How I'd Teach Intelligent Design

Published on October 24, 2005 By Champas Socialist In Life

Before I tell you how I’d teach Intelligent Design Link, I feel I should be upfront about my bias and tell you where I stand on these philosophical issues. Skip to the asterisks if you don’t care.

I believe in the Dreamtime (the ancient stories told by Australia’s indigenous peoples). I also believe there is some truth to all the creationist stories of the world, including Adam & Eve. I believe in an immaterial/spiritual world that has an effect on the material world. I don’t believe in a God in our image, but in a hyper-consciousness, far too complex for humans to be able to comprehend with our feeble minds. I believe in the interconnectedness of all souls.

I believe there is a fair amount of truth to Evolution Theory, but I think it will be heavily refined over time, like most scientific theories. It’s a new theory, and Darwin made some incredibly astute observations and heavily educated guesses. I believe some elements of Evolution Theory are based on Euro-centric assumptions about culture and nature.

I think that the idea that ‘the world is so complex that only an intelligent being could have created it’ lacks imagination. (Why not say “God is so complex that only an intelligent being could have created Him, and so on and so on”?). I also think ID Theory is ironically the greatest potential threat to Religion since Descartes. You cannot ask for material proof of an immaterial force. There is no reason why the immaterial world would work according to material laws. Science demands material proofs. Therefore, a belief in the spiritual world must be based on Faith alone, and not Faith + Reason. Descartes tried to combine the two, and more and more people who believe in Descartes’ scientific principles are atheists. ID Theory tries to go one step further down this track and will do nothing more than undermine Religious belief as people find more and more scientific theory that supposedly explains God away.

Science deals only with 5 senses. I believe in a 6th sense, which I refer to as lyrhyn (a word from a WA tribe). My lyrhyn tells me about the immaterial world. It can’t be tested using scientific methods because it relies on the immaterial world, which Science cannot access. For that reason I also cannot prove its existence to anyone else.

I believe there was never nothing and I am unsure about Big Bang Theory.

Now onto how I would teach Intelligent Design. Bear in mind that I’m a primary school teacher. I don’t agree with separating Science from SOSE.

*************************************************************
“Remember how we learned about the 5 senses in science last week. Who can tell me what they were?”

(Students name the 5 senses).

“These are the 5 senses that scientists from our culture use when they try to work out how the world works.”

I’d then ask students about some scientific things they’ve done and ask them which senses they used and explain to them that when they use those 5 senses they are working scientifically.

“To prove something in science, you need to prove it using your 5 senses.”

Before I taught students what Darwin’s theory was, I would teach them about some of the things he observed using his 5 senses. Then I would say, “Darwin wanted to work out how this could have happened, and this is what he thought..... This is called Evolution Theory, and most scientists believe Darwin was right, but there is still a lot of debate about it because no one has ever seen it happen”.

“This is the main scientific theory, because our culture’s science only deals with things that we can see, touch, hear, taste or smell. All cultures have had people who have used their 5 senses to work out how the world works, but in some other cultures, they use more than their 5 senses. But it is only what we call science when people use their 5 senses only”.

“There are some other theories. They are not scientific theories. But a lot of people believe in them because they believe that you can feel things using your soul. You can’t see or touch souls, but a lot of people believe they exist. They also believe that the spiritual world can have an effect on our world. They believe that there is a 6th sense that we can’t test with science”.

Of course the question comes: where does it end? Why not teach all the creationist stories?

The answer is that we’ve drawn a line in the sand already and there’s no reason why ID becomes such a big deal for that. We live in a Judeo-Christian society, so you give a brief outline of the Biblical account. We live in a multicultural society so you mention that a lot of different religions have different explanations that they believe in. We live in Australia so you tell one Dreamtime story from the nearest possible tribal group to where you’re teaching.

In each case you explain that none of these stories can be proven using our 5 senses.

For ID theory I would say:
“Remember how we learned about the water cycle? It was pretty complex wasn’t it? It’s pretty clever the way it works because it means that we have the same water on earth that there always has been. That keeps us alive. Some people say that it’s such a clever system that the only way it could have been created was for some sort of God to have created it. Scientists can’t ever prove this, but that’s what a lot of people believe. It’s up to you to decide how the world came to be the way it is, but you always have to respect other people’s beliefs about it.”

When teaching evolution I would go over the theory again that some people think the only way these changes could have happened is for a God to have done it.

OK, I hear you say, but agree with it or not, we have separate classes for SOSE, English and Science. Well, why not bring the teachers together for one bumper class period. The science teacher explains the science, and the other teacher explains the extra bits. It’s been done before (integrating in the high school) and to great effect. And if you still really oppose that, then teach the extra bits during SOSE, which after all, incorporates science as well as cultural studies.

