How exactly would "Intelligent Design" be taught in a Biology class?

[Sandpiper]

Considering you could pretty much sum up the "competing theories" in a sentence or two. I imagine it would go something like this:


"Evolutionary theory is the cornerstone of modern Biology. It is supported by rigorous testing and a mountain of evidence that validate its claims."

"On the other hand, there are those who believe that some mystical higher intelligence created everything, for which there is no evidence, so, moving along..."

[geek tragedy]

1. Just explain that evolution explains what happens to life on Earth, and

that it doesn't explain how or, more importantly, why life started. It doesn't prove or disprove the existence of any supreme being.

[bananas]

2. Origami.

[4_Legs_Good]

3. Intelligent design as such is actually a bit more complicated than that

It kinda pokes holes in evolutionary theory and fills them with kinda some sort of higher design. It's actually interesting, but I don't think it's science.

Teach it in philosophy and religious studies classes.

david

[Baconfoot]

8. Careful.It does not, in fact, SUCCEED at poking holes.It merely CLAIMS to.

Unfortunately, it takes seconds if not minutes to explain in each case why it is in reality a pseudoscientific attempt to poke a hole, rather than a scientific one... even to a grown adult with HS level science under their belt.

They rely on, among other things, gross misunderstandings of how various dating tests work and outright lies regarding how and which dating tests are used for what purposes.

To say that these "poke holes"... well... I'd like to be a bit more careful than that.

[4_Legs_Good]

18. I guess "finding holes" would be a better choice of words

Little things in evolutionary history that aren't adequately explained (YET).

Again, I'm not a master of the subject because I really don't give a sh*t about it. I do know, though, that it's more complciated than just an "Adam and Eve" 7 days of creation argument.

In my opinion, it's an attempt to science-ify religion/faith, which kinda misses the point in my way of thinking.

david

[Beelzebud]

9. Why does every person that talks up ID say the exact phrase: "pokes holes"

Why is that?

Everytime I hear someone even remotly supporting ID, I always here the phrase: "ID pokes holes in the theory of evolution".

I NEVER hear any facts, examples, or arguments to back that claim up.

Just the same tired claim, of holes being poked.

Can you cite of any example of "holes being poked" in regards to ID and the Theory of Evolution?

[4_Legs_Good]

17. By poking holes, I mean (and I'm not an expert on the subject - and really

think it's quite pointless), that it takes into account things that evolution doesn't explain or hasn't yet sucessfully explained.

I heard a report on Morning Edition where someone went into detail about some fly's paddle feet or something. I don't remember exactly. I should find the report.

Anyway, there are things that evolution as we now understand it doesn't explain, that doesn't mean that evolution isn't valid, it just means that it's not complete. The same is true with cosmology. You can fill the black holes with wobbly singularities or wonton burrito meals.

Anyway, to suggest that "intelligent design" is the same as creationism is to kind of oversimplify things.

Again, though, I think that the whole argument is really a waste of time - I don't think that matters of faith need to be explained scientifically. Kinda like I don't give a shit about Midiaclorides explaining the Force. I'd prefer the Force just to be the Force DAMMIT!

Edit: I think this is the NPR story -

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4734942

And Tonly Blanklee, whom I normally disagree with, did a great commentary on it on "Left, Right and Center" a couple weeks ago.

http://www.kcrw.com/cgi-bin/db/kcrw.pl?show_code=lr&air_date=8/5/05&tmplt_type=Show

david

[NoQuarter]

22. They tried creationism. It didn't fly.

So now the exact same folks come back with ID. It's just the creationism pig with lipstick.

[4_Legs_Good]

23. LMAO

Now that's probably true! I don't understand why everyone feels they need to try to scientify their faith. Faith, by its very definition, does not require proof.

Smooches from pigs wearing lipstick is an interesting image :)

david

[tigereye]

34. hmmm

"Anyway, there are things that evolution as we now understand it doesn't explain, that doesn't mean that evolution isn't valid, it just means that it's not complete. The same is true with cosmology. You can fill the black holes with wobbly singularities or wonton burrito meals."

THank you and yes, the people who constantly have issues with evolution ( or what they think is evoluation), seem to have very little grounding in actual science, biology, or the body of facts supporting it as a very good framework and explanation for what occurs.

( disclaimer, I am not a biologist)

[Zenlitened]

35. It may attempt to poke holes, but I don't think it fills anything in.

Just kinda says, "Gee, that's complicated. Musta been some sorta god or something."

And, really, even the so-called "holes" are just areas of science where there is healthy discussion going on already. ID contributes nothing to the dialogue -- it's just petty vandalism.

