Well, again here … without necessarily disagreeing with your conclusion (I won’t dispute and have little care whether or how religious ID is); nevertheless I don’t agree with your supporting premise that your argument is bolstered by a lack of examples on my part. I wasn’t trying to come up with any examples, but I suppose there are many to be had if I started looking. I don’t teach history, but I’m sure there are subjects of marginal acceptance or that hover between mythological and historical categories. Or in literature, I’m sure there are writings that hover in disputed territory as to whether it should be valued as a classic or even just good literature at all. [I *am* a math teacher, but examples of “fringe” math would indeed be more challenging to come by --certainly at the high school level.] But most all of these subject areas, if I were knowledgeable in them and teaching them, I think I would still have precisely the same reaction to your “no trespassing here” warnings. Freedom of thought and academic pursuit are no less important in all these other places than it is in science class.
I do agree though that mandating such things enters a new level entirely, and beyond that, sound pedagogy demands that not too much time is spent chasing after marginal pursuits at the expense of mainline mastery. I think in that, we largely agree. As in all things, each teacher is [or should be] weighing the benefits and sacrifices.
Nuno, let’s suppose that the ID crowd don’t venture into that territory at all, but that some more sober body of theistic scientists, or philosophers and historians of science - let’s say it was called BioLogos, for example - were to suggest that educational development would be furthered by greatly increasing the philosophy of science teaching in state schools. This would enable kids to distinguish scientific claims from metaphysical commitments, thus largely defusing the perceived antagonism between élite science and popular religion in America. What’s not to like?
What would you like to wager that “TE-Creationists try to smuggle Bible into schools via Philosophy of Science” wouldn’t appear in banner headlines, editorials in Nature, and that influential blogs from Jerry Coyne to Larry Moran (to whom even James Shapiro is a closet Creationist) would send threateneing e-mails to the relevant authorities about the threat to science, and the Free World, from such “accommodationism”?
The best you could hope for is that the Discovery Institute would oppose the campaign as being instigated Christians for Darwin, and that the NCSE would take it on just to spite the latter.
[quote=“Nuno, post:100, topic:5441”]
I hope it is clear to everyone that the last thing the teacher should do is engage with the student as if astrology is a “minority scientific view” that should be discussed on equal footing with astronomy.[/quote]
This is particularly appropriate since ID is as much science as astrology is science.
Today’s a busy day for me so I apologize for the short response. Also, the conversation has gone off on a tangent so maybe it’s for the best to not dwell on this too much. I’d rather focus on @vjtorley’s forthcoming reference on the mathematical formulation of ID.
The bottom line is that I would not promote (or appreciate) 1 min responses to questions that teachers are not trained to address. This is a general point that is not specific to ID. If the teacher does not have the time to actually explain why something is bogus then all the students hear is “I know better, believe me when I say it.” - exactly the kind of situation that causes so much confusion in society today and why it would be important to have a course (or at least a few lectures) on philosophy of science.
It appears to me like there’s broad agreement here with differences mostly on the details but if not then it’s probably best to spin this off into a new thread (not sure how to do that).
Hmmm. Isn’t this exactly what I said in my brief exegesis of Rom. 1? Except, Dr. Axe seems to think that all people are given an intuition of the case for intelligent design. I submit that such a notion is silly on its face. One may have an intuition that a certain proposition is true, say, “A divine intelligence must have made all this.” But an intuition is a flash of insight, not a reasoned argument. People do not have intuitions that reveal “the case for intelligent design,” which is an entire, reasoned argument. We may have an intuition about gravity, but it is impossible to have an intuition for “the case for gravity.”
The Scripture characterizes those who disbelieve in many ways. A fool is just one of them. But, since you don’t trust my opinion, here is what Douglas Moo had to say about Rom 1:18-21 in his commentary, which Ligonier Ministries (a ministry dedicated to classical apologetics) ranks as its No.1 commentary on Romans (as does almost every other such list). For those of you not interested in exegesis of this passage, the rest of my remarks will follow in a separate post:
19 Verses 19-20 have two purposes. On the one hand, Paul justifies his assertion that people “suppress” the truth (v. 18b). On the other hand, he wants to show that people who sin and are correspondingly subject to God’s wrath are responsible for their situation. They are “without excuse” (v. 20b). He accomplishes both purposes by asserting that people have been given a knowledge of God: “for what can be known about God is manifest among them.” For Jews, as Paul will acknowledge later (2:18, 20), this knowledge of God comes above all through the law of Moses. Here, however, he is interested in the knowledge of God available to all people through the nature of the world itself. Therefore, what Paul says in the following verses, though not limited to Gentiles (since Jews, too, have knowledge of God through nature), has particular relevance to them.
