Question for Intelligent Design Advocates from a High School Biology Teacher

[Ipsey]

I PMd you, lewelma.

[Ipsey]

oops, double.

[kroe1]

Skip to page 7 and you should easily find 9 or more days of topics.

 

http://www.evolutionnews.org/backtoschoolguide.pdf

[Jean in Newcastle]

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.

This.  I think it is reasonable to come to the "all knowing hive!" :lol:  to ask for website or book recommendations.  But while I have looked at some of the material out there, I am not an evolutionary biologist or even another type of scientist.  I'm not prepared to provide a lesson outline at a high school level or to answer questions beyond the superficial.  I wouldn't be able to do that in any science, btw no matter how much I agreed with it or didn't agree with it.  And while it is more than possible that someone else who is much more versed in the sciences than I am is on this board, your best bet is to go to the actual scientists to get your material.  

[garddwr]

Do all intelligent design proponents agree with this?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Thanks so much for all your ideas!

 

Unfortunately I don't know enough about ID to answer your questions. Perhaps someone else can?

 

Going back to your original plan for teaching evolution

 

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 think the concepts covered in days 2-5 at least would not conflict with ID concepts so would not need to be taught separately. I'm not sure about the others.

[lewelma]

Skip to page 7 and you should easily find 9 or more days of topics.

 

http://www.evolutionnews.org/backtoschoolguide.pdf

I will read this. I don't like how it is laid out as a response to misconceptions, I would rather a more straight forward description of the scientific evidence. But I will see if it can be retrofitted.

[lewelma]

Unfortunately I don't know enough about ID to answer your questions. Perhaps someone else can?

 

Going back to your original plan for teaching evolution

 

Day 1: Natural selection

Day 2: population genetics

Day 3: genetic drift

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 think the concepts covered in days 2-5 at least would not conflict with ID concepts so would not need to be taught separately. I'm not sure about the others.

I can see that population genetics and the species concepts could be shared topics. But Natural selection, genetic drift, the founder effect, population bottlenecks, and reproductive isolation are what lead species to diverge and speciate. I thought that ID proponents did not support speciation. Am I wrong?

[Saddlemomma]

I think this website would be great for some information: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/index.html

The information is pretty heavy, but I'm sure you can pare it down and rephrase it to the level of your students.  Scroll down the page to Design in Biology; see what you can find there.  Origin of First Plants on Land may be a good one.  Origins News (under the Biology tab) is fascinating as well.

 

Once you get back to the Evolution index, keep scrolling down and you will find papers on:

 

• Origin of Life
• Cambrian Explosion
• Descent of Man
• Evolutionary Biology Problems - now with this one, since you don't want to pit the two theories against each other (rightly not something that should be done in a school setting) you could read the articles and just extrapolate the information that pertains to the positions IDers hold regarding the subject matter and present it as general information.

 

About the author of these articles:

 

Richard Deem earned his bachelor of science degree in biological sciences at the University of Southern California. He received his master of science degree in microbiology from California State University, Los Angeles, and has been working in basic science research since 1976. He has authored and co-authored a number of studies, included several areas of molecular biology and genetics, immunology, inflammatory bowel disease (1-17), natural killer cells (18-22), and infectious diseases (23-24). In addition, he has presented his work at a number of national and international scientific meetings.

Mr. Deem has been working for Dr. Stephan Targan since 1983 and is employed as a Senior Researcher/Specialist in the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. He is currently collaborating with Dr. Rivkah Gonsky on the role of T-cells in inflammatory bowel disease, specifically on transactivating nuclear factors involved in activation pathways of lamina propria (gut-associated) T-cells.

 

I hope this info helps you out and good luck.

 

 

[Heather in Neverland]

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

Ok, I tell you what... If you are sincere about teaching ID respectfully, then tomorrow when I go back to work, I will pull up our curriculum guide for biology and send you the topics we teach for evolution and ID. We have a 100% pass rate for the AP Bio exam so it is possible to include ID (and even creation theories for our school) and still produce students with excellent scientific knowledge.

[Ipsey]

I think this website would be great for some information: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/index.html

The information is pretty heavy, but I'm sure you can pare it down and rephrase it to the level of your students.  Scroll down the page to Design in Biology; see what you can find there.  Origin of First Plants on Land may be a good one.  Origins News (under the Biology tab) is fascinating as well.

 

Once you get back to the Evolution index, keep scrolling down and you will find papers on:

 

• Origin of Life
• Cambrian Explosion
• Descent of Man
• Evolutionary Biology Problems - now with this one, since you don't want to pit the two theories against each other (rightly not something that should be done in a school setting) you could read the articles and just extrapolate the information that pertains to the positions IDers hold regarding the subject matter and present it as general information.

