Question for Intelligent Design Advocates from a High School Biology Teacher

[lewelma]

I am an evolutionary biologist. I have also been a high school biology teacher. I have a teaching certificate that is valid in 44 states in the USA, so I could be teaching your children one day.

 

I have an honest question.  I am not trying to trick you or corner you.  If you know me at all, you know that I do not argue about evolution, ever. 

 

The question: What *exactly* am I supposed to teach about intelligent design in a high school biology class?

 

I often read about the idea of "equal time" for evolution and intelligent design.  In the past when I taught high school biology, I have spent 3 weeks on evolution, so lets say for this thought experient that since I have more to teach, that I give it 4 weeks - that is 20 teaching days or 20 hours. My plan would be to teach the evidence for evolution for 9 days, the evidence for intelligent design for 9 days, and use the last 2 days to compare and contrast the two.

 

Here are your restrictions:

1) This is not earth science class, so I will not be talking about how the earth was made, just living things.

2) In the USA you cannot promote one religion over the other, so I will not be discussing Adam and Eve, just intelligent design

3) During my 9 days of teaching intelligent design, I will not be refuting evolution.  I will be explaining the scientific evidence for intelligent design.  Comparing, contrasting, refuting, persuading etc will be saved for the last 2 days after the student have a good foundation in both concepts.

 

So I need 9 hours of teaching material and 4 hours of homework that must meet the 3 restrictions stated above. This material must be at a highschool level.

 

I really appreciate your input. Thanks,

 

Ruth in NZ

 

one final note: I do not want this thread to turn into an argument over intelligent design and evolution. My goal is *not* to refute intelligent design.  I honestly want to know how I am to fill 9 hours of teaching time and 4 hours of homework.

[lewelma]

This not about whether *I* would teach it or not.  Rather it is about whether it is even possible to do equal time.  From my current understanding of intellegent design, it would take about 15 minutes to cover; whereas I could easily spend the entire 9 months covering the basics of evolution to high school students. I also cannot understand how to teach intellegent design at a high school level.  My knowledge of the concept is clearly limited.

 

Given that the idea of "equal time" is often promoted, I figured that the intellegent design proponents must have more material to teach than I am aware of.  I am sincerely curious as to how to spread intellegent design out over 9 hours (plus homework).

 

Ruth in NZ

 

 

[garddwr]

I found a Wikipedia article that outlines some basic arguments for Intelligent Design. They mention a textbook called "Of Pandas and People", I suppose you could use that. (I don't know how well it would stand up to scientific investigation though).

 

Good luck with your hypothetical class :)

 

Now, I personally believe God designed and created the world, but I don't know exactly how he did it. I teach my children the account in Genesis, but I also explain that Genesis doesn't give us specifics on the process of creation (including in my opinion the timeline). In other words, I don't think that when the Bible mentions days it necessarily means 24 hours, nor do I personally feel a necessity to believe that the process of creating life on the earth couldn't have involved creatures evolving. I imagine that God uses natural processes in his work. At a high school level I would teach evolution as it is understood in science, and discuss the shortcomings of both science and religion and the limited ability of each to inform a study of the other. Studying evolution myself as a student (I minored in microbiology) never shook my faith in God and I don't expect it to shake my children's' faith.

 

ETA: Woops, forgot to include the link to the article. Fixed that above.

[Jean in Newcastle]

You might look up Stephen Meyer and his books.  

[nmoira]

Subbing

 

(Sorry, I'm on mobile, and this is the only way.)

[bolt.]

I don't think "equal time" is a good guideline for teaching theories that have quite different levels of detail.

 

In teaching intelligent design, I would think to cover things that seem 'purpose designed' -- symbiotic species, animals or plants with attributes that would have to develop 'simultaneously' (like the classic giraffe). Possibly also features that seem to have developed more than once, without coming from what evolution would call a 'common ancestor'.

 

I might explore 'various' intelligent creation accounts, helping the students explore what those accounts imply (or say) about biology -- and how those things line up with the way biology actually is.

