Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design in Science Class - Sample curriculum please
Jman
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 108 (277203)
01-08-2006 3:33 PM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 01-08-2006 3:58 PM Jman has replied
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 01-08-2006 4:02 PM Jman has not replied
 Message 8 by mkolpin, posted 01-24-2006 2:58 PM Jman has not replied
 Message 9 by randman, posted 01-24-2006 3:17 PM Jman has replied
 Message 18 by Quetzal, posted 02-06-2006 9:21 PM Jman has replied
 Message 46 by carini, posted 03-26-2006 2:55 PM Jman has not replied
 Message 82 by Jon, posted 05-06-2006 11:06 PM Jman has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 2 of 108 (277209)
01-08-2006 3:51 PM


Links to other site's ID curriculum, if you can
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by inkorrekt, posted 02-05-2006 7:32 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 3 of 108 (277211)
01-08-2006 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jman
01-08-2006 3:33 PM


Perhaps:
Detecting design
 |
 |-Specified Complexity
 |-Irreducible Complexity
Thermodynamics, information entropy and the need for intelligence
I think that just about covers it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jman, posted 01-08-2006 3:33 PM Jman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Jman, posted 01-20-2006 5:20 PM Modulous has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 4 of 108 (277212)
01-08-2006 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jman
01-08-2006 3:33 PM


good luck
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

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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 Jman, posted 01-08-2006 3:33 PM Jman has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 5 of 108 (277239)
01-08-2006 5:26 PM


At the risk of reviving a topic perhaps best left buried...
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


Message 6 of 108 (280365)
01-20-2006 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Modulous
01-08-2006 3:58 PM


Re: Perhaps:
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Modulous, posted 01-08-2006 3:58 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Modulous, posted 01-21-2006 6:27 AM Jman has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 7 of 108 (280465)
01-21-2006 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Jman
01-20-2006 5:20 PM


Direct response?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Jman, posted 01-20-2006 5:20 PM Jman has not replied

  
mkolpin
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 108 (281286)
01-24-2006 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jman
01-08-2006 3:33 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jman, posted 01-08-2006 3:33 PM Jman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by inkorrekt, posted 02-28-2006 10:25 PM mkolpin has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 9 of 108 (281293)
01-24-2006 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jman
01-08-2006 3:33 PM


a tall order to do a whole curriculum
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jman, posted 01-08-2006 3:33 PM Jman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by ramoss, posted 01-25-2006 7:55 AM randman has not replied
 Message 84 by Jman, posted 05-07-2006 1:08 AM randman has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 10 of 108 (281441)
01-25-2006 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by randman
01-24-2006 3:17 PM


Re: a tall order to do a whole curriculum
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 that
an 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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by randman, posted 01-24-2006 3:17 PM randman has not replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 11 of 108 (284249)
02-05-2006 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Minnemooseus
01-08-2006 3:51 PM


Re: Links to other site's ID curriculum, if you can
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-08-2006 3:51 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Coragyps, posted 02-05-2006 7:55 PM inkorrekt has replied
 Message 13 by nwr, posted 02-05-2006 8:00 PM inkorrekt has not replied
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2006 8:46 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 12 of 108 (284257)
02-05-2006 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by inkorrekt
02-05-2006 7:32 PM


Re: Links to other site's ID curriculum, if you can
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by inkorrekt, posted 02-05-2006 7:32 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by inkorrekt, posted 02-06-2006 11:57 AM Coragyps has replied
 Message 63 by inkorrekt, posted 04-15-2006 12:48 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 13 of 108 (284260)
02-05-2006 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by inkorrekt
02-05-2006 7:32 PM


Re: Links to other site's ID curriculum, if you can
The next step for us is to introduce ID.
The first step should be for ID to come up with some credible science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by inkorrekt, posted 02-05-2006 7:32 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 14 of 108 (284382)
02-06-2006 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Coragyps
02-05-2006 7:55 PM


Re: Links to other site's ID curriculum, if you can
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Coragyps, posted 02-05-2006 7:55 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 02-06-2006 12:01 PM inkorrekt has not replied
 Message 16 by Coragyps, posted 02-06-2006 8:26 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 15 of 108 (284385)
02-06-2006 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by inkorrekt
02-06-2006 11:57 AM


QED
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by inkorrekt, posted 02-06-2006 11:57 AM inkorrekt has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024