Statements on ID Education

It is not as simple as the science teachers seem to think.

Real scientists know, or at least ought to know, that even established scientific principles are tentative working assumptions subject to revision as new and additional data is obtained. Let us recall that a little more than one hundred years ago we had neither relativity nor quantum mechanics.

Scientific work proceeds on the basis of unproven axioms, just as everything in life does. Even Euclidean Geometry with all its logic is based on such axioms. For example, much of the theory of evolution assumes that the laws of nature as we see them in operation today were applicable billions of years ago. That might appear to some to be an eminently reasonable assumption, but an unproven assumption it remains. To overlook this important point is to treat science as another religion.

The difference between the scienctific and other approaches to the mysteries of life is in (1) the methodology and (2) the choice of assumptions. (Scientists will perform experiments where others will consult a certain book.) This contrast is among the ideas that science teachers ought to be conveying to their high school or elementary students. The contrast between evolution and creationism or Intelligent Design is a good opportunity to do so. These are among the tough choices to be made in life and teachers ought to help their students navigate the stormy waters.

A buzzword recently in vogue in educational circles is "interdisciplinary". Students are encouraged to see connections between the various academic disciplines that are usually kept apart. So let educators be educators. Science courses need not consist of pure science so long as the contarst in methodology and choice of assumptions is made clear.

NSTA Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush

So let educators be educators.

From the blog at my URL (www.lulu.com/hdhsciences):

President Bush's statements in favor of teaching alternative theories alongside evolution in schools have yet again brought out the worst in defenders of the current consensus in science.   My book, The End of the Mystery, cuts through the arguments of both evolutionists and creationists, by proving that a world-encompassing design is in fact inherent in the shapes and relative positions of the continents on the surface of the Earth today--and responsible, furthermore, for the very orientation of the solar system--and that this grand design was not a supernatural work of God, but the real, physical re-formation of the world, and the system, by an advanced race of men known as the "gods" of old.   Thus, there was not simply a one-time creation of the world, some 6,000 years ago (rather, the re-formation done by the "gods" was complete by then, and the rule by earthly kings begun), nor is the world simply the result of undirected physical processes (like continental "drift" due to plate tectonics, and undirected evolution within a natural, undisturbed biosphere).

The physical fact of the design is readily observed, as I have laid out, many times over--conceptually, visually and above all quantitatively (demonstrating the precision of the design)--in The End of the Mystery.   On top of the physical facts, all of the ancient testimony of mankind around the world--all of the sacred and once-sacred traditions, the very origin of every culture--points directly back to the central elements, the central images, of the design.   There is simply no doubt about it.   My research findings are above and beyond any evidence or authoritative statements of belief that have previously been aired, and they do what others presently find unthinkable: They harmonize the ancient beliefs and the modern scientific understanding.

The End of the Mystery reveals an entirely different picture of the origin of the world--and solar system--than the current debate will allow.   That "debate" is really a misdirected, emotion-ridden conflict.   My work has built a bridge, a safe passage, past the raging fire and flood of that conflict.   I beckon the world from the safety of the other side--though I emphasize that I do not claim to have all the answers:   My work is just the beginning of revealing the designs of the "gods", which must be confronted and substantially understood before one can reasonably consider the real origin of the material universe, the original creation.

The NSTA has it a lot more right than Carol Clouser does. There is no "methodology" of intelligent design; it's a political movement with some phony pseudo-scientific gloss, and has no place in science classes, or anywhere else in public pre-collegiate schools, except perhaps in a class on civics and current events. As for the assumption that the laws of nature don't change over time, this could be mentioned in a foundations of science class, but has no bearing on the ID discussion. Variability in the laws of physics does play a role in YEC theories, but this is best discussed in a course on rhetoric when discussing the meaning of "ad hoc".

Re the Comments on Comments thread, are these book-pushers who are turning up drive-bys or persistent trolls?

Completely unrelated guys, but im inquiring as to the written version of kent hovinds seminars.
thankyou

It is as simple as science teachers think. Science works on the principles of science, ID does not and to present it as science is inaccurate and misleading

There is simply no doubt about it.

I do not claim to have all the answers

Re the Comments on Comments thread, are these book-pushers who are turning up drive-bys or persistent trolls?

President Bush's statements in favor of teaching alternative theories

at this point i don't have a problem with teaching ID in schools... you can get it out of the way in half a lecture.