 

Perhaps illustrate ideas like the high percentage of (unguided) 'random adaptations' that would be unlikely to actually be pro-survival, or maybe wonder where the capacity to adapt/mutate comes from at all (since all biology seems to share that trait). I could also explore the incongruity between physics (that says things wear out, wind down and become less complex as they loose energy over time) and evolution-based biology (which says that living things become more complex, more robust and generally better over time -- with no added infusion of 'energy' to the physical parts of those living things).

 

Honestly, that doesn't sound like just studying "biology" -- which is why I enjoy the freedom of teaching in an interdisciplinary way. In a nutshell, intelligent design just asserts that, no matter how things came to be this way, they are pretty much too co-incidentally perfect to be explained by a theory that (seen simplistically) relies on the concept of random mutations combined with 'survival of the fittest' to come out with our current living conditions. Current living conditions are complex, beautiful, symbiotic and systematic. It's every bit as odd as the old standby illustration -- if you find a (gear-style) pocket watch on a beach, it's quite natural to assume it was someone's purpose-made construction, even though it is also plausible that it was made by the forces of time and tide. (Though it would certainly take the powers of 'a god' in a theory like theistic evolution, that someone could actually direct time and tide to produce such a masterpiece without 'touching it directly'.)

[lewelma]

Thanks for the book recommendations, but I really want someone to explain the details here.  What would be my lecture topics for 9 days?

 

For Evolution, my topics would be:

 

Day 1: Natural selection

Day 2: population genetics

Day 3: genetic drifton

Day 4: Founder effect, population bottlenecks

Day 5: the species concept, repoductive isolation

Day 6: Homologous structurs

Day 7: convergent evolution

Day 8: Coevolution

Day 9: Sexual selection

 

I need 9 topics for Intelligent Design to give it equal time.

[mytwomonkeys]

well, the biggest proponents of intelligent design say you aren't actually supposed to teach I.D. at all. here is their explanation.  here is a packet for educators. maybe this would help??  i am a creationist, so i can't give you any personal answers. i'm sorry. i hope you find what you need though. :)

[melmichigan]

I have never seen ID argued without refuting evolution so I'd be very interested in how one would go about it. What an interesting question.

Edited September 21, 2013 by melmichigan

[garddwr]

Thanks for the book recommendations, but I really want someone to explain the details here.  What would be my lecture topics for 9 days?

 

For Evolution, my topics would be:

 

Day 1: Natural selection

Day 2: population genetics

Day 3: genetic drifton

Day 4: Founder effect, population bottlenecks

Day 5: the species concept, repoductive isolation

Day 6: Homologous structurs

Day 7: convergent evolution

Day 8: Coevolution

Day 9: Sexual selection

 

I need 9 topics for Intellegent Design to give it equal time. 

 

Here's my thinking: Intelligent Design theory is not supposed to be incompatible with the theory of evolution, so you would not need to count all evolutionary topics as time that needs to be matched by teaching Intelligent Design. I think (not an expert here, I've never studied ID) that you could limit the "equal time" to a discussion of origins and processes--i.e., theories of how life began, whether mutations are entirely random, what evidence mainstream science sees for randomness, what evidence ID experts see for non-randomness, etc.. If I had to do this I would spend one day on these types of discussions and present both sides, then move on and teach the rest of the evolutionary material as is. I really don't see how it could be done otherwise.

 

[lewelma]

I have never seen ID argued with refuting evolution so I'd be very interested in how one would go about it. What an interesting question.

 

Do you mean 'without' refuting evolution?

[garddwr]

Here's a quote from an intelligent design site:

 

"It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges."

 

So the discussion would really be just about whether these processes were random and unpredictable or whether there are signs of intelligent design/control in the processes.

 

 

[Orthodox6]

FWIW, Of Pandas and People is a poor-quality book.  Don't bother with it.  Hasn't been updated in years, perhaps because someone realized that it wasn't worth the attempt.

 

Somebody named William Dembski often is mentioned as one of the better-informed ID proponents.  Maybe just select one of his books for assigned extra-credit reading with a report due?

 

 

[melmichigan]

Do you mean 'without' refuting evolution?

Yes, sorry, autocorrect did it again.

