Should Intelligent Design be allowed in classrooms?

[otseng]

Should Intelligent Design be allowed to be taught in schools (public high schools)?
Should it be taught as science or some other subject area?

Please also provide your reasoning to your answers.

I suspect that this thread will cover similar ground as the Should Creationism be taught in classrooms? topic. For the ambitious, you might want to browse through that thread. But, one thing I do ask is to please provide logical arguments to your answers instead of making any blanket statements.

[QED]

What is "intelligent design"? The teaching of something implies that there is a suitably codified system to be taught. I can understand how this applies to mathematics which can be transcribed into rules and methods as can physics, metalworking, physical fitness etc. You might say it can be taught as evolution is taught in biology class, but then what is there to say other than "it might be that a God made everything the way it is"? Intelligent Design does not appear to describe any process or method -- nor does it seem to make useful predictions, and neither should it be confined to Biology. I think it only has a place in Philosophy where it might be considered as an explanation for existence in general. I don't know if this sort of class is held in public high schools though.

I think in reality ID only exists as a flawed critique of evolutionary theory, a critique that can ultimately only ever stand on philosophical legs.

[Jose]

Sure, let's teach it. It should be part of a class on Comparative Religion, or Religious History of the World, or some such. It's certainly historical, having begun with Paley's 1802 book, Natural Theology. The basic argument remains the same as Paley's.

I would strongly recommend not discussing it in science classes. Why? Because the three basic arguments for it have serious problems:

Irreducible Complexity is the argument that really complicated things cannot have arisen by evolution. Behe "proves" this by demonstrating that it is essentially impossible for all of the genes involved to appear all at once, and create the complicated thing under investigation. He categoricallly dismisses the idea that less-efficient versions of complicated things could have preceded them, or that other less complicated things could have been co-opted for a new function--yet, these are the mechanisms of evolution, which does not work by his hypothetical mechanism. Thus, he disproves a model that we already know is wrong and does not address the actual theory of evolution.

Complex Specified Information is the argument that information (ie DNA sequences) is too complex to have arisen by evolution. Dembski "proves" this by demonstrating that it is essentially impossible for all of the DNA bases to arrange themselves in the correct order all at once. He "proves" that the known mechanism of evolution could never start with gibberish (or very simple sequences) and inevitably create human DNA. His model of evolution requires that the information now present was specified from the beginning; his model is that evolution has a goal, and tries to achieve that goal. Unfortunately, the mechanism of evolution cannot achieve goals. His model is wrong. Thus, like Behe, he disproves a model that we already know is wrong and does not address the actual theory of evolution.

The Default to Design is the argument that, if we do not know the entire sequence of events that gave rise to the evolution of a particular thing, then we must conclude that it is unknowable, and therefore the result of supernatural design. This is just plain silly. Basically, it says that if we know 9 of 10 steps in a process, we must conclude that the process cannot happen, and god did it. There is no allowance for the possibility that, maybe, someone currently in 7th grade will, in a few years, figure out the last of those 10 steps. There is real danger in this Default to Design argument: it says that if we don't know something now, we can never know it, and should abandon the search for answers. This is not just an argument against evolution, but an argument against all of science. As reported in this week's Time Magazine, the US is rapidly losing ground to Europe and Asia in its scientific and technological accomplishments. The TIMSS studies put our kids' science knowledge at about average worldwide--on a par with Uganda. Will we be able to recover, and regain our previous position of world pre-eminence? Or will we continue to fall behind, eventually to be a follower, a consumer of scientific and technological innovation from overseas? Or, to take the ID argument to its extreme, will we no longer care, because the only thing anyone learns will be religious dogma? [This is an extreme scenario, I admit, but it is worth considering. After all, this is what happened to Islamic science, which once dominated the world, but in many cases has now retreated into religious dogma.]

So, should ID be mentioned in science classes? The first two arguments above suggest not. The outcome of a thorough analysis of these arguments would be to reveal ID as a charade. Its fancy mathematics and presumed scientific support are based either on misunderstanding of evolution by ID proponents, or on purposeful misrepresentation of evolution. Either way, students would learn that ID has no scientific support--and they might wonder why it has been brought into the classroom. Worse, the scientific analysis of ID could undermine students' religious convictions. In my view, this would be far worse than not mentioning religious issues at all.

The third argument above also suggests that ID not be mentioned in science classes. That argument is not science, but the abandonment of science. "Here's something we don't know... ...it must have been designed! No further questions. Everyone go home."

The Bottom Line is that science cannot address teleology. It cannot address supernatural designers, or their motivation for whatever they might do. These issues are beyond scientific methodology. Why don't non-scientists admit that science has serious limitations, and simply cannot address these things?