:shrug:

[4_Legs_Good]

39. Agreed!

That's exactly it, and it's exactly the problem. "X doesn't explain this so it must be god."

The same is true with the strong (or is it weak) anthropic prinicple, though that's even a bit more deep.

david

[slackmaster]

42. Without testable hypotheses it doesn't qualify as theory

It's actually interesting, but I don't think it's science.

I think it is a form of science: Scientific criticism. I think it's heavily biased and carries an agenda. But all criticism that follows the rules of scientific dialogue must be respected.

[4_Legs_Good]

43. Good points

But is that really true? - that without a testable hypothesis it doesn't count as a theory? Wouldn't a lot of particle theory and cosmology fall into the same category? I guess with those it's possible that there's a way to test - but that it's just beyond our capacity at this point.

david

[slackmaster]

44. Definitely true

Wouldn't a lot of particle theory and cosmology fall into the same category? I guess with those it's possible that there's a way to test - but that it's just beyond our capacity at this point.

You answered your own question.

ID comes down to using a "higher power" (euphemism for the Judeo-Christian godhead concept) to fill in the gaps in scientific knowledge. That's a short-cut, a copout, and fails to qualify as valid science unless someone can prove or disprove the existence of God.

But the IDers are IMO fundamentally dishonest about their intentions. They want to present Christian creation mythology as an alternative to everything we've learned through centuries of objective systematic investigation.

[4_Legs_Good]

45. The funny part is that I don't have a problem with the fundamental idea

that a "higher power" created the universe and even maybe guided evolution. Hell, if I was a higher power I'd have a great time making weird sh*t (like the duck-billed platypus) happen.

So, sure, fine, maybe God created the universe and guided evolution. Big whoopdeedo! If you were *really* into God and into His/Her creation, you'd be more mezmerized by what S/He actually *did* than trying to prove that S/He is back there somewhere.

The universe has infinite mysteries and infinite variety, and whether you believe in a divine being or not, nothing is better than unlocking the secrets and seeing what did/does happen, IMO. I think there's a lot more glory in observing and respecting nature (whether it's God's creation or not) than by trying to prove the reasons for it. If there is a god, s/he doesn't need me to prove her/his existance, but I bet s/eh smiles everytime I stare in awe at the creation. (does that make sense?)

/sigh/ - remembering my good old days as a physicist - before I got a job and forgot everything.

david

[flakey_foont]

4. Okay,, this is dumb, I admit

but, theoretically, supposing that a High School Biology class had a student who was raised in Neo-pagan tradition....would fairness then imply that, because of this student, the Greek Myths of the creation of the world should be taught as well.......

after all, there is as much proof that Zeus defeated the Titans as there is for a 6,000 year old earth
and besides, some of what Homer wrote, has been proven true - at least that Troy existed...

[kiraboo]

10. Not dumb at all - you make a fair point. n/t

[HereSince1628]

26. The notion that metaphysics are outside of the realm of science studies

is the way most biology educators try to stay away from this exact problem.

There is NOTHING I've come across within science that advocates a fairness doctrine or a concept like equal time.

Open-mindedness is seen as a virtue in a scientist, but frankly dogma tends to rules science and science education. Breaking in a new idea can be difficult and sometimes career damaging.

As Kuhn pointed out, except during periods of paradigm shift, day to day science spends most of its time working safely within rather than tearing down accepted belief.

[tigereye]

36. we are not very "religious" at my house

and at one point, I feared that my child thought that there were actually still Greek gods around, since he had probably read more about them than about other more common religions and Gods. That was pretty funny at the time.

[Norquist Nemesis]

5. "Children open your textbooks to Genesis 1:1" n/t

[liberal N proud]

6. Biology Class is replaced with Theology

No issues then

[librechik]

7. "Some people say..."

he/said-she/said extended to the classroom.

At my alma mater you can't study Jung in the (excellent) Psychology department. You can, however, become a Jungian Therapist at the School of Theology. That seems about right.

This attempt to treat ID like a science is a wrong step that will lead nowhere. As you point out, it can't compete with evolutionary theory on the fundamentsls: There's no empirical evidence for ID. Apples and Oranges.

[gratuitous]

11. I see some hand puppets and a little prop stage

Intelligent Design tends to fall apart once a little intelligence is applied. It works much better as a dumbshow.

[KansDem]

12. How would a professor organize a syllabus based on a 15-week semester?

How would a professor organize a syllabus based on a 15-week semester course meeting 3 hours a week? What about the knowledge base? The reading list? The bibliography? The class text? Reseach? The whole thing seems bogus...

