Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Test for Intelligent Design Proponents
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 115 (263481)
11-27-2005 10:21 AM


A Test for Intelligent Design Proponents
by Timothy Chase
Introduction
If intelligent design were to be brought into elementary and high school classrooms, students would be taught that there are some people who believe that an intelligent designer of some kind was needed to create life (and/or guide its development) and that others believe that life as we know it was the result of a natural evolutionary process -- where perhaps God made the universe in such a way that this process could have occurred. This would no doubt be touched on a number of different times throughout their education. But the belief in God is a religious belief, and this naturally enough could not be touched on at any point. However, they would also learn about the nature of empirical science and how it requires theories with testable hypotheses -- simply as part of their normal science education. And by teaching intelligent design along with evolutionary biology, students would learn "critical thinking skills" -- or at least this is what proponents of intelligent design claim.
Like many others, I take the view that by the "intelligent designer," the vast majority of proponents of this idea are disingenuously referring to God in a way that is intended to get around the Separation of Church and State, whether their ambitions reach any further or not. But in my view, the more ardent promoters of intelligent design intend to use science classes for introducing young earth and old earth creationist "criticism" of the natural sciences under the banner of "critical thinking skills." The more ambitious hope to turn science classes into a platform from which to begin the launch of what is essentially an anti-scientific, fundamentalist religious and political ideology -- beginning with a pseudo-scientific case for the existence of God.
In contrast, there are a great many religious individuals who believe that God is not something which one can fit inside a test-tube, and that it is a mistake to treat the belief in God as an empirical hypothesis to be tested inside a lab or a class devoted to science. They believe that the very act of attempting to demonstrate the existence of God is itself destructive of true faith. Their views will be one of the first victims in the effort to bring intelligent design into our classrooms. However, proponents of intelligent design wish us to believe that the intelligent designer isn't necessarily God, and that they merely wish to teach "critical thinking skills." So let us assume for the moment that the proponents of intelligent design are sincere in their desire to improve education.
A Mini-Seminar on Natural Science
If intelligent design or its creationist criticism of natural science is to be taught alongside evolutionary biology as a means of promoting "critical thinking skills," then there is an additional way of teaching such skills which we should consider: tying together all the major branches of hard science, including physics, biology, astronomy, geology, and chemistry in an integrated series of lessons. Typically, students take various classes, but no real emphasis is placed on seeing how the material from one class or one year is related to another. In contrast, students should see the material from different classes or grades as different pieces in the same puzzle and should be encouraged to put the pieces of the puzzle together. In this way, science teachers could demonstrate the unity of science and teach students further critical thinking skills -- perhaps the most valuable set of lessons students will ever learn. (Proponents of intelligent design should appreciate this to the extent that they actually value the development of such cognitive abilities. Moreover, it could be of real benefit for students in tomorrow's world.)
This could be part of senior year -- a kind of mini-seminar required for all students in order for them to graduate. Since not all students will have taken courses in all of the hard sciences, it couldn't be done in a single day, though. I believe teachers would need one class period for the introduction to or review of each branch, a class period cutting across several different branches, and then another class period for reviewing the whole of what students will have learned. Handouts could be made available, and both reading and homework assigned.
What follows is a tentative schedule, including the material which would be covered for each day.
