Though many of you pointed out the difficulty in presenting this apart from
religious beliefs, here are the possible resources:
This website is quite useful for teachers, parents, and librarians. Many
students might gain clearly articulated information in use of this site. The
website design is very crisp and multi-leveled.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html
<http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html>
......................................................
But there is none, Rebecca. There is not a shred of sustainable scientific
inquiry that supports Intelligent Design. A few years ago the New York
Review of Books published a two part essay that skewered "the science"
behind I.D., and exposed the credentials of the so-called experts in the
field--doctors of podiatry or palmistry, learned in their way, but without
any actual education in the biological sciences. The science of I.D. is like
the pea in the old shell game. Someone will assure you that it's there, but
finding it will not prove easy.
...........................................................
Lee Strobel's "The Case for a Creator," while written
to defend creationism, is a collection of interviews
with reputable, credentialed scientists. Strobel was
a journalist with the Chicago Tribune and is very
readable. He is also a graduate of Yale's law school.
..........................................
Do you think you could change the focus to Free Will vs. Determinism?
That plays out well in literature. Perhaps your IB students are
literate enough to handle Thomas Hardy? There are also some things by
John Steinbeck and John Irving that might work for you. That's just off
the top of my head. Other than that, I remember there were these
Opposing Viewpoints series by Greenhaven or Greenwillow or
Greensomething Press that always seem to be in high school libraries,
with books on abortion, gun control, etc., pro and con. Good luck.
.....................................................
While I do not doubt that some scientists are also people of faith, I
believe that any intellectually honest person of science separates religious
belief from science.
For me the moral and ethical concern is for the solid intellectual
development of young people in our schools. There is already too much
"dumbing down" in American education. Too many children are not being
challenged to stretch their minds and their imaginations, to build on
existing knowledge in all disciplines and use their own reservoirs of
intellect and creativity to extent that knowledge and make it meaningful in
their own lives.
I would suggest reading Mary Midgley. The Myths We Live By. London, UK:
Routledge, 2003, a most significant book. Evolution As a Religion and her
latest book, Science and Poetry, are well worth the investment of
intellectual confrontation that her works deserve. Her linking to Gaia is
fascinating and offers another alternative inquiry. For those who do not
know her let me quote the following: "Mary Midgley, aged 81, may be the most
frightening philosopher in the UK: the one before whom it is least pleasant
to appear a fool. One moment she sits by her fire in Newcastle like a
round-cheeked tabby cat; the next she is deploying a savage Oxonian
precision of language to dissect some error as a cat dissects a living
mouse." I warn all that she is not easy reading.
Using the
<http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/footshooting/Iterminology.shtml>
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/footshooting/Iterminology.shtml
website, I found this excerpt helpful in re-orienting language:
Believe or accept
"Do you believe in evolution?" is a question often asked of biology teachers
by their puzzled students. The answer is, "No, I accept the fact that the
Earth is very old and life has changed over billions of years because that
is what the evidence tells us." Science is not about belief-it is about
making inferences based on evidence.
And later at
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/footshooting/VIcoopted.shtml
<http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/footshooting/VIcoopted.shtml> it
is the careful use of language that is encouraged:
Design
To refer to the "design" of a living thing implies a "Designer," thus
feeding the antievolutionists' claim that living things cannot evolve
structures solely through natural means. Use of such terms "structure" and
"adaptation" are more appropriate. Example: "How is an aardvark designed to
eat ants?" could be replaced by, "How is an aardvark adapted to eating
ants?" Or, "What structures and behaviors aid an aardvark in eating ants?"
Body plan
"Plan" implies a "Planner," thus playing into antievolutionists' claims that
divine intervention is needed to assemble living things. Admittedly, this is
a challenging one, because "plan" doesn't have many useful synonyms in this
context. Possible example: Replace "Describe the body plan of a
rattlesnake." with "Describe a rattlesnake's structural adaptations to
predation as a means of food acquisition." You are a real trooper if you
conquer this one.
And before someone asks how this discussion is relevant, let me say that
accuracy in informational literature is critical to the children we care
about in our schools and libraries.
..............................................
As has been stated elsewhere, you will have a difficult time finding
credible discussions of design. There are two main reasons:
1) For a biologist to come out as an ID guy is career suicide (speaking
as a biology major that left the field for this reason, among others),
so on one level it becomes a credibility Catch-22. Criticism of existing
evolutionary theory implies a lack of credibility
About the closest thing I've found in print is "The Fingerprint of God"
by Dr. Hugh Ross but this may be a little above a grade 9 audience and
it is not a discussion of ID vs Darwinism but rather an ID-centric view
of the creation of the universe with a brief discussion of ID as it
relates to life (and fwiw he does not support a strict seven day
creation explanation, if that is what the kids are looking to support).
