Intelligent Design in Universities

Who has designs on your students' minds? | NatureIntelligent Design is a growing force in the universities. There are not the same political and legal barriers in universities that there are in public schools.Though I believe intelligent design's rightful place is in the science classes, a workable compromise would be to teach intelligent design and creationism in the religion departments of universities. I believe the interest level is significant enough for administrators to consider offering the courses out of purely marketing and financial considerations.Salvador Cordova

quote:

---

I believe the interest level is significant enough for administrators to consider offering the courses out of purely marketing and financial considerations.

---

That would be great, Sal. Good luck!

Is that really the best rationale for including a subject on the curriculum? Money?Of course for many universities it is, which is why there seem to be so many offering courses in all sorts of alternative therapies, but should it be.If you feel ID should be in science classes then why not make a compelling case for ID on a scientific basis? There is no reason why solidly performed ID research can't contribute to several fields of science whether or not it successfully challenges evolutions primacy in the biological sciences.Shouldn't ID's supporters be bending their efforts into showing the science to other scientists rather than trying to teach it to students in its present protean form?TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 05-03-2005 10:53 AM

Sal, I am a novice in the area of intelligent design. I have heard a lot of bad arguments which tout the usefulness of such knowledge, but I as a believer have nevertheless sided with the science guys in regards to this topic. In the article which you cited, several questions were raised. Can you give me your answer to them?
1) Tell me, a believer, why you feel this way.
2) How would you convince scientists who are also perhaps agnostic/atheist that intelligent design does make sense? In other words, how can you speak the language of science? (Can you?)
3) What response would you have to Ms. Forrests question and assertion?4) Were a student raised strictly on the teaching of I.D. creationism, would this teaching equip them for jobs in the secular world related to scientific disciplines?This message has been edited by Phatboy, 05-03-2005 09:21 AM

Just incase Sal has moved on (hes a busy guy these days) you can probably get the answers to your questions here:Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Centeror here:http://www.arn.org/index.html

deleted.This message has been edited by General Krull, 03-May-2005 11:23 AM

well in fact, if you read the Nature article carefully, it says that ID is a growing force amongst teenagers on the university campus. It certainly isn't a growing force amongst people how actually study biology. As far as I can see, ID is so intellectually stunted that it belongs neither in Science or Religion classes. Well, out of those considerations, the University could just simply sell degrees to anybody who could pay for one, without doing any teaching whatsoever!

For that matter, how would you convince a Catholic scientist who sees ID, in its present form, as scientifically of poor quality, and as theologically unnecessary, and perhaps even a presumptuous human misconception of limitations on modes of divine action?Personally, in its present state of development, I don't see where ID has earned the status as an intellectual discipline to demand a "workable compromise" for its inclusion in curricula.At the university level, it should probably remain in voluntary student clubs, and perhaps introduced at the sole discretion of individual faculty as a properly contexted topic of discussion where related.

Go get 'em Mick.I would like to know just what sort of useful insights have ever been derived from 'reasoning' along an ID interpretation of nature?What real phenomenon have these pseudoscientists EVER explained,
or explained better than evolutionary biology can?The answer is none, nothing, zip, zilch.Where are the products of their so-called 'research programs'?
Any single product, for that matter.The whole premise of ID amounts to nothing more than an abdication of intellect - stuff can be just 'too complex' for us mortals to understand or explain.And don't assume, as earlier in this thread, that public schools are now safe from these fundamentalists either.Here is the latest on the war in my own intellectually challenged state.http://legislature.cjonline.com/.../050305/leg_evocase.shtmlThis message has been edited by EZscience, 05-03-2005 12:49 PM

Thanks EZScience, I read the article you posted and it made depressing reading. It's really hard for somebody outside this intellectual milieu to understand how such a situation could come about.I really hate the insidious argument that the teaching of evolution should be "balanced". It sounds so democratic and nice, who could disagree? But their idea of balance seems to be to teach factually correct information alongside factually incorrect information, and somehow this mixture is meant to result in wisdom.Of course I agree that we should teach a balanced view of evolution. But for me, this means teaching different philosophical strands of evolution such as sociobiology, evo-devo, molecular approaches, etc.That would be balanced!Mick

I also think you are misunderstanding the role of a modern university theology department. Many academic theologians would be dismayed at the suggestion that their departments be treated as a clearing house for dumb-assed pseudoscience!The role of a modern theology department isn't to "teach intelligent design and creationism". It isn't even to "teach creationism". I have known a number of undergraduate theology students who were atheists with an interest in the history of ideas.Theology departments aim to instil in their students a critical understanding of religion based on historical, economic, cultural and literary analysis. They don't aim to indoctrinate students into creationism.You appear to have mistaken university theology departments for the madrassas of Pakistan, or something. But they are quite different.Mick

I would expect Mr. Cordova to answer my questions, as I gave him an opportunity to post in this forum. Where do you get the idea that anyone is too popular or too busy for answering a couple of questions? I am unimpressed, Limbo.

Well, Sal is posting the Word about the Nature article on every available forum.

In that case, he is merely using forums as free advertising. This is not cool.If anyone--be it politician or preacher--wants to get a message across to the public, they have an obligation to interact with the public and discuss and/or defend their position. Life is about more than soundbites.

That's their angle all right.
They only want a "balance".Problem is, they have nothing in their arsenal to 'balance' the practical power and myriad useful applications of evolutionary theory.So their quest for 'balance' is little more than a series of unsubstantiated criticisms of evolutionary theory, feeble efforts to limit its implications in the eyes of students, and insidious attempts to undermine its overaching applicability, WITHOUT PROPOSING ANY SUPERIOR WORKING MODEL for analyzing change in living things.So as far as the public school curriculum, they are just fiddling with wording in the instructions that are supposed to guide teachers in formulating their lesson plans so as to water down all the more forceful statements about the power of evolutionary theory.They want to find a way to sew a seed in students minds that there are equally likely alternative explanations, without ever explicitly demonstrating why ID should merit such a status.You can read about all the exact changes they are lobbying for in the guidelines here - if you have the stomach for it http://www.kansasscience2005.com/