Designers, First Causes, and all that sort of thing are well worth discussing in schools. People care a lot about them. Because they are beyond the scope of science, science cannot say anything about them--but philosophy and religion can. Let's address them in classes dedicated to these subjects. Having said this, I hear another question forming in my mind, and would like to add it to the discussion: If ID is taught in a class on religion, will people object to the discussion of many religions rather than just their particular denomination?

[Cathar1950]

I tend to think that it should be taught in religion class or even politics but maybe as poor science as an example of people coming to conclusions based on poor data, interpretion and bias.
Some scholars in religion complain that much of the scientific study of religion or texts often are bias and have preconceived notions that are never questions due to a persons faith.

[ST88]

I think it should be mentioned in history classes or comparative religion classes alongside a discussion of how the various Creationism flavors have evolved and diverged over the years. Also, it can be taught in law classes for the cases in which it was an issue.

[McCulloch]

Should Intelligent Design be allowed to be taught in schools (public high schools)?
Should it be taught as science or some other subject area?

Intelligent Design does not fit the definition of science, so it should not be taught as science. The judiciary agrees with me.
ID could have a place in a study of the history of philosophy. Except I never noticed that my high school offered a history of philosophy. It could be taught in comparative religions or as a counter-example in critical thinking.

[Cathar1950]

Maybe it should be a part of AI(artificial Intelligence). It is a thought. But it goes back to what is Intelligence and we have some great threads on that.
I wonder if the universe has Intelligence. We are here and it could be.
Some time the universe seems like an inquisitive child such as evolution.
Maybe it isn't mutation but a kid with a chemistry set.
And a physics lab and stuff like tubes.

[Nyril]

I would personally allow anything into a classroom so long as the age and setting was appropriate. Almost instantly of course you should be saying, "But what about..." and my answer will be yes, so long as the setting and age was appropriate.

By setting of course I mean the context, I would encourage the bible in the classroom at a 9th grade level in a class about the history of the bible in comparison to world politics. This might cover such things as to the political reasons for so many versions of it, as well as its source of influence. In one class we learned that the bible was the basic textbook used to teach reading skills to young children. Things like that might actually be useful.

As far as science class goes, I will need to say no for now. Until you can actually sit down and tell me what Intelligent Design teaches, there isn't a chance you're able to sit down and explain it to a classroom of children. As far as I can tell, Intelligent Design is entirely about complaints directed in the general direction of evolution, and does not really have any substance by itself. Once you can tell me however, then we can discuss it, and consider it.

[otseng]

Should Intelligent Design be allowed to be taught in schools (public high schools)?

Yes, it should be allowed to be taught. As I've mentioned about creationism, I do not believe it should be taught, but if a local school board wants to add it to its curriculum, it should be allowed to do so. There should be no need for the court system to intervene.

Should it be taught as science or some other subject area?

I like McCulloch's suggestion on presenting it as a counter-example in critical thinking. I think this is where the value lies in allowing ID in schools.

I do not think ID is a replacement for evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory should continue to be taught in schools. But, I believe critical thinking should be encouraged to allow students to learn to think for themselves.

I believe there are students that are interested in this issue and would like to discuss this. So, I do not see any reason why discussing ID should be forbidden. The main reason I see for not allowing it would be a lack of qualified, unbiased teachers to present the information. But, if there exists a qualified and unbiased teacher, then the school should be allowed to teach it.

If ID is taught in a class on religion, will people object to the discussion of many religions rather than just their particular denomination?

I do not believe ID should be taught as a religion class. Though there are obviously theological implications to ID, it is not a study of god. Nor are any religious texts ever referred to in ID. So, teaching ID in a religion class would be misplacing it.

(BTW, thanks for all the responses so far. They have been a good demonstration of logic and civility.)

[Jose]

Thanks, otseng. It is always a pleasure discussing things with you.

Yes, it should be allowed to be taught. As I've mentioned about creationism, I do not believe it should be taught, but if a local school board wants to add it to its curriculum, it should be allowed to do so. There should be no need for the court system to intervene.

There is merit in this view, but there are several obstacles that can be predicted to arise. One is that some parents may--as some have already--see it as an inappropriate intrusion of religion into the classroom. Given our nasty approach to problem-solving, this will lead to lawsuits (as it has). The second obstacle is that its lack of science would take away time from valid scientific topics in science classes, while its claimed lack of focus would take away time from discussion of valid religions in religion classes. And, of course, its proponents want it to be in science classes as the alternative to evolution, which, as I showed above, it is not. Nyril expressed the critical problem well:

As far as I can tell, Intelligent Design is entirely about complaints directed in the general direction of evolution, and does not really have any substance by itself.

This summarizes what I tried to say by way of example. ID offers arguments (complaints) about evolution (albeit arguments that are demonstrably wrong). Its endpoint is "therefore there is design." But, what is there to teach about this? Is there more to it than saying "or maybe it was designed"?

I like McCulloch's suggestion on presenting it as a counter-example in critical thinking. I think this is where the value lies in allowing ID in schools.