The last clause of v. 19 explains “is manifest”: what can be known of God has been made visible because God has “made it known.” Only by an act of revelation from above — God “making it known” — can people understand God as he is.
20 The “for” introducing this verse shows that Paul continues the close chain of reasoning about the knowledge of God that he began in v. 19. He has asserted that what can be known of God is visible among people generally and that this is so only because God has acted to disclose himself. Now he explains how it is that God has made this disclosure. Two different connections among the main elements in the verse are possible: (1) “his invisible attributes … . have been seen through the things he has made, being understood”; (2) “his invisible attributes … . have been seen, being understood through the things he has made.” Probably the latter makes better sense because, on the former rendering, the word “being understood” is somewhat redundant. The subject of this complex clause, “his invisible attributes,” is further defined in the appositional addition, “his eternal power and his deity.” What is denoted is that God is powerful and that he possesses those properties normally associated with deity. These properties of God that cannot be “seen” (aorata) are “seen” (kathoratai) — an example of the literary device called oxymoron, in which a rhetorical effect is achieved by asserting something that is apparently contradictory. God in his essence is hidden from human sight, yet much of him and much about him can be seen through the things he has made. Paul is thinking primarily of the world as the product of God’s creation (see, e.g., Ps. 8), though the acts of God in history may also be included.
But just what does Paul mean when he claims that human beings “see” and “understand” from creation and history that a powerful God exists? Some think that Paul is asserting only that people have around them the evidence of God’s existence and basic qualities; whether people actually perceive it or become personally conscious of it is not clear. But Paul’s wording suggests more than this. He asserts that people actually come to “understand” something about God’s existence and nature. How universal is this perception? The flow of Paul’s argument makes any limitation impossible. Those who perceive the attributes of God in creation must be the same as those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness and are therefore liable to the wrath of God. Paul makes clear that this includes all people (see 3:9, 19-20).
The last clause of v. 20, “so that they are without excuse,” states a key element in our interpretation of vv. 19-20. For Paul here makes clear that “natural revelation,” in and of itself, leads to a negative result. That Paul teaches the reality of a revelation of God in nature to all people, this text makes clear. But it is equally obvious that this revelation is universally rejected, as people turn from knowledge of God to gods of their own making (cf. vv. 22ff.). Why this is so, Paul will explain elsewhere (cf. Rom. 5:12-21). But it is vital if we are to understand Paul’s gospel and his urgency in preaching it to realize that natural revelation leads not to salvation but to the demonstration that God’s condemnation is just: people are “without excuse.” (My bold.) That verdict stands over the people we meet every day just as much as over the people Paul rubbed shoulders with in the first century, and our urgency in communicating the gospel should be as great as Paul’s.
21 This verse provides the missing link in the argument of v. 20. The refusal of people to acknowledge and worship God (v. 21) explains why the revelation of God in nature (v. 20a) leads to their being “without excuse” (v. 20b). Paul accentuates the accountability of people by claiming that their failure to “glorify” and “give thanks to” God took place “even though they knew God.” Paul’s claim that people through natural revelation “know” God is unexpected. Such language is normally confined to the intimate, personal relationship to God and Christ that is possible only for the believer. In light of the use to which this knowledge is put, this is plainly not the case here. “Knowing God” must therefore be given a strictly limited sense compatible with Paul’s argument in this passage. But how limited? Cranfield suggests a greatly weakened sense: “in their awareness of the created world it is of him that all along, though unwittingly, they have been — objectively — aware.” But the elimination of any subjective perception from the meaning of the verb has no basis in Paul’s usage. People do have some knowledge of God. But this knowledge, Paul also makes clear, is limited, involving the narrow range of understanding of God available in nature: they “knew of God” (Phillips: “They knew all the time that there is a God”). (My bold.) The outward manifestation of God in his created works was met with a real, though severely limited, knowledge of him among those who observed those works.