This is what I envision:

DAY ONE...
Professor: "Welcome to 'Intro to Intelligent Design!' We have a lot to cover this semester so let's get started. Who can tell us about the orgin of the planets?

Student 1: "Uhhh...'Intelligent Design' made them?"

Professor: "Right!...and gnats?"

Student 2: "Hmmmm...could they have been created by 'Intelligent Design?'"

Professor: "Right, again! Now, can you come up with other things created by 'Intelligent Design?'"

Student 3: "Corn?"
Student 4: "Squids?"
Student 5: "Ummm...that stuff that comes out when you squeeze a zit?"

Professor: "Right! Everyone of you is correct. Now for you first quiz, you will need to list everything starting with the letters A, B, C, D, and E, that was created by 'Intelligent Design' so be prepared! Class dismissed!"

I see a Monty Python skit here...

[Sandpiper]

20. Then there will be the inevitable follow up questions...

Student: "Who designed the Intelligent Designer?"


Teacher: "The Intelligent Designer wasn't Designed, he just always was."


Student: "But wait a second, Intelligent Design says that nothing comes about by chance, and that everything exists by design."



Teacher: "That's right."



Student: "But doesn't having an undesigned designer invalidate the whole premise of Intelligent Design?"



Teacher: "Uhhhh...let me get back to you on that."

[KansDem]

25. Hey, I like your way of thinking!

Also, how is extinction addressed under Intelligent Design?

Professor: "Any other creations by Intelligent Design?"

Student 1: "What about dinosaurs?"

Professor: "Right, they were created by Intelligent Design!"

Student 2: "But they're now extinct. Does the Intelligent Designer also undesign designs?"

Professor: "Uh, yeah...the Intelligent Designer can design and then undesign..."

Student 3: "Why?"

Professor:

[understandinglife]

13. By someone who doesn't know biology, for starters.

Peace.

[JNelson6563]

14. A magical being in the sky

created the earth and everything in it but, somehow, this being knew nothing was satisfactory as it had been created so, a plan was applied for everything to change, gradually yet dramatically. Like magic.

Julie

[Cleita]

15. I guess they can write anything in a book and teach it

in a classroom. I fail to see how they could fake lab classes though unless they eliminate them altogether.

[tx_dem41]

16. Poorly. n/t

[Double T]

19. Biology Class would be replaced with Biomythology Class.....

where the teaching of 'intelligent design' would be no problem.

[markus]

21. As an example to be disected to illustrate true science v junk science

It's a perfect example for examining the scientific method. Take it apart for the scientism (isn't that what's is called in advertising, the old guy in the white coat trick), and put it in the wastebin.

Mission Accomplished.

[HereSince1628]

28. And it's used that way in some courses.

A problem for many science educators (including the late Stephan Gould) is that teaching about bad examples is really not helpful at introductory levels.

Gould even rejected teaching Lamarkism to beginning students although it was included as _the_ prototypical competing idea of evolution in the biology textbooks of many generations of students.

On the other hand it's my experience that it is pretty common for instructors of upper level undergraduate and graduate level courses to spend time dealing with critiques and competing ideas.

[KittyWampus]

24. #1 NOT Making Your Mistake Of Conflating Darwinism & Evolution

Evolutionary theory is the cornerstone of modern Biology. It is supported by rigorous testing and a mountain of evidence that validate its claims.

You are trying to criticize ID and can't even get the basics correct.

Evolution is a FACT.

Darwinism is ONE Theory and it has NOT been supported by rigorous testing or a mountain of evidence.

#2. Pointing out that Darwin's theory rests upon the assumption that the Physical Matter is all there is in the Universe and Materialism is the de facto Philosophy of Science.

#3. Pointing out that Materialsim is NOT the de facto Philosophy of Science.

#4. Pointing out that Consciousness and Intelligence and Information cannot be adequately explained using Physical Matter alone. Science has never AND WILL NEVER prove in any experiment that this is so.

#5. Pointing out that trying to explain the infinite number of evolutionary steps as random is basically stating an oxymoron.

[Sandpiper]

27. Thanks for clarifying

n/t

[Bill McBlueState]

31. ok, that's a partial answer

So the teacher points out these five things. Then what?

What do lab activities look like that emphasize that "Materialsim is NOT the de facto Philosophy of Science"? What homework sets do you design to help students learn that "Consciousness and Intelligence and Information cannot be adequately explained using Physical Matter alone. Science has never AND WILL NEVER prove in any experiment that this is so"? What format does the exam take to test whether students have mastered the concept that "trying to explain the infinite number of evolutionary steps as random is basically stating an oxymoron"?