[Heartsjoy]

Just brainstorming here:

I think the concepts of evolution and the concepts of design run through every level of biology from the subatomic to the extra terrestrial. I would be looking to address these all along the way. As a highschool biology teacher, I might have students assigned a topic to present as a dialogue/ skit 5minutes max scheduled throughout the year. I like the way Tapestry of Grace uses Pageant of Philosophy and Simplicio dialoguing with the different philosophers. Grading rubric would be based on using high value resources, defining terms with logic skills, and speaking skills.

 

I know you're probably looking for a more specific list of topics. I like the math concepts about randomness and order and sequences. Another area I'd like to know more about is the delicate balance between so many elements ( living and non living)  in each tiny ecosystem and how they all must function together or crash the whole. I'm also fascinated by the carefully sequenced intracellular activities that are also interdependent on each other.

 

I can't see the "equal time concept" working. Instead, I would be wanting students to ask thoughtful questions and not be perplexed if they run into questions that still aren't answered.

[MrsMommy]

This isn't really going to answer your question, partly because you don't (I assume) believe in ID.

 

When I took honors biology in a public high school 20 years ago (that was painful to admit), of course evolution was part of the curriculum. I'm not going to argue about it, but I don't believe in macroevolution, just so you know where I'm coming from.

 

My teacher, at the beginning of the year, made a brief statement to us: "Don't assume anything about what I believe based on what I teach in this class."

 

I didn't get what he meant then, but looking back on it, I realized that was his way of displaying a "Jesus fish," if you will. He taught what he was required to teach, which is fine, I understand that. But, he also made a statement about his own beliefs, that I didn't realize until after the fact, as I got to know him more as a person.

 

That meant a lot to me, and I would hope that most people could respect what he did there.

 

Sorry that it doesn't really apply to your question, but all this talk the last few days had reminded me of that, and I really wanted to share it with somebody.

[lewelma]

Thanks bolt for your thoughts. I have a few questions:

 

I don't think "equal time" is a good guideline for teaching theories that have quite different levels of detail.

I have come to understand that intelligent design advocates feel that this is the only way for neither concept to be favored. Am I wrong in my undersanding? That I could spend 17 days on evolution, 1 day on intellegent design, and 2 days comparing and contrasting the two? I thought this was opposed.

 

In teaching intelligent design, I would think to cover things that seem 'purpose designed' -- symbiotic species, animals or plants with attributes that would have to develop 'simultaneously' (like the classic giraffe).

Yes, that is a good topic.

 

Possibly also features that seem to have developed more than once, without coming from what evolution would call a 'common ancestor'.

I don't think this would work, because the microstructures are different with things like the octopus eye and vertebrate eye. So they are not the *same* features, the just have the same function.

 

I might explore 'various' intelligent creation accounts, helping the students explore what those accounts imply (or say) about biology -- and how those things line up with the way biology actually is.

Hummmm, are you talking about comparing the christian creation story to the hindu creation story? I don't think that goes in a high school biology class. Do others?

 

Perhaps illustrate ideas like the high percentage of (unguided) 'random adaptations' that would be unlikely to actually be pro-survival,

Could you explain this further. I'm not sure I know what you are talking about.

 

or maybe wonder where the capacity to adapt/mutate comes from at all (since all biology seems to share that trait).

This is a biochemistry question that comes straight from DNA replication having errors. How do you use this as evidence for intelligent design?

 

I could also explore the incongruity between physics (that says things wear out, wind down and become less complex as they loose energy over time) and evolution-based biology (which says that living things become more complex, more robust and generally better over time -- with no added infusion of 'energy' to the physical parts of those living things).

fascinating. Never heard this line of thinking. Can you explain it further.

 

Honestly, that doesn't sound like just studying "biology" -- which is why I enjoy the freedom of teaching in an interdisciplinary way. In a nutshell, intelligent design just asserts that, no matter how things came to be this way, they are pretty much too co-incidentally perfect to be explained by a theory that (seen simplistically) relies on the concept of random mutations combined with 'survival of the fittest' to come out with our current living conditions. Current living conditions are complex, beautiful, symbiotic and systematic.

This is my understanding of the concept too. Which is why I can't figure out how to stretch it for equal time.