Day One: students will focus on elements of physics, learning about heat, temperature, pressure, electricity, light, and polarization.
Day Two: students will focus on elements of biology, where students would learn the importance of proteins, amino acids, peptides, the nucleic acids we call DNA and RNA, lipids and cell structure, and of course, eukaryotes, bacteria, archea (including some specific extremophiles), viruses and even viroids (the last of which are nothing more than strands RNA containing instructions on how to replicate themselves).
Day Three: students will focus on elements of astronomy, learning about stars, planets, comets, and the early formation of the solar system, including how the inner planets were at one time heavily bombarded by comets.
Day Four: students will focus on elements of geology, learning about minerals such as borax, volcanic sea vents, the early earth and its reductive atmosphere (i.e., that it lacked corrosive oxygen -- something which we discovered just recently).
Day Five: students will focus on elements of chemistry, work with autocatalytic chemical reactions, repeat the experiments of Miller and Urey in creating amino acids, form stable ribose (the only essential component in nucleic acid other than amino acids) using borax, and create left-handed molecules using polarized light. (If some chemistry experiments would take longer than the period of time available to the class, then an outside chemistry class could be coordinated with the seminar to perform the same set of experiments, and students could be brought in to view the approach and results.)
Day Six: students will touch on topics which could include the presence of organic compounds in comets, the hydrophobic character of some proteins, how lipid bubbles form in volcanic sea vents and will naturally encapsulate such proteins in cell-like structures, Spiegelman's Monster and Manfred Eigen's experiment where a mere enzyme formed rapidly self-replicating viral RNA when provided with the appropriate nutrients, and how some RNA viruses create DNA using their RNA as a template for the purpose of replication.
Day Seven: students will review what they have learned from each of the branches -- in order to stress the unity of scientific knowledge, and then take time to relax in an informal environment and share with each other what they have learned the past six days. If they are thoughtful, they should see a great many connections, particularly if dialogue is encouraged, as it can be one of the most powerful tools in education.
As a tentative title for the course, I would suggest calling it "The Unity of Science: an investigation into the roots of biological systems in our world."
In Conclusion
What happens outside of school would be entirely up to the parents. Those who want to teach their children that God as the intelligent designer created life could continue to do so. Those who want to teach their children that God simply made a world in which life could arise and evolve naturally could continue to do so. Those who want to teach their children a less religious view of the world could continue to do so. And everyone's religious beliefs would be respected.
I am opposed to teaching intelligent design in science classes, and I will continue to oppose it. But if proponents of intelligent design genuinely value our children's science education and the development of their critical thinking skills, they should appreciate this integrative, scientific mini-seminar, and we should expect their full support. Personally, I do not believe that proponents of intelligent design will support this course. However, if they insist upon having intelligent design taught alongside evolutionary biology as "a means of teaching skills in critical thinking," then I believe that the outlined mini-seminar should be insisted upon as proof of their sincerity.
This message has been edited by TimChase, 11-28-2005 05:01 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 11-27-2005 7:56 PM TimChase has replied
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2005 8:08 PM TimChase has replied
 Message 13 by TimChase, posted 11-28-2005 11:31 AM TimChase has not replied
 Message 14 by TimChase, posted 11-28-2005 2:59 PM TimChase has not replied
 Message 37 by Heathen, posted 11-28-2005 6:28 PM TimChase has replied
 Message 52 by TimChase, posted 11-29-2005 7:36 PM TimChase has not replied
 Message 53 by TimChase, posted 11-29-2005 7:38 PM TimChase has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 115 (263580)
11-27-2005 6:55 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 3 of 115 (263597)
11-27-2005 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TimChase
11-27-2005 10:21 AM