It is true that the ID proponents have put forward their Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson plan, implying that there is critical thinking involved. Regrettably, this lesson plan (and especially the "helpful hints for teachers" that go along with it) misrepresents the science, as demonstrated in this annotated version. They change terminology, they make false statements, and they fail to understand actual evolutionary theory. Like Behe and Dembski, they rail against a false model.

I fear that the hope of the greater ID community in pressing for inclusion of ID in science classrooms, or as critical thinking, is that neither the students nor the teachers will understand evolution well enough to see the errors in the ID presentation. However, if discussion of ID becomes a part of science classes, the professional journals will begin to discuss it seriously. The errors and misrepresentations will become well known, and they will be taught as the "critical thinking" aspect, with ID being the example of a failure of critical thought. The end result will be a much better understanding of evolution by the students, and a very clear understanding of ID's lack of substance.

I do not think ID is a replacement for evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory should continue to be taught in schools. But, I believe critical thinking should be encouraged to allow students to learn to think for themselves.

I argue that the way to do this is not to parade emotionally-charged models before the students, but to provide them with the actual data. What are the observations? What are the facts? What explanations do the students develop themselves? Some of 'em may conclude that some kind of change through time is the best explanation. Some of 'em may conclude that supernatural intervention must be required (i.e. an intelligent designer). Fine. Now they are prepared to discuss the interesting question of what additional information they'd need to distinguish between the two possibilities. Is the information known? It will turn out that for both models there is information that is not known. Once they've come this far, they will, indeed, be able to think for themselves.

I believe there are students that are interested in this issue and would like to discuss this. So, I do not see any reason why discussing ID should be forbidden. The main reason I see for not allowing it would be a lack of qualified, unbiased teachers to present the information. But, if there exists a qualified and unbiased teacher, then the school should be allowed to teach it.

There is already no problem with discussing it. Students are free to ask questions...[well, maybe this isn't really the case. The tradition in teaching, held over from the last chentury or two, is that students must sit in their chairs quietly doing their lessons. In a classroom that is run this way, students are not allowed to ask questions about anything.]...but answering questions and discussing controversies is not the same as "teaching" the topic. "Teaching" usually means "presenting information that students must learn." Teaching ID in its current form would, therefore, be teaching that evolution is wrong, and that we have no idea what really happened (ie, someone, we don't know who, did stuff, we don't know what or how). It would be kinda hard to teach evolution alongside teaching anti-evolution. This might be different if ID actually had a theory that could be taught, or if it had some kind of logical basis that's not based on invalid logic, but alas, 'tis not so.

I do not believe ID should be taught as a religion class. Though there are obviously theological implications to ID, it is not a study of god. Nor are any religious texts ever referred to in ID. So, teaching ID in a religion class would be misplacing it.

But religions are not solely dedicated to their gods. There is far more. If there weren't, there would be no evolution/creation controversy, and no fights over abortion and gay marriage. A religion is an entire world view. Nominally, that world view is based upon whichever gods did the Big Stuff long ago, and handed us our rules, but day-to-day religion devolves into how one should live one's life. ID does kinda fit in here. Its proponents claim that their efforts have proven the existence of, or need for, some kind of god. Thus, ID is the promotion of a religious world view. While they give lip-service to the idea that they don't favor any particular god, the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document makes it very clear that they are talking about replacing science with biblical theology. The generic, we-don't-know-which god is the thin edge of the wedge that is supposed to get creationism back into the schools so that it can expand logically to its correct biblical truth.

Overall, you've raised an interesting question. In general, scientists tend to say "no problem" about teaching ID, as long as it's where it should be--philosophy or comparative religion. Creationists tend to say "it must be in science classes," and they tend to be horrified at the prospect of bringing in other religions or other philosophies.

But, back to a point you raised earlier: "if a local school board wants to add it to its curriculum, it should be allowed to do so." This should be true for "elective" courses. But, for the core courses upon which our nation's viability depends (English, Math, History, Science, etc) there are essential elements that simply must be taught. To do otherwise is to deprive students of the ability to succeed as adults in an increasingly complex world. Admittedly, we're doing a lousy job with most of these essential elements--but doesn't that mean they should be strengthened, rather than replaced? [I recognize that you said "add" rather than "add, and remove something else," but the unpleasant reality is that there is already too much in the curriculum to do justice to it. Adding something necessarily forces the reduction or elimination of one or more things that are already present.]

In practice, this represents teaching ID vs teaching evolution. We should ask which of these will give students the ability to overcome as-yet unknown problems that will develop in their lifetimes? Evolutionary theory is essential for the development of new drugs, the understanding and cure of inherited diseases, overcoming antibiotic resistance of pathogens, identifying and curing emerging diseases, developing better crops to feed the starving world, understanding past climate change the better to predict our fate during the current climate change, etc. ID is essential for saying "I already understand everying--it was designed this way."