There now that wasn’t so hard was it?

Comments (Page 1)

sunwukong

on Oct 24, 2005

Science deals only with 5 senses.

Well, no -- how often have you used your senses to detect neutrino flux? You've left out a huge dimension to science: indirect measurement of phenomena.

There are many events in our little corner of the universe and that part which can causally access that are only indirectly observable using our senses. We detect black holes by the deflection of radiation around them (and even most of that radiation isn't in the form of visible light). Quantum states are captured by their interpretation through the interaction of interfaces we can observe, e.g., Geiger Muller counter or a diffraction grating.

The use of lyrhyn (or any "other" sense) isn't explicitly proscribed by science, but its use as a scientific tool is limited by the ability to either quantify or exactly describe what can be detected, i.e., precise enough of a description of an event to distinguish it from a qualitatively/quantitatively different one with repeatable (and measurable) accuracy.

If your experiences with lyrhyn are individually differentiated from someone else's to such an extent no one can tell when you've experienced relatively the same event, then there's no way to apply the Scientific Method to the events being observed by that sense.

Champas Socialist

on Oct 24, 2005

You've left out a huge dimension to science: indirect measurement of phenomena.

No, you still have to use your 5 senses for that. All you are doing is measuring things that you could observe with your 5 senses if they were better at their jobs or in different circumstances.

However, perhaps I shouldbe clearer and use the term "natural science".

its use as a scientific tool is limited by the ability to either quantify

Totally agree, but don't think it's relevant.

Champas Socialist

on Oct 24, 2005

You've left out a huge dimension to science: indirect measurement of phenomena.

I'm willing to listen to any ideas for how to explain what constitutes scientific method to chillun.

Dr Guy

on Oct 24, 2005

However, perhaps I shouldbe clearer and use the term "natural science".

Ok, that throws out Mathematics.

Toblerone

on Oct 25, 2005

It seems you have huge double standards when it comes to what constitutes cultural sensitivity. If we used a similar example in SOSE when talking about equal rights I guess you could bring up the bits of the bible that say that God frowns upon homosexuals. Don't bring up the fact it is only in the old Testament because Genesis is too and you seem to think that should get class time too. That way we could be culturally sensitive to the fundy Christians out there.

As I said before science doesn't teach that God doesn't exist. It simply doesn't deal with the issue at all. That isn't being cultural insensitive in my view, that is being culturally neutral. Scientific method has developed independantly in different places all over the world, the Middle East, China, Greece etc. so don't go telling me science is just the culture of white males in labcoats. Often science has been spurred on by religious conviction, Issac Newton for example believed he was doing God's work. Gregor Mendel, a monk, did the original work on genetic inheritance. The list goes on and on.
I think it is far more culturally insensitive to pick one creationist theory when you could pick none at all. After all remember at high school I was the one who actually believed in God and went through secular schooling. It wasn't 'til much later that I changed my faith (but didn't dispose of it). In fact some of the most devout Christians I know have been really into science.

Frankly I think if your faith can't stand going through secular schooling you didn't have much to begin with. And if people don't know about their own culture from home is it really their culture?

Champas Socialist

on Oct 25, 2005

Good to see you fired up and avoiding the culture of mediocrity mate. Haven't had a good debate in a long time. You and me outside, 5 minutes. (Considering we're in separate staes, we may look a little silly standing outside waiting for each other, but hell, looking silly has never stopped us before).

I think it is far more culturally insensitive to pick one creationist theory when you could pick none at all.

So are you suggesting that the current practice of teaching Dreamtime stories is culturally insensitive? In a Judeo-Christian Australian society, would it not make more sense for students to be aware of the Dreamtime and the Bible?

No matter what, you always have to draw a line somewhere. Absolutes in these issues are simplistic. The question is how well justified is the drawing of the line in the sand. I've justified mine in the article.

culturally neutral

There is no such thing. It's an impossibility. The job of schools has always been to pass on the knowledge of the culture to its students. We value certain practices and don't value others.

I'm sure you don't need me to explain the concept of 'the hidden curriculum' to you.

you seem to think that should get class time too

I'm sorry, but did you see how short my class time devoted to it was?!?! And for gorsake, I acknowledged that it wasn't scientific theory.

Ok, that throws out Mathematics

OK smartypants, how would YOU explain scientific method?

Champas Socialist

on Oct 25, 2005

If we used a similar example in SOSE when talking about equal rights I guess you could bring up the bits of the bible that say that God frowns upon homosexuals.

