{"id":153,"date":"2014-01-31T18:26:45","date_gmt":"2014-01-31T18:26:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/e-teaching.org.uk\/?p=153"},"modified":"2014-01-31T18:26:45","modified_gmt":"2014-01-31T18:26:45","slug":"intelligent-design-v-evolution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/webucation.org\/?p=153","title":{"rendered":"Intelligent Design v Evolution?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n
\n

\"scieducation001\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Science Education, Intelligent Design and Creationism<\/strong><\/p>\n

Is there a place for\u00a0Intelligent Design<\/strong>\u00a0in a school Science Curriculum?<\/p>\n

The teaching of evolution is well embedded in the science curriculum in the UK.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The\u00a0Association for Science Education<\/a>, \u00a0has issued\u00a0a statement<\/a>\u00a0relating to the o\u00adngoing , often heated, discussion related to Intelligent Design and Science Education ………………<\/p>\n

Should Intelligent Design find a place in school science education?<\/strong><\/p>\n

” The rationale for science education involves the stimulation and motivation of young people towards appreciating and understanding some of the key ideas in science. \u00a0It aims to engage them in exploring first hand the processes of science through experimentation, investigation, argument, and modelling thereby teaching them how science works in both an historical context and within the social community which is science. \u00a0In doing so, science education explores the relationships between evidence and theory whilst appreciating the provisional nature of scientific \u2018knowledge\u2019. \u00a0Such an education should prepare learners to be confident in engaging with scientific issues and be able to take a critical approach when evaluating claims which are \u2018scientific\u2019, thereby making an assessment of what might be seen as \u2018good science\u2019 and \u2018poor science\u2019. \u00a0<\/em>When set against this rationale it is clear to us that Intelligent Design has no grounds for sharing a platform as a scientific \u2018theory\u2019. \u00a0It has no underpinning scientific principles or explanations to support it. Furthermore it is not accepted as a competing scientific theory by the international science community nor is it part of the science curriculum. It is not science at all. \u00a0Intelligent Design belongs to a different domain and should not be presented to learners as a competing or alternative scientific idea. \u00a0As such, Intelligent Design has no place in the science education of young people in school.\u00a0<\/em>“<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The full statement from the ASE is available\u00a0here<\/a>\u00a0. \u00a0Additional statements which are aligned with this ASE position have been made by the Interacademy Panel; a global network of the world\u2019s science academies, and by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). \u00a0These can be obtained from \u00a0http:\/\/www.sciencecouncil.org\/content\/scientific-opinion-creationism-and-intelligent-design<\/a>
\n<\/a><\/p>\n

There is a strong movement in the USA that argues that\u00a0 Intelligent Design (ID) needs to be discussed alongside evolution in science lessons.\u00a0 Indeed, President George Bush even entered the ‘forum’, by suggesting that ID should be discussed alongside the theory of evolution. \u00a0A report of his statement can be found o\u00adn\u00a0MSNBC<\/a>\u00a0.<\/p>\n

The overwhelming majority of\u00a0 science teachers in the USA argue that there is no place for ID in science, since it cannot be tested scientifically.\u00a0 Indeed, it is commonly regarded as pseudoscience or junk science by the vast majority of biology teachers.\u00a0 Furthermore, the\u00a0U.S. National Academy of Sciences<\/a>\u00a0states that intelligent design\u00a0is not\u00a0science because\u00a0it cannot be tested scientifically , by\u00a0experiment<\/a>, and it does not\u00a0give rise to\u00a0any predictions or provide a\u00a0hypothesis<\/a>\u00a0.\u00a0William Dembski<\/a>, who is o\u00adne of ID’s leading proponents, stated that :<\/p>\n

