|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design in Science Class - Sample curriculum please | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jman Inactive Member |
I've been hearing for some time now that the Intelligent Design proponents would like to see this taught in science class.
OK I'm willing to be fair... I'd like to see a sample curriculum of ID so I can be better informed and thus better able to make a decision. Jacob
{Topic promoted from Proposed New Topic version. I've added the "- Sample curriculum please" part to the topic title. - Adminnemooseus} {Edit by Adminnemooseus - I have changed "ID/creation" to just "ID". Let's try to keep the "c word" out of this topic.} This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-08-2006 03:42 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
It would be nice, but I don't expect the resident IDists to be coming up with there own curriculum outlines. Perhaps we can get some links to other sites that have such outlines. Please include come commentary if you post such links (no bare links please).
A minnemooseus/Adminnemooseus joint statement
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Detecting design
| |-Specified Complexity |-Irreducible Complexity Thermodynamics, information entropy and the need for intelligence I think that just about covers it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I'd like to see a sample curriculum of ID so I can be better informed and thus better able to make a decision. One source for this would be the "pandas" book promoted by the ill-advised Dover, PA (ex)School Board. Don't look for much {ID science} in it, as it is more full of {anti-science} retoric, imh(ysa)o. {abe} See Amacon.com: "Of Pandas and People" (click) -- with "promo" material, and Of Pandas and People - A Brief Critique (click) by Ken Miller, just a beginning rather than a full critique actually ... {/abe}
{Edit by Adminnemooseus - I have changed "ID/creation" to just "ID". Let's try to keep the "c word" out of this topic.} I was going to comment about the "ID/Creationism" bit as well, but see that it has been edited out -- conflating the two can get into all kinds of problems with dealing with what ID actually is trying to promote (politically), no matter how close to the {actual usage} it treads. So let's stick to what ID claims. The basic claim {as commonly used by the major proponents} is that in the absence of any {evidence\explanation} for an observed already evolved {feature\ability\asset}, that it is possible to conclude that "somebody did it" (and without the "somebody" being defined, so that it could be a naturally evolved alien as easily as a minor to major god type being). This of course leaves us with two problems: (1) it is a logical fallacy that because there is no current explanation that none will be forthcoming, thus making the conclusion "somebody did it" a leap of faith unsupported by any evidence, and (2) it is untestable, being an explanation of the gaps rather than an explanation of the facts. Neither of these problems allows any reason to include it in a course based on the use of logic, evidence and rational conclusions based on testing, regardless of what the course teaches otherwise. It will be interesting to see what the "proponents" say. (I put proponenets in quotes, because they all seem to be creationists that have adopted parts of the ID concept rather than embrace it fully while discarding their creationist past). This is aside from the whole issue of how ID could be pursued if it were done properly ... Just my thoughts. Enjoy. This message has been edited by RAZD, 01*08*2006 04:09 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
There is the existing topic 10 Categories of Evidence For ID.
This topic happened to get mentioned in the "Private Administration Forum". Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jman Inactive Member |
I really failed to state my position on the matter. I do believe in ID but not like the Christians. I believe that Evolution started the moment after Creation (the big bang) and that, of course God, is the prime mover. I just don't believe that Evolution means random chance. Natural selection is another way of saying God is the brains behind all. Why? Because it is all God's creation. I must say also that I do not consider the Bible to be an authoritive work and that, in particular, the Biblicle stories of creation are both misleading and false. Fanciful dreams.
I like to work outside the limiting filters of any religious traditions beliving, as I do, that they are all man made and, as such are flawed. Tks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Were you responding to me or were you making a general reply? I'm confused as to how your response ties in with my post that's all.
I just don't believe that Evolution means random chance. Natural selection is another way of saying God is the brains behind all. Essentially you are telling us that you are theistic evolutionist, is that right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mkolpin Inactive Member |
I don't think ID has a place in science class because, ultimately, it is not science. Science deals with the natural, and ID deals with the supernatural. Also, in order for something to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. ID is not falsifiable. Clearly, ID is not scientific, so there is no reason for it to be included in science class. However, there are certain arguments used in the ID theory that are scientific, such as irreducible complexity. I think it makes sense for irreducible complexity to be introduced in science class as evidence against evolution, but I don't think it is fair for a designer to be mentioned in a science class.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4927 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
But there is plenty of evidence posted for the idea that the observed data is best understood as the result of an intelligent cause. Some parts of the curriculum:
forensics showing design order and physical laws/principles of physics indicating force or a cause maintaining that order at it's root irreducible complexity the fossil record commonality of design in living organisms fundamental properties of what constitutes the material or physical world adaptive mutations and other examples of non-random mutations logic in the origin of intelligence and ordering (goes with point above) molecular detail (goes with irreducible complexity) genetic engineering showing intelligent design can and does occur as a concept (does not mean genetic engineering is only method, just one we have discovered) I suppose you could read the 10 Evidences presented by Jerry Van Bauer for more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 640 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Please, take each and every one of those items that you think are evidence of 'Inteilligent design', and show they are.
Not one of the systems that Behe has suggested is irreducible complex has stood up under examination. Also, there is no reason to think thatan irreducibly complex system could not form natually.. if the 'scalfolding' for the structure was removed after it was in place as a means of analogy. If we look at the list of what you claim is 'evidence' for I.D, there are also naturalistic (non-design) methods that have been shown to answer each and every one of those items. Why assume 'an intelligent designer' when a perfectly valid explaination can be shown without one?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6110 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
The discovery institute advised the Dover School board not to push ID in school agenda as the time is not yet ripe. The introduction of ID is only to challenge the icons of evolution. I believe this is the first step. The next step for us is to introduce ID. Then, the debate will have some life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
I believe this is the first step. The next step for us is to introduce ID.
No, the intermediate step will be to come up with that lesson plan. And to make it look so dissimilar to Of Pandas and People that it can be snuck past the courts. Well, the step of actually getting the "theory" published and vetted in scientific journals might be nice, too. Like plate tectonics, or organic chemistry, or observations of quasars, or how airplane wings give lift had to be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
The next step for us is to introduce ID.
The first step should be for ID to come up with some credible science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6110 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
Text books are now available. But, they are all based on creation. All that they have to do is to eliminate any mention of the Creator and make changes based only based on Science
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Text books are now available. But, they are all based on creation. All that they have to do is to eliminate any mention of the Creator and make changes based only based on Science And he said he had never heard of the Wedge Document. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024