&
2) A lot of the evidence can actually support both points of view. At
the grade 9 level, it may actually be interesting to see if the students
arguing for ID might be able to spin some the central platforms of
evolution to support their own position. Consider these, for example:
* Comparative Anatomy Gives Evidence of Descent with Modification
-> But can't this also imply a designer? Consider how cars designs
change over decades, but there is still a designer involved.
* Homologous Structures Provide Evidence of Common Ancestry
-> All cars have tires. Does this mean they evolved from one another or
they came from designers with a basic central design scheme in hand?
* Functionless Structures Are Inherited from Ancestors
-> But maybe we don't know the function yet? Or maybe these were
"designed" away as conditions changed (i.e. smaller cars with higher gas
prices)
etc., etc.
For what it is worth, almost all the central platforms of evolution can
even be spun to support a strict seven day creation schema except for:
" Fossils Provide Evidence of Evolutionary Change over Time"
It's all just a matter of point of view and this guided skepticism is
actually a fabulous way for students to learn and internalize the basic
evidence for Darwinism. Again, you'll never hear that from a biology
prof. though. ;-)
I hope this helps.
'Best,
Greg
P.S. While the bulk of the evidence indicates that species did not come
to be in a short seven day creation, even existing mainstream science
puts the odds of DNA spontaneously generating at about 1/(the number of
electrons in the universe). For some reason this doesn't seem to raise
any flags of doubt with the regular scientific community. Me, I'm not so
convinced and remain a seeker of all possibilities, with my proviso
being that other evidence in my life leads me to infer that there is a
God. My current thinking is that DNA and natural selection were actual
part of intelligent design! God just created poodles in a very long and
amazing way. :-) But that's just me.
....................................
The Hidden Face of God
By Gerald L. Schroeder
This was a challenging book to read due to the inclusion of details relating
to the latest discoveries of science regarding life and the universe. Gerald
L. Schroeder, a Ph.D. from MIT, is a scientist whose specialty is explaining
the relationships between science and religion. In this book, he continues
this theme and explains how research in biology, chemistry, physics and
neuroscience all point to the unity of all forms of life.
All matter is formed from energy; the same energy forms all matter. This
energy probably was created by the Big Bang. But who/what caused the Big
Bang? All life is subject to the same laws of Nature. Why? From where did
these natural laws emanate? We are beginning to know how the brain works,
but how does the mind operate and where can it be found in the human body?
Schroeder believes that science has proven that the force behind the Big
Bang, energy, and unity is Wisdom, i.e. a Creator. He feels life is too
orderly to have occurred by happenstance and takes the reader on a tour of
modern scientific knowledge to prove his point. This will reinforce one's
amazement about the miracle of life and give you more scientific explanation
than you probably want. There is lots of food for thought in this one.
.......................................
I think you can find good materials here: http://www.icr.org/
<http://www.icr.org/>
The Institute in Creation Research is doing exactly what you are asking,
using scientific principles for their research. Their print materials are
well done. They go from preschool to doctorate level. I think you could
obtain some free materials from them on particular subjects. Hope it helps.
................................
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/opinion/07behe.html?th
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/opinion/07behe.html?th> >
This editorial in today's New York Times addresses this recent thread.
..........................................
sometime ago (2003-2004( The New York Review of Books published a two part
essay skewering Intelligent Design book by book. Before I replied to your
post I picked through the archives but overlooked it, somehow. I thought the
essay was by Freeman J. Dyson, but couldn't find it on his website
bibliography. If you could find it, then you'd have some allegedly
scientific books to present, with some good criticism of them
.........................................
Not in the "Opposing Viewpoints" series, but the Greenhaven website lists a
volume on "Creationism vs. Evolution" in the publisher's "At Issues" series
(http://www.galegroup.com/servlet/ItemDetailServlet?region=9
<http://www.galegroup.com/servlet/ItemDetailServlet?region=9&imprint=360>
&imprint=360
&titleCode=GLCP&type=3&id=178740). There is also a volume entitled
"Evolution" that is a bit cheaper and also states that it looks at arguments
on both sides (http://www.galegroup.com/servlet/ItemDetailServlet?region=9
<http://www.galegroup.com/servlet/ItemDetailServlet?region=9&imprint=360>
&imprint=360
&titleCode=GFOFP&type=3&id=186260) and yet another with the same title but
from a different series
(http://www.galegroup.com/servlet/ItemDetailServlet?region=9
<http://www.galegroup.com/servlet/ItemDetailServlet?region=9&imprint=360>
&imprint=360
&titleCode=GHIP&type=3&id=191921).