 

Thanks so much for your ideas. I will make day one: symbiotic species

[Jean in Newcastle]

Looking at the link provided by Mytwomonkeys, you could possibly  have lessons on the problems with Darwinian evolution and chemical evolution (page 8 and 9 of teacher's packet).  They have 5 problems listed.  You could possibly have a lesson on each?  Then you could have one lesson on what Intelligent Design is, as one possible solution to those problems.  

  

 

 

[lewelma]

So the discussion would really be just about whether these processes were random and unpredictable or whether there are signs of intelligent design/control in the processes.

The random element of evolution is caused by DNA replicating with errors. Would you say that intellegent design has a creator put specific errors into your DNA that would lead to mutations that are beneficial for your survival? If so, I can't see any way to make that scientific evidence. Can you? I really don't mean to be argumentative here, but what would I say?

[Jean in Newcastle]

The random element of evolution is caused by DNA replicating with errors. Would you say that intellegent design has a creator put specific errors into your DNA that would lead to mutations that are beneficial for your survival? If so, I can't see any way to make that scientific evidence. Can you? I really don't mean to be argumentative here, but what would I say?

For microevolution, yes, as a way to handle shifts in climate etc.

[lewelma]

Can someone please clarify 3 things for me:

 

1) Does intelligent design require constancy over time? Meaning, living things were put on the earth as we see them today (with some small changes like breeds of dogs and viruses), or whether intelligent design allows for changes at the kingdom/ phylum level but just without a random component.

 

2) Also, does intelligent design require an earth that is a few thousand years old?

 

3) Do all intelligent design proponents agree on the above 2 issues?

[lewelma]

For microevolution, yes, as a way to handle shifts in climate etc.

ok. cool. So how do I handle all the mutations that are bad?

[Heather in Neverland]

I've always been fascinated by the topic of irreducible complexity.

 

This link should give you a lot of jumping off places and lists topics, scientists who believe in ID, etc. http://www.intelligentdesign.org/resources.php

 

If you are going to do this then you will need to do the research and treat the topic with respect. Teenagers can sense scoffing from a mile away and no child deserves to be mocked by an adult for their beliefs.

 

I work at a christian school. We present the info on evolution, ID and young earth/old earth creation with equal time with no qualms and no scoffing towards any of those beliefs.

 

Truth has nothing to fear.

[garddwr]

The random element of evolution is caused by DNA replicating with errors. Would you say that intellegent design has a creator put specific errors into your DNA that would lead to mutations that are beneficial for your survival? If so, I can't see any way to make that scientific evidence. Can you? I really don't mean to be argumentative here, but what would I say?

 

I don't know specifically, but if ID is supposed to be based on scientific investigation they must have evidenc to present. I know the last time I read a book about the ultimate origins of life from a scientific point of view (nothing to do with creationism or ID, just outlining various scientific theories as to how the very first proteins, RNA/DNA, cells and organisms could have come about) there were still rather large gaps between what is known/replicable/evidenced and what would actually need to happen for life to derive from non-life. ID would likely hold up the leaping of that gap given what still appears to be improbable odds as evidence for non-randomness.

 

Perhaps another would be increasing complexity of life? Assuming life began with simple organism such as bacteria, and since similar organisms are still around, why have more and more complex organisms developed? Does natural selection really explain why life has become more complex when simple, adaptable organisms have survived and continued to reproduce quite well? Are the more complex organisms really "fitter" than the less complex? (There are many more bacteria than humans on the earth...)

 

Again, not an expert, just brainstorming for ideas :)

[garddwr]

Can someone please clarify 3 things for me:

 

1) Does intellegent design require constancy over time? Meaning, living things were put on the earth as we see them today (with some small changes like breeds of dogs and viruses), or whether intellegent design allows for changes at the kingdome/ phylum level but just without a random component.

 

2) Also, does intellegent design require an earth that is a few thousand years old?

 

3) Do all intellegent design proponents agree on the above 2 issues?

 

ID does not require constancy over time.

 

ID does not require a young earth.

 

Those are things that Creationists would likely agree on.

 

ID is more flexible.