I never said we should teach the entirety of the Bible. I never even suggested we should teach the Bible in the same way the Church would. But SOSE is mainly about studying culture and I think there is place for a little comparative religion study so that students come to a greater understanding of each other. Perhaps I would not have been so bigoted against Christians had I a little understanding of the religion. Until I moved to Brisbane I was quite prejudiced against Christians. If students are learning about how the world started, how humans got here, then they should know a little about each other's ideas. What else do you want them to learn in SOSE if not cultural studies?

Champas Socialist

on Oct 25, 2005

Frankly I think if your faith can't stand going through secular schooling you didn't have much to begin with.

Chirac would agree with you. Ban the dreaded hijab! Scourge the country of any form of cultural expression!

And if people don't know about their own culture from home is it really their culture?

As I said, the point is that in a multicultural society we need to learn about each other, not just ourselves. When students' culture is denied and banished from school, it disappears. You seem to be an advocate of assimilation more than secularism.

Toblerone

on Oct 26, 2005

Good to see you fired up and avoiding the culture of mediocrity mate. Haven't had a good debate in a long time.

I agree it has been far too long. I love debating with you, I start to get worried when we agree to much, especially after it looked like we were going to take similar career paths. Of course however much I disagree with I never dislike you, I know you probably know that but it has been a while so I just want to remind you.

You and me outside, 5 minutes. (Considering we're in separate staes, we may look a little silly standing outside waiting for each other, but hell, looking silly has never stopped us before).

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, that image is rather silly hehehehehehehe (as you can see I try to avoid writing l.o.l.).

If we used a similar example in SOSE when talking about equal rights I guess you could bring up the bits of the bible that say that God frowns upon homosexuals. I never said we should teach the entirety of the Bible. I never even suggested we should teach the Bible in the same way the Church would. But SOSE is mainly about studying culture and I think there is place for a little comparative religion study so that students come to a greater understanding of each other. Perhaps I would not have been so bigoted against Christians had I a little understanding of the religion. Until I moved to Brisbane I was quite prejudiced against Christians. If students are learning about how the world started, how humans got here, then they should know a little about each other's ideas. What else do you want them to learn in SOSE if not cultural studies?

I know you're not saying we should teach the entire bible. However I'm saying that that would be an analogous situation in another subject area. If we are going to start being culturally sensitive why not teach religiously justified bigotry alongside the equal rights movement. That's why it seems like you have a double standard. If you completely agree with what is taught in mainstream schooling it is okay but if it isn't it is being culturally insensitive.

Chirac would agree with you. Ban the dreaded hijab! Scourge the country of any form of cultural expression!

Banning the hijab is an active form of secularism, I am not suggesting anything like that. This is more passive secularism. I not saying we should prevent kids holding their own beliefs.

If I was promoting assimilation I'd say that culture should not be talked about or taught in schools at all. I am talking about one subject were I don't think creation myths are appropriate. Yes I believe that you should make connections to other subjects if you want it to be useful and relevant. That doesn't mean you promote an idea from other areas that are the antithesis of what you are teaching unless of course they meet the criterion for validity that you have already stated for that subject.

There are million ways you can incorporate Aboriginal or other cultures into science I just don't think teaching about the Rainbow serpent or ID is the way to do it. You incoporate it in a way which congruent to what you are teaching. For example in physics you can talk about Boomerangs (Bernouli effect) and Womeras (leverage). In Botany you can talk about burning the land to cause seed to germinate. In chemistry you can talk about pigments that Aboriginals used for painting. There are millions of ways you can do it.

Actually funnily enough I don't disagree with what are suggesting in this article so much. My arguements are more based on your comments in Ziggys blog about cultural sensitivity and so on. I just don't want equal time given to ID that would give it a false sense of scientific validity. However this is just what is being suggested in the US and as you well know that might lead to Australia taking it on because of JH being a big old strap on and parties like Family First. You may have commendable motives behind teaching ID but the people behind it don't. It is simply a Christian fundametalist movement trying to muscle in on science.

Dr Guy

on Oct 26, 2005

Ok, that throws out Mathematics

OK smartypants, how would YOU explain scientific method?

I think you did very well, and the qualifier was why I threw out Math. For in the sciences, Math is the purest one, so that in most of the physical sciences, when you state "theories cannot be proven", you are speaking a truism. However, in Math, that is not the case. I was going to ask "what about Math", but then a later comment I saw you made the exception.