I think it would be a challenge. All the things you say may sound neat on an internet message board, but they don't mesh well with proven methods of science education.

[tigereye]

37. some of those questions belong more in the philosophy dept.

However, philosophers today live more in the realms of hard science, than in the past.

[HereSince1628]

33. About your #5.

A couple of questions...

Why do you say that evolution took an infinite number of steps?

Introducing infinity into the evolution of Earth's biotic diversity seems incorrect to me.

Can we accept for the purpose of discussion that Earth is of a finite age...say 4.5 billion years or so? And can we also accept for the discussion that natural processes (i.e. evolutionary processes) involving heritable stuff principally propagated vertically from generations (each dynamic but of finite if undertermined population size), to descendant generations (also of undetermined but arguably finite population size) led to the stocking of this planet with its diversity of life forms?

Because if we can, it seems to me that a finite number of generations in a finite amount of time yields a finite (although very large and currently unknown) number of natural events.




You seem to imply that that all evolutionary steps are random. Why do you say that?

The evidence seems to suggest that evolution isn't entirely based on random processes. Indeed, nonrandom constraint seems readily apparent and a dominant force.

The truly astounding level of similarity that exists across diverse groups of organism argues strongly that biological organization is highly _nonrandom_ from the molecular through organismal levels.

Popularly, mutation is concieved of as a random process that is the ultimate source of biotic variation. But what genetic variations survive is hardly what could be called random. The variation must lie within limits that allow continued biotic function.

In the recent past biologists used to say mutation generates random variation while natural selection constrains it.

If mutation was random genetic composition would change unpredictably both in type and in rate. But that doesn't seem to happen.

In today's biological awareness we know that some types of mutation in some locations in the genome are much more likely than others...which is to say that mutation in type isn't as random as we once thought.

Also the regularity of changes that enabled the cvreation of such tools as "molecular clocks" argue that the frequency of mutational events doesn't vary completely randomly.

[HEyHEY]

48. .

I point out that proof of god has NEVER been found.

[SoCalDem]

29. sure glad I have no more kids in school

[Sandpiper]

30. Even though I went to High School in the Bible Belt

This simply wasn't an issue back then, and we're only talking about the early 90's, so it wasn't that long ago.

It's scary to see how stupid America has become in such a short time.

[hunter]

32. Step one: Sharpen pencil to fine point. Step two: Stick it in your eye.

Step three: Repeat with other eye.

Most Sundays I go to church. I call myself a Christian.

If, 13.7 billion years ago, God scratched His Holy Head and wiggled His Holy Nose and Created an entire Holy Universe out of Nothing, I would think that is awesomely cool. Thank You, God! Hallelujah!

Even if the creation of our universe was nothing more than some random shit that "just happened," that's still pretty interesting to me.

But in the depths of human stupidity and ignorance, "Intelligent Design" ranks far, far below Creationism. It is one thing to claim that God created the Universe out of nothing 6000 years ago, with all those misleading fossils and such, and quite another thing to claim that God is some bumbling tinkerer who always has to keep his hands on the controls of the imperfect machine he built.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! The great and powerful Oz has spoken!

Who needs a lame ass god like that? Go get'm Toto!

Any scientist or politician who plays into the hands of these astonishingly dishonest and ignorant "intelligent design" promoters is a fool.

[dpbrown]

38. Everyone would dissect a picture of Jesus

Since that's the design for everything anyway.

[DanCa]

40. ID is a not creationism its a prolife trojan horse

Google the rite of christian intiatian for adults for a primer.

[hunter]

46. Is their any particular rat's nest you would have us rummage through?

Whenever I feel inclined to argue with the Catholic Church, it's usually over the issue of gay marriage.

In my experience most "intelligent design" promoters are stealth creationists. They are very much like those little crabs that decorate themselves with bits and pieces of sea weed and sea shells to hide themselves from predators. An intelligent design promoter is often a creationist wrapped up in a misleading hodge-podge of science.

I imagine there might be a few theories of "intelligent design" I could be comfortable with, but the vast majority of them deny the true miracles of this Creation.

[DanCa]

47. Well as one who has been thrown out by churches I agree with you.

There's no place for creationism in a science class room. How does that song by the birds go? "For every season turn turn turn." At least I can respect a creationist for being upfront about his beliefs . I have no respect for stealth ID'ers, (great term btw) they are just frauds ridding the pro life wave into school.

[slackmaster]

41. Easy - Present it as a package of challenges to evolutionary biology

Note that ID presents no testable alternative hypotheses, therefore does not meet the minimum criteria for a scientific theory.

Then, take inventory of who is pushing ID and what axes they may have to grind.