 

About the author of these articles:

 

Richard Deem earned his bachelor of science degree in biological sciences at the University of Southern California. He received his master of science degree in microbiology from California State University, Los Angeles, and has been working in basic science research since 1976. He has authored and co-authored a number of studies, included several areas of molecular biology and genetics, immunology, inflammatory bowel disease (1-17), natural killer cells (18-22), and infectious diseases (23-24). In addition, he has presented his work at a number of national and international scientific meetings.

Mr. Deem has been working for Dr. Stephan Targan since 1983 and is employed as a Senior Researcher/Specialist in the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. He is currently collaborating with Dr. Rivkah Gonsky on the role of T-cells in inflammatory bowel disease, specifically on transactivating nuclear factors involved in activation pathways of lamina propria (gut-associated) T-cells.

 

I hope this info helps you out and good luck.

 

nm

[lewelma]

I think this website would be great for some information: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/index.html

Thank you for the link. I will have to say that calling the site 'evidence for god' makes me a bit uncomfortable that I will be reading about the scientific evidence for intelligent design. But I will read it.

[albeto.]

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.

 

Relevant to the position as a whole, but for the thought experiment proposed, that would be a follow-up discussion. The question, as I understand it, is how to produce a lesson plan on the scientific explanation of Intelligent Design (for the purposes of a science class), without debating the merits or credibility of this explanation (which is reserved for the end of the unit). As I was thinking about this question (fascinating, btw, Ruth), I had the same question. How would one propose to explain how (and eventually why) a mutation was purposefully designed? It's one thing to talk about albino alligators, another to talk about a beloved sibling with Down Syndrome. But how would the conversation go when dealing with a cousin who died of Tay Sachs, or the autistic uncle who killed his wife? But... these would be follow up questions, not explanations of the mechanics of ID, and the OP is looking for the explanations in a scientific context. 

 

It's a fascinating question, and so far, I've only ever encountered the explanation by virtue of suggesting the theory of evolution is not plausible. That is to say, I don't know of any evidence that supports such a hypothesis, and "It couldn't have just happened" isn't evidence. 

 

Of course Ruth could do all the research herself, but as this is a thought experiment and not a proposal designed for a real event, it makes sense to ask those who have already done this research for a summary.

[Heather in Neverland]

Thank you for the link. I will have to say that calling the site 'evidence for god' makes me a bit uncomfortable that I will be reading about the scientific evidence for intelligent design. But I will read it.

Wait... Why would that make you uncomfortable? If you really are seeking to understand the other side of the argument then you are going to have to READ from the other side. If you only want to read opinions on ID from an evolutionist's perspective the you will not do the topic justice.

[Catherine]

This.  I think it is reasonable to come to the "all knowing hive!" :lol:  to ask for website or book recommendations.  But while I have looked at some of the material out there, I am not an evolutionary biologist or even another type of scientist.  I'm not prepared to provide a lesson outline at a high school level or to answer questions beyond the superficial.  I wouldn't be able to do that in any science, btw no matter how much I agreed with it or didn't agree with it.  And while it is more than possible that someone else who is much more versed in the sciences than I am is on this board, your best bet is to go to the actual scientists to get your material.

Is there anyone here on the boards who can address the scientific basis for ID?

 

I would be surprised if there isn't. Many of us are conversant with the basic science of evolution. There must be someone who is familiar with the actual science.

[Ipsey]

Relevant to the position as a whole, but for the thought experiment proposed, that would be a follow-up discussion. The question, as I understand it, is how to produce a lesson plan on the scientific explanation of Intelligent Design (for the purposes of a science class), without debating the merits or credibility of this explanation (which is reserved for the end of the unit). As I was thinking about this question (fascinating, btw, Ruth), I had the same question. How would one propose to explain how (and eventually why) a mutation was purposefully designed? It's one thing to talk about albino alligators, another to talk about a beloved sibling with Down Syndrome. But how would the conversation go when dealing with a cousin who died of Tay Sachs, or the autistic uncle who killed his wife? But... these would be follow up questions, not explanations of the mechanics of ID, and the OP is looking for the explanations in a scientific context. 

 

It's a fascinating question, and so far, I've only ever encountered the explanation by virtue of suggesting the theory of evolution is not plausible. That is to say, I don't know of any evidence that supports such a hypothesis, and "It couldn't have just happened" isn't evidence. 

 

Of course Ruth could do all the research herself, but as this is a thought experiment and not a proposal designed for a real event, it makes sense to ask those who have already done this research for a summary.

 

 

I think it's a great question, too. 

I've only ever been offered one explanation for ID that wasn't just an argument against evolution--that being Irreducible Complexity, something proposed by Michael Behe. I think Ruth mentioned that, unless I'm mistaken.  That was something I really jumped onto when I was a Christian and trying to support a creationist stance.