This limited knowledge of God falls far short of what is necessary to establish a relationship with him. Knowledge must lead to reverence and gratitude. This it has failed to do. Instead of acknowledging God “as God,” by glorifying him and thanking him, human beings perverted their knowledge and sank into idolatry. That idolatry, explicitly discussed in v. 23, might already be in Paul’s mind in this verse is suggested by his claim that people “became futile.” It is in the “reasonings” of people that this futility has taken place, showing that, whatever their initial knowledge of God might be, their natural capacity to reason accurately about God is quickly and permanently harmed. (My bold.) Parallel to, and descriptive of, this futility in thinking is the darkening of the “un-understanding heart.” In the NT, “heart” is broad in its meaning, denoting “the thinking, feeling, willing ego of man, with particular regard to his responsibility to God.” We can understand, then, how Paul can describe the heart as being “without understanding” and recognize also how comprehensive is this description of fallen humanity. At the very center of every person, where the knowledge of God, if it is to have any positive effects, must be embraced, there has settled a darkness — a darkness that only the light of the gospel can penetrate."
Haha. You should be! The point is you can’t have your cake and eat it, too. If you want to term them scientists, that’s fine. But when I point out their philosophizing, now you want to term them natural philosophers. A little inconsistent, no? But if you don’t see the problem, there’s no point belaboring it.
Yes, I’m telling you what everyone who is not a part of the ID movement sees and understands. The argument from design has been around for hundreds of years. It was not invented in 1991. And for hundreds of years, everyone agreed that it was a philosophical argument. This seems fairly obvious. Even when it appears in textbooks, it appears in philosophy textbooks alongside other arguments for the existence of god. (Yes, I used lowercase intentionally.) The only people who deny the obvious, and thus do damage to the cause of truth, are those with a vested, stated political interest in obfuscation, those who insist on telling the public that the waddling, quacking duck is not a duck.
I thank you for your considerate answers, but I don’t see much point in discussing whether ID is a scientific theory with someone who has as much vested interest in it as you do. Neither one of us is likely to change our opinions.
Finally! A subject to which I can speak knowledgeably! I thank you, Eddie, for not wanting to sneak ID into the curriculum. Here is the relevant bit from the DI website:
"Seven states (Alabama, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas) have science standards that require learning about some of the scientific controversies relating to evolution. Texas’s science standards require that students “analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations … including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking.” Texas also requires students to “analyze and evaluate” core evolutionary claims including “common ancestry,” “natural selection,” “mutation,” and the formation of “long complex molecules having information such as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life.”
I spent 15 years teaching in Texas and New Mexico, two of the states that have adopted the Discovery Institute’s suggested change to the curriculum in the teaching of evolution. I did not teach science, but I spent a good chunk of those 15 years helping special education students survive science classes.
This entire political battle, first for ID, then for the above referenced change to the curriculum, is a waste of time and the cause of unnecessary division in the body of Christ. The partisans who are waging the battle have no idea what happens when curriculum meets classroom.
The first question every teacher asks is: Will this material be covered on the standardized tests? In the real world, where instructional time is limited and curricula constantly expanding, where conservative politicians have tied teacher pay to test results, where principals and schools also are judged by test results, there is no time to cover material that will not be tested. Unless these “scientific controversies relating to evolution” are also included in the standardized tests, 90 percent of teachers will not cover the material, regardless of what the curriculum says. New Mexico (along with 42 other states) is part of Common Core curriculum, which does not include that particular statement about the “scientific controversies.” Now you understand why some conservatives are so hot and bothered to get rid of Common Core. It is portrayed as a state’s rights issue, but it is merely another step in the attempt to change science curricula across the nation.
What about Texas, which is rich enough and big enough to thumb its nose at Common Core? Honestly, you guys (or should I say, y’all) would drop the whole project if you saw how it was implemented.
First, a great number of science teachers (a majority) recognize the political motives behind the change, do not agree with the change, and so do the bare minimum to prepare kids for the one or two questions they might see on the test. These teachers are also constantly aware of the threat of litigation by parents of children who are non-religious. They realize it is in their best interests to say as little as possible and move on to less dangerous topics.
Second, a number of science teachers are actively hostile to the change. They present the ID objections to the scientific view of evolution, then proceed to demolish and ridicule them. By the letter of the law, they have encouraged critical thinking in their students, and have done no wrong. But the outcome with these students is certainly the opposite of what DI wants to see happen, despite the fact that the entire situation was precipitated by DI itself. Congratulations on a fantastic victory!