False idea of Separation of Church from State
Opening orientation: I'm not an ID proponent, because, as a YEC, although I certainly agree with them that intelligent design is apparent in this universe, for me the literal account in Genesis is fundamental. I'm also not a proponent of fighting to get any kind of creationism into the schools. I think creationists, but Christians in particular, should leave the public schools, if only because the acrimony generated by the dispute should be avoided. Also, the idea of a homogeneous school system run by the government in such a pluralistic society as ours strikes me more and more as a very bad idea.
Having said that, I very much like your idea of teaching the interconnectedness of all the disciplines. Not sure what exactly it will solve but it should be good critical training as you suggest, and I see no conflict between it and YEC -- or ID either. I believe it would be quite possible to teach everything you listed without even getting into the EvC argument too. It's all necessary knowledge in itself no matter what interpretive system is applied to it. I don't think it will happen, not on this planet, but I like the idea.
I'd mainly like to comment on this statement of yours:
But the belief in God is a religious belief, and this naturally enough could not be touched on at any point...
Like many others, I take the view that by the "intelligent designer," the vast majority of proponents of this idea are disingenuously referring to God in a way that is intended to get around the Separation of Church and State, whether their ambitions reach any further or not. But in my view, the more ardent promoters of intelligent design intend to use science classes for introducing young earth and old earth creationist "criticism" of the natural sciences under the banner of "critical thinking skills." The more ambitious hope to turn science classes into a platform from which to begin the launch of what is essentially an anti-scientific, fundamentalist religious and political ideology -- beginning with a pseudo-scientific case for the existence of God.
If the effort to get creationism into the schools produces such paranoia in the opponents this is a very strong reason to abandon the project. To break it down:
Like many others, I take the view that by the "intelligent designer," the vast majority of proponents of this idea are disingenuously referring to God in a way that is intended to get around the Separation of Church and State, whether their ambitions reach any further or not.
My impression of ID is that they want to be able to include a whole raft of creationists under their umbrella and that's their only ulterior motive, if it is ulterior at all. Creationists don't all have the same view of God or even the same religion. So I believe it is an honest attempt to acknowledge a Creator without getting sectarian about it. This appeal to a generic unspecified designer is of course one of my objections to ID, but I don't suspect them of subterfuge.
About the Separation of Church from State, this is SO misunderstood these days it seems hopeless to rescue it. The idea that religion can't be taught in the public schools on account of this principle is utterly ridiculous. The First Amendment, which supposedly codifies this principle of separation, says in its first clause that CONGRESS may not MAKE A LAW that ESTABLISHES a State Religion, that's all. We have no state religion. Congress has not made a law establishing one. The amendment has not been violated and the public schools cannot violate it because they are not Congress.
Also, a state religion in the time of the Constitution meant a Christian denomination.
Also, some public schools in early America taught their students from the Bible and from various Christian catechisms and confessions. If this were forbidden by the First Amendment it would have been prohibited at the time.
But the second clause of the First Amendment says that CONGRESS may [also] NOT MAKE A LAW THAT PROHIBITS THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION.
Well, an argument could be made that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment to prohibit all teaching of religion in the public schools is really a violation of the Amendment, as they are interpreting the law made by Congress in the Amendment itself in such a way as to prohibit the free exercise of religion by ordinary citizens in the public schools. I believe this is in fact what has been happening.
So I believe you have the false revisionist understanding of the idea of separation of church from state that in fact reverses its meaning and produces the very government tyranny against Christians it was intended to prevent.
But in my view, the more ardent promoters of intelligent design intend to use science classes for introducing young earth and old earth creationist "criticism" of the natural sciences under the banner of "critical thinking skills." The more ambitious hope to turn science classes into a platform from which to begin the launch of what is essentially an anti-scientific, fundamentalist religious and political ideology -- beginning with a pseudo-scientific case for the existence of God.
If the creationists do hope to teach creationist criticism of evolution (it's not criticism of the "natural sciences" despite the usual false equation you make between the sciences and evolutionism) they are not in any way violating the First Amendment but merely exercising the rights that were originally conferred by it.
HOWEVER, I think Christians should not fight this problem by forcing any form of creationism on the public schools. Public schools were not a good idea for Christians in particular in the first place.
This message has been edited by Faith, 11-27-2005 07:57 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TimChase, posted 11-27-2005 10:21 AM TimChase has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2005 8:25 PM Faith has replied
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2005 8:27 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 8 by TimChase, posted 11-27-2005 8:37 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 12 by Omnivorous, posted 11-28-2005 9:19 AM Faith has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 4 of 115 (263600)
11-27-2005 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TimChase
11-27-2005 10:21 AM