 

I.C. found quite a bit of success among creationists in the US for a while, I don't know how it may have been viewed in other countries. However, at the time of the Dover trial, Behe had to concede that there were no peer reviewed scientific articles of his work, and I don't really know what's become of it since.

 

However, I think it's a great question, and I'm following it carefully, particularly since I used to be a YEC-er.

[nmoira]

Wait... Why would that make you uncomfortable? If you really are seeking to understand the other side of the argument then you are going to have to READ from the other side. If you only want to read opinions on ID from an evolutionist's perspective the you will not do the topic justice.

I think the idea is that ID does not presuppose a *divine* power. :)

[albeto.]

 I thought that ID proponents did not support speciation. Am I wrong?

 

I think that's not a universal belief for ID, and not necessarily true for YEC as well. The challenge is in understanding what the bible means by "kind" (as in, two of every kind of animal, male and female, came to Noah to board the ark). If "kind" means species, then speciation wouldn't be accepted. If, instead, "kind" refers to a broader classification (as in, all equine animals, all insects, etc), then speciation would be accepted. I'm gonna go see what Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis says about "kind," just for reference (and now I'm curious).

 

 

 

ETA: Following a link, I came to a Creation Research Society journal piece titled,

 

"An Initial Investigation into the Baraminology of Snakes: Order—Squamata, Suborder Serpentes," by Tom Hennigan

(CRSQ Vol 42 No 3 pp 153-160, December 2005)

 

 

Abstract

 

Evolution theory predicts that the ancestry of organisms can be traced down a hypothetical evolutionary tree and eventually back to the first living cell. Creation theory postulates that ancestry can be traced back only a limited distance to a starting organism of that type. Instead of a “tree†the creation model has a “forest†of unrelated organisms with vast genetic potential. I hypothesize that the snake taxon originated from one or more originally created “trees†or “kinds†that have diversified into the snakes of today and that snakes are unrelated to any other group.

 

I think you'll find there is no universal agreement within the ID community as to how classifications ought to be organized. There is no system of taxonomy, as far as I know. "Baraminology" is the term given to this study from a Creationist point of view, but that is a subset of Intelligent Design. So... long story short, I don't think there is any agreement yet. I'll be interested in knowing where I understand incorrectly. 

[garddwr]

I can see that population genetics and the species concepts could be shared topics. But Natural selection, genetic drift, the founder effect, population bottlenecks, and reproductive isolation are what lead species to diverge and speciate. I thought that ID proponents did not support speciation. Am I wrong?

 

Lewelma, I think it is Creationism that does not allow for speciation. I had understood that the intelligent design model does not necessarily reject this process.

[lewelma]

Wait... Why would that make you uncomfortable? If you really are seeking to understand the other side of the argument then you are going to have to READ from the other side. If you only want to read opinions on ID from an evolutionist's perspective the you will not do the topic justice.

Fair enough. I'll remind myself to keep an open mind. But I am not looking for evidence of god, I am looking to create a scientific unit on intelligent design. At least in my eyes, they are different. No?

[nmoira]

Lewelma, I think it is Creationism that does not allow for speciation. I had understood that the intelligent design model does not necessarily reject this process.

I think top there's a subset of ID proponents who put forth that there are barimins (that's almost certainly not the right word...) within which microevolution takes place.

 

ETA: It is the right spelling. :)

[albeto.]

I think the idea is that ID does not presuppose a *divine* power. :)

 

But for the purposes of offering a scientific explanation, it shouldn't matter where that information is found. Being found on a Christian site, pagan site, or even on white supremacy site, the location doesn't alter the validity of the scientific explanation itself. It should be easily confirmed in less biased places, but perhaps that has a good introduction.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Is there anyone here on the boards who can address the scientific basis for ID?

 

I would be surprised if there isn't. Many of us are conversant with the basic science of evolution. There must be someone who is familiar with the actual science.

I could give basic answers to basic questions, yes.  But if it came down to a "my evidence vs. your evidence" kind of an argument, as so often seems to happen, I am not willing to try and play an expert.  

[lewelma]

Sorry to say, I have to go to a music concert. Will be back in 3 hours if anyone is still awake.

 

Please keep this thread to the topic in the OP. I don't want to come back and see it disintegrating into an argument over the merits of ID.

 

Thanks,

 

Ruth in NZ

[Trish]

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

 

There is an answer to that, but it is theological rather than scientific, thus not appropriate in this thread.

 

:cheers2:

[albeto.]

I could give basic answers to basic questions, yes.  But if it came down to a "my evidence vs. your evidence" kind of an argument, as so often seems to happen, I am not willing to try and play an expert.  

 

This thread seems to be focused specifically on learning the scientific evidence offered for ID, not to challenge or require a defense of that evidence. I'd be interested in hearing it, too, and will be happy to respect these boundaries. 