"So, also, there's this thing called Intelligent Design that states that some of the mechanisms we just went over when studying Evolution are too complicated to happen by themselves and require an external intelligent agent. The bunch of white pages in your textbook are reserved for when the ID folks put together a theory that needs more than one paragraph to be explained."

Did anybody else hear the interview with Rick Santorum on NPR this morning? He was asked specifically about ID and Bush's comments on the subject. His answer (ID does not belong in the science classroom, but the "flaws" and "problems" with evolution should be taught) shows that he's been paying attention at least to the ID side of the issue, whereas Bush has obviously been paying attention to neither side of the issue.

Did anybody else hear the interview with Rick Santorum on NPR this morning? He was asked specifically about ID and Bush's comments on the subject. His answer (ID does not belong in the science classroom, but the "flaws" and "problems" with evolution should be taught) shows that he's been paying attention at least to the ID side of the issue, whereas Bush has obviously been paying attention to neither side of the issue.

Hey, right now on the Dianne Rheim show there's open calls talking about the ID Vs. Science issue. Director of AAAS is talking to the Head of the Southern Baptist Convention.

AAAS keeps saying: it's not science.

Preacher keeps saying: there are scientists who say it is. Go read discovery.org.

Call: (202)885-1200 or 1-800-433-8850

Email: DRshow@wamu.org

Proponents of Intelligent Design theory seek to ground a scientific research program that appeals to teleology within the context of biological explanation. As such, Intelligent Design theory must contain principles to guide researchers. I argue for a disjunction: either Dembski's ID theory lacks content, or it succumbs to the methodological problems associated with creation science-problems that Dembski explicitly attempts to avoid. The only concept of a designer permitted by Dembski's Explanatory Filter is too weak to give the sorts of explanations which we are entitled to expect from those sciences, such as archeology, that use effect-to-cause reasoning. The new spin put upon ID theory-that it is best construed as a 'metascientific hypothesis'-fails for roughly the same reason. R. Nichols, Scientific content, testability, and the vacuity of Intelligent Design theory The American Catholic philosophical quarterly , 2003 , vol. 77 , no 4 , pp. 591 - 611

Abstract: The assumption of design of the universe is examined from a scientific perspective. The claims of William Dembski and of Michael Behe are unscientific because they are a-theoretic. The argument from order or from utility are shown to be indeterminate, circular, to rest on psychological as opposed to factual certainty, or to be insupportable as regards humans but possibly not bacteria, respectively. The argument from the special intelligibility of the universe specifically to human science does not survive comparison with the capacities of other organisms. Finally, the argument from the unlikelihood of physical constants is vitiated by modern cosmogonic theory and recrudesces the God-of-the-gaps.

At this point I would like to see a properly funded and structured task force studying the possibility of ID... if Bush is serious about it. Problem for him is, it would actually backfire on the fundies: if ID were actually true, then a whole host of theological questions about the way God acts in the world become scientific questions. Among other things, we can start asking questions about the rationality and psychology of God's behavior (and that doesn't look good for God).

"So, also, there's this thing called Intelligent Design that states that some of the mechanisms we just went over when studying Evolution are too complicated to happen by themselves and require an external intelligent agent. The bunch of white pages in your textbook are reserved for when the ID folks put together a theory that needs more than one paragraph to be explained."

So IBM developed ID theory long ago? This page left intentionally blank.

Separation of Church and State Has No Legitimate Bearing on Science Education says Creation Scientist To: National Desk Contact: Kathleen Campbell, Campbell Public Relations, 877-540-6022; kcampbell@thecompletesolution.com NEWS ADVISORY, Aug. 4 /Christian Wire Service/ -- Internationally respected biochemist and one of the world's top three leading experts in origin of life research, Fazale "Fuz" Rana, PhD, is available for comment on the validity of teaching "Intelligent Design" in public schools. Dr. Rana states: "Science is not about being politically correct. It is about discovering truth and following the evidence where ever it leads. The scientific evidence increasingly indicates that the Universe and life bears the hallmark of a Creator. Students needs to be aware of the most recent discoveries and their implications. "Darwin's Theory of Biological Evolution dominates academic thought and public discourse as the only valid explanation for humanity's origin. Yet numerous, recent scientific discoveries are causing many scientists to question traditional evolutionary accounts in favor of a radically different explanation. Belief in a literal and historical Adam and Eve as recounted in the Bible has greater scientific credibility today than at any other time in human history, while recent scientific advances raise serious concerns for biological evolution." Dr. Fazale Rana and his colleague and co-author, renowned astro-physicist Dr. Hugh Ross, are neither natural evolutionists nor proponents of the Intelligent Design movement. In their book, Who Was Adam?, these scientists discuss the cutting-edge advances in the most recent origin of life research, and propose a new model for human origins--a model that is fully testable, falsifiable, and predictive--the very argument that the natural evolutionists use to discredit those who espouse Intelligent Design by saying they cannot scientifically prove their case for a creator. To interview Dr. Fazale "Fuz" Rana contact Kathleen Campbell; Campbell Public Relations; 877-540-6022; kcampbell@thecompletesolution.com # # # ______________________________________________ The preceding was forwarded to you by the Christian Communication Network. You can always find the latest press releases at www.ChristianWireService.com