 

ETA: Actually, I should say those are things that Young Earth Creationists would agree on :)

[Heather in Neverland]

Can someone please clarify 3 things for me:

 

1) Does intellegent design require constancy over time? Meaning, living things were put on the earth as we see them today (with some small changes like breeds of dogs and viruses), or whether intellegent design allows for changes at the kingdome/ phylum level but just without a random component.

 

2) Also, does intellegent design require an earth that is a few thousand years old?

 

3) Do all intellegent design proponents agree on the above 2 issues?

Again, you cannot expect to teach this topic with respect if you are not willing to do the research. All of this can be simply googled then further researched. It will take a lot of time and effort on your part to get up to speed in this area and do it well.

 

Also, intelligent is spelled with two i's.

[garddwr]

My understanding of the underlying theory of ID is that life on the earth as we now find it, in all its complexity, did not originate and develop entirely through random processes but that it shows evidence of intentional design by an intelligent agent of some sort.

[Spy Car]

For microevolution, yes, as a way to handle shifts in climate etc.

But, strictly for sake of arguement, most "mutations" are bad, meaning they are maladaptive. And in many instances dramatically so. Often "bad" mutations lead to early death and suffering.

 

So if a perfect divine being was behind the mutations, it would seem odd that most mutations would be maladaptions rather than being advantageous, no?

 

Bill

[garddwr]

But, strictly for sake of arguement, most "mutations" are bad, meaning they are maladaptive. And in many instances dramatically so. Often "bad" mutations lead to early death and suffering.

 

So if a perfect divine being was behind the mutations, it would seem odd that most mutations would be maladaptions rather than being advantageous, no?

 

Bill

 

Bill, I don't think the OP wanted this to turn into an argument of the pros and cons of different theories.

[Jean in Newcastle]

But, strictly for sake of arguement, most "mutations" are bad, meaning they are maladaptive. And in many instances dramatically so. Often "bad" mutations lead to early death and suffering.

 

So if a perfect divine being was behind the mutations, it would seem odd that most mutations would be maladaptions rather than being advantageous, no?

 

Bill

My understanding of the Intelligent Design theory is that it does not require divinity in the intelligence behind the design.  

[nmoira]

Again, you cannot expect to teach this topic with respect if you are not willing to do the research. All of this can be simply googled then further researched. It will take a lot of time and effort on your part to get up to speed in this area and do it well.

 

Also, intelligent is spelled with two i's.

I think you are missing the point of the exercise.

[lewelma]

Here's my thinking: Intelligent Design theory is not supposed to be incompatible with the theory of evolution, so you would not need to count all evolutionary topics as time that needs to be matched by teaching Intelligent Design.

Do all intelligent design proponents agree with this?

 

 

I think (not an expert here, I've never studied ID) that you could limit the "equal time" to a discussion of origins and processes--i.e., theories of how life began,

The theory of evolution is not an origin of life theory. Evolution requires a single 'living' individual as a starting point. Where living is defined as 1) separate from the environment and 2) able to replicate. It does not have to be a cell, but could be a piece of genetic matter. But how that single living individual arose is not a part of evolutionary theory. Point being, I would not even include Origins of life in the 4 week unit that we are discussing.

 

 

whether mutations are entirely random,

Do Intelligent design proponents suggest that they are not random? Do they have evidence of non-randomness? I did not realize that this was a part of the intelligent design concept.

 

 

what evidence mainstream science sees for randomness, what evidence ID experts see for non-randomness, etc.. If I had to do this I would spend one day on these types of discussions and present both sides,

See here is my problem. As a scientist, I require that a scientific concept stand on its own with evidence, which is why I would want to teach intellegent design separated from evolution. and then once both concepts were understood, then and only then, compare and contrast them.

 

 

I really don't see how it could be done otherwise.

Thanks so much for all your ideas!

[Spy Car]

Bill, I don't think the OP wanted this to turn into an argument of the pros and cons of different theories.

It isn't a debate about different "theories" (ID is not a theory, in any case), it is trying to understand how ID might "work" if it was indeed a kind of divinely guided mechanism driven by guided mutations.