[melmichigan]

I see very few references to ID outside of the US.  Are there links referring to the science of ID in other countries?

[Laurie4b]

I've never really delved into ID, so this may not fit the theory. (IOW, I don't really know what I'm talking about. However, that's not stopping me. ;) )  Francis Collins' book, The Language of God, might be a good resource. He believes in evolution that was directed by God. I guess that is theistic evolution, but it does imply design as well. Collins was the head of the Human Genome Project, so his credentials as a scientist are not at issue.

[JenniferB]

In no particular order:

 

1. Information imbedded within DNA strands and the observable organization of it.

2. The Cambrian explosion of life in the fossil record and the abscence of transitional forms preceding or following the period.

3. The finely tuned calibration of gravity as it sustains life on a both micro and macro level from the fusion of a star to the delicate facilitation of life on a microscopic scale.

4. The Big Bang creation event: emergence of all the energy in the universe from nothing, ie the law of conservation: energy can neither be created nor distroyed (The first law of thermodynamics)

5. (The second law of thermodynamics) A system left to its own devices will either degrade or decay into chaos without new information introduced into the system. (Laymen terms)

6. The study of human conscience and sentience and the improbability of it's random appearance.

7. The survey of irredecucible complexity within a given organism or biological system.

8. The symbiotic relationship of certain biological organisms and their inability to evolve independent of that relationship.

9. Uniquely anthropic quality of earth to sustain biological life with no other known qualified planetary candidates known to existence.

 

Along with many other topics, we could spend one or more years studying.

 

Sorry for rudimentary communication via my iPhone. Hehe.

[justasque]

Interesting exercise, OP.

I looked at one of the documents linked upthread.  There was really only one main section that addressed your question.  

 

As I read it, it goes something like this:
We can use the scientific method to test for intelligent design.
Observation:  We can observe that complicated things where we know the creator, like languages or codes, have been created by intelligent beings.  

Hypothesis:  So we hypothesize that if a thing in nature (about which we don't know the creator or creative process) has been designed by something intelligent, it will (or might?) be complicated.
Experiment:  To test this, we can look at various things in nature to see if they are sufficiently complicated.  If they *are* sufficiently complicated, then we can assume that they were created by something intelligent, because the other complicated things we know about (the ones where we know the creator) have been designed by an intelligent creator, so these must be too.  
So, basically, intelligent beings make complicated things, therefore complicated things must be made by intelligent beings.  (Or P-->Q, therefore Q--> P.)
But how do we know if something is complicated enough to have been intelligently designed?  The idea is that if it's so complicated that it wouldn't work without one of the parts, then it must have been created all at once, because there couldn't have been an intermediate step where one of the parts wasn't there.
Conclusion:  There are complicated things in nature.  Because the non-nature things that are complicated were made by intelligent beings, the nature things must also have been made by intelligent beings.

Frankly, this experiment does not seem to follow the scientific method as I understand it (though I am far from an expert), so it's not ideal for your hypothetical class.  The linked paper does not offer anything else as to the scientific case for ID.  This particular source does not seem rigorous/accurate/scientific enough for your hypothetical students.  Perhaps there is a better source for this idea of irreducible complexity, and/or one with additional scientific evidence/experiments in support of the ID hypothesis.  

Homework discussion questions for the above -
(Not seriously suggesting using these, as the source is not an example of good science.)

~ Interestingly, human-made complicated things like languages or codes usually aren't made all at once, but are incremental variations/improvements on prior versions.  Of course, versions that aren't as useful usually die with their creator.  And of course in some cases even good variations die out for other reasons; Betamax comes to mind.  How does this observation impact the conclusion in the ID experiment?

~ Is P-->Q, therefore Q--> P a true statement?  Give an example and use a Venn Diagram in your answer.

Observations: ID begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce specified complexity (also called complex and specified information, or “CSIâ€). (Something is complex if it is unlikely, and specified if it matches an independent pattern). ID theorist Stephen C. Meyer observes that, “Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source from a mind or personal agent.â€

Hypothesis: ID theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. 

Experiment: Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain CSI. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity (IC), which exists in systems composed of â€œseveral interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.†IC can be experimentally tested by reverseengineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. 

Conclusion: Irreducibly complex systems would be unlikely to evolve through a Darwinian process because there exists no evolutionary pathway wherein they could remain functional during each small evolutionary step.

IC is a reliable indicator of design because “n all irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation, intelligent design or engineering played a role the origin of the system.â€
When ID researchers find IC in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed. 

 

 

 

[garddwr]

I've never really delved into ID, so this may not fit the theory. (IOW, I don't really know what I'm talking about. However, that's not stopping me. ;) )  Francis Collins' book, The Language of God, might be a good resource. He believes in evolution that was directed by God. I guess that is theistic evolution, but it does imply design as well. Collins was the head of the Human Genome Project, so his credentials as a scientist are not at issue.