“there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence.”<\/em><\/p>\n

Where is the\u00a0evidence<\/span>\u00a0for\u00a0ID?\u00a0 Unlike\u00a0mainstream science, where evidence is collected by carrying out experiments and data is collected, \u00a0the\u00a0proponents of of\u00a0 ID look for complexities and mechanisms. \u00a0They\u00a0 then \u00a0infer, from the sheer complexity, that they must have been designed. \u00a0This ‘evidence’ is often referred to as look for\u00a0“signs of intelligence”<\/i>\u00a0 \u00a0The proponents look for\u00a0one or more signs of a design, which are refered to as\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0irreducible complexity<\/a>,\u00a0information<\/a>\u00a0mechanisms, and\u00a0specified complexity<\/a>. \u00a0They argue that such complexity or mechanism could not have been the result of\u00a0 \u00a0mutations<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0natural selection<\/a>\u00a0. \u00a0Therefore, it appears to many opponents to ID that in order to classify ID as a ‘science’, the proponents of ID have merely redefined ‘science’, thereby attempting to press a case for discussions with science in schools.<\/p>\n

Of course, the signs of a design requires a designer. \u00a0Although God is not specifically stated, many\u00a0opponents argue that it is difficult to imagine \u00a0how any entity other than a God could have been the designer.\u00a0 Intelligent design proponents also suggest that the work could be the result of an alien culture, using the argument that there are many features of the universe which indicate an intelligent designer. \u00a0 Furthermore, \u00a0some proponents of ID have made statements\u00a0that they believe\u00a0the designer to be a\u00a0Christian<\/a>\u00a0God<\/a>, thereby excluding Gods from all other religions. \u00a0 No wonder that many opponents\u00a0idenfiy ID with\u00a0Genesis<\/a>\u00a0and Creationism.<\/p>\n

Has Intelligent Design appeared in scientific journals, as a science?\u00a0 Yes. \u00a0 For established mainstream scientific publications there is often open hostility towards ID. \u00a0 The main reason is that ID does not satisfy the requirements as a science within the scientific community.\u00a0 It cannot be validated, or tested, using\u00a0scientific method<\/a>. Scientific inquiries require the existence of\u00a0\u00a0 hypotheses which can be tested, requiring\u00a0observable data, and can be backed by empirical evidence. However, there is an increasing number of publications now providing ‘space’ for ID. Michael Behe, for example, has defended his understanding of “irreducible complexity” in the journal\u00a0Philosophy of Science<\/a>. \u00a0 Another journal has a strong focus o\u00adn design theory,\u00a0Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design<\/a>. \u00a0This publication an large editorial advisory board of over 50 academics from a range of scientific disciplines.<\/p>\n

For an atheist’s perspective, the best arguments for the non-existence of a ‘intelligent designer’ surely originates from the ‘gospels’ according to\u00a0Richard Dawkins<\/a>!<\/p>\n

“Science offers us an explanation of how complexity (the difficult) arose out of simplicity (the easy). The hypothesis of God offers no worthwhile explanation for anything, for it simply postulates what we are trying to explain.”<\/em><\/p>\n

“Certainly I see the scientific view of the world as incompatible with religion, but that is not what is interesting about it. It is also incompatible with magic, but that also is not worth stressing. What is interesting about the scientific world view is that it is true, inspiring, remarkable and that it unites a whole lot of phenomena under a single heading.”<\/em><\/p>\n

“Thus the creationist’s favourite question “What is the use of half an eye?” Actually, this is a lightweight question, a doddle to answer. Half an eye is just 1 per cent better than 49 per cent of an eye…”<\/em><\/p>\n

“Religious people split into three main groups when faced with science. I shall label them the “know-nothings”, the “know-alls”, and the “no-contests”
\n<\/em>
\n“Most people, I believe, think that you need a God to explain the existence of the world, and especially the existence of life. They are wrong, but our education system is such that many people don’t know it.”<\/em><\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.richarddawkins.net<\/a><\/p>\n

Further\u00a0resources for your research …..<\/p>\n

Non-Intelligent Design\u00a0 Perspectives<\/span><\/p>\n