we really need is a focus on the philosophy of science for the entire first semester of Freshman science class. Teach kids about what science is and how it works. Tell them about Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn (and Cohen & Nagel while we’re at it). Talk about falsifiability and reliable knowledge. Talk about how nothing is considered absolute truth. Talk about what questions science can answer, and talk about what questions science can’t answer. Do this before even touching scientific method.
The way it is now is like a football team running plays in practice without knowing the rules first.
The only debate point that Intelligent Design puts forward that lifeforms are so complicated that ‘a designer’ (= the Protestant Christian God) must have done it. It’s reminiscent of the Church threatening Galileo because his evidence contradicted infallible doctrine.
Why you need to spend valuable time stopping religion sneaking illegally into the US classroom in the guise of science is beyond me.
Can ‘yogic flying’ or ‘flat earthism’ claim equal time too?
If there’s absolutely no evidence to be found, there’s nothing to consider from a scientific point of view.
Sorry, I don’t agree.
There are plenty of useful and fascinating ways to understand science. Let’s do experiments! Let’s gather data! Let’s make up theories and test them!
We don’t need to consider why religious fanatics are muddying the water in desperation.