 

Theistic evolution is probably closest to the way I personally conceptualize things, I would like to read that book some time.

 

I suppose Intelligent Design is really quite a broad umbrella and could encompass a number of different viewpoints. I keep hoping some more knowledgeable people will contribute to this thread, but I suspect the majority of people on the board who might identify with the concept of intelligent design are more like me--people who believe theologically that God created the earth, believe that to some extent or another natural processes (such as evolution) did or might have played a part in that (as opposed to strict creationism which does not seem to require the involvement of natural processes), but are not concerned with finding supporting evidence of a scientific nature for theological beliefs. I am personally content to let faith be the basis of theology and science be the basis of my understanding of the natural world, without seeking a specific reconciliation of the two at this time.

 

All of which goes to say that I have tried to contribute my own thoughts to this discussion because I find it interesting and because at least I am helping to keep the conversation going, not because I am an expert.

[Heartsjoy]

 I thought that ID proponents did not support speciation. Am I wrong?

 

OK you got me hungry to go read. I just read 3 chapters on this in Shepherd Biology. ID from that source includes examples of one dog ancestor forming many dogs through natural selection and  mutations, especially considering hotspot mutation areas in Drosophila melanogaster and Darwin's variety of finches. Nice visual comparison of ID "orchard" and evolution "tree" to show different theories to species.

 

 

Other topics covered:

One interesting area was  the hierarchy of information and how to define information.

Specified complexity was another topic; an example was the enzyme ATP synthase.

Discussion of types of mutations and the frequency of new trait giving information compared with beneficial mutations, exchanges (bacteria resistance to antibiotics), deletions, and duplications.

Comparative embryology and comparative genetics were also discussed.

 

Overall I've gleaned a much more clearly defined idea of what at least one ID author sees natural selection as capable of and incapable of.

[Jean in Newcastle]

As garrdwr said, I.D. is a broad umbrella that can encompass a number of things.  But the basic tenants are that there is design evident in nature rather than randomness including mutation and that there is purpose in that design.  Much of evolution can fit under the umbrella of I.D. as long as it doesn't contradict the basic tenants.  To go beyond that to where the design came from or what the purpose is, goes outside of I.D., as I understand it.  You can be a Theistic evolutionist and be under the umbrella of I.D.  You can be a Young-Earth Creationist and be under the umbrella of I.D.  But they are very different from each other in how they think that nature developed.  So in one sense, you would not be able to provide a full-blown definition of natural biological development using I.D. alone.  You can, however, provide information on what natural processes demonstrate design and purpose.  

[Aelwydd]

Regarding the issue with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I would suggest this cogent summation (from a Cornell astronomer) of how evolution does not, in fact, violate that law.  You mentioned that you would establish the evidence for each theory, and then spend a day or two comparing the relative strengths and weaknesses of each case, and entertaining debate at that point.  This would be a good time to clear up the aforementioned common misunderstanding regarding evolution.

[CupOCoffee]

:bigear:

 

(and reading as  many as these links/articles as I can before my eyes start bleeding)

 

~coffee~

[Jean in Newcastle]

I see very few references to ID outside of the US.  Are there links referring to the science of ID in other countries?

There are Muslims who believe in Intelligent Design (Adnan Oktar, Fethullah Gulen are the names that come up in relation to that).

 

David Berlinski (who is American) but is a Jewish agnostic mathematician is a proponent of ID (just to answer someone else who implied that it was only a Christian idea).  

[Dory]

I can see that population genetics and the species concepts could be shared topics. But Natural selection, genetic drift, the founder effect, population bottlenecks, and reproductive isolation are what lead species to diverge and speciate. I thought that ID proponents did not support speciation. Am I wrong?

 

I was taught (if I'm remembering right), that each animal after it's own kind didn't necessarily mean species. There might have been one animals for the order Perissodactyla and from that came all the different species. I was raised in a young earth creationist household. I'm not entirely sure where I stand on any of it at this time.  I know there were some excellent points that I was taught at one time but now I'll have to dig through some of my old papers to refind them.

[lewelma]

Well I have been reading all the links, and I have one major question.

 

Does the concept of intellegent design require a young earth?

 

Or are all you are asking me to do is state that what appears to be random mutations could be changes directed by a higher being. And all other aspects of Evolution are considered true? So basically, I can teach evolution as I know it, and then say in a 15-minute conversation that no one knows whether the mis-copies of DNA are undirected or directed? Really? Is that the only thing we are arguing about? I don't think so.

 

So many of the ID resources that I have been sent to are saying that ID advocates need to drop the young earth assumption. That life does change. That species do appear. That there is descent from a common ancestor. That the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

 

But then I come to the board and people are talking about Adam and Eve and 6000 years and the constancy of creation.

