quote:
Well, you could start out with a brief history of intelligent design from Plato to Paley to today.
Don't forget to mention that Hume is accepted as having discredted the entire argument.
quote:
Then you could start getting into some basics of modern ID, especially Dembski's explanatory filter.
Don't remember to mention that nobody actually makes serious use of the filter. At present it's just a theoretical curiosity - and there's no sign that that will change.
quote:
Don't forget to specifically explain that modern ID can't ID (unintended pun) the designer
You mean that most in the ID movement mean "God" but find it politically awkward to mention it except when trying to mobilise political support amongst fellow-beleivers.
As well as the fact that the ID movement completely rejects the idea that we can infer the nature of the "designer" from the alleged "designs" because that evidence points away from the cinlusion they want.
quote:
Throw in some of the accomplishments of ID (like the discovery that junk DNA may not be junk).
If ID has real achievements why are you trying to steal somebody elses ?
quote:
After that, segway into the modern ID-evolution controversy
And we should say that it is a purely political controversy - stirred up by a religious group which wants to get their ideas into the school curriculum.
The trouble is that there isn't an awful lot of biology here. There's philosphy (Plato, Paley and Hume). A bit of mathematical theory that doesn't seem to have any real relevance to practical science. A lot of political claims. And one false claim of success in biology.
I suppose it would be worth letting kids know the truth about ID - we can skip the philosophy. ID's scientific failures and political record is damning enough,