 

Most mutations prove to be harmful (we can agree on that as basic science, yes?) so how would that fit with the actions of a perfect divine-being being at the controls?

 

This is a legitimate question to ask in this context.

 

Bill

[lewelma]

Also, intelligent is spelled with two i's.

!! Serves me right for turning off my spell check!

[lewelma]

Ok, I'm getting overwhelmed. Give me a few minutes to respond to everyone.

[garddwr]

 

This is a legitimate question to ask in this context.

 

Bill

 

No it isn't. We are not discussing the merits/lack of merits of ID.

 

Do you have a response that is relevant to the OP's question?

[lewelma]

But, strictly for sake of arguement, most "mutations" are bad, meaning they are maladaptive. And in many instances dramatically so. Often "bad" mutations lead to early death and suffering.

 

So if a perfect divine being was behind the mutations, it would seem odd that most mutations would be maladaptions rather than being advantageous, no?

 

Bill

Sorry Bill, but I am trying really hard here to understand and design a 9 day unit. I am correcting clear misconceptions of biology, but I am *not* arguing.

 

In the nicest way I would ask you to start a new thread.

 

Ruth in NZ

[Jean in Newcastle]

Ruth, if I were you, I'd spend some time at the Discovery Institute's website.  Here is a link to their book section:  http://www.discovery.org/csc/books/  I don't know what kind of access you have to libraries but most, if not all of these books are at our county library.  

[lewelma]

It isn't a debate about different "theories" (ID is not a theory, in any case),

I am using the word 'concept'.

 

 

it is trying to understand how ID might "work" if it was indeed a kind of divinely guided mechanism driven by guided mutations.

 

Most mutations prove to be harmful (we can agree on that as basic science, yes?) so how would that fit with the actions of a perfect divine-being being at the controls?

 

This is a legitimate question to ask in this context.

yes, and I asked if this was a standard belief of the ID community. But as much as I love you, Bill, you can be a bit snarky at times.

[Spy Car]

No it isn't. We are not discussing the merits/lack of merits of ID.

 

Do you have a response that is relevant to the OP's question?

No. I'm sorry, it is relevant. If you are going to teach that the mechanism behind ID is mutation guided by a devine-being, one would need to deal with all the maladaptive mutations.

 

I suppose one could argue that one could argue all mutations are bad, except the divine-being sometimes interviens to make some good. And then I ask, but why left some beings suffer?

 

It is a mystery, my son.

 

Bill

[Heather in Neverland]

I think you are missing the point of the exercise.

Nope, I get it completely. I'm just not playing along. You can't "say" you want to give something "equal time" in a classroom if you don't intend to do it justice. If you really see no merit whatsoever in the topic of intelligent design and your whole point is to prove that there "isn't" enough out there on ID to be able to teach it for equal time, then don't bother.

[Orthodox6]

This is a legitimate question to ask in this context.

 

Bill

 

Not really.  Just as well could point at all forms of disease, as illness is not considered "good" for the body.

[Parrothead]

Can someone please clarify 3 things for me:

 

1) Does intelligent design require constancy over time? Meaning, living things were put on the earth as we see them today (with some small changes like breeds of dogs and viruses), or whether intelligent design allows for changes at the kingdom/ phylum level but just without a random component.

 

2) Also, does intelligent design require an earth that is a few thousand years old?

 

3) Do all intelligent design proponents agree on the above 2 issues?

I'm a believer in theistic evolution and I would answer each of your questions with "no".

[nmoira]

Nope, I get it completely. I'm just not playing along. You can't "say" you want to give something "equal time" in a classroom if you don't intend to do it justice. If you really see no merit whatsoever in the topic of intelligent design and your whole point is to prove that there "isn't" enough out there on ID to be able to teach it for equal time, then don't bother.

I'm sorry to hear that's your attitude, especially since you say it's taught in your school. Even providing an outline of subtopics in the manner lewelma did would be informative. That's all I have to say about it.

[lewelma]

Again, you cannot expect to teach this topic with respect if you are not willing to do the research. All of this can be simply googled then further researched. It will take a lot of time and effort on your part to get up to speed in this area and do it well.