 

How are these reconciled? And which am I supposed to teach about ID in my high school biology class?

 

Please please clarify!

 

Ruth in NZ

[lewelma]

In no particular order:

 

1. Information imbedded within DNA strands and the observable organization of it.

2. The Cambrian explosion of life in the fossil record and the abscence of transitional forms preceding or following the period.

3. The finely tuned calibration of gravity as it sustains life on a both micro and macro level from the fusion of a star to the delicate facilitation of life on a microscopic scale.

4. The Big Bang creation event: emergence of all the energy in the universe from nothing, ie the law of conservation: energy can neither be created nor distroyed (The first law of thermodynamics)

5. (The second law of thermodynamics) A system left to its own devices will either degrade or decay into chaos without new information introduced into the system. (Laymen terms)

6. The study of human conscience and sentience and the improbability of it's random appearance.

7. The survey of irredecucible complexity within a given organism or biological system.

8. The symbiotic relationship of certain biological organisms and their inability to evolve independent of that relationship.

9. Uniquely anthropic quality of earth to sustain biological life with no other known qualified planetary candidates known to existence.

 

Along with many other topics, we could spend one or more years studying.

 

Sorry for rudimentary communication via my iPhone. Hehe.

Hallelujah. Thanks for this. Off to research.....

[Laura Corin]

I see very few references to ID outside of the US.  Are there links referring to the science of ID in other countries?

 

I think it might be taught in some private schools in the UK.  There was a ruling that no publicly funded school could teach creationism or ID, or they would risk losing funding.

 

There's an organisation called 'Truth in Science' that has sent materials to all the sixth forms in the UK.  They might have materials that would help the OP.

 

L

[lewelma]

1. Information imbedded within DNA strands and the observable organization of it.

I don't understand this. could you please clarify how this links to ID.

 

 

2. The Cambrian explosion of life in the fossil record and the abscence of transitional forms preceding or following the period.

I have heard this. I don't know of a lack of transitional forms. Could you please tell me where they are.

 

 

3. The finely tuned calibration of gravity as it sustains life on a both micro and macro level from the fusion of a star to the delicate facilitation of life on a microscopic scale.

 

I have seen other mention of this more generalerlized point - that the earth is in a very very unlikely sweet spot. I'm good with saying that this is a tick for ID.

 

 

4. The Big Bang creation event: emergence of all the energy in the universe from nothing, ie the law of conservation: energy can neither be created nor distroyed (The first law of thermodynamics)

Sorry, not in biology class. Save it for earth science.

 

5. (The second law of thermodynamics) A system left to its own devices will either degrade or decay into chaos without new information introduced into the system. (Laymen terms)

 

I really really don't get this. I have read it in the links and it does not make sense to me. Please explain.

 

 

6. The study of human conscience and sentience and the improbability of it's random appearance.

 

Oh, I like this. Science can't explain it. partial tick for ID, but might be lost as more scientific research is done.

 

 

7. The survey of irredecucible complexity within a given organism or biological system.

 

I have seen this point before this thread. But I have never seen convincing evidence of it. I had a PhD question on my Oral Exams "why don't gazelles have wheels? They are much faster than legs" The answer being because there is no intermediary of wheels, but there is an intermediary of legs - shorter legs. Can you give an example that fits this hypothesis?

 

 

8. The symbiotic relationship of certain biological organisms and their inability to evolve independent of that relationship.

 

yup, I put this as Day 1 upthread. I can argue a different explaination. But I will let it stand.

 

 

9. Uniquely anthropic quality of earth to sustain biological life with no other known qualified planetary candidates known to existence.

this I put in the same class as #3. I'm happy to give it to ID.

 

 

So my current plan is still limited because I don't know whether I have a young earth or an old earth, but here is the current teaching plan....

 

Day 1. Symbiotic relationships demonstrate ID

Day 2. The unlikely probability of the earth forming in its sweet spot (not really biology, but I'm ok with it) + lack of transitional forms in the fossil record (really there is no lack of transitional forms, so not sure I can teach this with sincerity)

Day 3. Consciounesss, and Ir-reducable complexity - although I need some examples, because I don't know of any.

 

I will say, that I find it interesting and/or frustrating that I am creating this curriculum. There must be someone who has taught ID that can do this work for me!

 

 

Ruth in NZ

[lewelma]

There's an organisation called 'Truth in Science' that has sent materials to all the sixth forms in the UK.  They might have materials that would help the OP.

Thanks, Laura. I went and read a bunch of the site.

 

But boy oh boy do I hate the 'teach the controversy'. Um no. Teach the scientific evidence of the Theory of Evolution and the concept of Intelligent Design. Kids need facts, concepts, and explanations. Controversy and persuasive writing is for *after* the basics have been learned.