Third, an equal number of science teachers are enthusiastic about the change. How many of them actually are informed of the latest developments in evolutionary theory and ID? Hmmm. Unfortunately, only a small minority. The rest of the students are taught by people who present their religious opinions veiled in scientific language in a science class. Is this really the outcome that we want? Personally, I would rather that my children receive religious instruction from me, their mother, and other people whose views I know and trust. I don’t need Mr. Jones, the YEC 10th-grade science teacher, to do that job.
In short, only a very small minority of teachers are willing and able to cover the material in the way that DI envisions. It truly is a quixotic battle.
Jay, @vjtorley is an honest thinker. We may disagree with him, but please do not dismiss him this way. One thing that impresses me about him is willingness to change and understand opposing viewpoints. The goal here should be to “understand and be understood” not to change ones mind. And in @vjtorley’s case, he has public track record of changing his position. Would were that be true of all of us. Please do not dismiss him in this way.
We cannot litigate this right now, but I’d love to hear what you find so compelling about this book. I find the science in ti very difficult to agree with in many points at all. As a computational biologist, his math seems obviously wrong to me. Modeling biology is hard, so this is not surprising. Axe, moreover, appears to have little to no experience in mathematically modeling biologically systems. So, why do you find his case so convincing?
I apologize for seeming to dismiss him. It was not my intent to be disrespectful. I don’t know him, and I believe you when you say that he is intellectually honest. However, I don’t think that it is productive for us to continue debating whether ID is a scientific or a philosophical argument. On this one issue, it seems to me that Mr. Torley has a vested interest in maintaining his opinion, regardless of what may be said against it. I’m glad to continue the conversation on other topics, but on that one subject where no progress seems possible, I’d rather drop it… Make sense?
Oh, I should also say that Dr. Axe’s book actually sounds quite interesting, despite the objection that I voiced.
I agree with everything you say about standardized testing. It has become a craze that is damaging the educational system. In New Mexico, for instance, where I was teaching middle school math and English to students with disabilities, we had “benchmark” testing three times a year, for the purposes of identifying probable failures on federally required testing; a state-mandated “final” exam each semester in all subjects; and the federally mandated tests that are used for school accountability purposes. The benchmark tests cost 6 instructional days, the state tests 10 instructional days, and the federal tests another 5 instructional days. More than 4 weeks of instructional time, out of a 36-week calendar, is lost to standardized testing. In other words, we now spend more than 10% of our instructional calendar on standardized tests. (It was even worse for me, because I had to read math, science, and social studies tests out loud on an individual basis to students with reading and intellectual disabilities. Last year, I calculated that almost 20% of my time was spent administering tests. There goes that 20% of the free time that could have been spent exploring other material!) Parents in Texas revolted a few years ago and forced a constitutional amendment onto the ballot that would end standardized testing, except for those required by federal law. Against all odds and protests by testing advocates, it passed.
Yes, but … The same applies to holding a critical discussion of problems with evolutionary theory. Very few teachers are qualified to do it. Secondary school teachers, unlike college instructors, can be sued for violating the civil rights of non-religious students, which makes the entire topic of origins a potential mine field. The same problems adhere. Was the shift in strategy away from teaching ID and toward pushing for “critical discussion” of evolution politically motivated? For someone not involved in the fight, but having lived through the Texas textbook wars, I cannot help but concluding that it was. I encourage everyone to watch The Revisionaries, a documentary on the fight for science education and textbook adoption in Texas. Whether you agree or disagree with the filmmaker’s perspective, it is eye-opening.
Hmmm. Interesting question, since I never directly taught science. Here isthe Las Cruces (NM) Public Schools content map for high school biology. If you look at the chart, Category I represents the “facts” that must be learned about a subject, moving from there through Cat. II and III to Cat. IV, which represents “higher-order thinking” about a subject. In order to reach Cat. IV, the student must first move through the material in Categories I-III. By definition, evaluating and critiquing scientific arguments is Cat. IV, and as you can imagine, this is the most difficult for the student to reach, and many students never get there.