Welcome to the fray Tim. Nice post.
I have said before that one of the easiest ways to deal with ID is to teach about the problems that are involved with its concepts, to use it as a bad example in science of hypothesis that cannot be tested and that relies on ignorance of any mechanism to explain the features. In other words, teach about "the weaknesses as well as the strengths" of ID.
I also advocate for teaching both sides of the design controversy ... see Silly Design Institute {forum thread} and feel free to comment (contribute?)
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TimChase, posted 11-27-2005 10:21 AM TimChase has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by TimChase, posted 11-27-2005 8:19 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 9 by TimChase, posted 11-27-2005 8:39 PM RAZD has not replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 115 (263603)
11-27-2005 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by RAZD
11-27-2005 8:08 PM


Glad you like it...
I am glad you like it.
I have presented an essay here before, but more recently I became a part of the DebunkCreation email list with Lenny Flank. In any case, I have gone ahead and written an introduction for the readers at:
Message 13
I may be wrong, but I think this essay may generate some discussion...
This message has been edited by TimChase, 11-28-2005 11:47 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2005 8:08 PM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 6 of 115 (263606)
11-27-2005 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
11-27-2005 7:56 PM


False Idea of False idea of Separation of Church from State
About the Separation of Church from State, this is SO misunderstood these days it seems hopeless to rescue it. The idea that religion can't be taught in the public schools on account of this principle is utterly ridiculous.
Faith, there is no restriction from teaching courses like comparative religion at any level, nor are there restrictions about teaching about the historical relevance of various religions to the couse of history.
What you cannot teach is that the {precepts\concepts\beliefs} of any religion are necessarily true, what you cannot do is give precedence for any one religion over all the others.
What you cannot do is presume to teach that any religious {precept\concept\belief} has the same value in science class as science theory and the validation process of science, because they are fundamentally different (the main point of your thread I believe?).
As a historical note, although I only have anecdotal evidence of it, the california schools tried to teach comparative religious classes, but christian fundamentalist parents stopped it.
Sorry to see your thread closed, as I had more to say. May have to do that PNT to get there. That would also allow me to pursue Phats comments further too.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 11-27-2005 7:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 11-27-2005 10:40 PM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 7 of 115 (263607)
11-27-2005 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
11-27-2005 7:56 PM


deleted
deleted OT
This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*27*2005 08:28 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 11-27-2005 7:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 115 (263613)
11-27-2005 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
11-27-2005 7:56 PM


Re: False idea of Separation of Church from State

If the creationists do hope to teach creationist criticism of evolution (it's not criticism of the "natural sciences" despite the usual false equation you make between the sciences and evolutionism)...
Well, gee. We are talking not just about evolutionary biology, but astronomy (i.e., age of the earth, solar system, universe, etc.), geology (i.e., age of the earth, whether or not Noah's flood occured), physics (i.e., carbon dating, ...), chemistry (for example, the formation of "irreducibly" complex molecules) -- and I could certainly go on.

... they are not in any way violating the First Amendment but merely exercising the rights that were originally conferred by it.
I take it this was a different thread.

HOWEVER, I think Christians should not fight this problem by forcing any form of creationism on the public schools.
I am glad you see it my way. Now if you can help convince creationists and proponents of intelligent design to see it the same way, then perhaps there will be no need for the course which I have outlined (as I have indicated in the article itself).
By the way, it is good to see you again!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 11-27-2005 7:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 115 (263617)
11-27-2005 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by RAZD
11-27-2005 8:08 PM


Your thread...
I will have to check it out.
Lenny is just getting back, and we have had a bit of a firestorm while he was gone (over differences in religious belief -- arghhh!!), so I think I will check out the aftermath. Still need to get a client out for my company, but I will check back a little later.
This message has been edited by TimChase, 11-27-2005 08:42 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2005 8:08 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 10 of 115 (263635)
11-27-2005 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by RAZD
11-27-2005 8:25 PM


Re: False idea of Separation of Church from State
Faith, there is no restriction from teaching courses like comparative religion at any level, nor are there restrictions about teaching about the historical relevance of various religions to the couse of history.
Obviously I mean TEACHING religion itself, and preaching it, not teaching ABOUT religions. Certainly that was obvious enough.
What you cannot teach is that the {precepts\concepts\beliefs} of any religion are necessarily true, what you cannot do is give precedence for any one religion over all the others.
And this is what I discussed is the totally wrong result of the current misinterpretation of the First Amendment, as religion WAS taught this way in the public schools in early America. As I said.
Parents and a community should certainly determine curriculum it seems to me, but this only works against religion in practice it seems, not for parents who are FOR religious instruction in the schools.
This message has been edited by Faith, 11-27-2005 10:43 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2005 8:25 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Parasomnium, posted 11-28-2005 7:27 AM Faith has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 11 of 115 (263685)
11-28-2005 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
11-27-2005 10:40 PM