 

I want the basics of ID. And I cannot tell, right now, if there is a standard form, or if different groups are supporting different concepts. It is *not* clear.

[lewelma]

Good thing you are all asleep (except Laura, good morning to you and good night to me). It is giving me a chance to catch up.

[Laura Corin]

Good thing you are all asleep (except Laura, good morning to you and good night to me). It is giving me a chance to catch up.

 

Night, Lewelma.  Sweet dreams!

 

L

[lewelma]

I think this website would be great for some information: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/index.html

The information is pretty heavy, but I'm sure you can pare it down and rephrase it to the level of your students.

I have spent an hour at this site. And I am *very* confused. Here is a quote from one of the first articles:

 

"In an attempt to be all-inclusive, most ID proponents have failed to

 

define the Intelligent Designer

reject young-earth creationism

 

A nebulous theory can never be tested. The Designer must be proposed or there will be no model to test. Most of the potential Designers are described in religious works that contain statements about the natural world that can be tested against the record of the natural world. For this reason, it is necessary to identify the Designer. Because of the failure to reject the poor "science" of young earth creationism, ID has been labeled as a repackaging of scientific creationism. Deceptive or unsupported "science" cannot be allowed to be part of ID or the entire concept will be discredited."

 

 

So am I teaching an Old Earth?  ID does *not* require Young Earth?

 

 

This site also requires bible-based evidence.  I don't think you can have a state-sponsored religion, so ID needs to bigger than a bible-base idea.

 

The intelligent Designer is identified as the Creator God of the Bible. The biblical model of creation is detailed in that the major creation events are listed in a temporal sequence. Dozens of creation passages make specific claims about the nature of the world. The model can be refined by putting together all the biblical creation passages into a coherent, detailed model. Many skeptics claim that ID models cannot be tested, but then go on to state that the biblical descriptions of nature are incorrect. You can't have it both ways! A biblically-based ID model is eminently testable and falsifiable. Contrary to the claims of opponents, the biblical model does make predictions. For example, it claims that all men are descended from one man, Noah, whereas women come from up to 4 different blood lines (see Genesis 6).

 

I can't teach this in a USA high school biology classroom.  I'm sure you understand.  I cannot favor one religion over another.

 

 

 

 

Ok, next site http://www.evolution...schoolguide.pdf says this:

 

As an historical science, ID employs the principle of uniformitarianism, which holds that the present is the key to the past.

 

 

 

So, I am seriously not being argumentative.  Is ID a standard concept?  Or is it many concepts? Is speciation allowed or not? What am I to teach in my high school biology class for my unit on Intelligent Design?  The sites that I have been given to read are NOT consistant in their presentation. Please clarify!

 

I want to spend more time on the above pdf.  But I need to go to bed.

 

 

Please keep this thread civil!  The goal is *not* to debunk ID!  But rather to seek to understand.

 

Ruth in NZ

[lewelma]

Ok, I tell you what... If you are sincere about teaching ID respectfully, then tomorrow when I go back to work, I will pull up our curriculum guide for biology and send you the topics we teach for evolution and ID. We have a 100% pass rate for the AP Bio exam so it is possible to include ID (and even creation theories for our school) and still produce students with excellent scientific knowledge.

 

Heather, I am a teacher.  I am not a dictator, but rather a facilator. I truly believe that you must understand where your students are coming from to help them to move to the next level. Please post your curriculum guide for ID.  I am sincerely interested. 

 

Ruth in NZ

[kiwik]

In no particular order:

 

1. Information imbedded within DNA strands and the observable organization of it.

2. The Cambrian explosion of life in the fossil record and the abscence of transitional forms preceding or following the period.

3. The finely tuned calibration of gravity as it sustains life on a both micro and macro level from the fusion of a star to the delicate facilitation of life on a microscopic scale.

4. The Big Bang creation event: emergence of all the energy in the universe from nothing, ie the law of conservation: energy can neither be created nor distroyed (The first law of thermodynamics)

5. (The second law of thermodynamics) A system left to its own devices will either degrade or decay into chaos without new information introduced into the system. (Laymen terms)

6. The study of human conscience and sentience and the improbability of it's random appearance.

7. The survey of irredecucible complexity within a given organism or biological system.

8. The symbiotic relationship of certain biological organisms and their inability to evolve independent of that relationship.

9. Uniquely anthropic quality of earth to sustain biological life with no other known qualified planetary candidates known to existence.

 

Along with many other topics, we could spend one or more years studying.

 

Sorry for rudimentary communication via my iPhone. Hehe.

That would work for the equal time. I don't get why science and religion should have equal time in a science class but that would be a good list of topics. My current take is that life is inherently unlikely whichever way you look at it.

[WishboneDawn]

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.

She's asking as a hypothetical exercise, perhaps partially to foster some respectful discussion here, not because she really intends to teach that class.