Keo Lin

on Oct 26, 2005

This has nothing to do with your entry...
A guy just rang here and I thought it was you! And I had just finished reading a comment on Teeg's blog from you... a little weird universe action there!

Champas Socialist

on Oct 26, 2005

I just don't want equal time given to ID

But I haven't suggested equal time at all. I gave it a passing mention, as opposed to several lessons on evolution.

I think you did very well,

Thanks Doc.

Toblerone, once again I ask you, is the current practice of reading Dreamtime stories to children culturally insensitive and in need of halting?

I am talking about one subject were I don't think creation myths are appropriate.

I agree that it should be made clear that they are not part of the Science subject. ID certainly relies on very different proofs and that should be made entirely clear to the students, which is what I have advocated here and what Brendan Nelson advocated too. ID cannot be proven with science, but nor can it be disproven. It is not science and kids should know that. It is cultural studies.

If we are going to start being culturally sensitive why not teach religiously justified bigotry alongside the equal rights movement.

Because it is incongruous with the liberal, democratic values of public schooling. Creationism is not.

Toblerone

on Oct 26, 2005

But I haven't suggested equal time at all. I gave it a passing mention, as opposed to several lessons on evolution.

I know that is what I said.

Actually funnily enough I don't disagree with what are suggesting in this article so much.

Toblerone, once again I ask you, is the current practice of reading Dreamtime stories to children culturally insensitive and in need of halting?

No, but going by your standards it would be. If teaching evolution is being culturally insensitive so should not mentioning every creation story ever invented.

Because it is incongruous with the liberal, democratic values of public schooling. Creationism is not.

How about the value of keeping church separate from state? Why should we only be teaching liberal and democratic values? I think that is being a bit culturally insensitive (I don't really but this is this is the point I am trying to make about your double standard). ID is incongruous with scienctific values but that doesn't bother you because you don't happen to agree with them. Your point of view hasn't become less arrogant since you were an atheist, you've just switched sides.

The point is that ID does try to sell itself as science, even if you don't. If you are telling students it isn't science then in a way you're not even teaching ID because the whole point of it is that is trying to say it is a legitimate alternative to evolution.

Really I think the main reason we are still arguing is because I am coming at it from a high school perspective while you're coming at it from a primary school perspecitve. If you were teaching science as a specialty you would see why it seems to like an intrusion and blatant crossing of the church-state line. You have the luxury of giving ID its own time and discussing it through properly but in a high science class you may not get that time and end up sending a latent message of its validity simple because it has been mentioned in that class. God these days you only have to put someone in a labcoat and they'll believe "This cream gives your skin 50% more vitality.". You'll also see why going through "irreducible complexity" and all that will seem like a big waste of time if it all ends in the qualifier "but it is all a load of dogs bollocks anyway." or something to that effect. Actually as I mentioned before I wouldn't mind using iD as a counterpoint to show why evolution's supposed holes aren't holes. The point is though a science teacher should get a choice of how they decide to teach evolution rather than being forced to teach in certain way because of the religious convictions of politicians or lobbyists.

Champas Socialist

on Oct 27, 2005

Really I think the main reason we are still arguing is because I am coming at it from a high school perspective while you're coming at it from a primary school perspecitve.

But hang on, I have made a concession to you to not teach it on Science time. I even made that concession during the original article. Brendan Nelson also said it shouldn't be taught during Science time.

ID is incongruous with scienctific values but that doesn't bother you because you don't happen to agree with them.

Now hang on a sec there. I think there is far more truth to Evolution than there is to ID. I said that I think ID's a silly theory. I even think ID poses a threat to Religion, particularly my own, far more so than Evolution does. I just think that Evolution, like all new scientific theories has a few kinks that need ironing out and filling in. My religious beliefs balance evolution with spontaneous creation, which has nothing to do with ID, or anything that I think should be taught in schools.

you've just switched sides

When I was an atheist I was opposed to Evolutuion, wheras now I argue you should get to teach it over several lessons AS LONG AS YOU EXPLAIN THE EVIDENCE FOR IT AND WHERE DARWIN HAD TO FILL IN GAPS THAT HE CAN'T PROVE. I'm not saying that because he couldn't prove it it was wrong, but you can't rely on proofs you don't have.

Champas Socialist

on Oct 27, 2005

Why should we only be teaching liberal and democratic values?

Because we live in a liberal democracy. That is why we are peaceful. I am strongly in favour of multiculturalism to the extent that is possible within a liberal democracy, as our Government says. However, I disagree with the Government that we should not talk about multiculturalism. I believe in Keating/Hawke-style active multiculturalism. It must be emphasisesd, ttalked about and celebrated to become a reality.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!