It is not as simple as the science teachers seem to think.

— carol clouser

Scientific work proceeds on the basis of unproven axioms, just as everything in life does. Even Euclidean Geometry with all its logic is based on such axioms.

The difference between the scienctific and other approaches to the mysteries of life is in...

This was forwarded to the DebunkCreation email list:

Buttars may push 'intelligent design'
By Jennifer Toomer-Cook
Deseret Morning News

State Sen. Chris Buttars will meet with education officials next
week to inquire about discussions of evolution and humans in public
schools Â--- a chat he says could determine whether he'll pursue the idea
of requiring schools also teach "divine" or "intelligent design" to
explain the origins of life.

Meanwhile, the State Office of Education is preparing a position
statement on teaching evolution and its already-established place in
the state core curriculum. The statement will come before the State
Board of Education in September, state curriculum director Brett
Moulding said.
Adding to the issue is President Bush's apparent support of
teaching students both biological evolution and "intelligent design,"
pushed by conservative Christians, "so people can understand what the
debate is about," as reported by Knight-Ridder newspapers and The
Associated Press.
Intelligent design is based on the idea that life is too complex
to be explained solely by Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection
and evolution. The unnamed "intelligent designer" is a name that
critics say is a thinly veiled reference to God and divine creation.
The theory has been gaining support in school districts in 20
states, led by Kansas, the New York Times has reported.
Teaching both intelligent design and evolution appeared to get
some backing from Bush on Monday. Speaking with Texas reporters, Bush,
recalling his time as Texas governor, said, "I felt like both sides
ought to be properly taught.

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different
schools of thought," he said, adding that "you're asking me whether or
not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is
yes," according to Knight-Ridder newspapers.
"I love it," Buttars, R-West Jordan, said of the president's
statement. "I believe the president believes exactly as I do. I
believe he believes in God, and the story found in the scriptures: We
are children of God and created in his image. We didn't wait for some
ape to evolve."

Buttars' main concern is whether students are being taught
humans evolved from other species.
The state high school biology core curriculum includes the
theory that "Earth's present-day species developed from earlier
species," and that their evolution is related to their environment.
One of its five standards is "students will understand that biological
diversity is a result of evolutionary processes."
It doesn't specifically mention anything about humans evolving from apes.
But Buttars says a handful of parents in the past year have told
him that's what their children have been taught in school.
"This really bugs me," Buttars said. "I don't want it taught,
the evolution of humans, as fact. It's not fact, it's a theory, with
holes you can drive a truck through. The missing link's still missing,
and so's the rest of the chain."
Buttars and state education officials, including Moulding, are
meeting next week to discuss exactly what students are being taught.
Buttars believes that if students are taught humans evolved from
ape-like ancestors they also ought to be taught the theory of
intelligent design.
"I'm thrilled they're willing to talk and look at this," Buttars
said. "I want to see the whole picture."
Buttars says he also might request the core curriculum be worded
differently, depending on what arises in the meeting.
Meanwhile, the state office is drafting a position statement on
the science core. It may emphasize to teachers that "we respect
beliefs students bring to the classroom," Moulding said.
But he says intelligent design has no place in the state core curriculum.
"Evolution is one of the fundamental principles around which
biology is organized. It's necessary students understand those
concepts in order to advance in the sciences," Moulding said. "We're
entering an increasingly global society, and the economy that has
sprung forth requires doubling numbers of individuals with backgrounds
in science . . . and they need to be taught science."

Apparently the Wedge-ites didn't slap Buttars up alongside the head hard enough the last time.

SEF,

Are you suggesting (#41196) that most teachers are incompetent and/or dishonest? Or do you propose that public policy be based on the small minority of teachers who are apt to abuse the policy?

What about the vast majority of students who ought to be introduced to the reality of the struggle in the world of ideas - that all (including scienctific and faith-based principles) is based on unproven chosen assumptions and that those assumptions combined with the methodology employed is what differentiates one approach from the other?

