Posted on 04/29/2006 9:18:55 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
|
The evolution of intelligent designIntelligent design gets a place in the philosophy classrooms of secular Knox College By Liz Kemmerer
Knox College in Galesburg, Ill., recently completed its first run of a one-of-a-kind course taught by a one-of-a-kind professor. In December, Martin Roth, a professor of philosophy of science at the secular private college taught a short philosophy course titled “Intelligent Design” to explore the topic historically and critically. A concentrated course, it made its debut during the college winter break from Nov. 29 to Dec. 16 with students meeting for three-hour sessions three times a week for three weeks.
Discussion-based courses often generate a flood of possibilities in the classroom. That’s what Roth was after. “I want to see what topics the students were interested in, what they pick up on, which directions they want to go,” he said. The students enjoyed the material and appreciated that the arguments presented were far less tainted and silly than they were accustomed to, he added. “Anti-Darwinists claim that you’re killing God and pro-Darwinists claim he’s already dead,” said Micah Riecker, a senior creative writing major from Traverse City, Mich. “It just keeps spinning because people are so uninformed about what is going on. All of the students are now very much aware that the issue is far more complicated than implied by the media,” Roth added. Exploring viewpoints
In each three-hour class, Roth’s goal was not to simply lecture but rather to review the material and explore varying viewpoints. Questions concerning ethical implications would often arise as the students progressed through the material. Such questions, however, allow the students to work through their ideas, said Roth. “The class was very interesting to me because I knew very little about what the whole idea with intelligent design was,” said Ricker. “I went in without any kind of firm footing. But Dr. Roth is an incredible teacher, and he had us reading the groundwork for the arguments for and against ID right away.” To add to the give-and-take, a member of the biology faculty and a local clergyman were invited as guest speakers, which, Roth said, the students enjoyed. The clergyman offered his belief that science is not separate from religion in that it is basically a philosophy. Following him was the biology faculty member who listed specific examples of how Darwinian theory has proven itself in science. The setting was treated as both discussion and debate with the two speakers arguing for and against intelligent design. Roth designed the course to “look at intelligent design on three levels: as an argument for the existence of God, as an alternative to evolution in science, and in the context of the current debate over evolution and religion.” According to Roth, it is important to understand that ID is not something recently installed on today’s front page like an ice block to cool the seething evolution-creation debate. Rather, “intelligent design has a long history. The idea originated well before Darwin’s work in the 1850s,” Roth said.
The course delves into the history of the intelligent design movement, beginning with Plato, the first Western philosopher to make an argument for the existence of God based upon the design of this world. Our seemingly miraculous biological design and the fine-tuning of the universe allowing for the existence of life have become the chief supports for this argument. The class also tackled current scientific debates, including Darwin’s argument for natural selection and whether or not intelligent design fits into the category of science as enterprise. Finally, the class discussed the multifaceted question of how this affects religion and morality. Overwhelming response The response generated from Roth’s class has been overwhelmingly positive among students and faculty. “Various school administrators have told me that they heard positive things about the course from students who enrolled in it,” Roth said. It appears that students who participated received a better explanation of intelligent design than they expected. “I gathered from the enthusiasm and interest with which they discussed matters that they were engaged with the topic,” said Roth. “Dr. Roth was very good to us and treated the issue fairly,” Riecker said. “We were given the best of both sides.” Even some of Knox’s prospective students and their parents shared in the enthusiasm, having applauded the fact that Knox offers a course addressing this subject, Roth said. With the momentum resulting from the course, it looks probable that these prospective students will have the opportunity to experience it for themselves.
The principal reading material was Debating Design by Michael Ruse as well as excerpts and articles by William Dembski and others on intelligent design and natural selection. In addition, the class studied some chapters of Phillip E. Johnson’s Darwin on Trial and Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists by Benjamin Wiker and Dembski. Liz Kemmerer is an editorial intern at Science & Theology News.
|
|
|
Now we need some college courses on astronomy -- with the planets, sun and stars rotating around the earth.
That's "Science & THEOLOGY News", not "Science and TECHNOLOGY News".
I would think those who oppose ID would welcome it in philosophy courses.
It wouldn't hurt scientists to study a bit of philosophy also. They need to know which is which.
Absolutely right. And while we're on the subject, it's long past time for astrology to get a new respect at colleges everywhere. Advocates and opponents of astrology should welcome a philosophy course on this topic.
Do you think philosophical arguments on the existence of God are not worthy subjects?
Archive
A course on "intelligent design" sounds a whole lot less harmful that a lot of other courses taught at college these days.
If they're going to do that, they need to put darwinism into the philosophy department as well. It's the only way to keep darwinist faith claims masquerading as science (life is pointless, undirected, and purely accidental; man has no greater worth or claim to life than the simplest bacterium etc) out of the curriculum.
I think it fits well and brings into play a long history of philosophical study with the current debate. It might well bring new perspective on the classics and the history of philosophy for students also - it becomes more obviously relevant.
So I think it's a good topic for philosophy.
And I think philososphy is a very important branch of knowledge. A lot of the science/religion debates we see on FR for example could benefit from some basic understanding of philosophy, science and theology and differences between the spheres of knowledge.
Philosophy used to be an important part of basic college education. If this helps it become more so again, I see that as a positive development in education.
I'd prefer the larger terms of scientism or positivism or materialism, but I agree with your point. Some scientist do philosophy without even knowing it. I think this would have to come into discussion somewhere in this course.
Questions of purpose, worth, or right are not matters of science and have nothing to do with Darwinism.
Darwinism just explains part of the story of how we got to be where we are now. It doesn't say anything about what that explanation means or what moral implications it carries.
There's nothing to complain about here. ID has finally been placed where it belongs, where it should get it's proper recognition as NOT being science.
Could it be that so many who invested their entire careers in Darwinism now fear that they worshiped a false god? Might exposing Darwinism's flaws also expose their misplaced trust in it? Perhaps that explains why they pitch fits and call names -- anything to shut off serious debate about the ever-thinning evidence for Darwinism. Come to think of it, this does remind one of the Renaissance. If they had their way, today's Darwinists would burn the ID'ers at the stake.
My solution: Put all arguments on the table and let free inquiry do its work. Truth will be revealed and errors will be debunked. That is science at work; name calling is for other disciplines.
Sure... as long as they teach all the creationist myths that exists in equal time, why not?
It wasn'tt so long ago that the evos on here were whining that ID ought only be taught in a not-science setting. So now a prof teaches it in a philosophy course and the complaining changes focus.
***Great news!
Now we need some college courses on astronomy -- with the planets, sun and stars rotating around the earth***
***Absolutely right. And while we're on the subject, it's long past time for astrology to get a new respect at colleges everywhere. Advocates and opponents of astrology should welcome a philosophy course on this topic.***
Their objections having been met, the evos now reveal themselves to want NO mention of the subject. So just which group, evos or IDers, is advocating freedom of inquiry?
It is amusing how wrong you are in your generalization... Scientists are always arguing about the issues surround how Evolution took place. Did evolution take place via punctuated equilibrium or gradualism for example is a big debate.
What scientists will not do is sit around and debate with a bunch of people who propose the Earth is young. Why? Because that is like arguing if "air" exists.
So the priests may argue over which version of evolution to favor. But the prevailing orthodoxy will not permit any questioning of evolution itself. There will be no inquiry there.
You do understand what the study of philosophy is, yes?
Or do you see where this course is religion-specific?
Placemarker
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.