 

It's been an interesting and respectful discussion because of the way she framed her question and I appreciate it.

[Free]

I have spent an hour at this site. And I am *very* confused. Here is a quote from one of the first articles:

 

So am I teaching an Old Earth?  ID does *not* require Young Earth?

 

So, I am seriously not being argumentative.  Is ID a standard concept?  Or is it many concepts? Is speciation allowed or not? What am I to teach in my high school biology class for my unit on Intelligent Design?  The sites that I have been given to read are NOT consistant in their presentation. Please clarify!

 

I want to spend more time on the above pdf.  But I need to go to bed.

 

 

Please keep this thread civil!  The goal is *not* to debunk ID!  But rather to seek to understand.

 

Ruth in NZ

 

Ruth,

 

ID is purportedly not YEC (though it is mostly YECists that seem to latch on to ID). ID does not require a belief in young earth.

 

Most YEC organizations in recent times have come to realize that it would be absurd to continue rejecting speciation in the face of the observed species diversification in both the lab as well as the wild and have therefore shifted their definitions of "biblical kinds" from species to genus/order/family whichever seems convenient for their purpose and have redefined microevolution to include such speciation events.

 

This gives ID proponents some leeway with regards to speciation so that they can remain deliberately obscure on whether ID accepts common descent. Most of the language used on ID sites can be interpreted both as accepting of the ToE as well as rejecting it.

 

ID, as I understand it rests on the idea of trying to detect design. ID theorists have not proposed a coherent theory on how design can be detected in nature, they have just proposed the idea that if something looks very complex it is probably designed.

 

One of the ways to detect complexity and therefore design is to identify irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity is the idea that some processes / structures in nature are so complex that, should there be even a single component missing, the process / structure would not function anymore. ID proponents believe that this shows that such structures or processes could not have evolved because there would not have been a functional primitive form. This then leads to the idea that they must have been therefore designed.

 

I am unaware if any other ways of detecting complexity, other than irreducible complexity, have been proposed by the ID community. Maybe somebody can chime in.

[flyingiguana]

 

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.

 

 

That may be the problem right there -- the arguments I've seen for ID always seem to be an argument against evolution.  It doesn't really stand on its own.  The only way I could see to teach it would be to compare to evolution at each point.

 

ID doesn't have as much evidence, so spending the same amount of time on it would be overkill.  And the evidence is, frankly, in the Bible.  It is possible to bring the Bible into the classroom as literature or in comparative religion classes.  I think the argument is whether you can bring it in as scientific evidence.  At that point, the separation of church and state becomes an issue.  Experts in the fields of religion and literature have agreed it IS religion and it IS literature, so its ok to teach it as such.  But experts in science don't call it science, so one can't really bring it into the classroom as scientific evidence without implying that one is giving that particular religion a leg up, as it were.

 

I'm just rambling out loud.  Does any of that make sense?

 

Creationism is much easier to teach because you just point to the evidence (the Bible) and that's that.  ID is more difficult because it seems to want to get away from using the Bible as evidence, but the only evidence FOR ID is... the Bible.  The arguments that are supposedly based in science aren't really supportable -- despite all the ink that's been spilled in trying to make them seem that way.  So someone teaching science is going to have a really hard time presenting this to a class.  Unless they just gloss over stuff.  Teaching evolution takes time because the concepts need to be explained.  Teaching ID should probably take a lot less time.  Because if the concepts were explained carefully, it would become obvious that they weren't well supported.

 

As a scientist, I am more convinced by creationism than ID.  The evidence is what is (the Bible)and there's no attempt to obfuscate.  ID seems more like it's trying to convince using confusion.  With creationism, one can either accept or reject the evidence.  It's harder to figure out what's going on with ID, so it's hard to know if the hypothesis makes any sense. 

 

Just to be clear, it's not that I accept creationism.  Using the Bible as evidence seems extremely weak.  But as evidence it is more clear than what is used by ID.  ID doesn't really have evidence (except the Bible).  All it has is re-interpretation of the evidence that's already been used to support evolution.  And it's having an uphill battle convincing many scientists that that reinterpretation is at all valid.

 

Once again, though, that would argue for teaching ID right alongside evolution instead of as a separate topic.  It needs the framework of evolution there in order to make any sense at all.

 

 

On the subject of mutation -- does ID say that all "mutations" are currently in the genome?  They're just waiting to be discovered?  I put mutation in quotes in this context because something that's already there isn't really a mutation.  A mutation is a change from what was there before.  If that is what it's saying, they shouldn't be using the word mutation.  It's a different concept.

 

[Free]

Very eloquent post flyingiguana. And regarding your last point about mutations - huh - that is interesting and I had not given thought to it. If mutations are not random, but rather designed as ID claims then who is doing the designing right now?