Heather, I am so sorry I upset you with my questions. If I ever teach this class, I would of course do as much research as I could. But I have always used this board as a short cut. If I want to teach a study skills class, I could buy a bunch of books and read them and design a course, or I could just ask here and someone would have done all the work for me. So I am asking very nicely for someone who has done this before to lay it out for me. This board has a couple of thousand active members about a third of which (I think based on a poll once) are intelligent design proponents, so there has to be someone willing to spend the time to explain it. It does not have to be you.

 

As to the 3 questions I put forth, I think they are very fair. I don't understand ID and the fundamentals and would like to. I have taken the time to explain evolution and its fundamentals on this thread http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/345246-the-unscientific-american-watches-a-mammal-walk-into-the-water-and-grow-fins/, and would love it to be reciprocated by the ID proponents.

 

Ruth in NZ

[Ipsey]

My understanding of the underlying theory of ID is that life on the earth as we now find it, in all its complexity, did not originate and develop entirely through random processes but that it shows evidence of intentional design by an intelligent agent of some sort.

 

May I please correct a common and completely false dichotomy you're perpetuating here?

 

According to evolutionary theory "life on the earth as we now find it, in all its complexity, did not originate and develop entirely through random processes" either.  The mechanism through which change was propagated is called "natural selection" and it is NOT random. 

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, smarter sciency people.

 

Here we'd have to address the mechanisms of "natural selection" vs. "complex intelligent designer that itself did not need to be designed" in species development during the comparison/contrast section of the instruction.

[Luanne]

I would hope you would not teach intelligent design.

 

Sorry if that is obnoxious sounding.

 

Yes, that does sound obnoxious and you know that she said she isn't trying to start an argument.  I guess it is easier to ignore what she asked and just voice your opinion, eh?

[lewelma]

Nope, I get it completely. I'm just not playing along. You can't "say" you want to give something "equal time" in a classroom if you don't intend to do it justice. If you really see no merit whatsoever in the topic of intelligent design and your whole point is to prove that there "isn't" enough out there on ID to be able to teach it for equal time, then don't bother.

No Heather. I am sincere. My nephew is currently teaching in Texas at a private christian middle school, and he teaches evolution and intelligent design. I could ask him, but I am asking you (as in the hive in general). Obviously this thread was started because of the Texas thread. Did I argue there? Have I *ever* been disrespectful? My father has always said that every side has an intelligent argument, and that you should always seek to understand it before refuting it, if so inclined. I am seeking to understand. In NZ, I do not have access to the books that have been listed so far (I have checked the library) and it would cost me $40 *each* in shipping to get them here. I have not yet read the links (how could I since I have just started the thread 1 hour ago?), but I will tonight.

 

Do not confuse me with others whose approach and opinions you do not like. I am a unique individual and am sincerely seeking to understand.

 

Ruth in NZ

[mytwomonkeys]

Heather, I am so sorry I upset you with my questions. If I ever teach this class, I would of course do as much research as I could. But I have always used this board as a short cut. If I want to teach a study skills class, I could buy a bunch of books and read them and design a course, or I could just ask here and someone would have done all the work for me. So I am asking very nicely for someone who has done this before to lay it out for me. 

 

in fairness though, there are actual scientists at the intelligent design website that have laid it out clearly and have done all of the work for you.  they would be much more informed than anyone here. i don't think you need to read a lot of books, just spend an hour at their website.  if you have to teach this, regardless if you agree, you could find suitable information to fill a day's worth of lessons.

[garddwr]

May I please correct a common and completely false dichotomy you're perpetuating here?

 

According to evolutionary theory "life on the earth as we now find it, in all its complexity, did not originate and develop entirely through random processes" either.  The mechanism through which change was propagated is called "natural selection" and it is NOT random. 

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, smarter sciency people.

 

Here we'd have to address the mechanisms of "natural selection" vs. "complex intelligent designer that itself did not need to be designed" in species development during the comparison/contrast section of the instruction.

My understanding of the underlying theory of ID is that life on the earth as we now find it, in all its complexity, did not originate and develop entirely through natural un-guided processes but that it shows evidence of intentional design by an intelligent agent of some sort.

 

Would the above be a more accurate representation?