Re: False idea of Separation of Church from State
Obviously I mean TEACHING religion itself, and preaching it, not teaching ABOUT religions.
Faith,
Far be it from me to comment on how education is, or should be organized in your country, but I cannot help but wonder why you don't understand that separation of church and state must mean that teaching and preaching religion in publicly funded schools is unconstitutional.
If you ask yourself whether it is proper to teach religion in public schools, and your answer is 'yes', then the next question should logically be which religion should be taught, and it should immediately become obvious that this is where the problem lies. Your constitution is the way it is because the people who framed it were wise enough to see this problem.
It shouldn't need spelling out.
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 28-Nov-2005 02:06 PM

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 11-27-2005 10:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 11-28-2005 3:34 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 12 of 115 (263714)
11-28-2005 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
11-27-2005 7:56 PM


Re: False idea of Separation of Church from State
Faith writes:
The First Amendment, which supposedly codifies this principle of separation, says in its first clause that CONGRESS may not MAKE A LAW that ESTABLISHES a State Religion, that's all.
That is inaccurate.
The First Amendment states that Congress shall not make any law "respecting the establishment of religion." The difference widens the clause considerably: the primary meaning of establish, then as now, is to make firm, settle, or support--it does not primarily mean to create or found.
If there is any definitional doubt, the term "respecting" removes it, producing a plain meaning of "shall not make any law supporting a religion." The parallel clause, protecting the individual right to regligion, illuminates the first, prohibitive one: govenment can neither support nor obstruct religious practice.
Just as your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose, your right to practice religion ends at my right (and my childrens' right) to be free of its imposition.
We have no state religion. Congress has not made a law establishing one. The amendment has not been violated and the public schools cannot violate it because they are not Congress.
Both liberal and conservative justices have concluded, quite reasonably, that if the Constitution does not contain provisions respecting the establishment of religion, and Congress is prohibited from making laws to that effect, then all governmental bodies are forbidden to do so, and no government-funded institution (e.g., schools or armned forces) may act in an analogous manner.
Your logic suggests that although the police cannot conduct unreasonable searches and seizures, your English teacher can.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 11-27-2005 7:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 11-28-2005 3:26 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 115 (263747)
11-28-2005 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by TimChase
11-27-2005 10:21 AM


Deleted
Deleted
This message has been edited by TimChase, 11-29-2005 07:39 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TimChase, posted 11-27-2005 10:21 AM TimChase has not replied

  
TimChase
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 115 (263800)
11-28-2005 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TimChase
11-27-2005 10:21 AM


Moved
Moved to:
Message 53
This message has been edited by TimChase, 11-29-2005 07:44 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TimChase, posted 11-27-2005 10:21 AM TimChase has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Omnivorous, posted 11-28-2005 4:25 PM TimChase has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 15 of 115 (263807)
11-28-2005 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Omnivorous
11-28-2005 9:19 AM


Re: False idea of Separation of Church from State
"Respecting" means "regarding." I didn't state it accurately but neither did you. Congress shall make no law whatever with respect to the establishment of a religion is what it means. It's none of Congress' business is what it means.
Even if all governmental bodies are restricted from making a law respecting the establishment of a religion, this does not restrict any other entity from making such a law, and originally the restriction on Congress was intended to reserve the right to the states, but that has since been violated by the extension of the First Amendment to the states as well. The justices are just plain wrong and have violated the whole spirit of the amendment.
Nonsense about the seizures bit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Omnivorous, posted 11-28-2005 9:19 AM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 11-28-2005 3:35 PM Faith has replied
 Message 19 by jar, posted 11-28-2005 3:40 PM Faith has replied
 Message 24 by Omnivorous, posted 11-28-2005 4:19 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024