As you can see, most of the standards are devoted to a basic understanding of the forces that eventually would come into play in a critical discussion of evolution, such as the DI curriculum suggestion would require, if adopted. If all went according to plan, students should be prepared for that discussion, but all never goes according to plan, and most teachers spend almost all their time on I-III, since the students cannot have an informed class discussion if they do not understand the basics of what is being discussed. Remember, too, that it takes more than one impression for a student to retain information long-term. Since this is the first time that they are hearing much of this advanced material, they probably will not retain it until they hear it again, most likely in college. Critical thinking is always the last block to be set in place.
Exactly. As you’ve mentioned before, good students will think of their own questions related to origins, and good teachers will answer their questions as best they can. It is a natural outgrowth of the subject matter. Those conversations will take place, inside or outside the classroom, regardless of legislative intent or interference. But instead of allowing the process to take its natural course, outsiders with a political axe to grind have tried to take control of it and dictate what may or may not be said. It is a waste of energy and resources that should be spent elsewhere.
My 2c
Edit: The elected chairman of the Texas board of education at the time of the textbook fight in The Revisionaries was a YEC dentist. Making decisions about science texts!
I also should add that I misspoke about Common Core and the science curriculum. I taught English and math, where the CC curriculum has been used for several years now. Unfortunately, the Common Core science standards, called Next Generation Science Standards, have become embroiled in the political debate and have not been adopted as readily as the math and ELA standards. God help us.
Oh, and I live in NM, but not Las Cruces. My favorite shirt: New Mexico: Not Really New, Not Really Mexico. haha
Thank you for your kind response. This will be my last post on this thread, as I am busy getting ready to review Douglas Axe’s latest book, Undeniable. If you think his mathematical arguments are mistaken, then I would really appreciate hearing from you, as I don’t wish to write a review that’s scientifically inaccurate.
The reason why I found the book compelling was that it managed to clearly formulate an intuition widely shared by supporters of Intelligent Design (the Universal Design Intuition), and to make a scientific case for it. The Universal Design Intuition can be expressed as follows: Tasks that we would need knowledge to accomplish can be accomplished only by someone who has that knowledge. (Example: it would take team of incredibly smart scientists to build a living thing from scratch; therefore the first living thing must have been designed by someone with the know-how.) The scientific case for this intuition took the form of an a fortiori argument: if unguided natural processes (which lack know-how) are incapable of even doing X, then how much less capable are they of doing Y. Axe shows that natural selection and repetition are incapable of bringing about even minor evolutionary changes at the biochemical level, which casts into doubt their ability to bring about major ones. That’s a thumb-nail sketch of the argument. As I said, I’d be interested to hear about your mathematical concerns with the argument.
To Jay 313:
I’ll be brief. I have argued that until the 1830s, science was known as natural philosophy. Hence there is nothing to prevent Newton’s argument for design from being both a philosophical one and a scientific one. While Aristotle was a great biologist, Aquinas was not (although his tutor, Albert the Great, was). The argument from essence and existence which Aquinas relies on to establish that the First Cause is an infinite Being does not appeal to premises discovered by observation, but to premises ascertained by reflecting on the nature of being; hence it is not a scientific argument but a metaphysical one.
In any case, you surely cannot deny that James Clerk Maxwell’s argument that molecules were designed (made in 1873) was a scientific one. I have just written a new post on Uncommon Descent explaining why it must have been intended by Maxwell as a scientific argument. That’s all I have to say on the subject.
@vjtorley
Thank you for your courtesy in responding. I’m not familiar with Maxwell, but I will take a look at your post out of curiosity. Obviously, I don’t agree with your analysis of Aquinas’ argument, for reasons I’ve already mentioned, but I’m glad to give you the last word. God bless.
Couldn’t resist interjecting here. I quite often complete a task for which I have no knowledge. I explore for a solution using the task to determine when I get it right. Amazing how often that works out. At least for me it does.
But you’re aware there is a task, and the nature of the task, you expect a solution exists, and you’re trying to solve it, right? And you know when it’s been solved and so stop messing with the result when, and only when, the result is reached. Quite a lot of knowledge involved there, I think - and all directed single-mindedly to a final cause, ie teleologically.
One might also question if even your far-from-blind-search methodology would accidentally stumble on the particular task VJ cites, ie creating life from scratch (“task” = poor word choice, VJ, in context of “natural causes” - nobody around to care if life exists or not!)