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 2)

Toblerone

on Oct 27, 2005

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.

Oh okay. I think I didn't read all your replies in the original thing so I missed that. The thing is that in the US that IS what they want to do (and in some schools in Australia it is already happening from what I saw on Catalyst).

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.

Okay then. Well that doesn' t really sound like we disagree that much at all. You are beginning to annoy me

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.

Okay then. Well we seem to be agreeing on everything pretty much, quick find something we can fight about....
In my defence though it sounds as though you have changed your opinion on evolution since we last talked about it so I was sort of argueing based on your previous opinions.

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.

As I said I believe we should be teaching those values. I was just making the point that if you extented the idea that teaching evolution is being culturally insensitive because it is just one point of view then that same logic could be applied to teaching about equal rights.

I think we need to find more stuff we can disagree on. I WANT A FIGHT!

Champas Socialist

on Oct 30, 2005

Something to diagree about...okay. Science is the domain of bloody black people like you trying to force us all to take on your anti-Christian notions of the world. I'm white and I'm proud of my Christianity! Amen brother! (That's brother, not brudda or bruvva).

Toblerone

on Oct 30, 2005

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

stevendedalus

on Nov 05, 2005

A very quaint lesson plan--won't satisfy the ID adherents though. Why not attribute the sixth sense to the many questions unanswered in the cosmos? Perhaps the mind of God, mathematics or whatever.

bakerstreet

on Nov 05, 2005

most don't realize that ID isn't about God. Some people who believe in Intelligent Design also believe in God as that intelligence, but there are ways of looking at it that are totally without a diety, or spirituality. You can be a total Atheist and make a point for Intelligent Design. There's no reason intelligence has to spiritualized or anthorpomirphized.

It's just easier to ignorantly marginalize an idea by identifying it with adherants that people easily scoff at. It's just as ignorant to attribute something to chance with little or no evidence than to attribute it to aliens with little or no evidence. "Design" shouldn't be a part of evolutionary instruction until there is proof, nor should chance be promoted as cause until that, too, can be proved.

Sometimes there is no shame in admitting you don't know until you actually do. It most certainly tends to not slam doors on new ideas.

stevendedalus

on Nov 08, 2005

Good point, Baker, but try telling Creationists who have espoused ID in their own image.

bakerstreet

on Nov 08, 2005

Oh, no doubt, and I think they harm their cause by claiming its their way or the highway. Their intentions are, frankly, bad, and they are misrepresenting their actions. They aren't trying to promote better science, they are trying to slip religion into school, and are wrong for doing so.

I just think the true harm to science is caused not by those who are critical of science, but by scientists who close their minds to possibilities because they have the smell of "god" on them. Right now people who offer up anything other than chance as the engine for Evolution have to worry about being branded as a nut. That's a shame, given what we are finding out about genetics.

The way cells react to disease is "intelligent" and our brain doesn't guide them. Our brain doesn't shout "ATTACK" and cause cells to interact. Yet, oddly, they behave in ways that could be considered very intelligent. The fact that genetic material can be passed from person to person (and not just through sex) makes us all nodes in a huge network, and networks, as our brain and even technology tells us, can be "intelligent".

"Intelligent Design" simply states that there is more than random chance guiding the refining of species. To me, that should easily be an acceptable avenue of research, and limiting evolution to chance seems just as pigheaded as limiting it to Adam and Eve.

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!