I think it is intelectually healthy for students to be engaged in this issue and the evolution vs. creation debate is a great opportunity to do so. Instead of fighting this discussion in the classroom, scientists ought to be supporting it.

RON ZENO,

I stand by everything I wrote, your comments not withstanding.

that all (including scienctific and faith-based principles) is based on unproven chosen assumptions

most teachers

— Carol Clouser

Are you suggesting (#41196) that most teachers are incompetent and/or dishonest?

Rev Dr Flank,

Nowhere did I suggest that ANY chosen assumption is "as good as ANY OTHER chosen assumption". I choose not to adopt the assumption you propose. Some assumptions can quite reasonably be contradicted by other assumptions (in this case that gravity will continue to exist when I get to your bridge) or by data. But that has no bearing on the discussion at hand. (It is POSSIBLE that the value of G is a function of time elapsed since the big bang and that that dependence will accelerate downward on the day we do your proposed excursion.)

SEF,

I was not quoting you. You used the term "many" and I was inquiring whether you meant most or just some small percentage. In either case your tirade informs me that you wish to avoid the gist of the issue I was raising. That is fine with me.

Nowhere did I suggest that ANY chosen assumption is "as good as ANY OTHER chosen assumption". I choose not to adopt the assumption you propose.

It is POSSIBLE

I was not quoting you.

— Carol Clouser

I was inquiring whether you meant most

— Carol Clouser

As an addendum to my original post (#41191) may I also make the following point. As things currently stand, science teachers must refrain from saying anything about creationism in the science classroom. To do otherwise is to court trouble. But when the student goes home to his or her fundamentalist parents, or discusses the evolution he learned in class with his fundamentalist minister, those folks have no hesitancy in attacking evolution. The net result, dear fellow scientists, is that we fight the battle for the hearts and minds of the young with both hands tied behind our backs.

Inserting a discussion of faith based alternatives provides an opening we can employ to great advantage. Teachers can then compare and contrast the basic assumptions and methodologies of science vs. the alternatives. They can "take on" the alternatives and let it all "hang out" and the chips can then fall whichever way they will. Students will thereby be much better equipped to deal with these issues in an objective manner.

We should support classroom discussion of alternatives to evolution instead of short-sightedly fighting this losing battle.

Teachers can then compare and contrast the basic assumptions and methodologies of science vs. the alternatives.

We should support classroom discussion of alternatives to evolution

Besides which it isn't necessary to hold up modern religious nutters as an example of why religiously "informed" "science" is rubbish. There are plenty of old examples where the religious or philosophical motivation is largely forgotten and thus less contentious for the wilfully ignorant of today, eg astrology, alchemy, and the humours - and there is more to be learned in a normal science class from the genuine but failed scientific attempts than the deliberately dishonest machinations of the religious. However, in a more advanced psychology, philosophy or even history class it might be appropriate to discuss how and why certain religious and religiously motivated ideas arise and/or render their holders brains dysfunctional.

There are also plenty of other examples of current pseudoscience, eg homeopathy, which should probably take precedence over wasting time on creationism. If the children/adults can't then abstract from the examples they are already given to see exactly why certain religious claims are also bogus, there is probably little chance they will ever get it on their own and they are always going to fall prey to the next conman to come along. Unless one institutes massive care in the community programs for all people with the inability to reason for themselves, it is silly to make single exceptions for just the latest flavour of incompetence and dishonesty in creationism.

it is silly to make single exceptions for just the latest flavour of incompetence and dishonesty in creationism

Yes, I agree it's just a ruse from the point of view of the dishonest anti-evolution creationists but it's important to show why it's also wrong in principle. Otherwise someone only warned about that one ruse might fall for the next ruse to come along ...

ts

In Re Comment #41299
Can you recommend any good books for studying comparative epistemology? That is something I think I would like to read up on.
Paul

Can you recommend any good books for studying comparative epistemology?

Carol Clouser: ... dear fellow scientists

ts earlier stated that CC is a book publicist, which she has never disputed on this thread.

Googling "Jay El Publications" produces a grand total of five listings (including the PT thread ts cites), including library & used bookstore listings for In the Beginning Of and How to Study Physics (1994) by Judah Landa.

Perhaps Clouser could function more effectively in creating a web presence for her employer by setting up a site for Jay El itself? Just a thought...

Perhaps Clouser could function more effectively in creating a web presence for her employer by setting up a site for Jay El itself? Just a thought...