I am not directly familiar with these titles, but have used other
books from the "Opposing Viewpoints" series and they offer good, one-volume
coverage of issues, though not always (IMHO) the best
possible selections to represent some perspectives.
.....................................
n
Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (1996), the
Catholic biochemist Michael J. Behe has asked whether such amazing
machinery could have come into existence by means of "slight
modifications." His answer is no: God's intervention within the cell can
be demonstrated through the elimination of every pos-sibility o........
.....
Dembski himself is the author of two books, The Design Inference:
Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities (1998) and Intelligent
Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology (1999), that put the case
for irreducible complexity on more general grounds than Behe's. The key
question about Darwinism, Dembski has perceived, is the one that Paley
would have asked: whether natural selection can result in organs and
organisms whose high degree of order associates them with made objects (a
compass, say) rather than with found objects such as a
rock...................
...............................................
Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture
(http://www.discovery.org/csc/ <http://www.discovery.org/csc/> ) is who most
people point to as leading proponent in the discussion of Intelligent
Design.
Also, take a look at National Center for Science Education: Defending the
Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools Site
(http://www.ncseweb.org <http://www.ncseweb.org/> ).
By happenstance, February 7 NYTimes has an opinion piece about ID; "Design
for Living" By Michael J. Behe (senior fellow at
Discover) (you'll need to register, but I think Ebsco and/or Proquest put
NYTimes in database with 24 hr embargo. And, of course, the followup letters
to the editor will probably point to 'resources' trying to further prove his
point as well as some additional critiques on that position.
..............................
We did a similar project in the past and found this website had intelligent
design with a scientific basis: http://www.icr.org/ <http://www.icr.org/> .
...................................
Anyway, I like google scholar for things
like this - here's a few I just pulled off, although
none of them appear to be peer-reviewed research.
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf
<http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf>
http://iscid.org/papers/White_IntelligentAlternative_022702.pdf
<http://iscid.org/papers/White_IntelligentAlternative_022702.pdf>
http://www.wls.wels.net/conted/Science/Arguments%20From%20Design/Concordia20
00.pdf
<http://www.wls.wels.net/conted/Science/Arguments%20From%20Design/Concordia2
000.pdf>
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-idesign2.html
<http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-idesign2.html>
.........................................
I think you would find some good information by contacting this high school
teacher, John Clayton, who lectures on this subject. The following is
quoted from his website, Does God Exist?
"A devout atheist until his early twenties, Clayton was part of the same
organized atheist group that made Madeline Murray O'Hair famous. He decided
to write a book called All the Stupidity of the Bible, but instead found
himself slowly becoming convinced about Christianity. Today, he travels the
U.S. giving some 40 lectures per year on the subject "Does God Exist?". He
is a teacher and geologist by profession. He holds a B.S. degree from
Indiana University in Education with a concentration in Physics and
Mathematics. He holds an M.S. degree from Indiana University in Education
with a concentration in Chemistry and Psychometry. He also holds an M.S.
degree from Notre Dame University in Geology and Earth Science. His most
recent honors include: Distinguished Physics Teacher for the State of
Indiana - 1985 by the American Association of Physics Teachers. S.T.A.R
Instructor for Indiana Department of Public Instruction - 1990. "South Bend
Community School Corporation High School Teacher of the Year" and "School
Corporation Teacher of the Year" - 1991." taken from
http://www.doesgodexist.org/AboutClayton/AboutClayton.html
<http://www.doesgodexist.org/AboutClayton/AboutClayton.html>
His website and contact info are at www.doesgodexist.org
Rebecca Endlich
Librarian
Edmonds-Woodway High School
Edmonds WA 98026-7556
Phone 425-670-7311 ext. 6127
Fax 425-670-7922
endlichr@edmonds.wednet.edu
http://staff.edmonds.wednet.edu/users/endlichr/default.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------
All LM_NET postings are protected by copyright law.
To change your LM_NET status, e-mail to: listserv@listserv.syr.edu
In the message write EITHER: 1) SIGNOFF LM_NET 2) SET LM_NET NOMAIL
3) SET LM_NET MAIL 4) SET LM_NET DIGEST * Allow for confirmation.
LM_NET Help & Information: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/
Archive: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/archive/
EL-Announce with LM_NET Select: http://elann.biglist.com/el-announce/
LM_NET Supporters: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/ven.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
LM_NET
Mailing List Home